How Bad Is Global Warming?

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby slimmouse » Tue Jan 21, 2014 1:00 pm

Imagine this scenario. Its simply an idea.

Earth holds a serious concsious state, rather like ourselves, only supersized.

She loves every last one of her inhabitative creatures.

Unfortunately, there exists in that midst a tiny bunch of self serving destructive arrogant fucks who dismiss all that kinda "Gaia" shit, because its all about the money, see., as they chop and drill and dran her.

Now, Imagine you are "Gaia". Its simply an idea.

How might you react to such a situation?

Reckon you might start some serious spittin and creatin around here, eventually.

Sellf defence, you understand.

On edit.

I should add that Gaia apparently offered the world a means of its own energy requirements about a century ago, through the brilliant work of the deceased pauper that was Nikola Tesla.

I cant remember the JP Morgan quote, but its out there somewhere.

If I was Gaia, that might make me doubly mad.
slimmouse
 
Posts: 6129
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 7:41 am
Location: Just outside of you.
Blog: View Blog (3)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Rory » Tue Jan 21, 2014 4:22 pm

Do you have one of these Tesla free energy devices powering your own home right now, perchance? I mean, I'm looking at investing in solar panels but fuck that shit, right?!

All I need is some Tesla free energy. Does it run on batterys or some other fuel source or does it tap into some zero point energy field? In which case, does it require any rare (which translates to finite) parts, minerals or some kind of complicated construction/fabrication (translating to 'cants make this at home').

I mean, why have all these energy efficient home appliances and industrial equipment. And the water -energy nexus, where all our civic leaders are panicking about the energy price of water treatment and conveyance: they needent worry afterall!

Which means population growth. Which means building more shit. Which means depletion of minerals to meet consumer demand. Which means scarcity, which implies competitiom, which implies war: this time with zero point energy machines of destruction.

All we needed was a panacea..
Rory
 
Posts: 1596
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 2:08 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Ben D » Tue Jan 21, 2014 6:44 pm

There is That which was not born, nor created, nor evolved. If it were not so, there would never be any refuge from being born, or created, or evolving. That is the end of suffering. That is God**.

** or Nirvana, Allah, Brahman, Tao, etc...
User avatar
Ben D
 
Posts: 2005
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 8:10 pm
Location: Australia
Blog: View Blog (3)


Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Sounder » Tue Jan 21, 2014 8:32 pm

Which means population growth. Which means building more shit. Which means depletion of minerals to meet consumer demand. Which means scarcity, which implies competitiom, which implies war: this time with zero point energy machines of destruction.

All we needed was a panacea..


Rory, you are very much correct to be leery and suspicious of panacea’s However, you seem to be arguing against the possibility of ‘free energy’ by pointing out devastating potential effects rather than providing arguments that show the futility of finding new ways to create and/or hold electrical potentials. (although the; we don't have in our homes so it doesn't exist argument is charming in its simplicity.)

Certainly it’s true that given our current coercive style of mentality, ‘free energy’ would more likely devastate the earth than save it.

Unfortunately most folk are pretty well addicted to coercion agendas resulting in the cultural blind spot that Brandon D brought up in the rabbit hole thread.

At any rate Rory, my position and verbiage is not at all obtuse. It is simply to assert that this world would be a better place with less coercion and that many others act as if they think the world can only be a better place by using more coercion.

Place your bets.

And how come folk that are so confident about evolution, do not seem to believe that consciousness or its expressions evolve?
All these things will continue as long as coercion remains a central element of our mentality.
Sounder
 
Posts: 4054
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 8:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Rory » Tue Jan 21, 2014 8:42 pm

Where is this free energy then? If Tesla made it and we are all morphic resonance fields here, then where is someone else making infinite free energy, zero point field devices? I'm not saying they don't exist or arguing against their possibility - I am saying that A), they are not a solution to the whole problem - with the same mindsets and power in place they create new and more insurmountable problems, and B) where the fuck are they if it is so easy? I have asked Slimmouse repeatedly about the alternative to fossil fuel energy production and he either doesn't answer or shifts the goal posts each time. Charming in its simplicity? Well, if he has the line into this shit, why is he going on about it here and why am I not reading about this (kooky, British) multibillionare inventor who is changing the world with this shit, one power socket at a time?

