WTF are you talking about. Your post clearly indicates you don't know ANYthing about greenpeace. the crew of the rainbow warrior is just 1/100000 of the organisation.
Greenpeace != climatologists. Al Gore != climatologist. IPCC: there's one big subset of climatologic science. And yes, I've red (a part of) the IPCC reports, and yes i read (parts of) Nature(the scientific journal), and yes I can see the changes already happening in nature. And yes, i have a lot of friends in active scientific work: and I assure you : they are NOT in it for the money. greenpeace is also not in it for the money. If you actually believe the greens and the scientists are in it for the big bucks, i'll call you an idiot.
would those scientists within that field welcome this news and be glad for a chance to question and reform their theories, or, would they refuse to publish your papers and ridicule you and treat you like a religious heretic? Apparently global warming and cosmology are two fields where you would experience the latter and not the former.
climatology has adapted global warming as a theory only relatively recent, as a result of a lot of scientific work, so : NO.
please check your data. 4. --> http://www.popularmechanics.com/blogs/home_journal_news/4217864.html
wikipedia and other sites have the same conclusion : less mercury in the environment for CFL's than for incandescent. LED's : I don't think they contain that much dangerous chemicals. dertainly not if you aalso consider life expectancy of LED's (50K-100K hrs...)
please read this : http://www.popularmechanics.com/home_journal/home_improvement/4215199.html "The results surprised us. Even though the incandescent bulb measured slightly brighter than the equivalent CFLs, our subjects didn't see any dramatic difference in brightness. And here was the real shocker: When it came to the overall quality of the light, all the CFLs scored higher than our incandescent control bulb. In other words, the new fluorescent bulbs aren't just better for both your wallet and the environment, they produce better light."
I suppose you wrote the book on Chinese factory labor?
no, of course not, and child labor, is definatly NOT ltd to china.
Have you ever even left the country?
Yes, i visited Africa already from my home in Europe. A few of my friends have even left the country to help rebuild/protect from greedy multinationals in third-world countries, so i know what I'm talking about. Have you even left the US?
Have you ever looked beyond the surface of ANY issue?
I like to think so. But i don't pretend to know the answer to all of the world's problems, which YOU DO. The free market is a nice tool, and suits the western world quite nicely; but it creates some problems which can only be solved by intervening in the economy: we can't let unelected corp-overlords run this world.
Are you older than 14?
I'm 34, thank you.
You just want to use guns to seize things and make everything work the way you think it ought to.
absolutely not. NO GUN has ever solved 1 problem. It is in fact the free market that issues guns to third world warlords to take control over some important resource, like oil, copper, gold, diamonds... .
(and i'm not saying those agricultral or hunter-gatherer societies are better than our rich western societies, but they're certainly better than working 16hrs a day.)
Free markets are fully compatible with the concept of government, it's just that the reach of government into the economy is extremely limited.
that's why 'free market' does not work with humans in it. humans are greedy and selfish; that's why some of those humans employ(read:enslave) children in third world countries to produce cheap garbage to sell in the first world to idiots. who's gonna help those children ?
god you're stupid. Car exhaust and industrial smokestacks contain other things than CO2.
errm... ever heard of sarcasm ?
You don't even realize that you agree with me about the government being in bed with corporations.
I KNOW gov is under control of the corp. certainly in the US.
Corporations taking over government is the DEFINITION of fascism.
yes, and the removal of gov solves this HOW ??? that's just the removal of 1 protective layer for the consumers(who would became effectively slaves of their bosses) from the corporations. SEE : FEUDALISM (with corps as kings)
What you don't realize is that the government is acting as the enforcement arm of the corporations. Remove the enforcement arm, and they can only deal with people through voluntary exchange.
your argument is so full of holes, I can use it dry my lettuce with it. Voluntary exchange of products is only possible when a LOT of conditions are being met. (perfect information available to ALL actors. infinite availability of consumers and producers,... look it up in a economics-book. the gov is a needed hand to rectify a lot of problems with those things). a society without protecting the consumer against the corps is ready for the drain. I can see from your arguments that you don't want to pay taxes. well, I've got news for you : no taxes = NO roads, no education, no pensions, no protection, no military, no libraries, no justice system, no garbage system,... no universities, and no technology.
the economic crisis of Spain has nothing to do with windpower, but because of troubles in the tourism-sector(NW-europe goes on vacation in maroc, turkey in stead of Spain now), linked with over-investment in building new touristic facilities. (and a resulting crash of housing-prices.)
