Well we know that CO2 induces climate change from geological studies, and we know that Arctic and Antarctic ice gives us an accurate record of atmospheric CO2 concentration (how much CO2 is frozen in the ice). We also know that CO2 hasn’t been of this level for 700,000 years or so (give or take 50,000 either way). We also know that level induced a chain of extensive mass extinctions.
The question if the Earth naturally causes CO2 increases without human intervention is pretty much unquestioned: it does. The question we are asking ourselves, is if humans artificially pumping CO2 gasses has induced this scenario much earlier than normal - if so, how much have we screwed ourselves and what can we do about it? If not, how much are we screwed anyways and what can we do about it?
So either way the research isn’t a waste. The more impertinent matter is if we can make it worst, or if there’s a threshold that the Earth ordinarily sustains. Obviously there has to be a limit for even the planet to naturally generate, and it is in our best interests to not exceed that, so that historic records can be useful in determining what happens next. Otherwise we enter new territory ¬ñ which generally is considered a very bad idea when dealing with a mass extinction event if we want to survive it. Better to have an idea of what’s going on, than have totally no clue.
If we’ve induced an artificial event, and the real one has yet to occur, then we might be very unhappy with the results. In this particular situation, it’s best to error on the safe side, don’t ya think? If the climate change alarmists are wrong, then we only “wasted money” on pollution controls… but if they’re right…
Wow … so much posting and I don’t have time to read it. (Stupid Japanese class … and god how I hate my job.)
But I will say this - As I see it, we need to act on the fossil fuel thing, whether the science is settled or not. If the scientists are right (and there’s a good chance they are), then we need to act; if we wait for them to be sure, then we run the real risk that by the time we decide yes, we’re convinced, we need to do something - we find we’re a few decades too late to do anything about it.
Furthermore, we need to get off of fossil fuels because when they’re out, if we don’t have an alternative, then we are screwed.
Running out of fossil fuels is an issue, yes. However, man made global warming is nowhere near as evident as consuming our natural resources.
As for merely “wasting” our money if the alarmists are wrong… well, for many people that is important. And seeing as how all the proposed legilsation will only seek to limit more freedoms, steal more money, and actually do very little to stem global warming by their own admissions… it is just a waste to attempt such efforts all around.
I also tend to be skeptical when anyone uses scare tactics to win an argument. And that is all the alarmists have done. It also doesn’t help when natural catastrophes, such as a volcanic eruption, greatly impact the climate briefly before the earth stablises in its patterns once more. So human involvment seems unlikely to have such a catastrophic effect as some would have us believe. Anyway, the CO2 link with the atmosphere and global warming is only a tenuous idea that has little evidence to support itself. Due to the size and nature of the CO2 content in the atmosphere, it seems unlikely that it is the driving engine of such climate changes as alarmists scream will destroy us all.
In terms of human caused issues, I would be far more worried about polluting our natural resources and not some hypothesized catastrophe that seems less likely with the computer models continually being wrong on their predictions. Maybe it is an issue, but I am far more worried about mercury in our food supply or hazardous chemicals in our water. Those are immediate and already causing problems for humanity.
I remember reading a Time article that stated if all major CEO’s only got paid 1 billion each year (more than enough money for someone to unreasonably spend), and the rest of their pay was spent on pollution control, it be three times more than the amount needed for emission filters on the industrial worst offenders. Not to mention our country spends 100 billion a year on various wars it shouldn’t be in - which is MORE EXPENSIVE than the proposed emission control. Guess golfing with 24 karat clubs or bombing the bejesus outta people for all the wrong reasons is better than ensuring your future, eh?
I tend to be a skeptic when Shell Oil and Exxon are the leading experts against CO2 induced climate change, since they’ve got a biased platform and have a loooooong court history of lying and suppressing information about it. In fact much of what they do admit to, is only because it was accidentally leaked or stolen.
Proof please. All collected data indicates otherwise, and even the experts at Exxon have relented and admitted there’s some growing danger to the situation (they just report the bear minimum situations however).
