Earth is safe from 'global warming'

[IDL]

For the 100th time, read my sig.

The UN isn't some abstract entity functioning on its own. It's an organization made up of 180+ parts. Its un-democratic parts, like the Security Council, are the ones that we should skeptical of.

Well I think 'democratic' is an illusion in that context so it changes the way I look at large power structures like that.

At the end of the day, the tops of power structures end up pushing private agendas and really don't care about the well being of the average person. No matter how democratic they would like you to think they are.

 

[Quipling]

That's a pretty stereotypical answer and it serves to discredit a valid skepticism for government power grabs.

I am very pro environment, but I am also skeptical of government (especially UN) agendas.

It's a balance.

You're rpo environment but skeptical of government and potential power grabs? Ok, fair. But in that case, let's hear a workable alternative solution to environmental problems that at the same time don't hand power to the government. Until you have one, calling for deregulation isn't "balance" - it's handing everything to potential polluters on a silver platter.

 

[Possum Jenkins]

Well I think 'democratic' is an illusion in that context so it changes the way I look at large power structures like that.

At the end of the day, the tops of power structures end up pushing private agendas and really don't care about the well being of the average person. No matter how democratic they would like you to think they are.

Fine. You may be right.

But you have choices: A) Inaction, because you're so skeptical about everything and everything could be controlled by the elites anyway.

or B) Support structures and movements that are democratic while constantly fighting to make them more and more democratic.

Too many of these uber-skeptics seem to go with option A most of the time. The government is out to get me, the corporations are out to get me, so I'm just gonna sit here and do nothing. That'll solve everything.

 

[IDL]

You're rpo environment but skeptical of government and potential power grabs? Ok, fair. But in that case, let's hear a workable alternative solution to environmental problems that at the same time don't hand power to the government. Until you have one, calling for deregulation isn't "balance" - it's handing everything to potential polluters on a silver platter.

I wasn't calling for deregulation I think industry needs to be accountable for clean practices like not polluting water, and not introducing other poisons into the environment.

Currently though, we've basically outsourced much of our pollution to China along with the manufacturing where the regulations are lower. The cost of our consumables are artificially low in part because of that. The system essentially encourages industry to find the dirtiest means of production by globe trotting. This type of behavior is encouraged by the same people telling us to cut carbon, as I see it.

So there are many aspects to it, but much of it depends on what 'environmental problems' really mean.

If humans are or are not the primary cause of climate change, then that drastically changes the solutions. If not, we could be better off cleaning up our water and air quality, and investing in/subsidizing sustainable industries.

 

[Armbars]

Well I feel a whole lot better about all of this now NASA have voiced their opinion. I mean surely the guys that put a man on the moon are the best suited people to predict the earths fate.

 

[IDL]

Fine. You may be right.

But you have choices: A) Inaction, because you're so skeptical about everything and everything could be controlled by the elites anyway.

or B) Support structures and movements that are democratic while constantly fighting to make them more and more democratic.

Too many of these uber-skeptics seem to go with option A most of the time. The government is out to get me, the corporations are out to get me, so I'm just gonna sit here and do nothing. That'll solve everything.

You don't have to be inactive. It's the 'think global act local' message really.

I act in accordance to how I see the system, in that I encourage people to try growing their own food, shop local, take care of their environment, reduce their dependency, vote with their dollars, etc. Exercise your power rather than give it up.

I think democratic systems work best when they are close to the people voting for them. The farther away from the people they are, the less in touch with reality they get. That's the rationalization for decentralized power. It's not the system we have, but by looking at it that way you kinda have to see the UN as the pinnacle of consolidated, out of touch power.

But yes, many people do choose option A. Too many. That goes with skeptics and non skeptics alike though. It's the easiest thing in the world to just go with whatever comes down the pipe.

 

[Jukai]

LOL. Damn it. Why do I take posting hiatuses and miss out on all the fun and games? I wanted to play bingo!