People want a tech solution to a tech problem - well, it doesn't work that way. There is no technological fix to our climate change predicament. Unless you describe the actual solution of immediate, drastic ramping down of energy and industrial production ' technological'.
Rory
 
Posts: 1596
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 2:08 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Sounder » Tue Jan 21, 2014 8:51 pm

Yes Rory, there is no technological fix. We agree. :yay

Now about that cultural blind spot?
Sounder
 
Posts: 4054
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 8:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Rory » Tue Jan 21, 2014 8:58 pm

Sounder » Wed Jan 22, 2014 12:51 am wrote:Yes Rory, there is no technological fix. We agree. :yay

Now about that cultural blind spot?


The one were you ignore independent science and choose to believe fossil fuel companies and anti climate science big oil industrialists?

The one where you believe climate science is an invention of the nuclear industry??

is that even cultural?
Rory
 
Posts: 1596
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 2:08 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Sounder » Wed Jan 22, 2014 6:03 am

Sounder » Wed Jan 22, 2014 12:51 am wrote:Yes Rory, there is no technological fix. We agree.

Now about that cultural blind spot?



The one were you ignore independent science and choose to believe fossil fuel companies and anti climate science big oil industrialists?

The one where you believe climate science is an invention of the nuclear industry??

is that even cultural?


(there you go, changing the goal posts again.)

Rory, it seems like your rhetoric extends only to character assassination. You illustrate well the blind spot I’m referring too. That being acceptance of a split model for reality, the vertical authority distribution system that this engenders and the coercive mentality that is a natural result of this system.

Character assassination (neat word- two asses) is clearly coercive in its intention, and climate change is a perfect vehicle for pumping the dichotomy and encouraging the coercion necessary for maintenance of this abusive narrative structure.

The only thing that matters to the planet fuckers is the maintenance of this coercive neo-liberal normative narrative structure.

The planet fuckers and their PR departments have developed association/disassociation (huh-more ass words, hehe-morass- ain’t words funny?)) tricks that serve well to keep good intentioned folk focused on the wrong target.

Oh right, this time, the Rockefeller Foundation spent 850 million dollars in 1997 alone, to set up the Kyoto protocols, because in their noble intentions they found that addressing AGW is the best way to ‘save’ the world. There must be big money in narrative maintenance.

As to ‘independent’ scientists, -show me some. Politics always trumps and leads science.
All these things will continue as long as coercion remains a central element of our mentality.
Sounder
 
Posts: 4054
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 8:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Iamwhomiam » Wed Jan 22, 2014 4:41 pm

coffin_dodger » Tue Jan 21, 2014 11:52 am wrote:Iam, I remember reading, from several different sources (none that I can cite right now) that the more localised weather/climate will change unpredictably and sporadically during the warming period (the next, say, 1 -100 years) i.e. some places will get colder, some hotter, some wetter, windier, etc, but with the trend ending and 'settling' in an overall warming of some 4-6 degrees. This interim period of changing weather conditions will become increasingly 'violent' as the global weather systems are altering to a different pattern.

I keep wondering to myself, at what point will people sit up and say "WTF is up with the weather, dude?" or "oh shit, this is really happening". I have a horrible feeling it will be something like a 110 degree fahrenheit day in the middle of winter, or waking up to flooding 200 miles from the coast. Too late, as usual. I suppose even those extremes could be explained as 'down to freak weather', but I also wonder what the excuses will be (to keep us from being frightened, and thus less productive) once the weather events really start to rock n roll.


I believe your first paragraph is an accurate synopsis of what our scientists have related as a most likely scenario. The 'boiling frogs' analogy is also true. Too late to react proactively to reduce calamity. Take, for instance, the reactions to Irene. Rather than move to depopulate at-risk populations, Some in Jersey want to build a "protective" sea wall to prevent localized flooding, a virtual impossibility in a worst-case scenario. Such fantastic 'remedies' imbue people with a false sense of security and will assure their death when the wall is defeated and the deeps water have no way to retreat.

It's all about money and consumption.

Some will die and then with the competition out of the picture other will gain their market-share. "more money for me!!" "Hey, everybody dies," we'll hear, "what difference does it make to me when one does and another consumer or three takes their place?"

