View Full Version : Do as we say, but don't do as we do.
Copenhagen climate summit: 1,200 limos, 140 private planes and caviar wedges. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6736517/Copenhagen-climate-summit-1200-limos-140-private-planes-and-caviar-wedges.html)
The title says it all, really.
I'm not a scientist and I'm not at all qualified to tell you if the climate hype is justified or not, but when these are the messengers, I'm very much tempted to say that the sea level can't raise fast enough as far as I'm concerned. Drown the climate clowns, the sooner the better.
I'm so disgusted by this, that I'm very much tempted to drive 140 km/h in fourth accelaration (read: in waste as much benzine as possbile mode) and to put the central heating at "indoor temperature 40° C" to accelerate the climate warming process.
:thumbsdown:
If you're going to wave with your finger and lecture other people, then you better make sure you're the rolemodel and not the best example of how it is NOT supposed to be done.
I prefer drowning over letting these people tell me what to do. Do they really expect us to take them serious?
Bunch of idiots. :daisy: them and their climate nonsense. I refuse to be lectured and told what I'm supposed to do by those hypocrites.
According to the organisers, the eleven-day conference, including the participants' travel, will create a total of 41,000 tonnes of "carbon dioxide equivalent", equal to the amount produced over the same period by a city the size of Middlesbrough.
The temptation, then, is to dismiss the whole thing as a ridiculous circus. Many of the participants do not really need to be here. And far from "saving the world," the world's leaders have already agreed that this conference will not produce any kind of binding deal, merely an interim statement of intent.
:applause: :shame: :wall:
Sarmatian
12-07-2009, 16:39
All those limos and planes are environment friendly, they run on smiles and happy thoughts. Caviar is totally natural.
Seriously though, what did you expect? That they'll show up riding horses?
All those limos and planes are environment friendly, they run on smiles and happy thoughts. Caviar is totally natural.
Seriously though, what did you expect? That they'll show up riding horses?
If the end of the world is nigh, then I expect the messengers to behave accordingly.
Through their behaviour, these people have lost their credibility.
You're in Serbia and I'm in Belgium and we're communicating without wasting billions liters of kerosine and without eating kaviar. If simple men as us can do that, then why can't they?
Hypocrites. The whole lot of them.
Furunculus
12-07-2009, 16:43
too much methane.
all ruminants need to be culled in order to achieve the great social utopia.
Not to mention the Holy Prophet of Climate Change, Mister utility bill 30.000 $ Al Gore (http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/national_world&id=5072659).
Where's that sea level? Drown me already, please. If these are the idiots we're counting on to save the planet, then we might as well stop our attempts right here and now.
Whatever the plan is, it's doomed to fail if it's organised and executed by these guys.
Absurd.
Gah, it's called politics. It involves pretending to be addressing such issues, not actually addressing them.
InsaneApache
12-07-2009, 17:02
Gah, it's called politics. It involves pretending to be addressing such issues, not actually addressing them.
It's about raising more and more taxes until the pips squeak.
Sarmatian
12-07-2009, 17:05
Gah, it's called politics. It involves pretending to be addressing such issues, not actually addressing them.
God forbid if politicians start addressing issues, we'd be homeless and hungry. They're there just to set the framework so that people who know what they're doing can actually start addressing those issues.
I would definitely change the system and all would be good.
Furunculus
12-07-2009, 17:12
God forbid if politicians start addressing issues, we'd be homeless and hungry. They're there just to set the framework so that people who know what they're doing can actually start addressing those issues.
i'd be fine with that actually, i have little love for this current age of the disinterested expert technocrat.
Mithrandir
12-07-2009, 17:31
Wow... just wow....
And this being Scandinavia, even the prostitutes are doing their bit for the planet. Outraged by a council postcard urging delegates to "be sustainable, don't buy sex," the local sex workers' union – they have unions here – has announced that all its 1,400 members will give free intercourse to anyone with a climate conference delegate's pass. The term "carbon dating" just took on an entirely new meaning.
Louis VI the Fat
12-07-2009, 17:33
Where's that sea level? Drown me already, please. At last, sense has reached Flanders!! :jumping:
https://img25.imageshack.us/img25/3240/wallonievlaanderenstijg.jpg (https://img25.imageshack.us/i/wallonievlaanderenstijg.jpg/)
Louis VI the Fat
12-07-2009, 17:37
Copenhagen climate summit: 1,200 limos, 140 private planes and caviar wedges. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6736517/Copenhagen-climate-summit-1200-limos-140-private-planes-and-caviar-wedges.html)
The title says it all, really.
I'm not a scientist and I'm not at all qualified to tell you if the climate hype is justified or notYou read the wrong newspaper.
The Outragograph does not analyse. It looks at the world from the most uncharitable manner, and then vomits out the daily dose of outrage for its readers. It's the Sun without page three girls.
For one, there's a crucial misconception behind the outrage. Namely, those 20.000 participants in the summit would still drive, eat and fly without this summit.
Besides, it is commonly accepted that it is unfeasable to reduce pollution by reverting back to cave people economy. We'll all still drive and eat fifty years from now.
The only solution is to strive for renewable energy, use renewable resources, and live sustanaibly. This will require international co-operation, which is stimulated by the pressures of a high profile meeting.
(Also: 'climate hype'? That's a politicised Outragograph term. 'Climate change', or perhaps 'climate uncertainty' is more neutral and factual, not ascribing to a politicised discourse)
You read the wrong newspaper.
The Outragograph does not analyse. It looks at the world from the most uncharitable manner, and then vomits out the daily dose of outrage for its readers. It's the Sun without page three girls.
For one, there's a crucial misconception behind the outrage. Namely, those 20.000 participants in the summit would still drive, eat and fly without this summit.
Besides, it is commonly accepted that it is unfeasable to reduce pollution by reverting back to cave people economy. We'll all still drive and eat fifty years from now.
The only solution is to strive for renewable energy, use renewable resources, and live sustanaibly. This will require international co-operation, which is stimulated by the pressures of a high profile meeting.
(Also: 'climate hype'? That's a politicised Outragograph term. 'Climate change', or perhaps 'climate uncertainty' is more neutral and factual, not ascribing to a politicised discourse)
So a newspaper which points out the hypocrisy of the climate guys, is a rag?
Sorry, Louis, but I fail to see how these clowns are not being a bunch of hypocrites.
To me, it's the same as that Belgian Union leader who defends the rights of the common man, while driving around in a luxury car with his personal driver.
:thumbsdown:
I detest hypocrisy.
If the message is so important, then pay close attention to your behaviour and credibility. At the very least, these caviar eating fools are incapable of being the messengers.
I don't mind people eating caviar or having a private jet, but if you're going to a frickin climate conference and you're going to pretend that you care oh so much about the climate and that you will fight emissions of whatever gases by evil planes, cars and industry, then don't be so moronic to go to said conference using the worst possible ways of transport. Eating caviar during the conference doesn't help your credibility either.
They should all get the sack. If there's a message to tell, then I want it to be brought by better messengers or I simply refuse to listen.
Yes, I'm stubborn.
Louis VI the Fat
12-07-2009, 18:15
To me, it's the same as that Belgian Union leader who defends the rights of the common man, while driving around in a luxury car with his personal driver.
:thumbsdown:
I detest hypocrisy.Do you dissaprove of well-fed people fighting hunger? Of lunch being served at a conference to fight malnutrition?
Do you disapprove of people with homes attenting a conference to curb homelessness? Of telling homeless people what to do when they themselves go home to a warm, cozy home at night?
These politicians are not the messengers. They are our servants, send to Copenhagen to work out a sustainable climate deal. They're not there to make a moral appeal, but to work out an international agreement.
Meneldil
12-07-2009, 18:18
For all I care, this Congress is useless, these people are tools, and we're all doomed.
ajaxfetish
12-07-2009, 18:44
Do you dissaprove of well-fed people fighting hunger? Of lunch being served at a conference to fight malnutrition?
Do you disapprove of people with homes attenting a conference to curb homelessness? Of telling homeless people what to do when they themselves go home to a warm, cozy home at night?
These politicians are not the messengers. They are our servants, send to Copenhagen to work out a sustainable climate deal. They're not there to make a moral appeal, but to work out an international agreement.
People fighting hunger are not encouraging us all to stop eating. People fighting homelessness are not encouraging us all to live on the streets.
Surely there are commercial flights, trains, and such that travel to Copenhagen? Buses or taxis for local travel?
Ajax
People fighting hunger are not encouraging us all to stop eating. People fighting homelessness are not encouraging us all to live on the streets.
Surely there are commercial flights, trains, and such that travel to Copenhagen? Buses or taxis for local travel?
Ajax
Sending politicians to international meetings on budget class with domestic bus services... oh my oh my... that would produce some interesting results.
Do you dissaprove of well-fed people fighting hunger? Of lunch being served at a conference to fight malnutrition?
Do you disapprove of people with homes attenting a conference to curb homelessness? Of telling homeless people what to do when they themselves go home to a warm, cozy home at night?
People drinking champagne at breakfeast, wearing expensive clothes, having 4 luxury cars in front of each of their 3 villa's won't have much credibility when they claim to be "defending the poor and fighting the injustice in the world". At least not in my book. At best, I will ridiculise them, but normally I tend to ignore such hypocrites since I don't think they really have other people's best interest in mind.
That and what ajaxfetish said.
I understand international agreements need to be made and important people need to be able to travel fast.
What I do not understand is :
According to the organisers, the eleven-day conference, including the participants' travel, will create a total of 41,000 tonnes of "carbon dioxide equivalent", equal to the amount produced over the same period by a city the size of Middlesbrough.