A question for you: individual people produce CO2 by simply living. Should they be forced to participate in cap and trade? What about other living beings? Do we pay trees for cleaning up the CO2? Where does it end? Remember, we are talking about limiting the process which life itself depends upon. This is exactly what makes people rich or poor, and you want to use government guns to make them poorer. Remember, this will impact the poor more than the rich, as they have a higher carbon impact proportional to their income. What do you have against poor people?
sigh. cap-and-trade is a bad idea to start with, and that idea has been put forward by the industry, not by the 'greens'. a much better idea would be to invest in high-efficiency systems, superior insulation(triple pane, at least 1 foot insulation in roofs,passive housing), electric transportation/Zero-emission-Vehicles , replant the deserts, replant the forests,... there are a LOT of good ideas out there, enough to give us a comfortable life with zero impact on the environment and future generations !
"1000's of deaths"...snip...carbon emissions, which are not carcinogenic, so your point is invalid to start with.
indeed, it's not the CO2 that are cancinogenic. go suck on a car's exhaust if it's not that poisonous. or on a industrial chimney.
When you do, sue the companies responsible.
LOL!
artificially low interest rates
don't link the interest rates to the housing speculation. the housing market went bust because of DEREGULATION. (the free market needs regulation.)
quasi-governmental organization (again, fascist combination of government and corporation)
AH, here we are at the centre of YOUR misconceptions. what you call a quasi-governmental org. is in fact a result of weakened democracy, through corporations taking over the government. taking away the government WON'T help the little guy in his defense against the onslaught of the corporations.
how 'bout the 1000's of deaths each year through pollution induced cancer ?
the housing speculation IS the free market.
'so-called' green energy HAS less impact on the environment, that's the ENTIRE point.
'a tax when it is a mandatory program that forces private businesses or individuals to pay the government in order to be allowed to continue operations.' WTF ???? the POLLUTER has to pay for it's damage to society. if they don't, we should abolish all law.
Ah, is this the so-called lying you mentionned in your first line ? Reducing carbon emissions will NOT lead directly to mass starvation.
putting caps on industrial production
you sir/ma'm, are UNimaginative. investing in a green economy is likely to be good for the economy; while keeping the short-sighted burning of limited resources will... very abruptly run into... limits.
it's 'chimay' http://www.chimay.com/ 7(red),8(triple) or 9%(blue). Not the strongest beers (we have up to 12%, and 1 goes to 28% i think) but certainly one of the higher qualities.
Slashdot Mirror
WTF are you talking about. Your post clearly indicates you don't know ANYthing about greenpeace. the crew of the rainbow warrior is just 1/100000 of the organisation.
AH, another self-proclaimed climate scientist ... WEATHER != CLIMATE.
I'll certainly put more trust in the scientists than in the bankers and the oil-industry.
(who got not only billions, but TRILLIONS of dollars.
Greenpeace != climatologists. Al Gore != climatologist. IPCC: there's one big subset of climatologic science. And yes, I've red (a part of) the IPCC reports, and yes i read (parts of) Nature(the scientific journal), and yes I can see the changes already happening in nature. And yes, i have a lot of friends in active scientific work: and I assure you : they are NOT in it for the money. greenpeace is also not in it for the money. If you actually believe the greens and the scientists are in it for the big bucks, i'll call you an idiot.
I'll certainly put more trust in what the majority of climatologists accept, than what some random dude on /. or says.
would those scientists within that field welcome this news and be glad for a chance to question and reform their theories, or, would they refuse to publish your papers and ridicule you and treat you like a religious heretic? Apparently global warming and cosmology are two fields where you would experience the latter and not the former.
climatology has adapted global warming as a theory only relatively recent, as a result of a lot of scientific work, so : NO.
what you're saying is : a/the incandescents have better numbers. and b/those numbers don't matter, because we can't judge the difference.
please check your data. ...)
