Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff
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..
Sounder » Wed Jan 22, 2014 12:51 am wrote:Yes Rory, there is no technological fix. We agree.
Now about that cultural blind spot?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
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"?
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.
Oh right, this time, the Rockefeller Foundation spent 850 million dollars in 1997 alone, to set up the Kyoto protocols,
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 56 guests