I thought those were horns.
I hear they eat babies.
So what could end civilisation as we know it?
Global warming: already covered
Worker robots: If the rich manage to replace workers completely with robots (and they're getting better and better) , who would be able to buy anything that they were making? The .01% would control anything. Would they be able to keep the masses down with bread and circuses, or would they screw up control so badly that they triggered a socialist revolution?
If you thin financials and other service industries are safe from this.. think again. They already have computer stock brokers.
Any of the galactic sick jokes, Ie. Gamma-ray burst, blackhole x-ray jet, coming within range of a quiet black hole, bumping into a quarkstar or individual strangelet.
Guys... seriously. Get a grip. I have said what I intend to say in this. I answered LazarX because I found his insinuations offensive and his arguments pathetic. You keep claiming that I don't have the right to question the climatologists' arguments because I am not a climatologist myself, and yet even someone showing a severe lack of basic scirntific principles feels he is entitled to lecture me. You act like piranhas. If someone dares to question the tenets of the Church of the Holy AGW, you keep beating them over the head with the latest Scripture without even trying to understand what your victim is saying. I don't want to hear your Scripture anymore. Your behaviour is apalling and is, to be absolutely honest, quite unlikely to convince anyone. Even if you are Right.
I'm just pointing out the actual science behind AGW that you seem to think doesn't exist.
|
A coronal mass ejection on the scale of which the Earth was hit with in the 19th century could if it hit at the right angle and force could blow out every transformer on the planet.So what could end civilisation as we know it?
Global warming: already covered
Worker robots: If the rich manage to replace workers completely with robots (and they're getting better and better) , who would be able to buy anything that they were making? The .01% would control anything. Would they be able to keep the masses down with bread and circuses, or would they screw up control so badly that they triggered a socialist revolution?
If you thin financials and other service industries are safe from this.. think again. They already have computer stock brokers.
The following chaos and violence would end all modern nations in short order
So what could end civilisation as we know it?
Global warming: already covered
Worker robots: If the rich manage to replace workers completely with robots (and they're getting better and better) , who would be able to buy anything that they were making? The .01% would control anything. Would they be able to keep the masses down with bread and circuses, or would they screw up control so badly that they triggered a socialist revolution?
If you thin financials and other service industries are safe from this.. think again. They already have computer stock brokers.
Because, you know... I am the paranoid one here?
The following chaos and violence would end all modern nations in short order
I doubt it. People outside of the cities could more or less hang out till the power got back on. They could keep food distribution going on diesel and gas until the power came back on.
Because, you know... I am the paranoid one here?
Well your reaction to any comment or link people try to reply to you with seems to be to call them mean and that they are harassing you, at the same time switching to completely different argument in the climate denial playbook.
So yeah...
1. Try living in any of the states that Hurricane Sandy blacked out for a mere four days. (weeks in spots.)
Been there, done that, got the T shirt.
Coulda used a wash but i got the t shirt.
2. Factor in that we would be talking about replacement times that would stretch into months, perhaps years. This is of course with the entire power grid basically hosed into non existence, so NO one is getting any supplies. You're looking at a minimum of a major die off of population with all the intendent chaos that would ensue.Still think it would be such a minor matter?
Just the transformers, which are just two coils of copper wire. We'd be throwing everything we had into getting them replaced (and comming up with an alternative that wasn't quite so subject to flares)
I don't see anything that's going to break down government permanantly. People aren't going to stop being Americans because there's no power, particularly since most of our military is petroleum, not electrical grid based.
Some bad things probably get sorted out in the dark, but people will come to their senses when the lights go back on.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
A coronal mass ejection on the scale of which the Earth was hit with in the 19th century could if it hit at the right angle and force could blow out every transformer on the planet.So what could end civilisation as we know it?
Global warming: already covered
Worker robots: If the rich manage to replace workers completely with robots (and they're getting better and better) , who would be able to buy anything that they were making? The .01% would control anything. Would they be able to keep the masses down with bread and circuses, or would they screw up control so badly that they triggered a socialist revolution?
If you thin financials and other service industries are safe from this.. think again. They already have computer stock brokers.
Great, so the Decepticons win. Way to go, civilization, way to go.
The Decepticons are Transformers too, Klaus. Seriously, you're not qualified to make arguments in this discussion. According to the IPTT, a coronal mass ejection on that scale would be one of the few things that could save us.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Decepticons are Transformers too, Klaus. Seriously, you're not qualified to make arguments in this discussion. According to the IPTT, a coronal mass ejection on that scale would be one of the few things that could save us.
This line again?