4. --> http://www.popularmechanics.com/blogs/home_journal_news/4217864.html
wikipedia and other sites have the same conclusion : less mercury in the environment for CFL's than for incandescent.
LED's : I don't think they contain that much dangerous chemicals. dertainly not if you aalso consider life expectancy of LED's (50K-100K hrs
please read this :
http://www.popularmechanics.com/home_journal/home_improvement/4215199.html
"The results surprised us. Even though the incandescent bulb measured slightly brighter than the equivalent CFLs, our subjects didn't see any dramatic difference in brightness. And here was the real shocker: When it came to the overall quality of the light, all the CFLs scored higher than our incandescent control bulb. In other words, the new fluorescent bulbs aren't just better for both your wallet and the environment, they produce better light."
replacing much more
absolutely not in my experience.
I suppose you wrote the book on Chinese factory labor?
no, of course not, and child labor, is definatly NOT ltd to china.
Have you ever even left the country?
Yes, i visited Africa already from my home in Europe. A few of my friends have even left the country to help rebuild/protect from greedy multinationals in third-world countries, so i know what I'm talking about. Have you even left the US?
Have you ever looked beyond the surface of ANY issue?
I like to think so. But i don't pretend to know the answer to all of the world's problems, which YOU DO. The free market is a nice tool, and suits the western world quite nicely; but it creates some problems which can only be solved by intervening in the economy: we can't let unelected corp-overlords run this world.
Are you older than 14?
I'm 34, thank you.
You just want to use guns to seize things and make everything work the way you think it ought to.
absolutely not. NO GUN has ever solved 1 problem. It is in fact the free market that issues guns to third world warlords to take control over some important resource, like oil, copper, gold, diamonds ... .
The children working in those factories are likely to grow up to run them
on what planet do you live ? FOXunus ?
By the way, those children who have been "enslaved" would have wound up either starving in the countryside, or working in the sex industry.
1.that just shows that the social position/geography of your parents is 80% of the way to a comfortable life, not ability.
2.those children would have probably preferred to still be in a hunter-gatherer society (watch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gods_Must_Be_Crazy) or in an agricultural society.
(and i'm not saying those agricultral or hunter-gatherer societies are better than our rich western societies, but they're certainly better than working 16hrs a day.)
is it ? What is the basis for that conclusion ?
Free markets are fully compatible with the concept of government, it's just that the reach of government into the economy is extremely limited.
that's why 'free market' does not work with humans in it. humans are greedy and selfish; that's why some of those humans employ(read:enslave) children in third world countries to produce cheap garbage to sell in the first world to idiots. who's gonna help those children ?
god you're stupid. Car exhaust and industrial smokestacks contain other things than CO2.
errm ... ever heard of sarcasm ?
You don't even realize that you agree with me about the government being in bed with corporations.
I KNOW gov is under control of the corp. certainly in the US.
Corporations taking over government is the DEFINITION of fascism.
yes, and the removal of gov solves this HOW ??? that's just the removal of 1 protective layer for the consumers(who would became effectively slaves of their bosses) from the corporations. SEE : FEUDALISM (with corps as kings)
What you don't realize is that the government is acting as the enforcement arm of the corporations. Remove the enforcement arm, and they can only deal with people through voluntary exchange.
your argument is so full of holes, I can use it dry my lettuce with it. Voluntary exchange of products is only possible when a LOT of conditions are being met. (perfect information available to ALL actors. infinite availability of consumers and producers, ... look it up in a economics-book. the gov is a needed hand to rectify a lot of problems with those things). ... no universities, and no technology.
a society without protecting the consumer against the corps is ready for the drain.
I can see from your arguments that you don't want to pay taxes. well, I've got news for you : no taxes = NO roads, no education, no pensions, no protection, no military, no libraries, no justice system, no garbage system,
your single-party system should be abolished.
