When do you think man made fire? yesterday? Indigenous Australians came to Australia 50-75 thousand years ago and burned down the rain forest to kill all the monsters.
...and when was the last time monsters were discovered in Australian, huh? ;-)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When do you think man made fire? yesterday? Indigenous Australians came to Australia 50-75 thousand years ago and burned down the rain forest to kill all the monsters....and when was the last time monsters were discovered in Australian, huh? ;-)
Now now, Australians kicked Rupert Murdoch out of their country.
That was a generalization about arguments on anything.
That said sometimes scientists disagree and "only they can understand" so it does boil down to what you decide to believe.
Malarky. Its not a cult, its not a zen koan, its not that hip new fashion trend that you just don't "get". Its something you can easily understand the digested version of if you paid attention in highschool science class.
Your feelings are not a valid decision making process for deciding facts.
Reality is not some groovy whatever you think it is exercise in existentialism.
Its not what you decide to believe: its what IS. You're not holding an equally valid arbitrary opinion, you're either right or you're wrong.
you're either right or you're wrong.
Pfff.
Fascist.
So because I tell you I am not convinced, I let my whims define reality? Because I am not a climatologist, I don't get to have a dissenting opinion? Because I am unhappy of constantly being called paranoid, my response to being called so is the only thing that matters and the rest of what I wrote can be ignored to make a conclusion of "I ignored all the points you made".
I beg to differ, BigNorseWolf. It most certainly is a cult. If it is not, the only thing that doesn't fit is the size of it.
Forgive me, people, but I can't take more abuse. You win this discussion too, the same way you win every other such discussion: abusing dissenters. Congratulations.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So because I tell you I am not convinced, I let my whims define reality? Because I am not a climatologist, I don't get to have a dissenting opinion? Because I am unhappy of constantly being called paranoid, my response to being called so is the only thing that matters and the rest of what I wrote can be ignored to make a conclusion of "I ignored all the points you made".
I beg to differ, BigNorseWolf. It most certainly is a cult. If it is not, the only thing that doesn't fit is the size of it.
Forgive me, people, but I can't take more abuse. You win this discussion too, the same way you win every other such discussion: abusing dissenters. Congratulations.
That's fine, but you have to realize that at least from my perspective, all you've done is thrown your hands up and said "it doesn't feel true".
The things I've seen that seem convincing to disproving AGW seem to focus on only one aspect. That if this one thing can't explain the whole problem, then it's all false. The problem with that is when the system being discussed is incredibly complex, it just doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
You talked briefly about green energy being used to control all human actions and I just don't buy it. In the US and Europe, we're already taxed on a remarkable number of things. There's already a database of collected information about who you are, what you do, what you buy, who your friends are, etc, etc... it's just not run by the government, it's run by corporations.
Yes, government needs to be held in check, but considering the process that climate change has gone through in the various political spheres, it seems highly unlikely that it's a giant conspiracy designed to control you.
I understand you're frustrated. We're frustrated too, because instead of talking about solutions, we have to keep going over the same arguments again and again about how the problem is even real.
It must be frustrating for you. After all, you even go through the trouble to tell me that I am paranoid for holding my views several times, and that I don't get to have an opinion, and I STILL don't buy AGW.
That's "you" as in "you guys", by the way, not you personally. It just gets too much. I admit I am not a scholar on carbon isotope frequencies. After outright lies like the Hockey stick graph, I am not inclined to take the AGW guys on their word.
|
It must be frustrating for you. After all, you even go through the trouble to tell me that I am paranoid for holding my views several times, and that I don't get to have an opinion, and I STILL don't buy AGW.
That's "you" as in "you guys", by the way, not you personally. It just gets too much. I admit I am not a scholar on carbon isotope frequencies. After outright lies like the Hockey stick graph, I am not inclined to take the AGW guys on their word.
Why do Carbon Isotope frequencies come into this conversation?
Irontruth posted a link about it. Supposedly a shrinking fraction of C14-free CO2 depends on fossil fuels. I am no expert, but the climate hysterics are about the last people I would give the benefit of the doubt.
|
|
Irontruth posted a link about it. Supposedly a shrinking fraction of C14-free CO2 depends on fossil fuels. I am no expert, but the climate hysterics are about the last people I would give the benefit of the doubt.
Given decay rates vary with gravity and there is variation across the earth, different rates of decay in different regions would affect the outcome?
As I said, I can't judge that.
