|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Julius
Joined: 27 Jul 2006
|
 Posted: Sat Oct 17, 2009 12:55 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| visitorq wrote: |
There's nothing you can do to prevent natural climate cycles from occurring.
"Potential" for impact? We produce a tiny, tiny fraction of the so-called greenhouse gases. The main one is water vapour, btw. Humans are not the problem. |
Peer-reviewed science says the opposite.
| Quote: |
| "The IPCC bases its assessment mainly on peer reviewed and published scientific literature.[5] IPCC reports are widely cited in almost any debate related to climate change.[6][7] National and international responses to climate change generally regard the UN climate panel as authoritative.[8] |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change
I don't think 150 years of industrialization covering the planets surface has had "zero effect" on our environment.
| Quote: |
| Environmentalism is about eugenics, period. |
You must be trolling.
Numerous people worldwide are interested in protecting their natural environment and living sustainably on the earth. This has nothing to do with "eugenics". |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 17, 2009 2:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Julius wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
There's nothing you can do to prevent natural climate cycles from occurring.
"Potential" for impact? We produce a tiny, tiny fraction of the so-called greenhouse gases. The main one is water vapour, btw. Humans are not the problem. |
Peer-reviewed science says the opposite. |
Could you be any more vague? Much peer reviewed science supports what I have said - that CO2 is not an important factor in climate change.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| "The IPCC bases its assessment mainly on peer reviewed and published scientific literature.[5] IPCC reports are widely cited in almost any debate related to climate change.[6][7] National and international responses to climate change generally regard the UN climate panel as authoritative.[8] |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change |
The United Nations is a globalist institution founded and funded by international bankers such as the Rockefellers. Its goals include taking away the sovereignty of nation states, and reducing the world's population. This is well documented (but you won't hear about it on CNN). Carbon taxes are not about saving the world, but about breaking the middle class (neo-feudalism) and funding increased government control over society.
| Quote: |
| I don't think 150 years of industrialization covering the planets surface has had "zero effect" on our environment. |
I didn't say that. Pollution is a serious issue. Human caused climate change is not though.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| Environmentalism is about eugenics, period. |
You must be trolling.
Numerous people worldwide are interested in protecting their natural environment and living sustainably on the earth. This has nothing to do with "eugenics". |
Just because you've never heard about it doesn't mean it's not true. It is true - and easily verifiable. The environmental movement sprung directly from the eugenics movement after WWII (after which it became associated with Nazi genocide; the Nazis having been directly funded by the Rockefellers and others who continue to fund eugenics to this day under the cover of environmentalism).
Example: Julian Huxley was one of the foremost eugenicists of his day (president of the British Eugenics Society). He was the founder of the World Wildlife Foundation (one of the biggest environmental organizations in the world) and the first director of UNESCO. Not a coincidence.
Do more research on your own and you find that the environmental movement is full of eugenicists who advocate population reduction (some would like to see it reduced by up to 80%). Especially worth noting is that the Rockefellers are the biggest funders of eugenics in history (namely the Rockefeller Foundation), as well as one of the biggest funders of environmental organizations. They also have controlling interests in the private Federal Reserve, the World Bank, and were instrumental in setting up the UN. Connect the dots. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
djsmnc
Joined: 20 Jan 2003
Location: Dave's ESL Cafe
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 17, 2009 4:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
Do more research on your own and you find that the environmental movement is full of eugenicists who advocate population reduction (some would like to see it reduced by up to 80%). Especially worth noting is that the Rockefellers are the biggest funders of eugenics in history (namely the Rockefeller Foundation), as well as one of the biggest funders of environmental organizations. They also have controlling interests in the private Federal Reserve, the World Bank, and were instrumental in setting up the UN. Connect the dots. |
Well, then it seems to me that the best solution, eugenically speaking, would be to weed out the best and brightest, because they are the ones who create all the wealth, technology, and waste in financing their personal empires. Leave the hardier ones who are able to endure nature and fend for themselves through violent "natural selection" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 17, 2009 5:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
Coming soon, a beautiful new ocean for summer vacations, new beaches, time for all those who think this inevitable warming is coming to buy up all the prime artic oceanfront building sites.