The temptation, then, is to dismiss the whole thing as a ridiculous circus. Many of the participants do not really need to be here. And far from "saving the world," the world's leaders have already agreed that this conference will not produce any kind of binding deal, merely an interim statement of intent.
There won't be an "international agreement", at best merely an "interim statement of intent", which is the equivalent of "they'll be wasting their time in Copenhagen". Well, not just time, also valuable resources and of course they'll create a massive output of the stuff they say we should limit the output from.
We're also not talking about politicians who have to be there, since apparently many of the participants don't really need to be there.
And the scientists can publish their articles. There is this thing called internet, so their colleagues can read their findings and comment on it; they can even use a vbulletin forum to discuss things; there is something like webcams and telephones.
15.000 people getting laid for free when they show some id, eating caviar and moving themselves in limousines is unnecessary and not exactly a good example of being economic with our resources.
These politicians are not the messengers. They are our servants, send to Copenhagen to work out a sustainable climate deal. They're not there to make a moral appeal, but to work out an international agreement.
"My servants" are not being paid for using tax money for their own pleasures, like unnecessary trips abroad, in private jets, while eating kaviar and drinking champagne and spending time with prostitutes in the meanwhile accomplishing nothing worthwhile (unless you see "merely an interim statement of intent" as an accomplishment).
I expect "my servants" to be the example; their behaviour disgusts me to a degree that I'm not interested in whatever message they are bringing. They failed. Their behaviour reduced this summit to a joke.
:thumbsdown:
Louis VI the Fat
12-07-2009, 20:53
Meh. North Europeans brutes and their failure to understand the fine art of living well and declaring costs. :no:
Anyway, most of what you say can be held against the politico-scientific complex in general. They would eat lavish lunches and get driven around in limousines even when not attending this summit. Everything they do would be disqualified. One can't single out one summit in particular and disqualify its outcome because of general discontent with the lavish spending of politicians.
That is where the article gets it wrong.
The article also loses a sense of perspective:
The wisdom of flying 20000 people halfway around the world to reach an agreement to cut flying is questionable. Even so, it is more a matter of perception and public relations than of any significant amount of pollution. Thousands of summits and scientific congresses are held across the world every day.
For the actual pollution generated, it is but a little drop. If the summit manages to reduce airplane pollution by 0,01% it will have a net result.
As for not having a live meeting in the first place - a congress has a logic of its own. Personal contact, seredipitous meeting of minds, these are difficult to replace with technology.
I don't buy the whole climate change, Al Gore-esque bullpoopy that's flung around by rabid eco nuts these days. Human arrogance at it's finest, thinking we can so quickly affect such changes to a huge, complex planet. We have solid climate data for maybe the past 100, 150 years. We are only beginning to understand this world we live on and how it operates. If you count from 1900, that's 110 years we've been scientifically knowledgeable. The earth is 4.5 billion years old. Puts some real perspective on it.
There's no doubt in my mind that we are beginning to cause certain changes through our use and misuse of nature's resources, but not on the scale some fearmongers would have us believe.
That said, I am 100% behind reducing human impact on nature. We need clean, cheap, renewable energy. We need to stop tearing down the rain forests hand over fist, digging up mountains in search of dead dinosaur goo, and burning tons of nasty polluting fuels (I'm looking at you, China.) Reduce, Reuse, Recycle.
Strike For The South
12-07-2009, 21:13
blah blah blah I like shiney things and pretty dresses blah blah blah.
The whole point is they should be setting the example if it is as big of a deal as they say.
Louis VI the Fat
12-07-2009, 21:23
The whole point is they should be setting the example if it is as big of a deal as they say.Meh. Me I am happy that the environmental movement has matured. That politicians are taking up its issues.
What would you have? Send smelly treehuggers riding their bicycle to Copenhagen, eating nothing but vega-biotic seaweeds to 'set an example'? Would that move the world in the right direction?
Strike For The South
12-07-2009, 21:27
Meh. Me I am happy that the environmental movement has matured. That politicians are taking up its issues.
What would you have? Send smelly treehuggers riding their bicycle to Copenhagen, eating nothing but vega-biotic seaweeds to 'set an example'? Would that move the world in the right direction?
Fly buisness class and take the bus. I could care less about the fish eggs.
This is one of those ivory tower things I've heard so much about.
What would you have? Send smelly treehuggers riding their bicycle to Copenhagen, eating nothing but vega-biotic seaweeds to 'set an example'? Would that move the world in the right direction?
Nobody said that :balloon2:
How many more billions of tax money have to be wasted and how many more unnecessary polution is there needed to actually do something useful and reach results?
So much tralala for a result = merely an interim statement of intent? Are they saving the world or is this a grotesque copy of Belgian BHV negotiations?
What would you have? Send smelly treehuggers riding their bicycle to Copenhagen, eating nothing but vega-biotic seaweeds to 'set an example'? Would that move the world in the right direction?
You mean send our elected councillors from the Green party? :beam:
I nicked named the Green party members here as the teletubbies with their eco-friendly green mud mounds with little windturbines and gardens. No civilisation for miles around with bunny rabbits hopping along while the sun has a babies face smiling down on them as they wear bright coloured macs, never wash and have a copy of Al Gore's film being played on their stomachs.
Kralizec
12-07-2009, 22:54
The fact that this conference will produce over 40 thousand tons of CO2, coupled with an initiative (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8387187.stm) that will make sure that at least the christmas tree won't contribute, is just surreal.
The Outragograph does not analyse.
Ad hominem!
I'm not bothered about world leaders flying their lazy bums around while eating caviar, generally speaking. What does bother me is that the whole thing appears to be little more than a circus, or rather bread and circuses for the masses while they do their utmost best to look as if they're doing something truly historic. Moreso because of the utterly symbolic BS initiatives like the one I mentioned above.
Crazed Rabbit
12-07-2009, 23:23
This shows how much they believe in the restrictions they're pushing.
It's about government control - of people, of business. The accursed EPA in the US has just found that CO2 is a pollutant, so now they can heavily regulate it, and us, back to the stone age.
It's the world's grandest lie.
Because of computer models, based on faulty and politicized science, the common man supposed to destroy his way of life. At worst the alarmists promise a slight temperature rise.
CR
Furunculus
12-07-2009, 23:28
i don't know about you guys, but i certainly detect a greater skepticism to the 'consensus' than was evident even six months ago. is it just me?
It's about government control - of people, of business. The accursed EPA in the US has just found that CO2 is a pollutant, so now they can heavily regulate it, and us, back to the stone age.
I can finally pollute just by sitting on my couch, hooray! :balloon2: I was getting tired of having to burn plastic stuff in my backyard.
The old joke may become true, we will be taxed for the very air we breathe.
Sasaki Kojiro
12-07-2009, 23:46
The amount of extra pollution from their jets and limo's and such is tiny compared to the proposals they will be discussing. I don't think it will be significant.
So the only problem is if they are the "every little bit helps, don't wash your dishes before putting them in the dishwasher, use scissors instead of a lawnmower, be more green everyday" types.
It is a grand conspiracy by pinko-communist liberal agenda so they control us to the point we have to buy Carbon Credits just to breath. :furious3: It is my personal right in the Consitution to climb into my Humvee to mow down young children and pump noxtious gases into the atomsphere simply to drive around the corner to the Kiwi-mart for a pint of milk.
What do they think they are, telling me I should use "hydrogen" fuel cells as a car like some limp-wristed pink tie wearing liberal, it is my the almighty given right to decimate the enviroment as I see fit and drive a real mans car while pedestrians choke on my fumes.
Alternative power, ppstfff, who cares about alternative power when I want to be knee deep in crude oil and greased up to my elbows like a real manly man raking in the money with my Oil stock shares and prices skyrocketing. I laugh in your face that apparently the skeptics are heavily funded by Oil tycoons, they are not doing it for the money, they just want to slap your liberal backsides big style so you can cry to your mommy and nannystate.
Don't get me started on those fancydancy 'intellectuals' and all their phds. PHD don't mean nothing other than Pinko-Here-DoctoringReports. All theirs 'theories' and 'experiments' don't mean anything, I have a theory, and that is that we should stick all their theories where the sun don't shine, then the world would be a far better place.
The old joke may become true, we will be taxed for the very air we breathe.
Damn, you beat me to it, I was posting that while you posted yours.
Furunculus
12-08-2009, 00:07
using my excellent emotional intelligence*, i've detected a much greater degree of distress in you recently Beskar.
you used to be much 'cooler' with your mild lefty'ism, yet for some reason it has become much more strident and desperate of late, why is this?
* in fact i have none, i'm frequently told i need to at least try and get in touch with my feminine side, and recognise that i am largely incapable of empathising.
Louis VI the Fat
12-08-2009, 00:15
an initiative (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8387187.stm) Humans exhale CO2. Humans need to eat more for physical excersize. So cycling causes pollution too. Probably more than getting an efficient electric source up and running. :beam:
Ad hominem!Aye, and served with caviar and free sex too!
my personal right in the Consitution to climb into my Humvee to mow down young children and pump noxtious gases into the atomsphereThe way to win over the right is to name the places who's oil-bitch we are: Russia, Venezuela, Iran, Saudi-Arabia.
Get in yer hummer and support Chavez and terrorism. :book:
Reduction of dependency on fossil fuel is not a leftwing issue.
Furunculus
12-08-2009, 00:23
Reduction of dependency on fossil fuel is not a leftwing issue.
indeed not.
Hosakawa Tito
12-08-2009, 00:25
Might I suggest, gotomeeting.com (https://www1.gotomeeting.com/t/gg/gotomeeting_com-Broad/NAPPC/g2msem3;jsessionid=abc0XfxAtS4oP7sSxCRvs?Portal=www.gotomeeting.com&Target=m/g2msem3.tmpl) . Save the taxpayer's money & reduce their carbon foot print. :yes:
Kralizec
12-08-2009, 00:32
i don't know about you guys, but i certainly detect a greater skepticism to the 'consensus' than was evident even six months ago. is it just me?