Smarnil: It is nice that you tell me what my points are, missing both and then manage to prove me wrong. Congratulations.
My objections are:
Their methodology leaves much to be desired.
The media spin is murderous, and their treatment of dissenting voices stinks.
They are pushing a political agenda that will hurt more than it helps.But of course, you know what I mean better than I do. Also, nice touch on the gnomes of Zurich thing. I must be psychotic if I don't agree with all the AGWers here, right?
Hi !
I obviously can't tell what your points ARE, and didn't even try. Onthe other hand, I did tell you what they SOUND like.
And I wasn't too far off the mark, since the hidden "poiltical agenda" is back.
We are both ill-equipped to accurately judge the methodology used, as we don't have the required background knowledge. We have either to go back to school for half a decade, or put some faith in all the scientists that all around the world tell us that yes, it is the real thing or as close as it gets. You obviously can't do that, because of yout belief in a worldwide, hidden political agenda shared by all climatologists.
It's not psychotic, and you're certainly entitled to any (strong) opinions you want, but can't youu see that explained like that, it can make you sound like a little bit eccentric ?
(sorry about the gnomes if it hurt you. It was intended as a fun line, not an ad hominem. Or ad femina.)
(part of the mess seems that your are confusing, or bundling together, climatologists and ecologists : in one of your posts, you wonder why "they" won't accept nuclear power if they are so keen on avoiding climate change. I beg to differ : they are not the same crowd. Climatologists don't care about the source of power, as long as it is CO2 free. And here, we have pro-nuclear ecologists for the same reason).
It comes in, because people repeatedly disbelieve the science behind the work that a large number of climatologists have done, but they don't actually know anything about the science or the foundations of the findings.
Your disagreement isn't with actual science, it's with political organizations. Unfortunately, the actual science does mean that those political organizations you dislike, have a basis for what they're trying to do. I agree, there are scientists who were misguided in trying to convince the public and used either misleading or erroneous data. But that's like saying "because I don't like this one athlete who did horrible things, all athletics in general are bad".
If you're going to have a strong opinion and push it, you should be informed. The deniers get too caught up in going for "gotchya" things, that they're missing the bigger picture, AGW* is mostly likely still real.
The carbon isotope to me is an indicator that someone doesn't know what they're talking about. Not that they aren't an expert, but that they haven't actually tried to dig into some of the science and understand what is going on.
I'm sure in over the next 10 years, science is going to advance and come up with new data and explanations that revise our current estimates, but until that happens, I'm willing to rely on what is probably 90% true.
I have ridden in a car thousands of times in my life. I've only been in 2 minor accidents, one so minor it wouldn't have mattered if I had my seat belt or not. But, I still wear my seat belt, because the odds are enough that I know I'm safer with it on and the cost is so low. I understand the God rebuttal, but the difference is that there is actual scientific evidence of AGW, where as the evidence for God is entirely fictional.
Things need to move past the "oh, there's still a debate going on in science", because there isn't. There are a few who disagree, and that's good, because if there are errors those people will help find them, but the people who agree are also working hard to find errors. The major debate over AGW is already over, the non-scientific community needs to catch up so we can start talking about what is going to be done about it.
*Anthropogenic Global Warming - humans cause global warming
I've already put in my order for 1 million wind turbines with YD, I'll let you guys know when they arrive.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If all the other athletes kept supporting the bad athlete, still claiming he was right, it would be closer. Still, athletes do not try to sell a worldview, or make claims to telling truth, so your analogy doesn't hold. If the political organizations keep at malfeasance, serious scientists have a choice to make: cut their ties to such organizations, or be tainted by associating despite known falsehood. Like it or not, but that is how science works. Outside the climatology field, of course. Making a study for a tobacco company is enough to get few visitors to a respiratory health conference that you host.
|
|
It comes in, because people repeatedly disbelieve the science behind the work that a large number of climatologists have done, but they don't actually know anything about the science or the foundations of the findings.
Your disagreement isn't with actual science, it's with political organizations. Unfortunately, the actual science does mean that those political organizations you dislike, have a basis for what they're trying to do. I agree, there are scientists who were misguided in trying to convince the public and used either misleading or erroneous data. But that's like saying "because I don't like this one athlete who did horrible things, all athletics in general are bad".
If you're going to have a strong opinion and push it, you should be informed. The deniers get too caught up in going for "gotchya" things, that they're missing the bigger picture, AGW* is mostly likely still real.
