The REAL global warming

[maiden22]

You surely are an expert in elevating ideology over truth. "Climate Change is like communism". How can you write this stuff with a straight face?

Doubtless you've heard the term "watermelons".

Both are extremist ideologies that are profoundly anti-human, and in both cases the main aim is control, or power if you prefer.

Both are based on the lies of wicked men. One has done untold damage, justified by the purity of its purpose and the wickedness of those who opposed it. The other is poised to do a great deal of evil, and will be responsible for many preventable deaths. Even now, whilst the world's leaders makes themselves ridiculous in sub-zero temperatures in northern Europe, think of the good that could be done if resources were diverted from climate change to real problems that affect millions now.

As a small point, I presume that you don't need me to give you a list of the prominent proponents of AGW who have called for the punishment of "deniers", and for the force of the law to be utilised against those who express opinions contrary to their own. The global warming ideology has always been totalitarian - it is increasingly so in the open. Opponents may look forward to show trials, re-education and the concept of thought crime.

Climate change could have been specifically designed as a response to America's extraordinary restraint and benevolence as the global hegemon.

 

[Splitlink]

No government is going to affect its economy by cutting pollution to such an extent by shutting down coal and oil power stations. This is the problem that politicians have to face. This is a vicious circle and we are on a slippery slope.

The only hope we have is harnessing the sun's energy and, unless we start cutting population growth,
that will only be a stopgap.

 

[maiden22]

Maybe one day we'll have discovered a way to effectively harness the power of sunshine. But by then it won't matter - power will be cheap and abundant, and future generations will scratch their heads over how we fretted about this or that outdated resource running out.

In 1903, the Wright Brothers made the first powered flight in some contraption they knocked up in the back yard out of plywood and some bits of string. The first manned spacecraft orbitted the earth in 1961, less than 60 years later.

How can people possibly be so pessimistic?

 

[Black Swan]

Blade Runner or Mad Max?

Maybe one day we'll have discovered a way to effectively harness the power of sunshine. But by then it won't matter - power will be cheap and abundant, and future generations will scratch their heads over how we fretted about this or that outdated resource running out.

In 1903, the Wright Brothers made the first powered flight in some contraption they knocked up in the back yard out of plywood and some bits of string. The first manned spacecraft orbitted the earth in 1961, less than 60 years later.

How can people possibly be so pessimistic?

I saw the maiden flight of the latest techno Boeing Jumbo on the tv the other day, 7 years in the making, full of techno wheezes; carcon fibre instead of metal, less luggage space, can last 20% longer than a conventional craft...but that is it. Sure it'll use 20% less fuel and cause less pollution but that's as far as it gets and tbh my friend that puts the 5hits up me and I'll tell you why...

If that's as far as we can push technology after 7 years of R&D by the best minds on the planet, on arguably the greatest polutting machine that gives us wealthy our ultimate freedom, then it's as clear as the nose on Al Gore's lying face that there is no alternative fuel in the pipeline.

The Blade Runner scenario isn't even close and Mad Max is looking more likely as each day passes. The sub text of Nohopenhagen was the beginning of the end of subtle arguments over who gets what in the final analysis. Wars will be fought until the last drop is used and btw I'll take the 1.5 trillion barrels argument any day...

In 50-100 years the oil will be gone, and our way of live will find an equality that will be unbearable for the dynastys that have enjoyed hegmony as a consequence.

 

[maiden22]

Re: Blade Runner or Mad Max?

I saw the maiden flight of the latest techno Boeing Jumbo on the tv the other day, 7 years in the making, full of techno wheezes; carcon fibre instead of metal, less luggage space, can last 20% longer than a conventional craft...but that is it. Sure it'll use 20% less fuel and cause less pollution but that's as far as it gets and tbh my friend that puts the 5hits up me and I'll tell you why...

If that's as far as we can push technology after 7 years of R&D by the best minds on the planet, on arguably the greatest polutting machine that gives us wealthy our ultimate freedom, then it's as clear as the nose on Al Gore's lying face that there is no alternative fuel in the pipeline.

The Blade Runner scenario isn't even close and Mad Max is looking more likely as each day passes. The sub text of Nohopenhagen was the beginning of the end of subtle arguments over who gets what in the final analysis. Wars will be fought until the last drop is used and btw I'll take the 1.5 trillion barrels argument any day...