"green energy" Green energy is for the most part only economical because of government subsidy.
and nuclear energy isn't subsidised ? and oil isn't subsidised?(if you're only watching FOX, I'll have to tell all those wars (in Iran, Iraq(*3), Kuwait, Afghanistan ... in the last 5 decades) are/were for oil, do you have any idea how much those wars cost?)
and see here :
http://lightbucket.wordpress.com/2008/04/30/energy-payback-ratios-for-electricity-generation/
for a hint about the real economic factors of the different energy-systems.
furthermore:
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8792
base load ?
see here :
http://www.greenlivingtips.com/articles/348/1/Baseload-power-bull.html
and here :
http://www.global-greenhouse-warming.com/myth-of-baseload.html
and here :
http://www.sustainabilitycentre.com.au/WindPowersStrength.pdf
and here :
from : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermittent_Power_Sources : for very large penetrations of the most intermittent source, wind energy, such sources when taken together become highly reliable
Spain
the economic crisis of Spain has nothing to do with windpower, but because of troubles in the tourism-sector(NW-europe goes on vacation in maroc, turkey in stead of Spain now), linked with over-investment in building new touristic facilities. (and a resulting crash of housing-prices.)
A question for you: individual people produce CO2 by simply living. Should they be forced to participate in cap and trade? What about other living beings? Do we pay trees for cleaning up the CO2? Where does it end?
Remember, we are talking about limiting the process which life itself depends upon. This is exactly what makes people rich or poor, and you want to use government guns to make them poorer. Remember, this will impact the poor more than the rich, as they have a higher carbon impact proportional to their income. What do you have against poor people?
sigh. cap-and-trade is a bad idea to start with, and that idea has been put forward by the industry, not by the 'greens'. a much better idea would be to invest in high-efficiency systems, superior insulation(triple pane, at least 1 foot insulation in roofs,passive housing), electric transportation/Zero-emission-Vehicles , replant the deserts, replant the forests, ... there are a LOT of good ideas out there, enough to give us a comfortable life with zero impact on the environment and future generations !
"1000's of deaths" ...snip...carbon emissions, which are not carcinogenic, so your point is invalid to start with.
indeed, it's not the CO2 that are cancinogenic. go suck on a car's exhaust if it's not that poisonous. or on a industrial chimney.
When you do, sue the companies responsible.
LOL!
artificially low interest rates
don't link the interest rates to the housing speculation. the housing market went bust because of DEREGULATION. (the free market needs regulation.)
quasi-governmental organization (again, fascist combination of government and corporation)
AH, here we are at the centre of YOUR misconceptions. what you call a quasi-governmental org. is in fact a result of weakened democracy, through corporations taking over the government. taking away the government WON'T help the little guy in his defense against the onslaught of the corporations.
further more :
how 'bout the 1000's of deaths each year through pollution induced cancer ?
the housing speculation IS the free market.
'so-called' green energy HAS less impact on the environment, that's the ENTIRE point.
'a tax when it is a mandatory program that forces private businesses or individuals to pay the government in order to be allowed to continue operations.' WTF ???? the POLLUTER has to pay for it's damage to society. if they don't, we should abolish all law.
you remember that the western free market can only exist by enslaving the third world don't you? how's that for a physical threat ?
I would've replied 'where did you live the past decades ? in your basement ?' but ...
idiot. reducing CO2 != taxing.
Ah, is this the so-called lying you mentionned in your first line ?
Reducing carbon emissions will NOT lead directly to mass starvation.
putting caps on industrial production
you sir/ma'm, are UNimaginative. investing in a green economy is likely to be good for the economy; while keeping the short-sighted burning of limited resources will ... very abruptly run into ... limits.
Nice, friendly people.
certainly not all of us.
it's 'chimay' http://www.chimay.com/ 7(red),8(triple) or 9%(blue). Not the strongest beers (we have up to 12%, and 1 goes to 28% i think) but certainly one of the higher qualities.
How do they think the crowd will react to something like this?
lay an egg ?