The Truth, Still Inconvenient - Page 33 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 06-28-2013, 10:01 AM   #481
Acrobat
 
Badyouken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Canada
Posts: 487
Local Time: 07:51 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
I have often wondered why climate change is like this holy grail of causes for purpleoscar. Just my curiosity...
Because it fits the narrative that a segment of the population wishes to lower our standard of living, destroy the economy, restrict free enterprise, redistribute wealth, etc. It's the communist witch hunt by another name.
__________________

__________________
Badyouken is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2013, 10:11 AM   #482
Blue Crack Supplier
 
IWasBored's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 36,504
Local Time: 03:51 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Badyouken View Post
It's the communist witch hunt by another name.
And true to form, true to the fact that some things never change, they still cling to their inaccurate notion of what communism even is.
__________________

__________________
IWasBored is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2013, 06:43 PM   #483
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 12:51 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by cobl04 View Post
Hahahahahahahaha



It's one of the reasons why climate change-deniers frustrate me so much.
If you read their websites they usually answer it. I would keep track of wattsupwiththat in particular.

Good news about coral reefs – they recovered from warming | Watts Up With That?

Quote:
“We know from other studies that the resilience of reefs can be improved by addressing human pressures such as water quality and overfishing,” says Dr Gilmour. “So it is likely that a key factor in the rapid recovery at Scott Reef was the high water clarity and quality in this remote and offshore location.”

Coral reefs suffer mass mortality because of coral bleaching, disease, and tropical storms, but we know much more about when, where, and how rapidly these ecosystems have collapsed than we do about their recovery. Gilmour et al. (p. 69; see the Perspective by Polidoro and Carpenter) studied a highly isolated coral reef before and after a climate-induced mass mortality event that killed 70 to 90% of the reef corals. The initial recovery of coral cover involved growth and survival of remnant colonies, which was followed by increases in larval recruitment. Thus, in the absence of chronic disturbance, even isolated reefs can recover from catastrophic disturbance.
Then you have to factor in, how did the reefs survive the medieval warming period or other warming periods in the past?

Quote:
Originally Posted by IWasBored View Post
And true to form, true to the fact that some things never change, they still cling to their inaccurate notion of what communism even is.
We're not stupid. We know what communism is. When communism failed they moved into a more fabian attitude which is to slowly get people to accept more and more government so that many of the objectives are met over time. Doing a violent revolution is not popular anymore and would just create martyrdom. For example Hugo Chavez was a communist and did try a military coup. It failed so he did the second option when he was advised to push for smaller increments. It's not easy to create a dictatorship of the "proletariat" in consitutional democracies so in places like Europe or the U.S. just get people addicted to programs and create an entitlement mentality and you get closer than if you scared the public with violence.
__________________
purpleoscar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2013, 07:35 PM   #484
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 12:51 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
I love it With the exception of one other poster, you are the most predictable.

99.9% of your post doesn't even address my post. You will always mention the UN. You will always mention some fringe movement. You will always mention socialist, and in this case accuse me of being one. And you will always mention "towing the line" as you fail to recognize the irony that that is all you are doing.

I understand the science that I post or talk about, I'm not someone who posts contradictory "science" just throwing shit hoping something sticks. You can continue to be a coward and call me "socialist" while truly ignoring my posts, I won't stoop to that level, but if and when you're actually ready to debate then please come back, address my actual post, and refrain from bullshit.
I always answer your questions and then some. Saying I have no respect for science is not an argument. I think you should rephrase it to "you have no respect for authority" because that's what it looks like you're saying. I don't know if it's the tone I'm reading off these posts but it's almost like your constipated at the thought that someone could criticize these precious little scientists. I can criticize who I want to. I don't believe these scientists are so fragile when they are lathering guilt trips on the world population based on an unproven premise that CO2 is a poison and will destroy the planet. If the government can regulate photosynthesis and what we exhale what do they not control?

The U.N. and IMF are not fringe and have a lot of influence. The main reason we are having this debate at all is because of the U.N. and the Rio conference which made the ideas take world stage. Just because scientists were studying CO2's effects before that doesn't negate the influence of major political bodies and special interest groups.

The actual world temperatures are going the way of skeptics, not the way of computer projections. Much of the cold and heat don't even follow CO2 on a historical basis. The temperatures increase and then when there is more flora and fauna there's more CO2.