I'm just as unsure about global warming as I was 6 months ago. I just get riled up when politicians do something that's mostly symbolic in nature and present it as evidence that they're working hard on it. But on the other hand, this conference will definitely show that the world leaders are absolutely determined to set non-binding goals for themselves that will only not-bind the successors to their respective offices :juggle2:
using my excellent emotional intelligence*, i've detected a much greater degree of distress in you recently Beskar.
I started to agree with Thatcher and my self-denial is tearing me apart. Nah, the post was just highly sarcastic and it was trying to paint the picture that maybe majority of the arguments of Climate Skepticism just reek of politicalisation and some really crude views.
While there could be debates to the effects and the figures, there are major things that need to occur anyway, regardless, so it doesn't even bother me that much. The fact is, we are going to run out of Oil, so switching to alternative sources even now would be a good idea, it would also keep oil prices lower, due to lower demand.
Also, through various methods and ways, alternative methods would also bring in independent energy security to various nations. I am not sure about you Furunculus at times, but I bet you agree that you don't want Russia dominating the energy supply of Europe and the British Isles. (or the Middle East being the supplier of our energy needs)
Recycling is also another issue, through recycling, we could again reuse vast amounts of resources which otherwise would end up in the bottom of the ocean or in a hole in the ground, and for many materials, recycling is also far cheaper than getting it from new. There are also various safety hazards and other things related to landfill sites, and other various issues which could go on for pages, but I think we can agree here.
There are a lot of issues and things under the whole Global Enviroment agenda which really do need to be done, or really considered to be done. While there are some things I disagree with (such as Carbon Credits) and other issues, they are pretty much second priority compared to what I just listed which would obviously deal with those secondary issues at the same time.
Majority of angry replies about Global Skepticism, goes into many issues such as "Change", people dislike it, even if it is for the better. Then there are narrow-minded views as people cannot conceptualise the problems, thus they just simply dismiss it. Then there is the "we have an axe to grind" who simply just grinds axes on the next thing. Then there are the obviously millionaire and billionaire examples where the whole Climate Change issue means they lose money from their Oligarch oil investments.
As for any personal distress, might be subconsciously venting some distress over deadlines.
The way to win over the right is to name the places who's oil-bitch we are: Russia, Venezuela, Iran, Saudi-Arabia.
Get in yer hummer and support Chavez and terrorism. :book:
Reduction of dependency on fossil fuel is not a leftwing issue.
You would think so, with the huge amount of politicisation. (usually associated with how Oil Rich Billionaires support Conservativism.)
[Also, curse you for mentioning about those places before my post, it makes it look like I stole it from you while I was writing my wall-of-text. Evil Louis]
indeed not.
Join the.. Left-Side... :balloon2:
Evil_Maniac From Mars
12-08-2009, 01:23
You would think so, with the huge amount of politicisation. (usually associated with how Oil Rich Billionaires support Conservativism.)
Want to bet on that? Let's take Canada as an example. Which party got the most donations from corporations, and which party outlawed donations from corporations and unions? I love it though, when a billionaire supports a conservative party he is an evil and shadowy figure oppressing the masses, but when he supports a green or left-wing party (often the same thing) he is a good and charitable man.
EDIT: Back on topic. I haven't believed in manmade global warming for years. This has done nothing to improve my faith in it.
Devastatin Dave
12-08-2009, 01:44
Want to bet on that? Let's take Canada as an example. Which party got the most donations from corporations, and which party outlawed donations from corporations and unions? I love it though, when a billionaire supports a conservative party he is an evil and shadowy figure oppressing the masses, but when he supports a green or left-wing party (often the same thing) he is a good and charitable man.
.
Soros
Most of the Global Warming folks are mostly Reds that are using the cause of enviromentalism to promote their Marxist ideology and finacial programs. The collapse of the Soviet Union started the Green movement because all the commies needed something to latch onto. Now we have a Marxist in the White House along with a large ignorant mass of individauls that are easily swayed by promised of "hope" and "change" and a protion of the treasury. All of us will be begging for the scraps off the table of these world "leaders" sooner than you think. Many of the lefties here actually believe that it will be a great day when we all become Cuba on steroids. You are fools and you've allowed your own false guilt and envy to destroy inovations and the quality of life through advancement in the Western Capitalist mindset. Thanks alot.
Soros
Most of the Global Warming folks are mostly Reds that are using the cause of enviromentalism to promote their Marxist ideology and finacial programs. The collapse of the Soviet Union started the Green movement because all the commies needed something to latch onto. Now we have a Marxist in the White House along with a large ignorant mass of individauls that are easily swayed by promised of "hope" and "change" and a protion of the treasury. All of us will be begging for the scraps off the table of these world "leaders" sooner than you think. Many of the lefties here actually believe that it will be a great day when we all become Cuba on steroids. You are fools and you've allowed your own false guilt and envy to destroy inovations and the quality of life through advancement in the Western Capitalist mindset. Thanks alot.
LOL, what? Obama is far from Marxist for a start, the rest says very little.
I love it though, when a billionaire supports a conservative party he is an evil and shadowy figure oppressing the masses, but when he supports a green or left-wing party (often the same thing) he is a good and charitable man.
Though you miss out where conservative party policy is to oppress the masses, while left-wing policy is liberating them, or distributing wealth to help all in the greater good. But those details seem to go unmentioned.
Examples:
Right = Monarchy, Patriot Act, Wage Slavery and various oppression.
Left = Universal Healthcare, Minimum Wage, Suffrage and various other things.
And you wonder why? :laugh4:
Gregoshi
12-08-2009, 01:55
So the Reds turned Green. That is so Christmasy. :santa: If I understand you Dave, you are saying the Claus remains the same? :laugh4:
Devastatin Dave
12-08-2009, 02:06
So the Reds turned Green. That is so Christmasy. :santa: If I understand you Dave, you are saying the Claus remains the same? :laugh4:
Yup, he's a commie, along with his comrade Rudolf. "Red" nosed reindeer? Come on!!!
Devastatin Dave
12-08-2009, 02:07
Though you miss out where conservative party policy is to oppress the masses, while left-wing policy is liberating them, or distributing wealth to help all in the greater good. But those details seem to go unmentioned.
Examples:
Right = Monarchy, Patriot Act, Wage Slavery and various oppression.
Left = Universal Healthcare, Minimum Wage, Suffrage and various other things.
And you wonder why? :laugh4:
Cuba, North Korea, Venezuala, China with its political executions. Nope, I'll stay conservative.
Devastatin Dave
12-08-2009, 02:09
Cuba, North Korea, Venezuala, China with its political executions. Nope, I'll stay conservative.
Beskar, you remind me of this song I love by the Dead Kennedys...
"Holiday In Cambodia"
language/themes potentially offensive, view at own risk
So you been to school
For a year or two
And you know you've seen it all
In daddy's car
Thinkin' you'll go far
Back east your type don't crawl
Play ethnicky jazz
To parade your snazz
On your five grand stereo
Braggin' that you know
How the niggers feel cold
And the slums got so much soul
It's time to taste what you most fear
Right Guard will not help you here
Brace yourself, my dear:
It's a holiday in Cambodia
It's tough, kid, but it's life
It's a holiday in Cambodia
Don't forget to pack a wife
You're a star-belly sneech
You suck like a leach
You want everyone to act like you
Kiss ass while you bitch
So you can get rich
But your boss gets richer off you
Well you'll work harder
With a gun in your back
For a bowl of rice a day
Slave for soldiers
Till you starve
Then your head is skewered on a stake
Now you can go where people are one
Now you can go where they get things done
What you need, my son:.
Is a holiday in Cambodia
Where people dress in black
A holiday in Cambodia
Where you'll kiss ass or crack
Pol Pot, Pol Pot, Pol Pot, Pol Pot, [etc]
And it's a holiday in Cambodia
Where you'll do what you're told
A holiday in Cambodia
Where the slums got so much soul
The United States, with its torture of political enemies!
Oh, wait..did I just? Nevermind.
EDIT: On a serious note (I don't want to get all spammy), I don't see what's wrong exactly with taking care of the nature around you. I mean, it's our problem in the end. It's something we created. Even although the message of the environmentalist elite might be false, the thought of taking care of your immediate surrounding with respect is something in which I only see benefits. The major problem, of course, is the idea that we can keep consuming without taking notice of the consequences.
The way we are currently handling natural resources, specificially oil is a way that is bound to lead to socio-economical disaster, especially in the countries where people spend the most and consume the most: currently this is western Europe, the northern part of the American continent, as well as Japan and South Korea.
These are the countries which all happen to be under the economical hegemony, as a matter of fact, of the United States. Note that I clearly state economical hegemony; this is clearly visible in the streets. Right now, Capitalism has triumphed.
The thing is, I don't think this is the proper way to handle our climate; and even for a complete egoïst, what will happen is clear: we'll run out of oil, and sooner than we'd like, I think. Therefore, not only climatologically, but socially and economically, we need to make progress towards a Green future.
The current emissions of carbondioxide are an economical and a social plague. Nobody likes the smell of a car (I like the smell of gasoline, though). Nobody wants to live in a filthy environment that is devoid of any sort of natural life, save for the sole humans fighting their way through the smog, hurrying home. How far would we go into consuming our earth, mercilessly utilising its rivers, plains, wetlands, steppes, mountains and forests until there is nothing left? And then what? Move to another galaxy? Perhaps...but we'd proceed our seemingly continuous rape of the natural world until those resources run out as well.