Where can we find real estate prices for the arctic zone? What a great opportunity for Canada and other countries with Artic Oceanfront property. Time to form a real estate investment company for this area. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Julius
Joined: 27 Jul 2006
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 17, 2009 10:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ontheway wrote: |
Where can we find real estate prices for the arctic zone? What a great opportunity for Canada and other countries with Artic Oceanfront property. Time to form a real estate investment company for this area. |
Spoken like a true human. Search and destroy.
I believe the oil and mining companies are already getting in there. The developers with their factories and pollution will be hot on their heels, ready to trash this last wilderness into oblivion. Commercial is the only real value, after all.
Isn't the lesson of global warming that its high time humans adopt a new attitude to our earth? One that doesn't involve exploitation and destruction but appreciation and harmony with the other living things we share this planet with. Environmental education should be compulsory in schools already. But some see the retreating ice caps as just a new opportunity to repeat the same old mistakes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Street Magic
Joined: 23 Sep 2009
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 17, 2009 10:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I admittedly know very little about the climate change going on right now, but I wanted to share this site I came across while checking up on the medieval warm period Rusty mentioned:
http://www.grist.org/article/series/skeptics/
Whenever I'm hopeful about a claim I'm not sure about, the first thing I do is Google the claim in conjunction with "debunked" to get an idea for how legitimate it seems. I'd love for the climate change deal to be much less serious than it's being made out to be, but I get the impression that the very same kind of wishful thinking I have might be fueling some seriously biased efforts to downplay what's going on. Anyway, I don't feel comfortable with having an opinion on this issue yet, but I really like the way that site is laid out and I imagine it would be a good source both for "climate skeptics" to check out an organized run down of the opposition to their ideas as well as for those arguing for the seriousness of the climate threat to give them a heads up on common talking points to expect in a debate.
(Sorry about the patronizing title) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 18, 2009 1:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Julius wrote: |
| ontheway wrote: |
Where can we find real estate prices for the arctic zone? What a great opportunity for Canada and other countries with Artic Oceanfront property. Time to form a real estate investment company for this area. |
Spoken like a true human. Search and destroy.
I believe the oil and mining companies are already getting in there. The developers with their factories and pollution will be hot on their heels, ready to trash this last wilderness into oblivion. Commercial is the only real value, after all. |
The same people who control the oil companies (the Rockefellers) also run the banking system (the Rockefellers run both Citibank and JPMorganChase - which in turn control the Federal Reserve central bank). Since they control the Fed, and the Fed basically controls the government - they are not working in your interest. These same people want to bring in carbon taxes. These same people fund eugenics and think you are human scum to be eliminated.
| Quote: |
| Isn't the lesson of global warming that its high time humans adopt a new attitude to our earth? One that doesn't involve exploitation and destruction but appreciation and harmony with the other living things we share this planet with. Environmental education should be compulsory in schools already. But some see the retreating ice caps as just a new opportunity to repeat the same old mistakes. |
The same old mistake is people like yourself believing all the propaganda the government and the Rockefeller funded environmentalist/eugenics organizations throw at you.
Yes, pollution is a problem. But the same people who own the oil companies and control our entire monetary system won't allow better and cleaner technology, which has been available for years, to be implemented. Instead they teach you that humans are like a bacteria eating up the planet (not true) and that we need to be coerced in the name of "saving the planet". What this really means is taxing us into the dirt. Their agenda includes lowering our standard of living, forcibly reducing the population (by up to 80%), setting up a global police state, and taxing substances on the periodic table (carbon - it doesn't get any more elemental than that).