Look, germany, fifth largest GDP in the world, supplies 20% of its base load, through variable renewable micro-generation, with a massive potential for growth, and is heading for more. Their economy has not suffered.
I'd love to see a quote from the IPCC calling for a zero growth economy.
Along with something about all the different government's conspiring to set up a totalitarian world government, because apparently that's what governments want to do: Increase government power in the abstract, even if it means their particular government loses sovereignty.
I don't understand libertarians.
'
Well, if say America tried to set up a totalitarian regime on its own, then people could flee to canada. The only way to get a reaaaly totalitarian regime is for everyone to do it all together at the same time.
And this must be the plan, because there's no other explanation for americas actions other than it trying to become a totalitarian regime... of course good ideas never get out of hand, or each step seemed like a good idea at the time.. and government agencies NEVER screw up...
But that's not it. It's why is Canada in on the conspiracy? If there's going to be a world government, it's not like Canada's going to be at the top. What do the conspirators running the Canadian part of the scheme get out of it? Or the Chinese? Or the Russians? Or the Guineans, for that matter?
Two answers
1) Either the people who will be in charge are a non government group/shadow government group of powerful individuals like the Bilderberg Group manipulating the government
or
2) They must be getting something out of it , because why else are they going along with it?
People tend to get the narrative first and then the facts.
So, in this narrative, the IPCC is necessarily evil because it's a goovernment/UN agency ?
Trying to make sense of all that stuff here.
So, in this narrative, the IPCC is necessarily evil because it's a goovernment/UN agency ?
Trying to make sense of all that stuff here.
Because it is making plans for a giant slush fund that nations are contributing to but don't control. It's an attack on sovereignty or something. The assumption that said moneys aren't to be used for their stated purpose (incentivizing better, more ecologically-minded behavior in member states) but rather part of some totalitarian scheme to circumvent democracy is purely in Sissyl's imagination.
I wouldn't be surprised if Sissyl was right, though.
I wouldn't be surprised if Sissyl was right, though.
We know.
|
|
Along with something about all the different government's conspiring to set up a totalitarian world government, because apparently that's what governments want to do: Increase government power in the abstract, even if it means their particular government loses sovereignty.
I don't understand libertarians.
'
Well, if say America tried to set up a totalitarian regime on its own, then people could flee to canada. The only way to get a reaaaly totalitarian regime is for everyone to do it all together at the same time.
And this must be the plan, because there's no other explanation for americas actions other than it trying to become a totalitarian regime... of course good ideas never get out of hand, or each step seemed like a good idea at the time.. and government agencies NEVER screw up...
Wouldn't work: US Security contractors are now employed in All Ports in Canada. Canada is now ripe for occupation by the White house so ten minutes into your 'road trip to Canada' you would be tasered for attempting to escape. So welcome to the CANADA SECURITY ZONE.
Because it is making plans for a giant slush fund that nations are contributing to but don't control. It's an attack on sovereignty or something. The assumption that said moneys aren't to be used for their stated purpose (incentivizing better, more ecologically-minded behavior in member states) but rather part of some totalitarian scheme to circumvent democracy is purely in Sissyl's imagination.So, in this narrative, the IPCC is necessarily evil because it's a goovernment/UN agency ?
Trying to make sense of all that stuff here.
Nations contribute to, but don't control, any of the UN agencies. The recent Green fund is no different. And I can't wait to see what global conspiracy it could put in place with a 10 million budget, tops.
We are all talking about vague accusations of wrongdoing by the IPCC here. It would be nice that Sissyl gave us some actual piece of her evidence, or even better, a link to her sources (extraordinary claims need solid proof, not hearsay). Otherwise, we are all going round and round.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You see! MILLIONS OF DOLLARS are being spent on the conspiracy.
That is a lot of money to some people. Therefore they assume that its a lot of money for anything.
Its not surprising that people take a negative opinion of it: it is very easy to make vauge, unfounded accusations given the anti government and anti foreign sentiments in some segments of this country. Its not very surprising that a lot of corporations would encourage that thinking against an organization that wants to cut into their profit margin.
Okay. You are right. If they are going to have a climate fund of 10 million dollars, then I am obviously a fool and wrong, since nobody could create a global conspiracy for pocket change.
Except it seems to be more on the order of a few thousand times that sum every year from the Climate Fund alone.
So since you guys have had your fun about a global conspiracy with ten million dollars, would you now be kind enough to show me where your figure of ten million dollars comes from?
From your link:
"The world has agreed to a help poor countries cope with climate change through a new Green Climate Fund that will hand out around £60bn per annum from 2020. However, again the details of the agreement are very vague. All that has been decided is that a body will be set up to distribute and manage the funds. It is not yet clear how the money will be raised. Possible plans to raise fund from a tax on shipping or aviation have not been signed off."
