I trust people that have lived under Communism and make the comparison between Marxism and the Green movement versus the blatherings of Canadian educationalists in Taiwan!
Well, once again it is people who are against the green movement quoting each other. How are the two things communism and environmentalism structurally similar? What is Klaus' analysis? His facts? Or is he just a big wig so his words count?
In addition: are you discounting my experiences growing up in Canada? You're a Canadian government bureaucrat on the tax payers' teat: did you meet lots of commies growing up who are now greenies?
Hmm, communism is against human freedom. Environmentalism is working to protect human freedom. I can see how one could get those mixed up. :loco:
I am certainly no less intelligent than you.
I have already acknowledged that there are quite a few lefties in the green movement but few commies. My experience is based on Canada, and to a lesser degree the US. If you are saying that in Eastern Europe many communists became environmentalists than that is not a point I would have any basis to deny.
As to Western Europe, if you have any evidence other than just claiming to be superior in knowledge or intelligence, I would love to hear it. Of course, if you had some and had presented it earlier we could have had an intelligent discussion about it. But it is clear that you either do not have any or are choosing not to share it. The signs of a truly sentient being? No, not really. More like someone who is deluded that they are such.
It's all a commie plot and the smart people know it! That's your basic message and you have not supported it with evidence or argument that matches in any way your claim of being more intelligent or better informed. Just more bleating of the same old bagpipes!
Same in Australia. Those in the environmental movement generally won't have anything to do with the communists. You do get the odd member of a socialist party trying to move in but they are routinely ignored - most greenies see the communists and socialists as being even worse for the environment than the most conservative, anti-science right wing policies.
In the spirit of inquiry, I would like to ask you a straightforward question: Are you an Objectivist? Do you believe in Ayn Rand's philosophical principle that there are basically two main types of humans, one type which is productive and based on their own egos, and the other type which is just trying to live off the productivity of the first type?
Is this the basis for your dislike of environmentalists? They are asking for some redistribution of money, and hence fall into the despised second category, like the commies?
If you really have stayed with that old dichotomy, that convenient simplification of such a complex world, then I am afraid that your intellect may be more limited than you think.
Why would you trust a czech to have any understanding of the environmental movement in Canada? That's just daft.
THIS is NOT a debate This is me laughing at your "values." And I am QUITE sure that your, er, um, "values" remain the same. Of that I have NO doubt
Since the premise of the thread is untrue, anything you say is vacuously true. But you can believe it if you choose to, because this isn't communism. All the scientists are wrong and the warmists are demised. All the scientists are wrong and the warmists are demised. All the scientists are wrong and the warmists are demised. All the scientists are wrong and the warmists are demised. All the scientists are wrong and the warmists are demised. All the scientists are wrong and the warmists are demised.
Just found this! Looks like the 'communists' are actually behind this hole 'green' thing after all!
I don't know if this made it into the thread -- can't take time to look right now. But here's the Global Warming crowd at their best:
news.yahoo.com/blogs/technology- ... 56312.html
Golly, you mean it might have been a dumpster fire, not GLOBAL WARMING!??!?!? Clearly the author of this piece is a denialist hellbent on making all the polar bears swim in Caribbean-temperature waters!!!!
Looks like mother nature has a little payback in store for conservative global warming deniers. Global warming is causing more hurricanes, and this one is going to rain on the RNC convention. Hoisted by their own petard .
Is it? well, you know what is next: prove it!
Here is an interesting article on the subject:
Easily explained. The city maintenance people replaced lamps with leaking breast implants. There is no way that those things are lamps. I blame shitty city officials with only one thing on their mind!!
Let's [url=http://tw.forumosa.com/t/climate-change-vi-warmists-and-their-demise/71337/250 how yet another climate change skeptic turned 180 degrees; after rejecting the scientific evidence for Anthropogenic Global Warming, he now accepts it as a result of the study he himself led.
The science is not a matter for dispute, and the number of skeptics who are actually professionally qualified in relevant fields, continues to diminish.
The whole issue of global warming, what to do, at what cost and what exactly will be achieved doesn't really have an upside, it doesn't really matter if you come down on the side of action should be taken or not, there are negative effects for both. Unless you prescribe to "it's not happening" or "it's a conspiracy by left wing commies".
Which is what people do when they want to minimize the moral ramifications that the position they have on an issue. Todd Akin did something similar a few days back, I can understand people being opposed to abortion, I dont agree with them, but respect their opinion. Of course, when he tried to say the body has some way to shut itself down in the case of legitimate rape, he was lambasted by everyone on both the left and right as this goes against everything we know to be true.
This should be the case for global warming also, feel free to argue the merits of doing nothing, for which there is a case. But to pretend its not happening or is just a conspiracy, those views should be held in as much contempt and considered just as ignorant as the comments made by Todd Akin, it simply goes against everything we know.
Bit too simplistic. Need to be able to attack the exaggeration and politicization for aims that have nothing to do with the climate. We have seen this again and again and again with the left pushing for greater government involvement in and/or control of health care, education, retirements, transportation, finances, the economy and now the environment. It is funny that we are given irrefutable proof by climate change alarmists who then refuse to accept the fact that all government domination and/or control of any sector has led to inefficiencies, insolvencies, and ineffectualities EVERYWHERE when the same fails to be reined in. And yet... and yet... and yet... you have the same dipshits calling for more government and less business or private sector control. The climate change alarmist frenzy is just another example of communism or socialism by other means. Perhaps, we should call it socialism with dumb ass leftist characteristics? I have no doubt that all of these lefties "mean well" but given that their own lives are often in a state of disarray--I would gladly take a poll of the key supporters on this forum to find out where their finances and professional and even personal lives are--they fail to understand that appointing more of the same type of person into leadership of any sector is going to have dire consequences. The losers finally need to accept the fact and move on without disrupting the rest of the population. In the Mother Earth world that they bewail is being lost, they as the weak, defenseless and mutated would be the first "up against the genetic elimination wall." God how long I have waited to be able to use that phrase in the appropriate context. And Bjorn Lomberg has some very good points in his most recent article about how global warming is not causing the recent drought in the US and how hurricanes have greatly decreased in number and intensity since the 1970s...
The only reason you feel a need to do this is because you're completely unable to deny the science. So you focus on a proxy target and claim that since these other things are bad, the science must be wrong.
Fine. Let's assume that the science is ALL settled.
- What it will it cost to stop the rise in temperatures above 2 degree Centigrade?
- What actions will be necessary?
- What exactly will happen to the climate when the world warms?
- Why will this be a universally bad thing?
- What benefits can you reasonably assure us will take place if we engage in x behavior at y cost?
And then again, can you please explain why 50 percent of the CO2 that should be in the atmosphere is NOT? Where did this go? Can you explain why fighting global warming is more important than providing clean water? Do you think that the Germans collective spend of US$120 billion on solar panels which will postpone global warming by 23 seconds? or is it minutes? during the next 100 years is an effective action?
You keep pointing to the science like a Catholic priest pointing to a diagram of the Trinity and screaming FAITH! BELIEVE! It is not supposed to make sense and precisely because it does not make sense it goes to show that it must be true! Now kneel! Bow down! Believe!
Also, just for the record: I don't believe that man is mostly responsible for the global warming that is taking place. Maybe 15% and since most of it will be good for North America, warm away. The costs of excessive cold are far greater as we discovered in the 1970s. WARM away.