In 50-100 years the oil will be gone, and our way of live will find an equality that will be unbearable for the dynastys that have enjoyed hegmony as a consequence.

You haven't got a long position on oil have you ?

Sure, you could be right - 100 years, we've got a serious problem.

I just can't believe that progress will halt - or even that it's pace will slow. All our experience points in the other direction.

Assume the estimates I quoted are way out, and we've got 100 years of oil left. Think back 100 years, and what the world was like immediately before the Great War. Or 100 years from there, when the Duke was limbering up to give Bonaparte a walloping he wouldn't forget in a hurry. Or a 100 years before? "Queen Anne" was a form of architecture, and not merely another way, as if one were needed, for footballers to flaunt their vulgarity.

Think of what was achieved when the global community of scientists and inventors was largely a few mad English aristocrats beavering away in their gun rooms or follies, testing out their contraptions on themselves or their footmen.

And think of the resources available now - and the increased necessity to find a solution. I simply cannot be anything but optimistic.

It won't be us that does anything of course, unless a scientific use can be found for barbarism fuelled by Black Sambucas and alcopops. My money would be on the Koreans.

EDIT: Like your "If I knew" thread, by the way.

 

[dcraig1]

Climate change could have been specifically designed as a response to America's extraordinary restraint and benevolence as the global hegemon.

Would that be the "restraint and benevolence" shown by the United States when Nagasaki and Hiroshima were incinerated in an act designed to show the post war world (and in particular the former Soviet Union) who would be boss?

Or the carpet bombing of Cambodia conducted in secret where several times the amount of bombs dropped in the entire WWII by allied forces were rained down on utterly defenseless people. How restrained was that? I'll bet the Cambodians really couldn't believe their luck as the recipients of such benevolence.

US benevolence was manifestly obvious in Vietnam too, where the gifts of high explosive, napalm and agent orange and such models of democracy as the strategic hamlets program were freely and generously given.

But lest we think that such "restraint and benevolence" is just a modern aberration and not part of the core of the "exceptionalism" of the US as a nation, we should look at the massacre by the US military in 1901 on the Philippine island of Samar. The US general Smith told his men - "I want no prisoners. I want you to kill and burn. The more you kill and burn, the more it will please me." Estimates the dead - more than ten thousand.

And the restraint shown by right wing death squads backed by the CIA in Argentina, Chile, Columbia, Peru, Honduras, El Salvador, Guatemala and Nicaragua. What is wrong with the population of these countries when such benevolence was right under the very noses?

Not to be weighed down by obsolete concepts like "restraint and benevolence", a much more modern terminology was adopted for the war on Iraq - "shock and awe". So besotted with this new turn of events have the population of Iraq been, that they have been showering their liberators with flowers ever since the start of the war.

With the US military in over a hundred countries, the world has never seen such a benevolent influence. We can truly appreciate the historic significance by listening to the words of US Marine Major General Smedley Butler, reflecting on his career, writing in 1935:

"I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents."

Prior to WWII, Smedley Butler was the highest decorated US Marine.

 

[maiden22]

For Heaven's sake, you argue like a child, and have either no sense of perspective or an extraordinarily poor knowledge of history. I'm beginning to think that you're a teenager who's only here because you got banned from your X-Box forum.

I did not claim that America was perfect, makes no mistakes, and never acts foolishly or with malice. America is guilty of wicked acts just like every other nation.

However, place her actions in the proper context. In the second half of the 20th Century she was possessed of almost unbelievable power. How do you think such power would have been wielded by, for example, the Japanese, Soviets, Vietnamese, Cambodians and anyone else on your list.

As a global force of overwhelming strength, yes, I'm afraid America has shown great restraint.

Ludicrous though it is to assemble these lists, I'll pop down three actions in the credit side of Uncle Sam's ledger, any one of which would dwarf everything that you assembled:

1. Intervention in WW1.
2. Intervention in WW2.
3. Cold War.

For more minor examples, the list is endless. Intervening in the Balkans to save Muslims from mass murder while the EU stood by babbling about how its hour had come, for example.

Or when a Boxing Day tsunami strikes, to take another example. The US Navy is on the scene after two days, saving lives. Meanwhile three weeks go by and the UN finally gets around to sending out an assessment team.

Or if you're a developing country that wants aid. Or if you want somebody to bankroll the UN (of which I would imagine you are a great fan). Or... well, you get the picture.