Consuming like this will, in the end, only lead to self-destruction. What might be worse than that is the fact that we do not only destroy ourselves, but also everything that comes into contact with us.
Oil will run out. When will it run out? Soon.
Wind, water and solar power will run out. When will it run out? Not so soon.
I might even refer to nuclear power, but that's not something for this thread.
~Hax, feeling extraordinarily hippie-like today :hippy:
Evil_Maniac From Mars
12-08-2009, 02:16
The United States, with its torture of political enemies!
Oh, wait..did I just?
State something inaccurate? Yeah.
EDIT: On a serious note (I don't want to get all spammy), I don't see what's wrong exactly with taking care of the nature around you. I mean, it's our problem in the end. It's something we created. Even although the message of the environmentalist elite might be false, the thought of taking care of your immediate surrounding with respect is something in which I only see benefits. The major problem, of course, is the idea that we can keep consuming without taking notice of the consequences.
I am a conservationist, and in favour of protecting our natural areas and resources. I am not in favour of politicians and movie stars trying to sell me such a massive lie, and especially not when they themselves are hypocrites. When they start to use it as an excuse to push internationalism and control, they've crossed the line.
State something inaccurate? Yeah.
It's like somebody missed out on the summer camps in Cuba (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay) and Iraq (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib)!
Evil_Maniac From Mars
12-08-2009, 02:38
It's like somebody missed out on the summer camps in Cuba (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay) and Iraq (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib)!
Somebody else missed out on some definitions. Terrorists, not political enemies. Political enemies implies they were guilty of thoughtcrime, not setting IEDs.
There were enough people in Guantanamo and Abu-Ghraib that were affiliated with neither Al-Qaeda nor the Taliban. An example (http://www.andyworthington.co.uk/2009/09/30/a-truly-shocking-guantanamo-story-judge-confirms-that-an-innocent-man-was-tortured-to-make-false-confessions/). If you want, I can get you more in the morning!
Evil_Maniac From Mars
12-08-2009, 03:04
There were enough people in Guantanamo and Abu-Ghraib that were affiliated with neither Al-Qaeda nor the Taliban.
Which means absolutely nothing, due to the amount of terrorist groups operating in Iraq.
An example (http://www.andyworthington.co.uk/2009/09/30/a-truly-shocking-guantanamo-story-judge-confirms-that-an-innocent-man-was-tortured-to-make-false-confessions/). If you want, I can get you more in the morning!
Even if that is true, I don't see evidence supporting that he was a political prisoner, rather than just an innocent man being unjustly tortured.
Sasaki Kojiro
12-08-2009, 03:05
Therefore, not only climatologically, but socially and economically, we need to make progress towards a Green future.
McCain has said he would work to reduce carbon emissions 60 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. He has said he would commit $2 billion annually for 15 years to advance clean coal technology.
He also has pledged to oppose a windfall profits tax on oil companies that, according to his campaign Web site, "will ultimately result in increasing our dependence on foreign oil and hinder investment in domestic exploration."
McCain also believes the U.S. needs to deploy SmartMeter technologies, which collect real-time data on the electricity use of individual homes and businesses.
So you would vote for McCain? ~;)
The issue under dispute is what exactly we should do as far as the environment goes. The green party doesn't have a monopoly on these kinds of things, so a statement like "we need to make progress towards a green future" is politically meaningless.
Cuba, North Korea, Venezuala, China with its political executions. Nope, I'll stay conservative.
Yet North Korea, Mao's China, other examples of totalitarian government is not left-wing but actually right-wing along with Mussolini, Franco, Papa Doc and all their friends. It is a sucker when pesky facts in it the way.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
12-08-2009, 03:30
Yet North Korea, Mao's China, other examples of totalitarian government is not left-wing but actually right-wing along with Mussolini, Franco, Papa Doc and all their friends. It is a sucker when pesky facts in it the way.
Just because somebody on your side of the political spectrum is an embarrassment to it doesn't mean that you should try to move them to the right side*. Authoritarian left-wing states are still on the left. You don't call Mao right-wing, I won't call Hitler left-wing, and we'll both be factually correct. Deal?
*Other side. Freudian slip.
Crazed Rabbit
12-08-2009, 03:43
Yet North Korea, Mao's China, other examples of totalitarian government is not left-wing but actually right-wing along with Mussolini, Franco, Papa Doc and all their friends. It is a sucker when pesky facts in it the way.
So what you've been saying is: all bad and mean things = the right of the spectrum.
All things made of sugar and spice and everything nice = the left side?
:rolleyes:
And did you say no leftists want to control people? :laugh4:
Here in the US, they want more control than anyone else! They want to have a say in where I work, how much I make, what I learn at schools, what I have to buy, what I can't buy, what I have to pay, who I have to buy from, what health insurance I have, what guns I own, where I can start a business, how I can run a business, in whether I wear a seatbelt or helmet, where I can smoke, what cars I can own, what electricity I consume, what food I eat, etc.
CR
Sasaki Kojiro
12-08-2009, 03:52
And did you say no leftists want to control people? :laugh4:
Here in the US, they want more control than anyone else! They want to have a say in where I work, how much I make, what I learn at schools, what I have to buy, what I can't buy, what I have to pay, who I have to buy from, what health insurance I have, what guns I own, where I can start a business, how I can run a business, in whether I wear a seatbelt or helmet, where I can smoke, what cars I can own, what electricity I consume, what food I eat, etc.
CR
Out of curiosity, where would you say that the right tries to control people?
Devastatin Dave
12-08-2009, 03:57
Yet North Korea, Mao's China, other examples of totalitarian government is not left-wing but actually right-wing along with Mussolini, Franco, Papa Doc and all their friends. It is a sucker when pesky facts in it the way.
Beskar, since you are so much more elite, enlightened, and intelligent then simplistic little ole me, let me what happens when you give your liberty to a government body (one that will tax your "carbon foot" for example) in a simplistic, dumbed down, good ole boy way. You may want to have your wealth, future, and livelyhood DICTATED to you, I don't. I don't ask you to have faith in Jesus, Budda, Muhamed, or Santa Clause, don't ask me to put faith in Global warming.
Global Warming has nothing to do with the enviroment and everything to do about control. But you're too smart to understand this.
Devastatin Dave
12-08-2009, 03:58
Out of curiosity, where would you say that the right tries to control people?
You should open a dictionary and look up the word liberty. Its pretty nifty.
Strike For The South
12-08-2009, 04:04
Beskar, since you are so much more elite, enlightened, and intelligent then simplistic little ole me, let me what happens when you give your liberty to a government body (one that will tax your "carbon foot" for example) in a simplistic, dumbed down, good ole boy way. You may want to have your wealth, future, and livelyhood DICTATED to you, I don't. I don't ask you to have faith in Jesus, Budda, Muhamed, or Santa Clause, don't ask me to put faith in Global warming.
Global Warming has nothing to do with the enviroment and everything to do about control. But you're too smart to understand this.
:love:
Crazed Rabbit
12-08-2009, 04:07
Out of curiosity, where would you say that the right tries to control people?
Drugs, some moral issues (prostitution), some law-and-order crime issues, some homosexuality related cases, the Patriot Act, the War on Terror, National Security, immigration, etc. Neither list was exhaustive, though.
CR
Gregoshi
12-08-2009, 04:52
Neither list was exhaustive, though.
In the spirit of the conference, no doubt. :inquisitive:
Typical.
ah, 300 more euro's to Switzerland Africa, courtesy of our ministry of climate-lies NGO's and fraud.
bloody thieves :daisy: liars', one day we will be comming for you
I don't know about you guys, but I don't need 15.000 clowns driving around in limousines, flying in private jets and eating caviar to tell me that one day we'll run out of oil...
:wall:
I wouldn't be too surprised if those who manufacture cars, engines and whatever runs on oil, already figured that out themselves. Even I knew, even before Mr. Electric bill 30.000 $ entered the movie business, that the amount of oil on this planet is limited and that one day we'll have to use something different.
I also think that maybe, just maybe, we don't really need high paid individuals flying around the world, eating caviar and being driven around in limousines to tell us stuff we already know.
One day, we'll be forced to use alternative energy sources and therefore, we will use alternative energy sources.
We don't need expensive summits where they'll merely come to an interim intention statement to tell us that.
Waste of time and money that could have been better spent on developping alternative energy sources.
:thumbsdown:
Furunculus
12-08-2009, 10:46
1. While there could be debates to the effects and the figures, there are major things that need to occur anyway, regardless, so it doesn't even bother me that much. The fact is, we are going to run out of Oil, so switching to alternative sources even now would be a good idea, it would also keep oil prices lower, due to lower demand.
2. Also, through various methods and ways, alternative methods would also bring in independent energy security to various nations. I am not sure about you Furunculus at times, but I bet you agree that you don't want Russia dominating the energy supply of Europe and the British Isles. (or the Middle East being the supplier of our energy needs)
3. Recycling is also another issue, through recycling, we could again reuse vast amounts of resources which otherwise would end up in the bottom of the ocean or in a hole in the ground, and for many materials, recycling is also far cheaper than getting it from new. There are also various safety hazards and other things related to landfill sites, and other various issues which could go on for pages, but I think we can agree here.
4. There are a lot of issues and things under the whole Global Enviroment agenda which really do need to be done, or really considered to be done. While there are some things I disagree with (such as Carbon Credits) and other issues, they are pretty much second priority compared to what I just listed which would obviously deal with those secondary issues at the same time.
5. Majority of angry replies about Global Skepticism, goes into many issues such as "Change", people dislike it, even if it is for the better. Then there are narrow-minded views as people cannot conceptualise the problems, thus they just simply dismiss it. Then there is the "we have an axe to grind" who simply just grinds axes on the next thing. Then there are the obviously millionaire and billionaire examples where the whole Climate Change issue means they lose money from their Oligarch oil investments.