The carbon isotope to me is an indicator that someone doesn't know what they're talking about. Not that they aren't an expert, but that they haven't actually tried to dig into some of the science and understand what is going on.
I'm sure in over the next 10 years, science is going to advance and come up with new data and explanations that revise our current estimates, but until that happens, I'm willing to rely on what is probably 90% true.
I have ridden in a car thousands of times in my life. I've only been in 2 minor accidents, one so minor it wouldn't have mattered if I had my seat belt or not. But, I still wear my seat belt, because the odds are enough that I know I'm safer with it on and the cost is so low. I understand the God rebuttal, but the difference is that there is actual scientific evidence of AGW, where as the evidence for God is entirely fictional.
Things need to move past the "oh, there's still a debate going on in science", because there isn't. There are a few who disagree, and that's good, because if there are errors those people will help find them, but the people who agree are also...
Final Signature required on the Wind Turbines: just go to the website and sign.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Smarnil: It is nice that you tell me what my points are, missing both and then manage to prove me wrong. Congratulations.
My objections are:
Their methodology leaves much to be desired.
The media spin is murderous, and their treatment of dissenting voices stinks.
They are pushing a political agenda that will hurt more than it helps.But of course, you know what I mean better than I do. Also, nice touch on the gnomes of Zurich thing. I must be psychotic if I don't agree with all the AGWers here, right?
Hi !
I obviously can't tell what your points ARE, and didn't even try. Onthe other hand, I did tell you what they SOUND like.
And I wasn't too far off the mark, since the hidden "poiltical agenda" is back.
We are both ill-equipped to accurately judge the methodology used, as we don't have the required background knowledge. We have either to go back to school for half a decade, or put some faith in all the scientists that all around the world tell us that yes, it is the real thing or as close as it gets. You obviously can't do that, because of yout belief in a worldwide, hidden political agenda shared by all climatologists.
It's not psychotic, and you're certainly entitled to any (strong) opinions you want, but can't youu see that explained like that, it can make you sound like a little bit eccentric ?
(sorry about the gnomes if it hurt you. It was intended as a fun line, not an ad hominem. Or ad femina.)
Eccentric, as in "holding views not in the mainstream"? Yes, definitely. It is a harsh world not to agree with AGW today and telling people so.
First things first: Is a conspiracy possible? Could a large enough group of people with enough funding supplant proper scientific workings with a certain political agenda? Could this be protected in the media?
I obviously think there is a possibility of something like that. Some time ago, I doubt it would be possible, but today, with a few very large media conglomerates running the show, most likely. People like Murdoch have incredible pull. Given that a few people nominate the editors in chief of various major news organs, and can fire those who step out of line, a level of control of medial content is possible today that has never been before. Next up is scientific grants. In contrast to earlier, the decision processes on who will get grants is extremely centralised today. Politicians nominate the people who share their agenda to the grant boards. Someone who protests doesn't get grants, and won't be able to live off research or get serious computer time, and so on. The centralization of scientific boards is a known problem that has been noticed in various publications and essays. The peer review process is the best practice we know today, but it does have weak spots. One is that with a critical mass of people forming a clique, publication can easily be denied those who do not agree. It does take a pretty solid infiltration of various journal boards, but it IS possible. I suspect this is the reason that the AGWers make such a fuss about not listening to anyone who is not a climatologist. Other fields are free of infiltration, and so present a danger instead of a chance to see new viewpoints. Finally, education in science is primarily a mentor-student relationship, and again there is a distinct possibility of selection on the basis of opinions held, nominations of loyal people to university positions and so on. The selection IS possible, and there is much that speaks of it.
Next question: what is necessary to do it? Obviously, a lot of money. A zoggin shitload of money. You also need some kind of privacy, and you need people. Politicians want more influence, and very few anti-authoritarians get to call any shots in politics today. The environmentalists of today are highly authoritarian, and get supported by politicians with the same agenda. Al Gore and the IPCC getting the nobel peace prize, anyone? Where do they get the people? The movement grew out of the more radical environmental elements of the sixties and the seventies, and taking a look at various boards and such, a background in Greenpeace or similar organizations is very common. These people have their own vested interest in keeping the image as it is. The politicians have an interest in not losing their tool, you know, happy, rich and safe people don't want to give more power to their politicians for sweeping changes. The media have both their own reputation at stake and their relationship to the politicians to think of.