Here's another great prediction:

Arrhenius Forecast Verification – 100 Years Later | Real Science





If you're not a socialist (that's why you love Democrats so much?) then please explain what your worldview is? How would you limit the government from getting too big? You said before I shouldn't be afraid of U.N. world government, why not? What is the right percentage of GDP for all the national and regional governments together? In Canada it's over 40% (and we still have people who think we need more). How would you cut social programs that don't work without angering special interest groups and people who's habits have adjusted by relying on them? What are your moderate solutions? I would love to know.
__________________
purpleoscar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2013, 07:37 PM   #485
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,236
Local Time: 01:51 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
We're not stupid. We know what communism is. When communism failed they moved into a more fabian attitude which is to slowly get people to accept more and more government so that many of the objectives are met over time. Doing a violent revolution is not popular anymore and would just create martyrdom. For example Hugo Chavez was a communist and did try a military coup. It failed so he did the second option when he was advised to push for smaller increments. It's not easy to create a dictatorship of the "proletariat" in consitutional democracies so in places like Europe or the U.S. just get people addicted to programs and create an entitlement mentality and you get closer than if you scared the public with violence.
Wow.
__________________
Diemen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2013, 08:00 PM   #486
Blue Crack Addict
 
PhilsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Standing on the shore, facing east.
Posts: 18,874
Local Time: 02:51 AM
I mean, not even a word of that paragraph is backed by any evidence whatsoever.
__________________
PhilsFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2013, 09:09 PM   #487
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 01:51 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitize View Post
Of all the myths perpetuated by the GOP about Obama, the "Obama hates oil" one is the most utterly ridiculous. I wish it were more true than it is.
Don't take my word for, ask someone in the oil industry. How many petroluem conventions has he spoken to? Or look at the president's popularity in Texas, Louisiana, Alaska and Oklahoma. Explain his footdraggin on the Keystone pipeline. Listen to his rhetoric if nothing else.

But what he really hates is oil profits. He hates that the oil industry isn't nationalized like it is in Venezuela, Mexico, Russia or with OPEC. Oil profits could fund a lot of his utopian dreams.
__________________
INDY500 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2013, 09:12 PM   #488
Blue Crack Addict
 
PhilsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Standing on the shore, facing east.
Posts: 18,874
Local Time: 02:51 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
But what he really hates is oil profits. He hates that the oil industry isn't nationalized like it is in Venezuela, Mexico, Russia or with OPEC. Oil profits could fund a lot of his utopian dreams.
You are getting boring.
__________________
PhilsFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2013, 09:20 PM   #489
ONE
love, blood, life
 
digitize's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Dallas and around the Texas Triangle
Posts: 13,962
Local Time: 01:51 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post

Don't take my word for, ask someone in the oil industry. How many petroluem conventions has he spoken to? Or look at the president's popularity in Texas, Louisiana, Alaska and Oklahoma. Explain his footdraggin on the Keystone pipeline. Listen to his rhetoric if nothing else.
The Keystone pipeline is the best example of Obama working "again" oil, but, in reality, given the massive boom in oil in his presidency, he has more or less turned a blind eye to the industry. The Keystone footdragging (which is almost certainly going to end soon, and whose opposition also partially came from private property rights advocates) did nothing to affect American oil producers, although I suppose it did affect American refineries. But he's done so little to change the American oil industry, even in face of a lot of talk about climate change. Speaking at oil conferences is utterly meaningless. People in Texas, Louisiana, Alaska, and Oklahoma hate him because he's a Democrat/communist/fascist/atheist/gay/Muslim/whatever and because he talks about climate change. But in reality, has Obama made anything more difficult for oil than Bush did? Certainly nothing substantial.

Quote:
But what he really hates is oil profits. He hates that the oil industry isn't nationalized like it is in Venezuela, Mexico, Russia or with OPEC. Oil profits could fund a lot of his utopian dreams.
Do you have any, umm, evidence for this?
__________________
digitize is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2013, 09:27 PM   #490
Blue Crack Addict
 
PhilsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Standing on the shore, facing east.
Posts: 18,874
Local Time: 02:51 AM
His rhetoric speaks for itself!!!!
__________________
PhilsFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2013, 10:08 PM   #491
Blue Crack Addict
 
Vlad n U 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 28,012
Local Time: 06:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
We're not stupid. We know what communism is.
Conservatives are almost always painfully wrong when it comes to defining communism.