6. Though you miss out where conservative party policy is to oppress the masses, while left-wing policy is liberating them, or distributing wealth to help all in the greater good. But those details seem to go unmentioned.
As for any personal distress, might be subconsciously venting some distress over deadlines.
1. agreed.
2. very much agreed.
3. i know, i helped start a recycling technology company valued by Grant Thorntons at £1.7m, with the aim of empowering local communities by source separated segregation of recycling which would allow local reprocessing into raw materials for manufacture, thus keeping the value of the material within the community. oh i know all about it.
4. as i have already said on several occasions; there are lots of green things i agree with, which is a separate matter for my general disdain for the politically motivated greens
5. i recognise that such people exist, in much the same way that i believe that the rabid element of the green movement are the inadequates of the lefty movement who need a cause to maintain a sense of self-worth, and thus needed to reinvent themselves when their previous cause failed in order to avoid a rapid onset on suicidal depression.
6. lol, oppress the masses? you realise that the current conservative party is an amalgam of the old tories, and the libertarian rump of the whigs? free-to-be-a-slave, or a slave-to-freedom, i know which i would rather be.
good luck
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
12-08-2009, 14:32
Though you miss out where conservative party policy is to oppress the masses, while left-wing policy is liberating them, or distributing wealth to help all in the greater good. But those details seem to go unmentioned.
Examples:
Right = Monarchy, Patriot Act, Wage Slavery and various oppression.
Left = Universal Healthcare, Minimum Wage, Suffrage and various other things.
And you wonder why? :laugh4:
You do realise that is was largely what you would consider the political Right-Centre that actually achieved sufferage? Neither the Whigs nor Tories were "left", both were philanthropic and considered that helping the poor was a personal, not a governmental, responsibility.
Right Equals: No Cartels, no monopolies, low taxation, small government and personal responsibily, it also equals traditional monarchy, and NOT dictatorships. It doesn't equal the Patriot Act, which has been described by various opponents as "Stalinist" among other things.
This is not to say that the Hard Right is a good thing, because if you go all the way over there you have a dissinterested and disspationate government. However, you are the one who has invoked, "the greater good", the universal call of the authoritarian and oppressor.
About the Summit: At the very least the Danish could have layed on coaches, even fancy refitted ones would have been preferable. How many delegates used more than one car? Private planes are also unreasonable, when they could potentially have charted half a commercial carrier plane, or something.
Loius, while you may be partly right you've missed a wider point: Politicians like an excuse to indulge, and that is all this is.
Right Equals: No Cartels, no monopolies
These first two are very interesting, since majority of conservatives want less regulation, however, it is regulation that prevents monopolies and cartels and very many call for no state interventation at all saying it should be the "market forces". However, the absense of regulation mean companies go uncheck as they become above the law in a big way (worse than some practises today) and they form cartels and monopolies, even to a point of running the state and oppressing the people themselves. It is generally the left which calls for greater regulation to prevent economic abuse by businesses and banks and other things, as they believe that oppression and authoritianship is a bad thing.
(Which goes back to the point, that saying a dictatorship is left-wing is completely invalid, since the left-wing is against authoritarianship, since it doesn't meet the basic criteria, it is obviously not the left.)
Yeah yeah. Vista STOP THINKING, you aren't doing anything but thinking I can't use my mouse, opening word is too much to ask, I need my spreadsheet tomorow but Vista can't do that it's too slow, figure it out so I can perform simple tasks I must really open this document to make a few adjustments, why can't I simply open a document without having to wait for an hour only to have my keyboard swapped, I try to change it, when Vista finally understands I really want to adjust the vollume of my speakers it crashes because it is chasing tails it is of absolutely no use it is simply not functional enough for someone who needs to use a computer to perform simple tasks.
I want my macbook back DO something, a click, it opens, why is that not possible? Why is my cursor on the upper left when I want to write something right here? And I do not mean crashing. Excersise in fultiliy I know, windows crashes that is what windos does when it's not thinking about whatever is troubling it which must be a lot since it just doesn't stop thinking, STOP THINKING you can't
So what you've been saying is: all bad and mean things = the right of the spectrum.
All things made of sugar and spice and everything nice = the left side?
:rolleyes:
Let's take a look at your points.
They want to have a say in where I work
How do you mean? As far as I am aware, they would have no problems, unless you are part of a Mafia family and other obvious examples.
how much I make
Generally they would want to set minimum wage to a level the populace can actually have a life with, which would only benefit you. So how is this bad?
what I learn at schools
This is really strange considering the massive movements from the right in regards to issues such as (un)intelligent design. Basic education requires you be equipped with certain facts for the work places and advanced university, only thing the left would do, is make sure these things are taught opposed to have an unqualified teacher teaching a classes on how Frodo's biblical journey to destroy the ring at Mount Doom. Unless you think that having studies in English, Maths and Science should surrender themselves to the preaches of Frodo. I don't see the problem.
what I have to buy
Where? Apart from plainly obvious things you would have to buy anything, I can't think of anything.
what I can't buy
Well, apart from plainly obvious things again, I can't think of anything. Then again, movements such as Freedom to Smoke Cannabis are on the left, so less drug regulation in that sense, then it would be the left which generally allows abortion, opposed to the right who wants to ban that. Looks like a losing battle in this field.
what I have to pay
How is that different? Both sides of the spectrum in one way or another do this.
who I have to buy from
Shop licences are not a new thing. You have to go to a bar or a shop with alcohol licence to buy alcohol (shops without them can't legally sell it), same with these such as mediciene, which is there to actually protect the consumer. This isn't a left or right issue, really.
what health insurance I have
Actually, the left make it so you don't need Health Insurance, not choose it. It is optional to get Bupa health insurance.
where I can start a business
Again, I doubt your Hitman Business would get much leeway under any government other than a corrupt one. Other then that, there plainly isn't anything there unless you require a licence/health and safety. I doubt having your bakery next to an open air waste treatment plant was a great idea anyway.
how I can run a business
Health and Safety regulation (plainly obvious) Practises against discrimination based on gender, race, etc (plainly obvious) So other than plainly obvious reasons.. where is a problem?
in whether I wear a seatbelt or helmet
LOL, if you really like, don't wear one. However, I will miss you posting on the forum.
where I can smoke
I doubt smoking next to the gas pipeline is a great idea. But things such as "common curtesy" shouldn't go amiss, if you smoke in someones face, they will hit you.
what cars I can own
Cars need to pass an MOT so they are safe for the roads. How is that a bad thing?
what electricity I consume
Are there different kinds?
what food I eat
I am glad anthrax pie is not on the menu.
So yeah, majority of that was just dribble.
Meneldil
12-08-2009, 16:55
Because of computer models, based on faulty and politicized science, the common man supposed to destroy his way of life. At worst the alarmists promise a slight temperature rise.
CR
Holy crap, having a bin for recyclables, driving an electric car and not letting all lights turned on at night is so going to destroy my way of life.
In other news, cry me a river :yes:
Holy crap, having a bin for recyclables, driving an electric car and not letting all lights turned on at night is so going to destroy my way of life.
In other news, cry me a river :yes:
:laugh4: It is unfortunately true.
Perhaps it is the unbridled excessives of the society of the past decade are too much to give up on.
What you forgot to mention, Global Warming or not, we do need to start recycling, less reliance on fossil fuels and energy efficiency anyway. So sorry Rabbit, you have to give it up regardless. :2thumbsup:
That pretty sums up my position, I don't really care enough about Global Warming get to all hurt about it, as the majority of the changes we have to do anyway and even Furunculus who comments as being on the right agreed with me that they had to be done. The ball is out there with Global Warming, and if I was in government, I would be more focused on doing the big changes we need to do anyway, and perhaps have the geoengineering back-up which Louis posted from the telegraph if it turns out it is getting bad afterall, even after these changes have been done.
Sasaki Kojiro
12-08-2009, 19:43
Beskar, you do seem bitter lately.
Beskar, you do seem bitter lately.
I will decrease my posting significally for a while then (probably until the weekend at least). Not as a rage-quit, as I am understress and if this is influencing my behaviour too much in a negative light, it is best I become temporarily less-active.
Louis VI the Fat
12-08-2009, 20:50
Smoking gun of the Denial Industry uncovered! :smash:
1 The public persuasion campaign
In 1991 the Western Fuels Association, National Coal Association and Edison Electric Institute set up a group called the Information Council for the Environment (Ice). Its founding documents were leaked. The text has been made available online by the scientist Naomi Oreskes (http://www.aip.org/history/powerpoints/GlobalWarming_Oreskes.ppt). The strategy was spelt out in a document produced by the Western Fuels Association: to "reposition global warming as theory (not fact)".
Ice was given $510,000 to test its messages in key markets, all of which happened to be the homes of members of the energy and commerce or ways and means committees of the US House of Representatives. The purpose was to "demonstrate that a consumer-based media awareness program can positively change the opinions of a selected population regarding the validity of global warming." If it worked, Ice would "implement program nationwide".
It identified "two possible target audiences": "Target 1: Older, less educated males". These people, Ice said, would be receptive to "messages describing the motivations and vested interests of people currently making pronouncements on global warming – for example, the statement that some members of the media scare the public about global warming to increase their audience and their influence … "
"Target 2: younger, lower-income women" … "These women are more receptive ... to factual information concerning the evidence for global warming. They are likely to be "green" consumers, believe the earth is warming, and to think the problem is serious. However, they are also likely to soften their support for federal legislation after hearing new information …"
Ice discovered that "members of the public feel more confident expressing opinions on others' motivations and tactics than they do expressing opinions of scientific issues." Here are some of the messages it tested:
"Some say the earth is warming. Some also said the earth was flat."