Funny you should say that, since mercury poison used to be argued as not dangerous through out the 1930’s, and many people agreed with it. They claimed the Earth would heal itself and there was no proof mercury levels weren’t that way before the testing. Chemical dumping is a whole encyclopedia of similar corporate lies. Should be no surprise there.
You ask for data to prove “man made climate change” isn’t happening, I ask for non-tainted proof that it is happening. While I lean towards natural events and humanity having nothing to do with it, I have not shut the door on the possibility because we just don’t have enough data. It doesn’t help that much of the data we do have is corrupted.
You talk about Exxon and such tampering with evidence… well, it has now been shown that the alarmists have pulled the same tricks. I guess the sides even each-other out and we are now where we began: we have no clue.
Sure. I’ll cite proof, but you still haven’t cited yours. Please do so.
There’s so much of it though… were do I even begin?
First off we know a lot about geology - a hellevua lot. Makes sense: we literally live on a dynamic geological engine. The USGS, the BGS, the GSJ, and the CGS (as do others, but I can’t read Swedish or French) unanimously agree that soil and bedrock deposits - further supported by ice core samples - of the last two centuries contain the highest concentration of greenhouse gasses per cubic centimeter in the last 60 million years ([b]corporations are even interested in making a buck off the research[/b]). This evidence is substantiated by NASA and the NOAA - similar agencies of other nations (ESA and JAXA for example) have also stated their evidence matches these assessments and they are conducting further research to observe the situation from an orbital prospective. Raw data is also recorded by subdivisions of these agencies, which are publicly released for scrutiny and comparison. The data collection has resulted in universally the same results, regardless of methodology and accepted as untampered.
If you wish for personal confirmation of the proof, feel free to dig trenches in your backyard or take long term chemical samples of the upper atmosphere (personal planes can reach an acceptable altitude). It’s all there.
Second off we know a lot about Plantae ¬ñ a hellevua lot more than we know about geology. In fact we can genetically splice pig genes into corn and engineer plant life that wouldn’t exist unless we artificially engineered it. A damn shame our twincest genetics ain’t that good. In any case: CO2 levels have a tremendous influence on plant life, being that it’s key component for their survival. Of particular note are Ferns, which require large amounts of CO2. When Ferns die, their large CO2 concentration is deposited into the soil ¬ñ which is the source of the geological findings. The diversity of fern fossils, the number and variety, serve as a great indicator of how quickly CO2 levels climbed through the eras. Longer the period, more time ferns can thrive, greater variety of them: no super complex mystery there. Past CO2 emission increases took thousands upon millions of years to achieve the same point markers that have occurred over the last 200 years. That is to say we’ve reached levels in several decades, that past events took thousands of years. This data is verified to match that collected by other independent studies. Clearly NOT normal, to the other four or five dozens times (give or take a millenium) it happened before: the events in this one are uncomfortably different.
If you wish for personal confirmation of the proof, feel free to examine the fern fossil deposits that you will find while digging through your yard. It’s all there.
Proof please. Like to see the extent of tampering and which organizations. Of course, you don’t mean that IPCC team do you? Because a group of individuals in an organization did their homework wrong and had to cheat because everyone would know they screwed up, is not the same as an entire company running off a directive to suppress climate change. Those guys were morons who will soon be out of a job for lying. In any case, the IPCC is just one organization. Even if the entire IPCC is filled with corrupt liars - I suppose it’s possible - that’s just one out of several dozen. Throw out the IPCC info then - that’s totally legit - you’ve still got multiple independent studies from other untarnished sources. Doesn’t change the scenario much… unless you think EVERY geological institute in the world is in on this huge conspiracy. In that case, you’ve got a lot more proof to be showing. There’s another group that claims things like that.
Here’s the documentation about Exxon and pals. I’ll be sure to only use news agencies with reputable sources, since they’re not as biased as Greenpeace or another gas company: Link 1 ¬ñ Link 2 ¬ñ Link 3 ¬ñ Link 4 ¬ñ Link 5 ¬ñ Link 6. Seriously… I could go on forever with this stuff.