Sorry sir, limit on Sherdog PMs meant it was just easier to limit it to six people!

 

[UpaLoompa]

Sorry sir, limit on Sherdog PMs meant it was just easier to limit it to six people!

Fuck. You.

 

[MeatheadMike]

OMG, the bingo game lolololollololllolol... you guys are killing me.

 

[Wolveswithkeys]

OMG, the bingo game lolololollololllolol... you guys are killing me.

IDL didn't seem happy about it at all.

 

[IDL]

IDL didn't seem happy about it at all.

I got a kick out of it. PR was a strange word to put on there I gotta say.

I don't know what you guys would do if I wasn't around :icon_lol:

You might turn on each other!

 

[AnGrYcRoW]

Gotti posted this when it first came out , it was a complete hatchet job .....Gotti + tRuthless Robert = hilarity

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

For the 100th time, read my sig.

The problem is, your sig is incorrect. Government is force. Even under a Democracy, you have a tyranny of the majority. The individuals relationship to the government is a one sided agreement (in favor of the government) that's involuntary.

An individuals relationship to any particular corporation is voluntary. An employee can choose to leave at any time with no consequence (unless they voluntarily signed a contract stating otherwise). Any customer or consumer can choose not to do business with any company or corporation they so choose. These are voluntary interactions that individuals willingly undertook.

The idea that a corporation is "tyranny" is an extreme form of hyperbole born out of anti-capitalist fantasy. It's also an insult to people living under REAL tyranny (ex. North Korea).

 

[Possum Jenkins]

You don't have to be inactive. It's the 'think global act local' message really.

I act in accordance to how I see the system, in that I encourage people to try growing their own food, shop local, take care of their environment, reduce their dependency, vote with their dollars, etc. Exercise your power rather than give it up.

I think democratic systems work best when they are close to the people voting for them. The farther away from the people they are, the less in touch with reality they get. That's the rationalization for decentralized power. It's not the system we have, but by looking at it that way you kinda have to see the UN as the pinnacle of consolidated, out of touch power.
.

Except it's the exact opposite.

The UN and other international organizations like the World Court (ideally) take the entire world's views into account.

A lot of people seem to think that pre-UN days power was decentralized. There was no global entity, so no centralized power, right? Wrong.

Power was even more centralized. The powerful nations did whatever they wanted with the smaller ones and there was absolutely nothing that could stop them. Hence the brutal invasions, colonization and oppression in pre-20th century.

At least post- WWII, there's SOME pretense of democracy. The invasions by the powerful are less frequent (only the US and to a much smaller extent, Russia, get involved in them) and much more scrutinized. They're much less bloody, as well. In the early 60s, when the US attacked Vietnam, the UN was pretty much silent and the US destroyed at will.

40 years later, it had become more democratic and it widely condemned the Iraq and Afghanistan invasions. The political and diplomatic pressure it applied certainly prevented lot of extra suffering.

International relations are a fact. You have to address them. So you can support structures that at least have the potential to be democratic, or you can be an isolationist skeptic and let the powerful do what they want.

 

[Possum Jenkins]

The problem is, your sig is incorrect. Government is force. Even under a Democracy, you have a tyranny of the majority. The individuals relationship to the government is a one sided agreement (in favor of the government) that's involuntary.

An individuals relationship to any particular corporation is voluntary. An employee can choose to leave at any time with no consequence (unless they voluntarily signed a contract stating otherwise). Any customer or consumer can choose not to do business with any company or corporation they so choose. These are voluntary interactions that individuals willingly undertook.

The idea that a corporation is "tyranny" is an extreme form of hyperbole born out of anti-capitalist fantasy. It's also an insult to people living under REAL tyranny (ex. North Korea).

In a corporation, you take orders from above and you hand them below. You receive orders from your superiors, who receive their orders from theirs and so on up the ladder. If you don't do as you're told, you're out.