"Who told you the earth was warming … Chicken Little?"
"How much are you willing to pay to solve a problem that may not exist?"*
These messages must have worked, because they were later used by Ice in a wider media campaign.
* James Hoggan and Richard Littlemore, 2009. Climate Cover-Up. Greystone Books, Vancouver.
Sasaki Kojiro
12-08-2009, 20:54
Chicken little did tell me the earth was warming.
Crazed Rabbit
12-08-2009, 22:34
Holy crap, having a bin for recyclables, driving an electric car and not letting all lights turned on at night is so going to destroy my way of life.
In other news, cry me a river :yes:
I do all of those things (well, a 50 mpg vehicle, not an electric car).
Unsurprisingly, that isn't enough.
What you forgot to mention, Global Warming or not, we do need to start recycling, less reliance on fossil fuels and energy efficiency anyway. So sorry Rabbit, you have to give it up regardless.
I'll start relying less on fossil fuels as they become scarcer, and not before. And I'm completely happy with my current energy efficiency. :beam:
Also; recycling isn't efficient; why do you think you have to pay for them to take the recycling away? Because it costs more energy to recycle than to gather new resources.
CR
ajaxfetish
12-08-2009, 22:43
Also; recycling isn't efficient; why do you think you have to pay for them to take the recycling away? Because it costs more energy to recycle than to gather new resources.
CR
I'm fairly sure that depends on the materials in question. As I understand it, for some materials, especially aluminum, recycling is cheaper than gathering new resources. Of course, for other materials, it's more expensive.
Ajax
Also; recycling isn't efficient; why do you think you have to pay for them to take the recycling away? Because it costs more energy to recycle than to gather new resources.
CR
No it doesn't.*
Aluminum costs 5% when recycling compared to from new.
Plastics costs around 30% when recycled compared to from new.
Paper costs 60% compared to from new.
There are other resources, especially the rarer ones, but there are also some areas where it is more ecologically valid to recycle, even though it is not profitible, such as batteries/computers/fridges containing toxic materials and acids which cause damage the environment and its wildlife.
There are also problems related to landfill sites, you cannot keep dumping rubbishing into the ground, because of many reasons, number one is the huge amount of methane that gets produced which can cause explosions.
There are many reasons to recycle, not all of them include profit, then again if we lived only in the name of profit, we would never have children.
As for enviromental concerns, you have to remember this. You do not inherit from your ancestors, you only borrow from you children.
*Yes, there are some resources that are currently cheaper to get new from other countries. Which also argubly, we don't have ourselves.
Crazed Rabbit
12-08-2009, 22:52
Aluminum is an exception. I am not convinced by your percentages, Beskar. Why do people have to pay for recycling services at all if paper and plastic are cheap to recycle?
There are also problems related to landfill sites, you cannot keep dumping rubbishing into the ground, because of many reasons, number one is the huge amount of methane that gets produced which can cause explosions.
Or, it can be gathered up and used as a power source. Which has already been done, by the way.
CR
Aluminum is an exception. I am not convinced by your percentages, Beskar. Why do people have to pay for recycling services at all if paper and plastic are cheap to recycle?
We don't pay for recycling services, and i always lead to believe that you always got paid if anything. :inquisitive:
I am fairly saw I seen American cartoons, even the Simpsons where they collect stuff for recycling and they got paid for doing so.
Tellos Athenaios
12-08-2009, 23:04
Over here nobody (either way) pays for the recycling per-se; everybody pays for the service that is collecting the waste and disposing of it somehow... though.
Perhaps I am on a different planet? :juggle2:
Devastatin Dave
12-08-2009, 23:09
Holy crap, having a bin for recyclables, driving an electric car and not letting all lights turned on at night is so going to destroy my way of life.
In other news, cry me a river :yes:
If it was just that,then no problem. But when you regulate carbon and add more and more taxes on industries to produce products that we as customers consume, then the cost gets past down to the customer. This will cause the price of energy, food, housing, and just about anything else we spend money on to go up. Its basic economics, but i guess in the age of Obama, basic economics means nothing when they believe the way to get out of debt is to spend more money that doesn't exist. And you know who this will hurt the most? The poor. the poor who you lefties constantly act like you are the sheppards of mercy for. :laugh4:
Sasaki Kojiro
12-08-2009, 23:13
We don't pay for recycling services, and i always lead to believe that you always got paid if anything. :inquisitive:
I am fairly saw I seen American cartoons, even the Simpsons where they collect stuff for recycling and they got paid for doing so.
Garbage men are volunteers?
You can get money for aluminum cans, and some states sponsor the buyback of glass bottles.
You can get money for aluminum cans, and some states sponsor the buyback of glass bottles.
Yes, this is what I was refering to.
Garbage men are volunteers?
That is something different, also Garbage men play a very important part in our healthcare. Garbage men are probably the most underrated and unrespected lines of work compared to how very important they are to the daily running of our cities and places. :book2:
Making them handle recycling with seperate bins is also using the existing service to make mass recycling which is very effective.
Furunculus
12-09-2009, 09:30
No it doesn't.*
Aluminum costs 5% when recycling compared to from new.
Plastics costs around 30% when recycled compared to from new.
Paper costs 60% compared to from new.
There are other resources, especially the rarer ones, but there are also some areas where it is more ecologically valid to recycle, even though it is not profitible, such as batteries/computers/fridges containing toxic materials and acids which cause damage the environment and its wildlife.
There are also problems related to landfill sites, you cannot keep dumping rubbishing into the ground, because of many reasons, number one is the huge amount of methane that gets produced which can cause explosions.
There are many reasons to recycle, not all of them include profit, then again if we lived only in the name of profit, we would never have children.
As for enviromental concerns, you have to remember this. You do not inherit from your ancestors, you only borrow from you children.
*Yes, there are some resources that are currently cheaper to get new from other countries. Which also argubly, we don't have ourselves.
speaking as someone who ran a recycling and reprocessing company, and operated a household source segregated recycling scheme; it all depends on the level of contamination.
mixed paper products contaminated with food waste cannot be given away, a 40ft container would be turned away from shotton is more than a few bits of brown card were found in office paper recycling.
white office paper without contamination can be worth £80/tonne.
mixed glass used to be worth about £15/tonne
colour separated cullet varies from £30 to £60 depending on the colour, because while we use a lot of green glass such as wine and beer bottles, we don't actually produce it, whereas clear glass is something we produce a tonne of.
mixed plastics (of both type and form) is worth very little, however some plastics such a PET can be worth as much as £800/tonne when uncontaminated, cleaned, and re-pelleted.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
12-09-2009, 13:29
These first two are very interesting, since majority of conservatives want less regulation, however, it is regulation that prevents monopolies and cartels and very many call for no state interventation at all saying it should be the "market forces". However, the absense of regulation mean companies go uncheck as they become above the law in a big way (worse than some practises today) and they form cartels and monopolies, even to a point of running the state and oppressing the people themselves. It is generally the left which calls for greater regulation to prevent economic abuse by businesses and banks and other things, as they believe that oppression and authoritianship is a bad thing.
(Which goes back to the point, that saying a dictatorship is left-wing is completely invalid, since the left-wing is against authoritarianship, since it doesn't meet the basic criteria, it is obviously not the left.)
Look up the Corn Laws for an example of Liberals breaking cartels through removing regulation. Regulation always favours the current system, so large amounts of regulation is always oppressive and leads to an autocratic control of the ecenomy.
Note, I did not, and have not, said no regulation.
The modern Left is autocratic in that it oppresses the individual in favour of some nebulous "greater good", decided by the Left itself. I prefer the original Liberals, who had concern for both the individual and society.
Regulation always favours the current system, so large amounts of regulation is always oppressive and leads to an autocratic control of the ecenomy.
Note, I did not, and have not, said no regulation.
Well, if you don't have regulation on the economy, just like you have regulation on government, you get exploited and manulapated by those with vast amounts of undeserved power. Lots of people tend to forget this, the ones who get hit by regulation are generally not the "common man", it would be the CEO's and other higher managers of the companies. Regulation prevents monoplies, they prevent price fixing, they are there to stop companies trying to exploit their consumers.
I think the banking crisis is the perfect example of what happens if you don't keep those with vast amounts of power not on a leash. Since all the countries which have tighter regulation got hit no where near as hard and they only got hit due to trade with nations that did.
Meneldil
12-09-2009, 16:10
I do all of those things (well, a 50 mpg vehicle, not an electric car).
Unsurprisingly, that isn't enough.
I'll start relying less on fossil fuels as they become scarcer, and not before. And I'm completely happy with my current energy efficiency. :beam:
Also; recycling isn't efficient; why do you think you have to pay for them to take the recycling away? Because it costs more energy to recycle than to gather new resources.
CR
Then I guess you surely have a way to explain why the average American (and there, I add Canadian or Australian so I don't sound like an american-hater) produces 3 times more carbon than the average French and twice more than the average German.
Looks like your energy efficiency is terribad actually :-(
Edit: For the sources, go here (http://earthtrends.wri.org/). Yeah yeah, they are envo's nutjobs greeno terrorists.
Edit2: And I don't pay anyone to take the recycling away. Never had, never will.
If it was just that,then no problem. But when you regulate carbon and add more and more taxes on industries to produce products that we as customers consume, then the cost gets past down to the customer. This will cause the price of energy, food, housing, and just about anything else we spend money on to go up. Its basic economics, but i guess in the age of Obama, basic economics means nothing when they believe the way to get out of debt is to spend more money that doesn't exist. And you know who this will hurt the most? The poor. the poor who you lefties constantly act like you are the sheppards of mercy for.