I really can't be bothered to pull all your arguments apart, as the whole premise is ridiculous. But just to look at a couple of howlers that bookend the period we're talking about. Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved a great many lives on both sides, but particularly on the Japanese side. That does not mean that using nuclear weapons was correct, but it is a fact.

And "shock and awe" was not intended to be restrained or benevolent as it was a military tactic designed to convince enemy combatants of the futility of further resistance. Any such tactic would have to be pretty unrestrained, given that the target audience was used to chemical weapons and tree-shredders (head first, if you please) being used against them by their own government.

America is far from perfect. However, she has behaved better than virtually anyone else would have doone in her position.

 

[dcraig1]

The Balkans - another piece of US (and British) benevolence. The western powers for years sought to promote ethic strife in the former Yugoslavia in order to destabilize the socialist Tito government. They finally achieved their goal and could step in as "heros".

Here is a just a little bit of history that few outside Australia know, not hugely important but it does tell a story.

In 1973 Croatian extremists were actively operating and training in Australia with the connivance of the right wing of the Liberal Party and the Australian domestic intelligence service - ASIO. The then Commonwealth Police, in a report to the attorney general - Lionel Murphy - made it clear that there would be a possible assassination attempt on the president of Yugoslavia in a forthcoming visit. For my part I find it very difficult to believe that ASIO would be involved in this without the knowledge of the British and American intelligence services.

Lionel Murphy took the threat seriously and faced with stonewalling by ASIO, personally lead a contingent of Commonwealth Police and raided the Melbourne offices of ASIO. Lionel Murphy later became a justice of the high court of Australia.

Like I said, only a small incident, but indicative of the repeated meddling by western intelligence services in the affairs of other countries. And a not infrequently used tool - the promotion of ethic conflict.

PS If you want to read a tale of direct meddling by the CIA in Australia in a plot worthy of a Tom Clancy novel, lookup the history the Nugan Hand bank. This is not the imaginings of anti establishment radicals - it was the subject of an Australian Royal Commission of Inquiry. The Nugan Hand bank was intended to become the banker for CIA black ops worldwide.

 

[dcraig1]

For Heaven's sake, you argue like a child, and have either no sense of perspective or an extraordinarily poor knowledge of history. I'm beginning to think that you're a teenager who's only here because you got banned from your X-Box forum.

I did not claim that America was perfect, makes no mistakes, and never acts foolishly or with malice. America is guilty of wicked acts just like every other nation.

However, place her actions in the proper context. In the second half of the 20th Century she was possessed of almost unbelievable power. How do you think such power would have been wielded by, for example, the Japanese, Soviets, Vietnamese, Cambodians and anyone else on your list.

As a global force of overwhelming strength, yes, I'm afraid America has shown great restraint.

Ludicrous though it is to assemble these lists, I'll pop down three actions in the credit side of Uncle Sam's ledger, any one of which would dwarf everything that you assembled:

1. Intervention in WW1.
2. Intervention in WW2.
3. Cold War.

For more minor examples, the list is endless. Intervening in the Balkans to save Muslims from mass murder while the EU stood by babbling about how its hour had come, for example.

Or when a Boxing Day tsunami strikes, to take another example. The US Navy is on the scene after two days, saving lives. Meanwhile three weeks go by and the UN finally gets around to sending out an assessment team.

Or if you're a developing country that wants aid. Or if you want somebody to bankroll the UN (of which I would imagine you are a great fan). Or... well, you get the picture.

I really can't be bothered to pull all your arguments apart, as the whole premise is ridiculous. But just to look at a couple of howlers that bookend the period we're talking about. Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved a great many lives on both sides, but particularly on the Japanese side. That does not mean that using nuclear weapons was correct, but it is a fact.

And "shock and awe" was not intended to be restrained or benevolent as it was a military tactic designed to convince enemy combatants of the futility of further resistance. Any such tactic would have to be pretty unrestrained, given that the target audience was used to chemical weapons and tree-shredders (head first, if you please) being used against them by their own government.

America is far from perfect. However, she has behaved better than virtually anyone else would have doone in her position.

Go and explain your sycophantic attitude to the victims.

 

[dcraig1]

1. Intervention in WW1.
2. Intervention in WW2.

It has been remarked more than once that they took their time about it.

How about the terrible suffering of the people of so many countries that were part of the defeat of Nazism. Don't they count? Obviously they are children of a lesser God, or at the very least not as "exceptional" as the United States.