A conspiracy is entirely possible, but it doesn't look like people imagine it. Each person involved has a very good reason for aligning their interests with it. And, perhaps sadly, there are a lot fewer waxed moustaches and diamond-collared fluffy white cats than people tend to think.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If all the other athletes kept supporting the bad athlete, still claiming he was right, it would be closer. Still, athletes do not try to sell a worldview, or make claims to telling truth, so your analogy doesn't hold. If the political organizations keep at malfeasance, serious scientists have a choice to make: cut their ties to such organizations, or be tainted by associating despite known falsehood. Like it or not, but that is how science works. Outside the climatology field, of course. Making a study for a tobacco company is enough to get few visitors to a respiratory health conference that you host.
I get it. In your viewpoint, politics and association is more important than actual science. You don't care if good science is being done, as long as it's under the purview of the IPCC.
If the IPCC says something, you have determined that since they said it, it therefore must be false.
A lot of things, explaining how a clmimatologist conspiracy woule be possible.
Well, conspiracies are possible. No doubt about that. But are they probable and sustainable on such a global scale ? Truly ?
You certainly can disagree with and dislike ecologists. Some of them hold truly over-the-top claims, such as going back to candles, and deserve the "green ayatollahs" nickname they got.
But...
1) they are a tiny minority of the ecologists, who comes in all stripes. Some of them even favor nuclear power, because of its lack of CO2 print. They also are a quarrel-prone mob, not a monolithic church.
2) painting in black all scientists of a given specialty just because they do have a current theory that favor the ecologists you don't like makes you just as irrationnal as the ecologists you disagree with.
"Blind disbelief" is no more rational than blind belief.
Look at the science, and forget the messenger.
If only that were possible. But so long as the IPCC quality control is lacking, so long as their "guide for policy makers" or whatever it is called contains resurrected hockey sticks, so long as the emails that have leaked are not taken seriously and buried by associates, and their ugly discussion methods continue, and so on, the relationship between the ugly political organizations and the scientists must be seen as a symbiotic one rather than a parasitic one. The scientists get money for publishing stuff the politicos want to have published. The opposing findings are refused and never seen again, their authors eventually go to other work to pay the bills.
The scientific method is there for the express purpose of making it possible to forget the messenger and only bother with the message. But part of scientific method is not hiding declines for any reason, not making ideology more important than the message, not changing stuff because someone who pays your salary likes the resulting graph better, not silencing dissenting voices, and so on. I agree with you, it may not be a total loss. Honest climatologists can try to take back the IPCC and improve it, they can try to alert everyone about what is going on, for example by leaking emails, they can refuse participation in political hijinx... But so far they haven't done more than leak emails, twice. Or, they may have, but the media has chosen not to report on it... For some reason.
Every so often, I wish I had an easier time believing, but I don't. I don't think that is likely to change.
A lot of things, explaining how a clmimatologist conspiracy woule be possible.Well, conspiracies are possible. No doubt about that. But are they probable and sustainable on such a global scale ? Truly ?
I am 100% sure they are, and I've seen people do a lot of dumb s*** for money or power in the mere 20 years that I've lived.
I am 100% sure they are, and I've seen people do a lot of dumb s*** for money or power in the mere 20 years that I've lived.A lot of things, explaining how a clmimatologist conspiracy woule be possible.Well, conspiracies are possible. No doubt about that. But are they probable and sustainable on such a global scale ? Truly ?
Perhaps you can explain the motive?
Step 1) Fool or bribe the worlds scientists into reaching the wrong conclusion so thoroughly that a coalition of oil, gas, and coal companies can't undo it with their own sponsored studies.
Step 2) Freeze your nuts off in the arctic collecting ice samples.
Step 3) .......?
Step 4) Profit
The American representatives who have delayed for days, claiming they will never sign the latest gobbledigook "climate" treaty in Cancun, Durban, Copenhagen, Rio and so on, only to "fold to the pressure" at the end, signing the gobbledigook and giving the environmentalists what they want every time? No, not in mandatory carbon emissions... but in building a central administration of climate administration in a series of "nontraditional international authorities" and gigantic funds? And if you question the world leaders' dedication to this planned future, perhaps you need the excitement of reading the document they ALL signed in 1992 at the conference in Rio: Agenda 21. Just don't expect stimulating reading. Everything that has happened in the field of climate politics these last few years is entirely by that book. I see no reason not to think this will continue. My thought would be that 1992 was the year for this because the cold war was finally over, and a new enemy was needed. Climate change and the threat of "THE END IS NIGH!!!oneone" in fifty years was chosen. A bit later that year, NATO had also decided that their military infrastructure, including nuclear subs, was still necessary to focus on the fight against the muslim threat (Way to go setting up satrap tyrants in budding democracies that you will eventually have to fight...), they just said so very quietly.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You're talking about politics. Not science.