Companies try to rip the consummer off as much as possible anyway? Why don't you rant about that for a change?
And I am no leftie but thanks anyway. Maybe some day the american right will get its head off its bum and actually realizes that all people who care about global warming aren't greeno's nutjobs. Crazy **** I know, but many people on the right also think global warming is an important issue.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
12-09-2009, 16:46
Well, if you don't have regulation on the economy, just like you have regulation on government, you get exploited and manulapated by those with vast amounts of undeserved power. Lots of people tend to forget this, the ones who get hit by regulation are generally not the "common man", it would be the CEO's and other higher managers of the companies. Regulation prevents monoplies, they prevent price fixing, they are there to stop companies trying to exploit their consumers.
I think the banking crisis is the perfect example of what happens if you don't keep those with vast amounts of power not on a leash. Since all the countries which have tighter regulation got hit no where near as hard and they only got hit due to trade with nations that did.
You presume I believe in such a thing as, "deserved power", though that begs the question of who people who make money are "undeserving".
Actual price fixing is done by regulation, collusion is arguably less dangerous because most businesses tend to react when people become too poor/the black market takes over. The government blithly ignores such problems.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
12-09-2009, 17:39
Then I guess you surely have a way to explain why the average American (and there, I add Canadian or Australian so I don't sound like an american-hater) produces 3 times more carbon than the average French and twice more than the average German.
Larger territory with it being impractical to build a large train network and more extreme climates come to mind. Therefore on heating, cooling, and transport alone those groups need to spend more.
Louis VI the Fat
12-09-2009, 21:51
Larger territory with it being impractical to build a large train network and more extreme climates come to mind. Therefore on heating, cooling, and transport alone those groups need to spend more.Canada, Oz and the US emit triple the amount of CO2 of Sweden, which is fairly cold and large too. Triple the amount of very environmentally conscious New Zealand too.
Double that of icy and empty Norway too, where oil flows free of charge from the tap.
Political will is the overriding reason.
Edit: My oh my, look at this list of Co2 emission per capita by US state:
Texas 28.38
California 11.07
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions
Not size, climate or transport are decisive. The political will is decisive. Blue states are on a European / New Zealand level. The more red a state, the more greenhouse gases. Reaching a level of emissions resembling erm...well nothing comparable to anything on this planet actually. Maybe Venus. Where it is 600 degrees owing to runaway greenhouse effects.
Louis VI the Fat
12-09-2009, 22:13
And the amount of CO2 compared by GDP.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_ratio_of_GDP_to_carbon_dioxide_emissions
The US and Australia are somewhere down below in between Malawi and the People's Democratic Republic of Laos.
Considering the effects of pollution are felt globally, with financial consequences too, in effect the world is subsidising American products.
Note where Japan, Germany, Britain and all the other economical powerhouses of this world are. Somewhere near the top, together with the rest of the industrialised world. So there is no economical penalty for being energy efficient. It will not ruin your economy.
Crazed Rabbit
12-09-2009, 23:46
Canada, Oz and the US emit triple the amount of CO2 of Sweden, which is fairly cold and large too. Triple the amount of very environmentally conscious New Zealand too.
Double that of icy and empty Norway too, where oil flows free of charge from the tap.
Political will is the overriding reason.
Edit: My oh my, look at this list of Co2 emission per capita by US state:
Texas 28.38
California 11.07
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions
Not size, climate or transport are decisive. The political will is decisive. Blue states are on a European / New Zealand level. The more red a state, the more greenhouse gases. Reaching a level of emissions resembling erm...well nothing comparable to anything on this planet actually. Maybe Venus. Where it is 600 degrees owing to runaway greenhouse effects.
More BS. Idaho has a lower per capita than California. And venus is hot BECAUSE ITS CLOSER TO THE SUN. :wall:
I don't want to pay more for anything to reduce CO2 emissions. The US has more emissions because it's larger, has more people spread out over a much bigger area, and we're not about to idiotically cripple our industry to stop CO2 from being emitted.
Considering the effects of pollution are felt globally, with financial consequences too, in effect the world is subsidising American products.
I guess that shows who the smart ones are. :laugh4:
CR
Azathoth
12-10-2009, 00:37
And venus is hot BECAUSE ITS CLOSER TO THE SUN.
Venus is hotter than Mercury. :book:
And venus is hot BECAUSE ITS CLOSER TO THE SUN.
Azatoth is right. This is due to the immense amounts of CO2 in its atmosphere.
Venus is hotter than Mercury. :book:
The clincher as to why that is the case, is amusing in this discussion.
Crazed Rabbit
12-10-2009, 03:13
The clincher as to why that is the case, is amusing in this discussion.
Really? Because mercury has no atmosphere, the direct opposite of venus?
Also, Louis said a "runaway greenhouse effect" - could any of you point out where the runaway part is? Is venus' temperature increasing? Or is it at equilibrium now?
This is due to the immense amounts of CO2 in its atmosphere.
Yes, lots of CO2 - and other gases.
CR
Sasaki Kojiro
12-10-2009, 03:53
Really? Because mercury has no atmosphere, the direct opposite of venus?
Also, Louis said a "runaway greenhouse effect" - could any of you point out where the runaway part is? Is venus' temperature increasing? Or is it at equilibrium now?
If it is at equilibrium, it's probably because massive cloud of gas blocks out the sunlight.
I don't think venus is a telling example for either side of the argument, and louis didn't really intend it as such.
Furunculus
12-10-2009, 09:41
Azatoth is right. This is due to the immense amounts of CO2 in its atmosphere.
while an amusing little aside, that overly simplifies the issue, as venus lacks the single largest carbon control mechanism available to a planet; plate tectonics.
Louis VI the Fat
12-10-2009, 14:42
Also, Louis said a "runaway greenhouse effect" - could any of you point out where the runaway part is? Sure. See links below. :book:
Only greenhouse effects on planet earth are controversial. All of the other planets lack an oil industry so the study of their greenhouse effects can be studied objectively.
NASA would be a good place to start. There are such scientific endeavors as planetology and astrobiology, where it is commonly understood that greenhouse effects are an important constituency of a planet's climate. These greenhouse effects are studied and commonly accepted. No 'lack of complete models', no fake or bought science, no vested interests trying to create 'controversy'.
http://astrobiology.arc.nasa.gov/news/expandnews.cfm?id=1386
Or Wikipedia:
It is currently thought that the atmosphere of Venus up to around 4 billion years ago was more like that of the Earth with liquid water on the surface. The runaway greenhouse effect may have been caused by the evaporation of the surface water and subsequent rise of the levels of other greenhouse gases (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas).[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Venus#cite_note-Kasting-6)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Venus
Furunculus
12-10-2009, 15:04
Sure. See links below. :book:
Only greenhouse effects on planet earth are controversial. All of the other planets lack an oil industry so the study of their greenhouse effects can be studied objectively.
NASA would be a good place to start. There are such scientific endeavors as planetology and astrobiology, where it is commonly understood that greenhouse effects are an important constituency of a planet's climate. These greenhouse effects are studied and commonly accepted. No 'lack of complete models', no fake or bought science, no vested interests trying to create 'controversy'.
http://astrobiology.arc.nasa.gov/news/expandnews.cfm?id=1386
Or Wikipedia:
"The runaway greenhouse effect may have been caused by the evaporation of the surface water and subsequent rise of the levels of other"
those two words, and the specific placement, seem important for some reason.
and again, no plate tectonics.
Louis VI the Fat
12-10-2009, 15:55
"The runaway greenhouse effect may have been caused by the evaporation of the surface water and subsequent rise of the levels of other"
those two words, and the specific placement, seem important for some reason.
and again, no plate tectonics.The exact differences between Venus and Earth are not the point. The point is that it is commonly understood that - all else being equal - the emission of greenhouse gasses causes a...greenhouse effect.
Except, apparantly, on earth. Where this very basic, two centuries old scientific fact just a theory is 'controversial'.
Is the level of CO2 in the earth's atmosphere rising?
Is CO2 a greenhouse effect?
If yes, then all else being equal there will be an increase in greenhouse effect.
Plate tectonics work in a timeframe irrelevant to the human experience. I don't care about the climate a million years from now.
Furunculus
12-10-2009, 16:17
The exact differences between Venus and Earth are not the point. The point is that it is commonly understood that - all else being equal - the emission of greenhouse gasses causes a...greenhouse effect.
Except, apparantly, on earth. Where this very basic, two centuries old scientific fact just a theory is 'controversial'.
Is the level of CO2 in the earth's atmosphere rising?
Is CO2 a greenhouse effect?
If yes, then all else being equal there will be an increase in greenhouse effect.
Plate tectonics work in a timeframe irrelevant to the human experience. I don't care about the climate a million years from now.
and yet you quote back at me the geologicial history of venus, as if it has some consequent relevance as a comparison to the earth right now...........
Louis,
i have NEVER argued that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas, i merely have doubts that our climate change is primarily driven by anthropogenic CO2 as per the IPCC consensus.
my point about plate tectonics was made to create an awareness within a layman that this is a complex system that is poorly understood, and that the assumptions that underpin climate models may have no basis in reality, thus the IPCC diagnosis may be wildly wrong, thus their recommended prescription totally irrelevant, and their prognosis of no consequence.
I like how we do the same posts over 3 different threads and they will never end due to either side unwilling to give ground amongst those who are completely unreasonable posting in between who call everything a grand socialist dictatorship in the making.
Furunculus
12-10-2009, 18:12
.....................amongst those who are completely unreasonable posting in between who call everything a grand socialist dictatorship in the making.
nearly as daft as those who brand skepticism as "deniers", and merely useful idiots* for Big-Oil/US-multinationals/MIC/Neo-Cons/etc.