Do you really think that Nazism in Europe would have been defeated without the terrible sacrifice of the former Soviet Union? More than 20 million dead.

While Britain and the US were carpet bombing German cities and civilians, Russians were fighting the Nazi military machine on the ground, ultimately fatally wounding it. Without this, there would have been no D-day landings.

And no, I am not unaware of the war in Nth Africa, Italy, Greece, the pacific, IndoChina and on and on.

 

[Prawnsandwich]

Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved a great many lives on both sides, but particularly on the Japanese side. That does not mean that using nuclear weapons was correct, but it is a fact.[/QUOTE]

Leaving aside the military efectiveness of it, and Americas role in the 20th century, lets not pretend this was something it was not - no one is arguing that this was not a "fact" - nuclear bombs were dropped on two defenceless civilian populations resulting in the slaughter of hundreds of hundreds of thousands of civilians and more hundreds of thousands horribly injured - women and children included..so enough bull**** that it was to save lives...equally nasty was the fire bombing of many Japanese cities...with similar results....so lets stop pretending there was any humanitarian or "worthwhile" purpose apart from the horrible nasty miliatry objective of victory through punishing civilian populations.....

 

[Prawnsandwich]

Ad the fact remains that the US is the only country to have slaughtered hundreds of thousands of civilians using nuclear weapons....

 

[Splitlink]

Maybe one day we'll have discovered a way to effectively harness the power of sunshine. But by then it won't matter - power will be cheap and abundant, and future generations will scratch their heads over how we fretted about this or that outdated resource running out.

In 1903, the Wright Brothers made the first powered flight in some contraption they knocked up in the back yard out of plywood and some bits of string. The first manned spacecraft orbitted the earth in 1961, less than 60 years later.

How can people possibly be so pessimistic?

I come back to the same thing, maiden22, the doubling of population in a half century. No one is talking about the next half century!

Fifty years is no time at all. I can remember walking with my friend along the sea front, worrying about the millenium bug! It seems impossible that the time has passed so quickly and the problem is that there is no time left for humanity, in general.

 

[Atilla]

I come back to the same thing, maiden22, the doubling of population in a half century. No one is talking about the next half century!

Fifty years is no time at all. I can remember walking with my friend along the sea front, worrying about the millenium bug! It seems impossible that the time has passed so quickly and the problem is that there is no time left for humanity, in general.

You mean the human species... The nity 'ity' bit is still work in progress...

 

[maiden22]

Again, I have never claimed that America is perfect, or that there have not been many victims of its various foreign interventions. Simply that it has been exceptionally benign in its role as the global hegemon and in the context of human history.

Of course one can list bad acts, although if one wishes to be balanced one should list the good acts too - you will find that the latter list is longer. The fact of America's restraint is simply unarguable, and don't forget the massive subsidies it pays the world - both direct and indirect (look at healthcare and military spending as two obvious examples where the world gets a free, or at least very cheap, ride on the back of the American taxpayer).

I find it surprising how few people properly appreciate what an evil thing communism was, and what the world would have been like had America not protected us from it in the decades following the War. The self-loathing of Western intellectuals perhaps? Anyway, google "Ukranian Genocide" to find out (if you're the knid of terminally-PC moron who rants about the evils of the USA but is blind to the carnage caused by left-wing dictators, google "Ukranian Famine").

Prawn, of course the primary objective was military victory, and if you read my post you will find that I did not claim it was motivated by humanitarian concerns. I merely pointed out that it did save lives, on both sides but primarily on the Japanese side.

 

[Prawnsandwich]

Prawn, of course the primary objective was military victory, and if you read my post you will find that I did not claim it was motivated by humanitarian concerns. I merely pointed out that it did save lives, on both sides but primarily on the Japanese side.[/QUOTE]
Im not sure that it saved that many Japanese lives - Japan was already beaten, with what remained of its army fallen back to defend the mainland, and probably would have surrendered albeit conditionally...so if conventional war had continued many more Japanese troops would have died and also civilians from bombing etc....but as many civilians as from two nuclear detonations? Dont think so.

The main reason was to limit further American troop losses. Many argue also that the second bomb was not needed, that Japan was ready to surrender anyway...

Not saying that the Japanese behave impeccably by any means - look at the rape of Nanking and the way it treated its POWs, just dont like sugar coating the reality of what happened....