We have lotsa evidence (they’re not clues anymore): it’s just some people stubbornly choose to outright ignore them and live in denial. I mean it doesn’t stop there: I haven’t touched on the volcanic evidence. Or the infrared radiation trapped in the Van Allen Belt from oceanic reflection of the Sun’s energy (intensity influenced by gases in the atmosphere; this is how space agencies got involved). Did you know sediment from the bottom of the ocean also helps prove it (no solar contamination)? Where’s your proof that we have no clue? I’d very much prefer a source not tied to an energy company ¬ñ something from a scientific agency. Also international would be nice. Can’t just trust one country’s opinion after all: the data is globally universal.
I just bring it up because I saw someone actually try to use it to defend that climate change is faked: she felt really stupid when others pointed out it’s doctored to obscene levels - and the proof of that has been coming out (or rather, being declassified).
… yeesh, talk about being in a rather pissy mood. Never write an argument in a discussion when a debate on another forum has spiralled a den of filth thanks to the antics of a bloody troll. Fanboys suck!
I apologise for coming off as snippity for those that read the prior unedited post that this edit replaced. I don’t apologise for the the fanboy comment though :evil: .
I didn’t see it. Even if I did, twincest makes everything right again.
I do admit my previous post does come off aggressively, so I apologize for that. Its just I’m exasperated that a concerted multi billion dollar effort by government and corporate elements, has spread disinformation about climate change. I know radical environmentalists like Greenpeace have done the same for the other side, but it’s easy to find untampered data from multiple sources.
I think the News best reflects my disappointment with society. There used to be a time when the News [b]reported[/b] events. They told you that so-and-so did something, or that such-and-such committed this crime - what to do about it was up to the viewer. Now they tell you so-and-so did this and such-and-such did that, and what the viewer should do about it. Rather than provide all neutral information, entities now provide what they think people should know and hide (or destroy) the rest, like we’re all stupid and need to be spoon feed. What bothers me is a lot of people like to be spoon feed, and don’t go looking what else is in the bottle.
I don’t trust the government. I don’t trust the corporations. I don’t trust the churches. All I can trust is information and twincest ¬ñ and these days I have to carefully shift through them to make sure that data hasn’t been tampered with or turns out to be false. Sad really.
Ya know… I always hear Hitler or Stalin when someone asks, “who was the most evil man ever born.” I disagree. I think the greatest evil in human skin to ever walk the Earth, was also one of the most badass: Genghis Khan.
Anyone else wanna nominate another contender?
Oh… and speaking of evil men… do you recognize this car?
[attachment=0]volkswagen.jpg[/attachment] Guess who drew it? Now you know what salute to give, when you see one rolling down the street.
Eh, I just use the news to get the information so I can do my own research. I cannot watch NBC though… oi, the bias is so obvious it hurts.
And I do have one more evil than those guys… the person who tampers with twincest…
In all seriousness on that subject though: any who partake in the brutal mid eastern practices of subjicating, murdering, and mutilating women. It is a practice that has been on-going for so long that it easily rivals the horrendous transgressions of a Hitler. What is sad, is that it cannot be tied to any one individual and instead reflects a societal mindset more than a singular warped evil. That kind of evil is the hardest to eradicate.
Hmm…tough call. I certainly see your point, but I would argue that evil can’t be judged purely by body count. Genghis was basically doing what conquerers have always done, only much more efficiently. I wouldn’t say that makes him more evil. (Also, many of the campaigns recounted on your linked page took place after Genghis’ death.) I recall reading that some of Genghis’ advisors wanted to kill everyone in North China and turn it into pastureland, but he was convinced that it would be better to spare the Chinese and tax them. Wouldn’t those advisors be more evil than Genghis? Also, with Genghis, if you surrendered and paid your taxes, he’d basically leave you alone. Whereas with, say, Hitler, if you weren’t an Aryan, he wanted you either dead or enslaved. No way out. To me, that seems more evil than Genghis.
If I had to pick the greatest evil, though, I would say that to look another human being in the eye, kill them in cold blood, and enjoy it, as, say, a serial killer does, is far, far more evil than a warrior killing in bloodlust or a king ordering destruction from afar. Yes, the damage is far less, but I would say the evil is greater.