* well, you guys would recognise that one most readily!
nearly as daft as those who brand skepticism as denial, and merely useful idiots* for Big-Oil/US-multinationals/MIC/Neo-Cons/etc.
* well, you guys would know best!
Well, I already gave my position on Global Warming some where, and if I remember correctly, you agreed with it.
So I know you are not on about me. :beam:
edit: Though much of the skepticism argument is funded and backed up by Big-Oil/US-Multinationals/etc, it is just one of those amusing facts.
Furunculus
12-10-2009, 18:16
Well, I already gave my position on Global Warming some where, and if I remember correctly, you agreed with it.
So I know you are not on about me. :beam:
and i know mine has been bandied about, is it so extreme?
and i know mine has been bandied about, is it so extreme?
If I remember correctly, you just stated about large economic costs, amongst other things. You haven't outright denied climate change/global warming, you probably believe there are alternative methods and the threat might not be as serious as some claim which would call for such urgent very high costs and really inefficient methods.
I commented my personal opinion that there are many things that should be done anyway (such as a need for increased energy efficiency, decrease reliance on fossil fuels, etc), which as a secondary benefit (as in, not the aim of the changes) would lower CO2 emissions anyway, as I don't care/mind if those things are done. Though, I would agree that some of the suggested ideas and plans, and some of the more expensive ones are a total waste.
Furunculus
12-10-2009, 18:40
* I am as yet skeptical of the IPCC consensus that catastrophic climate change is primarily driven by anthropogenic CO2 emissions.
This is a fairly nuanced opinion, and yet even people who are not eco-activists by any means, somehow sum this up with the statement; "but you don't believe in climate change, do you!"
I am by training a geologist, of course i believe in climate change, i spent three years studying it on and off.
I also know, from study, that it has frequently in the past been catastrophic in impact to the flora and fauna of the time.
I know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and accept that it is within the realms of possibility that it is the driving factor of recent recorded climate change.
I am also fully aware that there are a multitude of other anthropogenic sources of green house gas, and that their action in combination can bring about feedback mechanisms that amplify the individual effects.
And yet this nuance is written off by; "but you don't believe in climate change, do you!" This to me is the real poison of the consensus as advocated through politics and eco-preaching, it is removing the responsibility of critical analysis from people, and replacing it with xenophobic faith.
My skepticism is not immovable, as that would not be a scientific position to hold, but it will require a great weight more evidence alongside a great deal more confidence in simulated climate models before I am convinced that spending trillions worrying about anthropogenic CO2 is a sane policy.
Because if this bout isn't anthropogenic, or; is anthropogenic but not catastrophic, or; is catastrophic but not CO2 induced, then our current direction in spending trillions in future wealth growth may be as futile and pointless as Canute with his tides.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
12-10-2009, 18:41
edit: Though much of the skepticism argument is funded and backed up by Big-Oil/US-Multinationals/etc, it is just one of those amusing facts.
Indeed. And almost all of the alarmist argument is funded by people who are making a ton of money on it (Al Gore) or by governments. The truth is that everybody will back the result they prefer, and neither side should be vilified simply for who backs them, since both sides are backed by groups which are equally distasteful in some eyes.
Indeed. And almost all of the alarmist argument is funded by people who are making a ton of money on it (Al Gore) or by governments. The truth is that everybody will back the result they prefer, and neither side should be vilified simply for who backs them, since both sides are backed by groups which are equally distasteful in some eyes.
Reminds me of a comedy sketch, I think it was South Park though...
Anyway, no one would vote on the same side as the racists/facists, and they kept voting for the person they wanted and they would obviously get elected. So some one came up for the bright idea of them voting for the otherside, and what happened was, people shifted to vote for the choice they wanted.
That admittedly, tickled me.
Yes, there are new green economics which want to take advantage, even businesses. But the thing is, the worst offenders voting against something is a bad sign. They could do alternative things to make themselves and that position look far better.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
12-10-2009, 19:00
Yes, there are new green economics which want to take advantage, even businesses. But the thing is, the worst offenders voting against something is a bad sign. They could do alternative things to make themselves and that position look far better.
Perhaps so, but they are not funding the majority of the skeptic movement. On the other hand, government and people such as Al Gore and pro-green businesses are funding the global warming side, because they all have a lot to lose if it fails. Therefore, who funds what doesn't matter, because both sides have a vested interest in seeing their side prevail.
My oh my, look at this list of Co2 emission per capita by US state:
Texas 28.38
California 11.07
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions
Now that is an interesting chart, and you're quite right, the per capita emissions are the correct way to read it. Totals are much less instructuve. For instance, what the heck is wrong with Indiana at 36.43? Wyoming and Montana I'm willing to give a pass, and West Virginia makes sense, what with them being the coal capitol of the world. But what the heck is Indiana's excuse?
Sasaki Kojiro
12-10-2009, 19:08
Now that is an interesting chart, and you're quite right, the per capita emissions are the correct way to read it. Totals are much less instructuve. For instance, what the heck is wrong with Indiana at 36.43? Wyoming and Montana I'm willing to give a pass, and West Virginia makes sense, what with them being the coal capitol of the world. But what the heck is Indiana's excuse?
I think indiana has coal. And lots of manufacturing.
Louis VI the Fat
12-10-2009, 19:39
CO2 emission by State reflects the distribution of energy sources available, the existence of energy production, and manufacturing activities. So I'll give Louisiana and Alaska a pass. Oil refinery and oil exploitation create a lot of CO2 emission.
But the story does not stop there. Compare for example:
New Mexico 29.81
Arizona 15.98
The leftist West Coast is simply at European / Japanese levels:
Washington State 12.80
Oregon 12.35
California 11.07
Half that of their neighbours in the Rockies. Yet these three states are not economically ruined by clamping down on pollution. Far from it. Neither is Sweden or Denmark or Japan. Wastefulness is not a succesful business model. Except for those who exploit and sell the resource.
Washington State 12.80
Oregon 12.35
California 11.07
Half that of their neighbours in the Rockies. Yet these three states are not economically ruined by clamping down on pollution. Far from it.
In the case of Cali, the economic effects of low-C02 usage may be lost in the general collapse. ~;)
In the case of states in the Rockies, you have mining, agriculture, lower population density, higher heating costs, and a dearth of 4WD vehicles that are actually being used for their intended purpose.
a dearth of 4WD vehicles that are actually being used for their intended purpose.
I think you mean "plethora," not "dearth," but yeah. I never mind seeing AWD vehicles in the country, but a Hummer in Manhattan is deeply offensive. Best bumper-sticker I ever saw on a civilian Humvee: "I'm changing the environment; ask me how!" Obviously not put there by the owner.
I think you mean "plethora," not "dearth," but yeah.
Gah! Fancy word attempt fails! Even missed out on using my fav, plethora. :shame:
Furunculus
12-10-2009, 23:42
Gah! Fancy word attempt fails! Even missed out on using my fav, plethora. :shame:
plethora has always been one of my favourite words too, alongside plenipotentiary and plinth.
There was a plethora of plenipotentiary plinths in the narthex.
ajaxfetish
12-11-2009, 05:05
There was a plethora of plenipotentiary plinths in the narthex.
Enough bloviating already.
Ajax
Louis VI the Fat
12-11-2009, 12:35
Enough bloviating already.
AjaxWhile I'm as much of a logolept as the next guy, threads shouldn't derail because of our logomachical strepsirrhine. Enough of this floccinaucinihilipilification indeed.
A Very Super Market
12-11-2009, 18:32
[loquacious irrelevancies]
Sasaki Kojiro
12-11-2009, 20:05
I eschew ersatz ennui.
Azathoth
12-11-2009, 23:33
Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo.
Ironside
12-11-2009, 23:48
Hodor.
Louis VI the Fat
12-12-2009, 00:56
Hodor.See, there is power and strength to the Scandinavian languages.
Hødør!
I had to look it up in the dictionary. What appears at first sight as a random growl, has an intricate meaning, grounded in ancient culture and Nordic ritual. Hødør is an ancient word, used as an intervention, with a very specific, intricate meaning.
It means: 'I am sitting in my meadhall, surrounded by my warriors. I am nearly finished with that roasted wild boar. I'm drinking beer by the gallon out of the skull of the man I slew earlier today. Note that it is nearly empty. I shall soon need a refill. So I suggest you people stop your effiminate chatter full of fancy words and instead find me another keg of beer real soon or I'll start to rip off random limbs'.
ajaxfetish
12-13-2009, 06:47
Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo.
https://i336.photobucket.com/albums/n337/ajaxfetish/Buffalo-Sentence-Diagram.gif
Ajax
(yeah, I know, I should have put the subjects in spec VP and then showed how they moved to spec TP . . . so sue me)
edit: and oops, forgot to capitalize Buffalo the city except for the first one. The two Buffalo's on the leftmost NP branches should also be capitalized.
Azathoth
12-13-2009, 07:39
Ajax
(yeah, I know, I should have put the subjects in spec VP and then showed how they moved to spec TP . . . so sue me)
edit: and oops, forgot to capitalize Buffalo the city except for the first one. The two Buffalo's on the leftmost NP branches should also be capitalized.
What.
Furunculus
12-13-2009, 18:29
carbon must be reduced, yet we close our plant only for the same capacity and more to open in other countries, while the company doing the opening and closing rakes in more than a billion in carbon credits, all which is paid for by the british taxpayer who now hasn't even got that 'horrible' polluting job anymore:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6798052/What-links-the-Copenhagen-conference-with-the-steelworks-closing-in-Redcar.html
ajaxfetish
12-13-2009, 23:34
What.
It's the syntactic structure of the sentence you posted ~;)
Ajax
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.