60 billion is wishful thinking...there are no provisions given on how to raise that money. One would think a massive global conspiracy might have been able to nail down something like, oh how they are going to fund there massive global conspiracy
Okay. You are right. If they are going to have a climate fund of 10 million dollars, then I am obviously a fool and wrong, since nobody could create a global conspiracy for pocket change.
Except it seems to be more on the order of a few thousand times that sum every year from the Climate Fund alone.
So since you guys have had your fun about a global conspiracy with ten million dollars, would you now be kind enough to show me where your figure of ten million dollars comes from?
Your link doesn't explain what you think it explains.
It shows how the talks resulted in weak legal consequences, meaning the agreement doesn't really have any enforcement plans. It failed to mention that multiple countries withdrew from providing funding, or that to date funding has been well short of goals. Looking around, it has received $11 billion, more than the $10 million, but that's still well short of the proposed $60 billion initial fund or the $100 billion goal for 2020. $10 billion is a lot of money, but for a global conspiracy it isn't that much.
The Koch brothers here in America are worth $31 billion each and they couldn't buy an election here in the US this last election cycle. Sheldon Adelson spent $15 million, his wife spent another $15 million, no one they backed won.
South Africa has a GDP of $400 Billion, it still has 40 times the influence that this fund has. While that's the richest country in Africa, it's still just one country in Africa. In fact, 26 of 52 countries in Africa have a GDP over $11 billion in 2011. Yes, that fund could heavily influence one of those countries. But that's the thing, you'd need to spend a major portion of the fund to gain control over ONE country and that country would be small and poor, not really giving you a lot of control on the world stage.
This is also part of the reason that the fund is poorly equipped. It doesn't actually have enough money to run programs that are significant enough to affect change to help the climate either.
Overall, I think that difference is immaterial to Sissyl's assertion of a global conspiracy.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The thing is, historically one of the biggest reasons for the collapse of civilizations has been over use of resources at the local level leads to a local collapse. You have it in Sumeria, Classical Maya, Chaco Anasazi, Khmer and bluntly I could go on and on with examples.
Another factor has been enviromental change, including climate change. The biggest one is the introduction of diseases into the New World wiping out around 90% of the local populations. But you can go on with examples from Minoan Crete, the Greenland Norse, the destabalization of medieval society because of the black death, and various Chinese dynasties. You have some good evidence that this had a hand in the fall of Rome.
Now we are using resources at an unsustainable level, creating climate change which lead to changes in other enviromental factors, and we say it will have no or little effect or try to pretend that they won't?
That is pure madness.
So... administrative budget of 10 million? First, a fund's impact is not measured by how much money it costs to administer it. Second, if sixty billion dollars per annum is what has been agreed to, that is far more relevant than what their administrative budget is, and third, as I also pointed out, this is only one fund of MANY.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So... administrative budget of 10 million? First, a fund's impact is not measured by how much money it costs to administer it. Second, if sixty billion dollars per annum is what has been agreed to, that is far more relevant than what their administrative budget is, and third, as I also pointed out, this is only one fund of MANY.
Except the fund isn't receiving $60 billion a year. It received $11.3 billion over 2 1/2 years and it's slowing down. Countries are withdrawing their commitments faster than new funds are being added.
The US, China and India have all worked hard to make sure that these international organizations do not have a mechanism of enforcement. Which is a point you still haven't addressed. None of these climate organizations actually have any form of legal power that is recognized anywhere.
The US has stepped back efforts to limit the legal authority of such organizations, but only because India and China have take a more vocal role. Your theories rely on conjecture, coincidence and 'possibilities'. AGW is based on science, which does not rely on those three concepts.
Okay. You are right. If they are going to have a climate fund of 10 million dollars, then I am obviously a fool and wrong, since nobody could create a global conspiracy for pocket change.
Except it seems to be more on the order of a few thousand times that sum every year from the Climate Fund alone.
So since you guys have had your fun about a global conspiracy with ten million dollars, would you now be kind enough to show me where your figure of ten million dollars comes from?
Thejeff is spot on : 20 billion is wishful thinking, 10 million is what the GCF ACTUALLY got so far. My source is an UN report, november 2012.
Classic gap between good intents and real spendings... You can see the same phenomenon going on all humanitarian programs ("we will send you zillions of rupies !... Someday").
So... administrative budget of 10 million? First, a fund's impact is not measured by how much money it costs to administer it. Second, if sixty billion dollars per annum is what has been agreed to, that is far more relevant than what their administrative budget is, and third, as I also pointed out, this is only one fund of MANY.