No matter what corporation you're in, you won't get a say in the decision-making. The ones making the actual decisions are the board of directors. If you don't have a say in a system you're a part of but have to take orders or be kicked out, that's tyranny.

In government, you can at least vote your representatives in and out of power. You can't vote for the CEO of ExxonMobil.

 

[IDL]

Except it's the exact opposite.

The UN and other international organizations like the World Court (ideally) take the entire world's views into account.

A lot of people seem to think that pre-UN days power was decentralized. There was no global entity, so no centralized power, right? Wrong.

Power was even more centralized. The powerful nations did whatever they wanted with the smaller ones and there was absolutely nothing that could stop them. Hence the brutal invasions, colonization and oppression in pre-20th century.

At least post- WWII, there's SOME pretense of democracy. The invasions by the powerful are less frequent (only the US and to a much smaller extent, Russia, get involved in them) and much more scrutinized. They're much less bloody, as well. In the early 60s, when the US attacked Vietnam, the UN was pretty much silent and the US destroyed at will.

40 years later, it had become more democratic and it widely condemned the Iraq and Afghanistan invasions. The political and diplomatic pressure it applied certainly prevented lot of extra suffering.

International relations are a fact. You have to address them. So you can support structures that at least have the potential to be democratic, or you can be an isolationist skeptic and let the powerful do what they want.

That is the paradigm that we are supposed to view the UN in. A sort of benevolent referee. I've studied the major players and the globalized power structures (that's where the power lies) and it starts to look very, very different. It's essentially a global network which includes the IMF, WHO, BIS, and who knows how many other major entities working together.

The very idea of sovereign nations doesn't really exist any more except in peoples minds, and hasn't for quite some time. You could make the case that it's good in order to control chaos, but the ones doing the controlling are looking out for their own interests and that includes more and more power over the worlds populations. Power for the sake of power as a primary objective.

Countries have become and will further become more like child corporations in a conglomerate until the world is under the control of a central government. Countries have already given up much sovereignty to globalist powers and will continue to do so until the final conclusion is reached.

So when you go to vote within the context of a country, you are voting in what is essentially middle management. They don't have the power to make changes like people typically think they do. Even if they wanted to.

That may be pushing the envelope here, but that is my conclusion.

 

[Kevin Rudd]

In a corporation, you take orders from above and you hand them below. You receive orders from your superiors, who receive their orders from theirs and so on up the ladder. If you don't do as you're told, you're out.

No matter what corporation you're in, you won't get a say in the decision-making. The ones making the actual decisions are the board of directors. If you don't have a say in a system you're a part of but have to take orders or be kicked out, that's tyranny.

In government, you can at least vote your representatives in and out of power. You can't vote for the CEO of ExxonMobil.

This is a rather skewed view on things and a little bit extreme. You are asserting that no decisions can be made by employees of a company and only the board which is simply not true.

The strategic direction of the company is certainly dictated by the board but the day to day decision making is certainly not.

In regards to voting for a CEO, this is correct, but shareholders certainly have the ability to vote members of the board out of the company.

It isn't as autocratic as you make it out to be.

 

[IDL]

I just stumbled across this video saying there was 30,000 scientists petitioned to get a debate going on global warming.

Does anyone know if that ever materialized?

[YT]FfHW7KR33IQ[/YT]

 

[ruthless robert]

I just stumbled across this video saying there was 30,000 scientists petitioned to get a debate going on global warming.

Does anyone know if that ever materialized?

[YT]FfHW7KR33IQ[/YT]

The democrats/liberals want climate control to be proved correct. They will deny any truthers. Why? Because if they can use global warming then they can push for more laws, more power and more control. You have to remember democrats/liberals suffer from a mental disorder where they have to control people. Where they think they can make a utopia for all the mindless zombies. Keep calm and trust liberals they say. They must control people and tell them how to live their lives. These are mental cases and need to be locked up in a psych ward and put in a straight jacket NOT in out congress making new laws.

 

[Cowlevel]

Astronauts in the field of climate study have been experts since....?