 

[Atilla]

Again, I have never claimed that America is perfect, or that there have not been many victims of its various foreign interventions. Simply that it has been exceptionally benign in its role as the global hegemon and in the context of human history.

Of course one can list bad acts, although if one wishes to be balanced one should list the good acts too - you will find that the latter list is longer. The fact of America's restraint is simply unarguable, and don't forget the massive subsidies it pays the world - both direct and indirect (look at healthcare and military spending as two obvious examples where the world gets a free, or at least very cheap, ride on the back of the American taxpayer).

I find it surprising how few people properly appreciate what an evil thing communism was, and what the world would have been like had America not protected us from it in the decades following the War. The self-loathing of Western intellectuals perhaps? Anyway, google "Ukranian Genocide" to find out (if you're the knid of terminally-PC moron who rants about the evils of the USA but is blind to the carnage caused by left-wing dictators, google "Ukranian Famine").

Prawn, of course the primary objective was military victory, and if you read my post you will find that I did not claim it was motivated by humanitarian concerns. I merely pointed out that it did save lives, on both sides but primarily on the Japanese side.

The Romans are often considered to be a great civilisation and technological advancement in terms of building roads, using currency and political democracy to rule.

However, they wouldn't think twice about decimating 50,000 popullace if they dared revolt against ceaser. Not to mention feeding Christians to the lions or crucifying them in the most extended painful way possible.

In contrast they referred to anything outside of their common experience or language as Barbarians. Terry Jones Barbarian book is really good imo.


Atilla the Hun united squabling tribes and marched them across continents and took on the greatest empire of its time. People were joining his reign gladly. He was a superb political leader with great vision. He only killed because he had to. Romans killed to teach lessons and as sporting entertainment. In comparison to the Romans he was more human than they the so called civilised.


However, the Roman empire West and Eastern parts lasted 1,000 years. The British empire about 150. The US empire as extensive as it is, is about 100 years old perhaps. It is struggling to maintain its form at the moment. If it doesn't regain its economic ability to produce it will lose on military confrontation no matter what the outcome is.


Increasingly, religion and nations are only agents to maintain power over the human species which does not necessarily benefit the race but diminish it. This applies on all fronts.


US maintains its siege mentality first against communism and now muslims. Once oil runs out in 30 years and there is no interest left in the ME, there will be a new evil to be picked on. It could well be Global Warming.


Problem is you have to call spades for what it is.

I concur with DCraig that to the victims of this all consuming megamanic superpower will have a pretty different opinion of their legacy.

US has maintained its collosal super power base by exploiting and kicking ass over the globe. Fortunately we are on the taking side of the boot. To use arguements like well if it wasn't it would be the Russians or the Chinese and they would be worse is feeble case imo. I'm sick to death of hearing about Tianomon square. In contrast US actions in Latin America make it pale into total insigificance. Anybody who rose against the Juntas were tortured raped and executed.


At times like this a single world order applied equally to all human species would be utopia on earth.

A fair and honest system available to all participants is the future in perhaps another 2000 years.

 

[zupcon]

The Romans are often considered to be a great civilisation and technological advancement in terms of building roads, using currency and political democracy to rule.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExWfh6sGyso&feature=related

 

[Atilla]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExWfh6sGyso&feature=related

Yes very good...


Terry Jones missing from that clip...

 

[maiden22]

Prawn, of course the primary objective was military victory, and if you read my post you will find that I did not claim it was motivated by humanitarian concerns. I merely pointed out that it did save lives, on both sides but primarily on the Japanese side.

Im not sure that it saved that many Japanese lives - Japan was already beaten, with what remained of its army fallen back to defend the mainland, and probably would have surrendered albeit conditionally...so if conventional war had continued many more Japanese troops would have died and also civilians from bombing etc....but as many civilians as from two nuclear detonations? Dont think so.

The main reason was to limit further American troop losses. Many argue also that the second bomb was not needed, that Japan was ready to surrender anyway...

Not saying that the Japanese behave impeccably by any means - look at the rape of Nanking and the way it treated its POWs, just dont like sugar coating the reality of what happened....[/QUOTE]

It was believed that millions of Japanese civilians could be expected to fight. The government had already approved an order to draft pretty much everyone between late teens and late middle age - women as well as men.

Add to this the severe casualties the Americans would suffer, and those dying in their thousands every month in Asia as a result of the Japanese penchant for cruelty and slave labour that you alluded to. It adds up to millions.