They're connected via the green tape called money.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If only that were possible. But so long as the IPCC quality control is lacking, so long as their "guide for policy makers" or whatever it is called contains resurrected hockey sticks, so long as the emails that have leaked are not taken seriously and buried by associates, and their ugly discussion methods continue, and so on, the relationship between the ugly political organizations and the scientists must be seen as a symbiotic one rather than a parasitic one. The scientists get money for publishing stuff the politicos want to have published. The opposing findings are refused and never seen again, their authors eventually go to other work to pay the bills.
The scientific method is there for the express purpose of making it possible to forget the messenger and only bother with the message. But part of scientific method is not hiding declines for any reason, not making ideology more important than the message, not changing stuff because someone who pays your salary likes the resulting graph better, not silencing dissenting voices, and so on. I agree with you, it may not be a total loss. Honest climatologists can try to take back the IPCC and improve it, they can try to alert everyone about what is going on, for example by leaking emails, they can refuse participation in political hijinx... But so far they haven't done more than leak emails, twice. Or, they may have, but the media has chosen not to report on it... For some reason.
Every so often, I wish I had an easier time believing, but I don't. I don't think that is likely to change.
Nice theory, but so far the politicos do their best to IGNORE the warnings issued by the scientists.
Yes, we have vague declarations of intentions signed at each earth summit, but no real commitments (except unilateral ones in the European Union) and nothing changes. If it is a conspiracy, it's the less efficient one of all history.
They're connected via the green tape called money.
Incorrect. Scientists are connected to politics through money (if at all).
The fundamental laws of the universe could care less.
I repeat... Cutting greenhouse gas emissions is not happening in a legally binding way. That is not in question. What IS happening, though, is the building up of a massive, unelected bureaucracy with impressive funding. More with every gobbledigook treaty. Every summit is loudly and publicly declared a failure... But the money is NEVER mentioned, and the treaties DO succeed in many things there.
I would prefer it if they were discussing cutting emissions. As you say, they aren't. The conspiracy is not inefficient. It is merely doing something you did not expect it to be doing.
Edit: I sincerely suggest you guys try to find the treaty texts (which has become surprisingly difficult for some reason) and read them. I am not joking about the gobbledigook.
I repeat... Cutting greenhouse gas emissions is not happening in a legally binding way. That is not in question. What IS happening, though, is the building up of a massive, unelected bureaucracy with impressive funding. More with every gobbledigook treaty. Every summit is loudly and publicly declared a failure... But the money is NEVER mentioned, and the treaties DO succeed in many things there.
I would prefer it if they were discussing cutting emissions. As you say, they aren't. The conspiracy is not inefficient. It is merely doing something you did not expect it to be doing.
I failed to see how and why building another UN bureau is so horrible... And would consitute a valid and desirable goal for the bloated, worldwide conspiracy you envision.
I mean, you are speaking of a conspiracy with widespread control over the medias and the scientific community, which means a multibillion budget, hellbent on creating... a new UN bureau for ecological matters, devoid of any coercitive power ? The pain! the horror! (ok, I'm openly ribbing you here. Please take it as a fiendly gesture).
Don't you think our secret masters would have been better off spending the billions they used to obtain control of both the media and the scientific community drinking martinis by a swimming pool in the first place ?
Sorry, but I can't take that seriously.
EDIT : the gobbledigook is the normal result of a treaty whose every and last word had to be bent three ways before all the participants agreed to sign it. Classic committee work : enter valid and coherent project, exit lameduck treaty.
Not if they want to KEEP sipping martinis. You can treat a population worse in wartime for the cause. That requires a war. The non-US West wasn't too keen on joining the Long War, were they?
I begin to see Sissyl's point, and I believe it is applicable to many aspects of governance today, and is relevant to the topical question of the sustainability of current models for civilization.
As an older person I am reminded of a “joke-ish” sort of trick we use to play on each other as children. It was called, “Jiggery-Pokery”. The idea was you waved your hand, the left or right it didn’t matter, off to one side of you to get your friends attention, and then with the other hand you poked him in the belly while he wasn’t looking.
So much of what I see today in politics, business, climate arguments, oil resources, just about everything, seems to me to be a game of Jiggery-Pokery.