You consider yourself a Christian, correct? Then let me advise you that supporting these people and their agenda (ie. despising free humanity and treating us like a cancer upon the earth) is the last thing you want to be doing... Caring for the environment is important, but you need to recognize the scam being perpetrated in front of you, and think of more humane solutions. Funnily enough, abolishing the Fed would probably do more to protect the environment than anything. Because then we might be able get ourselves out of bankruptcy and actually fund the kinds of technologies that would lower pollution (while at the same time improving our lives). Carbon taxes will just go straight into funding the police state. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 18, 2009 9:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Julius wrote: |
| I believe the oil and mining companies are already getting in there. The developers with their factories and pollution will be hot on their heels, ready to trash this last wilderness into oblivion. Commercial is the only real value, after all. |
Actually, if the Earth warms and the ice melts, there should be many areas where more humans will choose to congregate and live. This can be done pollution free if we abolish the socialist laws that prevent people from protecting their air and water. We must privatize all land, water, air, rivers, lakes, seas and oceans. The private owners will be able to stop polluters immediately. This means that factories, mines, and developers will have to produce in a way that does NOT harm the environment. This is always doable, but the socialists have always allowed pollution of the air and groundwater that they have stolen from their owners and the waterways, lakes and seas that they have failed to manage. This is the tragedy of the commons. Government has failed. Socialism has failed. But individuals can manage these resources properly and pollution free, if we abolish socialism. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
some waygug-in
Joined: 25 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 18, 2009 3:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
A friend of mine suggested that remote parts of Northern Canada would soon become viable for the raising of crops and human habitation.
I'm not convinced by his argument, but I know there is plenty of land up there. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 18, 2009 4:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ontheway wrote: |
| This can be done pollution free if we abolish the socialist laws that prevent people from protecting their air and water. We must privatize all land, water, air, rivers, lakes, seas and oceans. The private owners will be able to stop polluters immediately. |
Or we'll just see private owners selling pollution rights. That, in combination with a total lack of limiting regulation, will result in an increase in pollution.
| ontheway wrote: |
| This means that factories, mines, and developers will have to produce in a way that does NOT harm the environment. |
No, it doesn't. It just means they'll be compensating private owners for the pollution they enact, or buying land to concentrate their pollution into.
This idea that privatizing land will stop pollution is ridiculous. Giving people unlimited rights to pollute on their own land -- or to sell those rights -- in combination with a total lack of regulatory limitations will result in an increase in pollution, not a decrease. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Julius
Joined: 27 Jul 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 18, 2009 4:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
| they teach you that humans are like a bacteria eating up the planet (not true) . |
Well, so far they are. Humans have caused massive and unprecedented destruction to the the earths ecosystems over the past 200 years. It is unsustainable, it cannot continue.
While reducing human populations may help in some cases, this in itself is not the real solution. Large populations need not be a problem, if only they knew how to live sustainably in their environments.
Its the lack of knowledge that is the cause.As I said, environmental education and awareness should be compulsory in all schools from the earliest age. its gotten so bad that a large % of the worlds people are urbanised and have lost touch completely with the natural world and how it works and sustains us. The logic of cause and effect in our actions has been lost. we see ourselves as separate from our environments, they are there to be plundered and exploited for short term profits, and life in all its forms is not regarded with the respect it requires. the current approach is of regarding everything as having only material or commercial value, nothing more. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 18, 2009 5:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Julius wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| they teach you that humans are like a bacteria eating up the planet (not true) . |
Well, so far they are. Humans have caused massive and unprecedented destruction to the the earths ecosystems over the past 200 years. It is unsustainable, it cannot continue. |
If your Flood actually occured as you describe, then it would have far outstripped anything humans are currently doing. As such, how can you describe the activities we're currently engaged in as causing "unprecedented destruction?" According to you, they're just a pale shadow of the horrific eco-terrorism God enacted in a few thousand years back. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rusty Shackleford
Joined: 08 May 2008
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 18, 2009 5:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| ontheway wrote: |
| This can be done pollution free if we abolish the socialist laws that prevent people from protecting their air and water. We must privatize all land, water, air, rivers, lakes, seas and oceans. The private owners will be able to stop polluters immediately. |
Or we'll just see private owners selling pollution rights. That, in combination with a total lack of limiting regulation, will result in an increase in pollution. |
Actually the complete reverse is true. I agree the right to pollute would probably be a market item, but it would not lead to more pollution. On the contrary, it would mean pollution would be properly "priced". At the moment it is free. When something is more expensive, it becomes rarer, pretty much by definition.