But that last too, is nothing more than fantasy. It's going to be quite difficult to establish a stable marketplace in a world filled with chaos and people desperate to survive.

Learn to live without money now. Stockpiling too, provides one with a false sense of security. Claim your cave now. Way better to be instantly crushed to death when the plates shift than be roasted alive by your neighbors.
User avatar
Iamwhomiam
 
Posts: 6572
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 2:47 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby DrEvil » Wed Jan 22, 2014 4:51 pm

Sounder » Wed Jan 22, 2014 12:03 pm wrote:
Sounder » Wed Jan 22, 2014 12:51 am wrote:Yes Rory, there is no technological fix. We agree.

Now about that cultural blind spot?



The one were you ignore independent science and choose to believe fossil fuel companies and anti climate science big oil industrialists?

The one where you believe climate science is an invention of the nuclear industry??

is that even cultural?


(there you go, changing the goal posts again.)

Rory, it seems like your rhetoric extends only to character assassination. You illustrate well the blind spot I’m referring too. That being acceptance of a split model for reality, the vertical authority distribution system that this engenders and the coercive mentality that is a natural result of this system.

Character assassination (neat word- two asses) is clearly coercive in its intention, and climate change is a perfect vehicle for pumping the dichotomy and encouraging the coercion necessary for maintenance of this abusive narrative structure.

The only thing that matters to the planet fuckers is the maintenance of this coercive neo-liberal normative narrative structure.

The planet fuckers and their PR departments have developed association/disassociation (huh-more ass words, hehe-morass- ain’t words funny?)) tricks that serve well to keep good intentioned folk focused on the wrong target.

Oh right, this time, the Rockefeller Foundation spent 850 million dollars in 1997 alone, to set up the Kyoto protocols, because in their noble intentions they found that addressing AGW is the best way to ‘save’ the world. There must be big money in narrative maintenance.

As to ‘independent’ scientists, -show me some. Politics always trumps and leads science.


So what exactly is the agenda of these "planet fuckers" of yours? Are they actively trying to destroy the planet? If so, why?
If they're smart enough to rule the world they're probably smart enough to know that destroying it is a bad idea. No fun in ruling an empire of ashes, so maybe the Rockefellers realized this and decided to do something about it..? Or are they just a corporate incarnation of pure, undiluted evil?

And of course there's independent scientists. "Politics always trumps and leads science". Seriously? Care to elaborate? Most politicians are too fucking dumb to even understand what the scientists are up to, so how can they "lead science"?

@Slim: I'm curious about Tesla's mystery energy. Just throwing his name around as if it's some kind of magical invocation that will solve everything strikes me as somewhat naive. Details please.
"I only read American. I want my fantasy pure." - Dave
User avatar
DrEvil
 
Posts: 3971
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:37 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby stillrobertpaulsen » Wed Jan 22, 2014 6:52 pm

slimmouse » Tue Jan 21, 2014 12:00 pm wrote:Unfortunately, there exists in that midst a tiny bunch of self serving destructive arrogant fucks who dismiss all that kinda "Gaia" shit, because its all about the money, see., as they chop and drill and dran her.


Rory » Tue Jan 21, 2014 3:22 pm wrote:I mean, why have all these energy efficient home appliances and industrial equipment. And the water -energy nexus, where all our civic leaders are panicking about the energy price of water treatment and conveyance: they needent worry afterall!

Which means population growth. Which means building more shit. Which means depletion of minerals to meet consumer demand. Which means scarcity, which implies competitiom, which implies war: this time with zero point energy machines of destruction.


Sounder » Tue Jan 21, 2014 7:51 pm wrote:Certainly it’s true that given our current coercive style of mentality, ‘free energy’ would more likely devastate the earth than save it.

Unfortunately most folk are pretty well addicted to coercion agendas resulting in the cultural blind spot that Brandon D brought up in the rabbit hole thread.

At any rate Rory, my position and verbiage is not at all obtuse. It is simply to assert that this world would be a better place with less coercion and that many others act as if they think the world can only be a better place by using more coercion.

The only thing that matters to the planet fuckers is the maintenance of this coercive neo-liberal normative narrative structure.