Thank you. I am certainly not all knowing. I second guess myself constantly. However, I read enough to notice patterns, and the ones I see are not flattering.
Jiggery-pokery sounds about right.
Quick verification : the almost only tangible result of the Earth Summits seems to be the creation of the Green Climate Fund (GCF), whose funds will be administrated by the World Bank.
So far (according to a novemeber 2012 document), it has got an administrative budget of 7,5 million dollars (for the period between the 1st of november 2012 to the 31 of december 2013), and has collected a grand total of 3,5 million dollars for its trust fund from different countries.
So ?
EDIT : the treaties seem to be easy enough to access on the UN site. I WONT go through them. It's your conspiracy, not mine !
You have links? I have tried finding them, in particular the Durban one, on the UN site, without success.
Gobble DeGook, I understand, is a committee member of the Goblin proletariat charged with the writing of Goblin/Kobold treaties, most of which always include this provision
Um, excuse me, Citizen Terquem is it?
Yeah, well, look: the commie goblin angle thing? That's mine. I've got it copyrighted and shiznit and no one is allowed to make stuff up about the Glorious Goblin's Revolution without paying me a cut. I like you, so, let's say, 15%?
Otherwise, I'm afraid we're going to have to set up picketlines around your home and workplace.
Also, Comrade Gobble DeGook is not amused. Be warned.
[Pushes Comrade Le Couard aside]
What?
I don't even know what that means.
Lissen, buddy, I was trying to be nice. But if you're not going to play along, there's all kinds of things that can happen, capeesh?
I am not greedy, I just want to wet my beak. But we goblins will not take the high hat anymore, Terquem! 20% or we'll burn you to the ground, stooge!
Get off my hairy feet, Unclebiter !
You have links? I have tried finding them, in particular the Durban one, on the UN site, without success.Sure. Here is the link to the Durban page on their research engine.
Thank you. I guess I have stimulating reading in my future... How was it put again...? Mrgh.
I dunno if it truly is a good idea for a goblin to provoke a sexy shoeless god of WAR... =)
I dunno if it truly is a good idea for a goblin to provoke a sexy shoeless god of WAR... =)
I even got the T-shirt to prove it, courtesy of friends of mine. Hobbits rulez !
Comrade Le Couard, as a representative of French socialism and the Bellflower Network, I humbly apologize for stepping on your sexy feet.
If you will join me and the Commonwealth Party of Galt (M-L) in an international general strike against environmental degradation and capitalism and Terquem's violation of intellectual copyright laws, I'd be much obliged.
Small-sized humanoids of all lands, unite!
This is why I love the Internet. Trying to find all you hilarious doomsayers on street corners was just exhausting. So how many of you think some collapse is actually going to happen and how many just want it to happen?
I think it's going to happen and I want it to. I lothe our armed forces and it makes me sick when I see the local recruits jogging down the street. I wholly disagree with our foreign policy and the only way I see it ending is when noone funds the US government anymore. The currency is worth less and less each day, and when I see 20's and 100's crisp and new I see them as they are, worthless pieces of paper. For some reason people still take them, but it will come to and end, and I'm looking forward to it.
See, this is my problem right here:
I would say not very sustainable.
Thought I don't mean that in a "the sky is falling" way. Just that, given current technology, the planet couldn't support a U.S. lifestyle for seven billion people.
Our current model is very sustainable so long as we only give nice things like electrical power to the upper echelons of society. First world lifestyle for the third world has never been a big part of our civilization.
...What?
Gobble DeGook, I understand, is a committee member of the Goblin proletariat charged with the writing of Goblin/Kobold treaties, most of which always include this provisionUm, excuse me, Citizen Terquem is it?
Yeah, well, look: the commie goblin angle thing? That's mine. I've got it copyrighted and shiznit and no one is allowed to make stuff up about the Glorious Goblin's Revolution without paying me a cut. I like you, so, let's say, 15%?
Otherwise, I'm afraid we're going to have to set up picketlines around your home and workplace.
Also, Comrade Gobble DeGook is not amused. Be warned.
NU-UH
NO COPYRIGHT LAWS UNDER REGIME
YOUR IDEA BELONGS TO THE COLLECTIVE
ALSO, YOU EXCEED QUOTA FOR PICKETLINE REQUESTS. NO MORE PICKETLINES THIS WEEK FOR YOU. MAYBE BURNING OF TIRES, BUT ONLY SEVENTEEN, AND NO ROCKS