| Quote: |
| ontheway wrote: |
| This means that factories, mines, and developers will have to produce in a way that does NOT harm the environment. |
No, it doesn't. It just means they'll be compensating private owners for the pollution they enact, or buying land to concentrate their pollution into. |
Exactly. I actually agree with you here. I don't see it as a bad thing, though. If you own it, you should be able to do what you want with it. However, it doesn't follow that people will pollute their own land, just because they own it. Does that happen now?
| Quote: |
| This idea that privatizing land will stop pollution is ridiculous. Giving people unlimited rights to pollute on their own land -- or to sell those rights -- in combination with a total lack of regulatory limitations will result in an increase in pollution, not a decrease. |
[/quote]
Haha, a completely ideological assertion. This statement has no basis in logic or facts. People have private land now and they rarely pollute it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Julius
Joined: 27 Jul 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 18, 2009 5:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
If your Flood actually occured as you describe, then it would have far outstripped anything humans are currently doing. As such, how can you describe the activities we're currently engaged in as causing "unprecedented destruction?" According to you, they're just a pale shadow of the horrific eco-terrorism God enacted in a few thousand years back. |
God preserved and renewed life on the planet. The ark was the first act of conservation in history.
The bible in fact gives sound ecological principles for living sustainably on the earth and looking after creation. We are charged with being custodians of the creation. The bible also warns those responsible for despoiling, polluting and destroying creation that they will face judgement.
In short, God wants us to respect and tend our environment and its various lifeforms. The creation is a reflection of his brilliance, his design, his glory, and not to be trashed in the way we have been. This is the christian viewpoint.
If it was up to you and your reckless evolutionism, it would simply be a case of survival of the fittest and we need feel no guilt about snuffing out any number of other lifeforms: they are simply "losers that couldn't adapt". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 18, 2009 6:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
| Actually the complete reverse is true. I agree the right to pollute would probably be a market item, but it would not lead to more pollution. |
Ontheway is saying it will lead to no pollution. He's said repeatedly that the only reason pollution occurs at all is because "Socialist governments legalize it." This is a fantasy.
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
| On the contrary, it would mean pollution would be properly "priced". At the moment it is free. When something is more expensive, it becomes rarer, pretty much by definition. |
That's only true if the real demand is equal to or less than the current limitations imposed by the government, though. If the real demand exceeds the current limits imposed by the government, then even if it cost money, we'd see more. I suggest that, in fact, the real demand for pollution exceeds the limits currently imposed by the government.
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
| Quote: |
| ontheway wrote: |
| This means that factories, mines, and developers will have to produce in a way that does NOT harm the environment. |
No, it doesn't. It just means they'll be compensating private owners for the pollution they enact, or buying land to concentrate their pollution into. |
Exactly. I actually agree with you here. I don't see it as a bad thing, though. If you own it, you should be able to do what you want with it. |
When it comes to things like land and non-renewable resources -- things that are important on a scale extending beyond your lifetime, and which you yourself did not create -- no, I don't feel you should be able to do with it anything you want.
Buy a computer, sure, do with it what you want; it was made by humans, it won't outlast you, and what you do with it is your concern. Buy land and do anything with it you want, not so much. Humans didn't make it, and it will last a lot longer than you will. There's an element of responsibility involved; an element totally impossible for economics to capture. An element Libertarianism has no answer for.
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
| Quote: |
| This idea that privatizing land will stop pollution is ridiculous. Giving people unlimited rights to pollute on their own land -- or to sell those rights -- in combination with a total lack of regulatory limitations will result in an increase in pollution, not a decrease. |
Haha, a completely ideological assertion. This statement has no basis in logic or facts. People have private land now and they rarely pollute it. |
There are laws limiting what people can or cannot do with their land right now. Even despite those laws, companies get fined for things like illegal waste dumping. Pretending companies would stop doing those things if limiting laws were removed is just silly. There's nothing ideological about it. In fact, the only ideologically driven thing here is ontheway's predictions about how his Libertarian society would be.
Last edited by Fox on Sun Oct 18, 2009 6:12 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