The planet fuckers and their PR departments have developed association/disassociation (huh-more ass words, hehe-morass- ain’t words funny?)) tricks that serve well to keep good intentioned folk focused on the wrong target.

Oh right, this time, the Rockefeller Foundation spent 850 million dollars in 1997 alone, to set up the Kyoto protocols, because in their noble intentions they found that addressing AGW is the best way to ‘save’ the world. There must be big money in narrative maintenance.


This exchange reminds me of the story of the blind men and the elephant. You know, the story where each person is touching one part of the elephant stating that the part they are touching on describes what it is, but because they are all touching different parts, they all think the contradictory descriptions must be incorrect. Sounder, Rory, slimmouse, you're all touching different parts of the greater truth. So is Brandon D, for that matter. Now, I'm not claiming that I see the whole elephant. That would make me God/Goddess/Fill In The Blank. But I'm hoping that my perspective of what I do see in regard to this elephant/subthread can be illuminating.

First, slimmouse, I think you're right about Gaia and that the destructive element in humanity stands in opposition to Her primarily out of greed, i.e. "its all about the money, see." Rory, I think you're right about the destructive cycle that so far has been inherent in human civilization that isn't being addressed. As I said on another thread, we can no longer operate on the delusion that we can buy our way out of this predicament. That the same selfish mentality where we can all be greedy little consumers obediently sticking our snouts in the corporatist trough that got us into this mess is going to save us because this time, the corporate trough we’re slurping from is Green. And Sounder, I think you're right about this addiction to coercion agendas we have, and how big money (Rockefeller is an excellent example) is completely invested in maintaining their coercive narrative.

Are y'all seeing some commonality here?!

"Unless we change the way money works, we change nothing." It's been said umpteen times by umpteen people in one variation or another. Eventually, probably sometime after we've environmentally passed the point of no return, this concept will catch on. The concept that we must find a way to eliminate the greed factor from money itself, so that we can have an economic infrastructure predicated on sustainable living for all. That means our money is no longer tied to wealth creation but is representative of energy, both the human energy we produce and the planet's energy that we utilize. That means replacing a culture that values consumption with a culture that values conservation. That concept.

But what happens when the concept does catch on? If I'm reading what Brandon D is saying correctly, we won't be out of the woods yet. The Global Elite who profited the most off of our current paradigm of money=fiat currency/fractional reserves/compound interest won't just say, "Oops, our bad," and just disappear. I think the most likely reaction will be: "Let us manage the changing of how money works so we can all benefit." Maintaining the fiction that they prioritize the best interests of humanity over their own selfish desires.

So what do we do then?

I'm thinking of writing a blog entry on this, but I wanted to get some more input here and hopefully some fresher ideas. Is it possible to build an economic infrastructure that on its very foundation sustains us physically, environmentally, even spiritually? If we can build it, will they come? Most important, can fail-safe measures be put in place to prevent it from falling into the same old coercive narrative, either from the Global Elite intent on co-opting it, or, if the co-opt fails and a real revolution occurs, from those implementing this New Economy falling in lust with their own reflection?
"Huey Long once said, “Fascism will come to America in the name of anti-fascism.” I'm afraid, based on my own experience, that fascism will come to America in the name of national security."
-Jim Garrison 1967
User avatar
stillrobertpaulsen
 
Posts: 2414
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 2:43 pm
Location: California
Blog: View Blog (37)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby seemslikeadream » Wed Jan 22, 2014 9:29 pm



Watch the earth get hotter and hotter in NASA’s new animation
By Sarah Laskow

The NASA video above shows temperature anomalies — not how warm or cold the Earth was, but how unusually warm or cold it was, compared to a baseline. It’s a ton of data — 130 years’ worth, which means 1,560 months, which means more than, really, any one person can comprehend in a sort of folksy “wow, it’s really cold this year” way.

If it’s not clear, the creeping trend is more pink and red — more frequent months that are abnormally hot. 2013 was one of the hottest years in the past 130.

Even watching the video, it’s hard to remember how things used to be. But flip back and forth between the beginning and the end, and you’ll see: In the beginning, there was blue. Now, in black and white, it’s red all over.