Attila was bad, but his reputation has been considerably blackened by Christian writers who were scared to death of a pagan conquerer with no respect for their religion, and who also wanted to make Pope Leo the Great, who convinced him not to march on Rome, look more impressive. He probably wasn’t any worse than any other barbarian conquerer of his time.
I dont think conquering is something evil. A lot of conquerors (including those like Alexander) can be seen as nothing more than tyrants, because they invaded other countries, and did a lot of terrible acts just for expanding their empire. However these acts cannot be labelled as evil. People tell us to learn from the past, I point out that our ancestors were way more violent and “bad” than what the majority is today.
I think, whats more evil is to hurt others and worse still, to find pleasure in making others suffer. A doctor who practises fetus genocide, or a serial killer(who is sane), or a rapist are way more evil. Being bad doesnt mean one is evil imo
I don’t think insanity is an actual defense against being labelled as evil. The law might not wish to recognise as such, but the act is still evil and it was still perpetrated. But then expecting the law to actually deal with good and evil is quite ridiculous…
“Leave you alone,” is kinda relative though. Rape and slaves were considered yearly tribute payments. ALL communities provided tribute or faced the price. Sometimes he’d send his troops to slaughter a randomly chosen village, just to keep the fear factor up.
Also on Hitler: he wanted racial purity for unity and genetic superiority – if he really believed in that or it was all just political platform, is totally up for interpretation of course. If you’re willing to look at that objectively - one race that’s mentally and physically fit - it does have nobility in a sick and twisted way. Gets rid of racism after all the others are exterminated; with a strong gene pool providing greater survival for the human race as a whole.
Plus Hitler [i]was[/i] a conqueror in all classical sense of the word. There were rules of etiquette and humanity back in the Khan’s day too - he totally ignored them and committed massive war atrocities… there just wasn’t a global tribunal back then. Even Sun Tzu didn’t say do anything to win: he mentions POW rights and innocent civilian immunity (Machiavelli on the other hand). Hitler also didn’t burn down entire cities when he won a siege: Khan did it depending on the mood or usefulness/resources of the place. For WW2, it was more the power of the weapons being used that obliterated towns, rather than troops actively destroying buildings one by one (Stalingrad and the Battle of Britain being the two major exceptions) - it was the heroic Allies that systematically applied carpet bombing tactics on populations centers on a regular basis.
I think Hitler is seen as more of a monster, because the wounds are still fresh. In a technical sense, the Mongol Invasion should have been called World War 1: this was the world before Khan. Many nations and cultures ceased to exist after his passing. Even Hitler didn’t do that - Jews and Romani are still around, as are the nations he invaded.
I don’t think leaders get a free pass. Look at the last American President - he allowed torture and war crimes to occur. If there wasn’t a global tribunal, I’d hate to imagine what he would have done. The only reason why he restrained himself, is because he didn’t want to get caught. Hitler and Khan didn’t care about that kind of thing in their day. So I think the evil to be a horrific conqueror is still there - they just worry about what happens when the war is over, whether they win or lose, when before it was only when they lost.
Well, yes, any empire is going to send in the troops if you stop paying your taxes. Genghis wasn’t particularly unusual in that regard. Similarly, I think you could apply the same logic that you apply to Hitler’s perspective to that of any empire. We are the superior race, we deserve to rule, and the world will be better off if it accepts our rule. Insert Persian, Roman, Mongol, whoever. That’s just imperialism.
Hitler certainly was a classical conquerer, but his goals went above and beyond those of most conquerers in attempting to kill or enslave entire races. As far as Genghis violating the rules of war, insomuch as they existed, they were much different in the 13th century than in the 20th. For example, any city that resisted a siege could expect to be sacked and pillaged if it fell, in Europe, the Middle East, China, wherever. Not so in the 20th century.