Nope, administrative budget of seven million dollars. Funds pledged and really sent over amount to... three million dollars only (2,9 actually), HALF LESS than the money put aside for payroll, rent and heating (total amount of pledges : 6,07 million dollars, still less than the administrative budget).
Source : http://www.gcfund.net/fileadmin/00_customer/documents/pdf/B.02_Inf.02_Statu s_of_resources.pdf, page 5, with details on page 6 and 7. South Korea is the main contributor so far, followed by Denmark, Germany, Finland, USA and Australia.
So far, the multibillion dollars GCF budget is just a wet dream (no pun related to searise intended).
What other funds have you in mind ?
Are you just looking at Annex 1 there? Annex 2 shows that $1.3 billion was collected. Annex 1 is a fairly small time period and I'm not sure what all this document covers as I can find some bigger numbers other places. It says "inception to XXXX" date, but I think that is due to a renaming of entities or other types of legalese procedures.
There are billions involved with climate change organizations. Another, more broadly scoped report shows that the EU contributed a bit over $2 billion in 2010 and 2011 (each), but that those were under a third of what they had pledged to contribute.
I'm sure Sissyl will explain to us she isn't an accountant and can't trace all that money, therefore it must be part of a global conspiracy, even though it's not even enough to buy a controlling interest in some of the world's largest corporations.
Are you just looking at Annex 1 there? Annex 2 shows that $1.3 billion was collected. Annex 1 is a fairly small time period and I'm not sure what all this document covers as I can find some bigger numbers other places. It says "inception to XXXX" date, but I think that is due to a renaming of entities or other types of legalese procedures.
There are billions involved with climate change organizations. Another, more broadly scoped report shows that the EU contributed a bit over $2 billion in 2010 and 2011 (each), but that those were under a third of what they had pledged to contribute.
I'm sure Sissyl will explain to us she isn't an accountant and can't trace all that money, therefore it must be part of a global conspiracy, even though it's not even enough to buy a controlling interest in some of the world's largest corporations.
Uh, no. 1,318,859 $ is 1.3 million dollars, not billion. Beware : annex II is in (single) dollars, annex I charts are in thousands (000's) of dollars.
GCF is a fund that depends of the UNFCC, with a different budget. I zoomed on it because it is the one born in Durban (COP 17, 2011), the Earth summit that Sissyl mentioned in particular (it's the one that is supoosed to get tens of billions, and got peanuts so far).
Your document correspond to various humanitarian actions made unilaterally by different countries following the Copenhagen (COP 15, 2009) Earth summit, before the GCF was even born. Those spendings are still controlled by the contributing countries, and so can't be part of the conspiracy budget (I understand that they are tracked by the UNFCC because they are supposed to match the pledges made at Copenhagen covering the 2010-2012 period, not because they go into its budget).
Ah, you're right on that bit. I hate it when documents change notations like that (or like the UNFCC report which uses completely different layouts for each country, the layout of a report should be done by people who talk to each other).
I do agree, overall the evidence of a global conspiracy is basically non-existent. The most compelling evidence exists only in peoples imaginations.
The most compelling evidence exists only in peoples imaginations.
And that's how religion was born.
Ah, you're right on that bit. I hate it when documents change notations like that (or like the UNFCC report which uses completely different layouts for each country, the layout of a report should be done by people who talk to each other).
I do agree, overall the evidence of a global conspiracy is basically non-existent. The most compelling evidence exists only in peoples imaginations.
I guess that the layout variation comes from the fact that each country reported separately to the UNFCC its spendings in the Copenhagen "fast-financing" framework.
Please, take it easy on the "pure imagination" bit, and be gentle. Sissyl do have a strong opinion on that point (seemingly because she can't stand ecologists for some reason, which she bundles with climatologists) but she usually got balanced and argumentated points of view, and I would really would want to know from where she got her info.
It may be how faiths are born. To make them religions, you need:
1) A central, unquestionable dogma.
2) Masses of support for the central dogma, written down and used as evidence.
3) Definitions of Sins (stuff that is supposed to make you feel guilty) and Virtues (strangely never as important as the Sins).
4) A vision of some kind of Paradise that can be reached or approached through the religion's goals, whether they call it Heaven, the Classless Society or the Sustainable Society. This is what motivates the suffering/costs the changes championed will cause.
5) A priesthood hierarchy that profits politically and economically from the religion and its structure.
6) Backing from temporal power.
7) Evangelicism, in the form of dedicated groups to spread specially prepared messages.
8) A system of censure, both to denigrate heathens/unbelievers, and especially to heckle/punish apostates/previous believers.
Yeah. Don't go there.