Source

2013 Continues Long-Term Warming Trend, NASA
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Sounder » Wed Jan 22, 2014 9:39 pm

Dr. Evil, your questions show that you still have a good fire burning and I appreciate that you see fit to ask them of me.


Dr.Evil wrote…
So what exactly is the agenda of these "planet fuckers" of yours?

To maintain the perks of positions provided by their promotion of our current (coercion enabling) dominant narrative, i.e. our split model of nature.


Are they actively trying to destroy the planet? If so, why?

No of course not, they want a livable planet just as much as the next guy. With the difference being that they want that planet on their terms, whereas you or I do not get to ask for terms.

Their terms are the maintenance of at least basic aspects of current vertical authority distribution systems. That being a chief feature of living with a dualistic or split model of nature. Barring that, they will try to front run the development of future narrative developments.

If they're smart enough to rule the world they're probably smart enough to know that destroying it is a bad idea. No fun in ruling an empire of ashes, so maybe the Rockefellers realized this and decided to do something about it..?


There is a pretense held by a set of folk that traces back to the divine right of Kings and sundry ideas, that is, a small set of folk ‘own’ the whole world. For them, having a bit of it being damaged is not a bad thing if it serves a larger ‘necessary’ agenda. Hell, in their minds they own it all anyway.

Or are they just a corporate incarnation of pure, undiluted evil?

No, they are not that. That is mythmaking stuff. Some may be nasty pieces of work, for sure, but others among that set desire to do as best they can, just like you or I. Again though, carrying the (class) distinction that they know best how to administer complex systems and be in a position to carry out their goals.

And of course there's independent scientists. "Politics always trumps and leads science". Seriously?

The statement was a bit over the top from using the word ‘always’. So no, I am not totally serious, but do consider it to be a useful bit of verbiage.

Care to elaborate? Most politicians are too fucking dumb to even understand what the scientists are up to, so how can they "lead science"?

Politicians do not ‘lead’ science, or politics for that matter. The people that pay the politicians to impose legislated oppression on the general population so that the rent seekers can continue to ensure their place in the money stream; those are the folk that drive politics and science.

(As in the example given earlier where Rockefeller disassociated his name with the Ludlow massacre and associated his name with modern medicine by giving one million each to fifty medical schools, with strings attached.)

In the following video the British royal family is shown to greatly profit from marketing of depleted uranium.

If one looks at this and then follows up with the words of Prince Charles on Global Warming and Syria, one might if in a generous mood, concede that there may be a bit of greenwashing going here.







http://www.royalcentral.co.uk/politics/ ... lict-18888
The Prince of Wales has long been outspoken on the measures that need to be taken to fight climate change. Since the issue often becomes a political one, it speaks for the new grandfather’s passion for the cause, that he is willing to potentially polarize those who disagree on the matter. The Royal Family generally take impartial positions on controversial subjects.

The heir to the British throne broached the subject again on Tuesday during an address at the World Islamic Economic Forum in London, and predictably not everyone was happy about it.

While speaking to those gathered at the forum, Prince Charles claimed that the Syrian conflict could partially be blamed on the recent destructive and long-lasting drought in the area and the rural community’s mismanagement of local natural resources and economy. The Prince recognized that the changing climate is not only a scientific issue but a social issue as well. “We are now grappling with all sorts of social and economic challenges that have their roots in a problem not acknowledged, which has contributed to so many of the conflicts around the world in recent times,” he said.




Great stuff stillrobertpaulsen. I’ll put on my thinking cap
All these things will continue as long as coercion remains a central element of our mentality.
Sounder
 
Posts: 4054
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 8:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Iamwhomiam » Thu Jan 23, 2014 4:10 am

Oh right, this time, the Rockefeller Foundation spent 850 million dollars in 1997 alone, to set up the Kyoto protocols,

I sure hope you'll provide a citation for this claim.

Not that I do not believe it, but because you cannot understand one of the world's richest men expending what to us would appear a huge fortune to protect his fortune's infrastructure. Why wouldn't he? Wouldn't you if you were able?

SO this fits with your view of a new world order, a powerful, rich man expending his funds to perpetrate a global fraud. To what end? Seriously.
User avatar
Iamwhomiam
 
Posts: 6572
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 2:47 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 56 guests