I read a book once, (whose title unfortunately escapes me at the moment), that argued that much of the the savagery that occured when nomadic peoples encountered settled ones was due to the differences in their cultures and their styles of warfare. For nomads, much of the material goods that settled people accumulate would be worthless encumberances. Similarly, their lifestyle cannot make use of and will not support a vast number of slaves. So when nomads conquer a settled region, they end up with a lot more conquered people and property then they have any use for, and they tend to simply kill and destroy the excess. You see this not only with the Mongols, but in the barbarian invasions of Europe from the Goths to the Vikings and Magyars, and in the Turkish invasions of China and the Middle East. Genghis was only the most successful, and hence the most destructive, of the lot.
I do agree that, at least to some extent, Hitler’s reputation is worse because of how recently he operated. Also, because of technological advances and population increases, he was able to do more damage on an absolute scale than anyone in the past would have been able to. In addition, the Mongols have always had pretty good press in the West, both because of Marco Polo and because the Mongol attacks on the Muslim world helped ease the pressure on the Christian Crusader States and the Byzantine Empire. Genghis certainly destroyed many states, but I don’t see that as an inherently evil act. Besides, states were much more ephemeral entities in the 12th century than today. This is also an artifact of success. Hitler lost, and the Allies decided to revive all the states that he conquered. That certainly would not have happened if he had died victorious, like Genghis. I can’t say for sure that Genghis didn’t wipe out any races/ethnicities/what-have-you, but I am not familiar with any, and he certainly didn’t set out to do so. As I pointed out, he knew that if you kill everyone, you don’t get any tribute from them in the future. And once his empire was established, there were no persecutions of any of the inhabitants due to race or religion. Contrast the likely fate of the Jews and Gypsies in a Europe where Hitler was victorious.
I suppose to me, in terms of who is the most evil, intentions matter a lot. Genghis set out to conquer. He was perfectly happy to kill if he needed to, but he also would have been happy if everyone surrendered and acknowledged his rule without resistance. Hitler set out to conquer and to kill. He wanted to wipe out the Jews no matter whether they resisted him or not. With this taken into account, I can’t believe that Genghis was a more evil man than Hitler.
Then what do you think about Stalin? He killed 20 million of his own people, executed his most trusted friends (then tried to erase that they ever existed), and imprisoned his mother under house arrest during his reign (in a palace, but still a cage).
There have been times when I’ve argued that Stalin was worse than Hitler. He’s at least got to be very close. As you pointed out earlier, Hitler at least had ideals: horrible, twisted ideals, but at least he seems to have believed in something, and I think he genuinely wanted what he thought was best for his country. I don’t know as much about Stalin as Hitler, but it seems to me that he didn’t believe in anything at all, other than gaining and holding power by any means necessary. Where his actions against the Ukrainians and the kulaks as bad as the Holocaust? I’m honestly not sure. There’s something about the premeditation and ruthless efficiency of the Holocaust that I find uniquely chilling. I do think that Stalin should be higher up the evil list in the general consciousness than he is. As you mentioned, for most people, Hitler is the most evil person who ever lived by a long shot, but I think Stalin deserves to be considered 1A at least.
As long as we’re discussing Communist dictators, do you think Mao deserves a place in this discussion? His Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution killed somewhere between two and four times as many people as Stalin did, at least according to Wikipedia.
Supposedly Mao was a pedophile and liked having forced sex with virgins - said to have, “liked the look of fear in their eyes” or something to that effect. Never could find solid reference to these charges though… but it’s not like Red China would reveal anything like that anyways. So I guess we could say Mao had evil in him.
But in the case of the Great Leap Forward - it was for the good of the country and the people. Mao did it to make China great… it also included things like banning opium and giving women equal rights. But then the farming aspects of it were horrible. I say it was more stupidity and ego, rather than pure evil. It was horrific - but then do we pin the deaths and devistation of the Great Depression on President Hoover? Over 10 million Americans died from starvation because of it.
It depends… was the gov’t at the time actually trying to get out of the depression or simply use it to grab more power? If it was the latter, then call any gov’t official involved evil, which of course we already know politicians are like lawyers… their seat in hell has long been reserved.
An evil action in the name of the greater good is still evil. In fact, the most heinous of evils is usually done in the name of the greater good. Anyway… the greater good is never a good reason for an evil act in the first place. If it comes down to murdering an innocent child or letting the world burn… the world is going to burn.