How many of you would actually define it accurately? Rather than dishing out the tired old 'China!1! North Korea!1! USSR1!1' stuff.
__________________
Vlad n U 2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2013, 10:38 PM   #492
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 12:51 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vlad n U 2 View Post
Conservatives are almost always painfully wrong when it comes to defining communism.

How many of you would actually define it accurately? Rather than dishing out the tired old 'China!1! North Korea!1! USSR1!1' stuff.
Yeah but China/North Korea/USSR were and are REAL.

Well explain to me how the dictatorship of the proletariat will give back power and share it equally? Because this question has never been answered. The reason communism failed is precisely because they don't share power and they feather their nests because these leaders are human and get corrupted by power (assuming they didn't already have this in mind before taking power). This is why conservatives don't believe there is a communism that can happen in reality. Only in theory with theoretical people that don't resemble emotionally complex human beings.

Human beings have desire and that desire is more powerful than the envy people feel for those they perceive are happier. How are you going to regulate desire in people to express themselves in ways that are unequal? Some expressions are of a higher quality than others and that might lead to some having some envy. The biggest question comes after this. How do you regulate the people who enact these laws who also have desires? Communists in reality concentrated more economic power in a few hands than the capitalists they criticized.

Now in this thread it's about fossil fuels and the environment. So are you a communist that doesn't like industry or one that would include fossil fuels? I hope you would include them because I can't imagine what medical care would be like without modern equipment. If you do like fossil fuels how would a communist of your type change the energy system without creating another "Great Leap Forward"?

I don't expect you to answer these questions satisfactorily because if you could you would be one hell of a genius.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Diemen View Post
Wow.
That's what I say to people who think that politicians can actually stabilize the weather with carbon taxes.

Now there are those that say they aren't going to destroy the economy but don't you have to in order to lower CO2 levels with the technology we have? Don't we have to "act now before it's too late"? Isn't it just "10 years left to act"?
__________________
purpleoscar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2013, 10:43 PM   #493
ONE
love, blood, life
 
digitize's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Dallas and around the Texas Triangle
Posts: 13,962
Local Time: 01:51 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
This is why conservatives don't believe there is a communism that can happen in reality. Only in theory with theoretical people that don't resemble emotionally complex human beings.
Agree completely. You don't have to be a conservative to think this.
__________________
digitize is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2013, 10:51 PM   #494
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 12:51 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitize View Post
Agree completely. You don't have to be a conservative to think this.
Yes but my argument can be used the same against global-warming proponents. If proponents are like you then you're just being used. I can't believe I have to explain to Americans that giving power to government has to be carefully done and in many cases not done at all. If you make a mistake it's not easy taking that power back. Giving binding powers to the U.N. to regulate energy worldwide would be giving too much. With binding powers the U.N. could justify sanctions against countries that refuse to follow their energy regulations. Sanctions should just be used for military purposes and defense. Each country should regulate their own energy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Badyouken View Post
Because it fits the narrative that a segment of the population wishes to lower our standard of living, destroy the economy, restrict free enterprise, redistribute wealth, etc.
I would agree if there were a cheaper alternative right now. But there isn't so it would lower our standard of living, destroy the economy, restrict free enterprise and the U.N. said they would redistribute wealth.
__________________
purpleoscar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2013, 12:37 AM   #495
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,667
Local Time: 01:51 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
I always answer your questions and then some.
I cannot remember the last time that you did. Take this post as a great example, it's just full of fluff that never got to anything that I posted about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
Saying I have no respect for science is not an argument. I think you should rephrase it to "you have no respect for authority" because that's what it looks like you're saying.
No, what I'm saying is that you have no respect for science, that is simple fact, in fact you've stated so, just not in so many words. This has nothing to do with authority, but nice try. You once posted three conflicting pieces of "science" in one post as your argument against climate change. Example 1 contradicted example 2 and so on. In fact one was a backyard youtube video of a vacuum salesman doing experiments in aquariums that stated the more CO2 the better. This is not respect for science; this is shit throwing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
If you're not a socialist (that's why you love Democrats so much?) then please explain what your worldview is?
Read more, and assume less. Assumptions are one of the worst habits a human can have, it leads to bad relationships and poor self esteem.

I don't love any party or any politician, I've stated and talked about this ad nauseum, but your comprehension skills are clouded by your assumptions and the boxes that you like to place people in.
__________________

__________________
BVS is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:51 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com