Discussion in 'Current Affairs' started by JulieW, Jul 19, 2014.
But what makes the constitution valid?
Shiney! cheated and didn't answer why our lawmakers (monarchs/parliament/dictators) are not required for a rule of law.
I don't want to have to wear nappies again until I'm much older.
Okay, I'll accept that as soon as you explain how someone living with a severe food shortage 50 years from now can sue the people who dumped a lot of carbon into the atmosphere today knowing that it would cause the planet to heat up to the point where crops started dying off...bearing in mind that the people doing the polluting today will be long dead by then.
Or are you perhaps only thinking on a very short term basis? That doesn't work for long term problems, hence the first question "what is the cost of pollution over any given length of time?"
Are you suggesting we should be able to sue for future possible losses?
Edit: I just realised you probably just want various pollution taxes to stop pollution etc
Its ok monsanto will have seedstock for everything in 50 years drought tolerant ,pest resistant ,carbon eating lol all it will need is hope & prayers to grow....problem solved
Now your saying crops will die in 50 years without the carbon tax ? what are you smoking today ?
Not only will all crops die, but without an ETS somewhere a bankers son won't get a Bentley for his 16th birthday.
Ah, another thread about what to do with one of the by-products of our civilisation, that happens to be plant food and unintentionally liberated from deep in the Earth. It is once again available to plants to help green our planet and produce oxygen.
Way back in page 1 Big AD talks about dumping carbon. Such a careless term for a beneficial gas.
And now we're extrapolating what may happen under the least-possible/worst-case scenario. We have no idea what will happen between now and 50 years, and everything we think will be mostly wrong. Example: Ask someone in 1964 whether we can have smart phones or mushrooms grown with no soil or indoor plumbing in every house in Australia. They'd probably tell the questioner they are crazy.
Ask someone in 1960 if smoking was dangerous and they'd laugh at you and just keep complaining about the government tax on every packet.
Or perhaps ask James Hardie if they foresaw a problem with all the asbestos they were releasing into the environment.
I think it's pretty obvious that the planet's ecology is changing because of human impacts upon it - islands of plastic in the Pacific. Radioactive tuna, monoculture dustbowls.
All great civilizations have fallen because of the weather - and human carbon production was minor when most fell. What is consistent is the unpredictable movements in weather patterns and humans' tendency to exploit a natural resource until it is exhausted. Now we have humans all across the world exploiting all its resources - and no new zones to migrate to.
Looking at the planet I'm pretty sure in 50 years time these generations will be labelled as simpletons and as a former civilization.
It is the countries with the lower GDPs that are producing their carbon footprint. Since I believe global warming is an IPCC money scam, I have no problem with increased carbon emissions. What the West needs to get pounded into its collectively thick skulls is that the East is increasing carbon emissions at a far, far, far, far, did I say far higher rate than the West could ever hope to reduce carbon emissions.
So if you truly believe carbon emissions are causing global warming, you should understand you are screwed.
Since I believe it is a scam, I am at peace with increasing carbon emissions.
Someone remind me again where all the carbon emissions came from 10-20,000 years ago when the sea levels started rising. And remind me again about carbon levels in the age of dinosaurs.
"In the last 600 million years of Earth's history
only the Carboniferous Period and our present age, the Quaternary
Period, have witnessed CO2 levels less than 400 ppm.
Note on Graph: There has historically been much more CO2
in our atmosphere than exists today. For example, during the Jurassic
Period (200 mya), average CO2 concentrations were about 1800 ppm
or about 4.7 times higher than today. The highest concentrations of CO2
during all of the Paleozoic Era occurred during the Cambrian Period,
nearly 7000 ppm -- about 18 times higher than today."
I would be curious as to what civilizations you are referring?
The modern great civilizations of which I am aware, fell because of corruption within the society itself like the Romans or conquest. Just try and convince an ancient Incan that those Spanish muskets are weather. The cause of the fall of older great civilizations is mostly unproven guesswork. Some of those civilizations likely fell due to destroying their own environment via the resource exhaustion you mentioned, but that is not weather related.
Like you wrote, weather is unpredictable, but if a civilization has put itself in dire shape because of resource exhaustion, blaming a change in weather for the fall of that civilization is like blaming the snowflake that triggers the avalanche for the avalanche.
Rome was invaded by 'barbarian' hordes who were forced south by the weather and hence by the pressures of starvation caused by the weather. The corrupt empire simply meant they were easier to defeat. No weather change, no invasion from the starving north, no fall of Rome.
Mayan civilisation went down because of bad weather's affect on the agriculture and hence ability to feed the population and keep them in order The same affected the Incan empire, and it fell into civil war but you're correct in that when the Spanish arrived they brought diseases which finished it off totally, allowing the final defeat by the Spanish and the sacking of the lands, gold and treasures.
The Egyptians is a bit more mysterious because there are no records but what is apparent is that it was not the desert that now exists. The flooding of the Nile appears to have become intermittent which meant the collapse of agriculture, the inability to feed the people and apparently the break up of the empire - assisted no doubt by a fairly corrupt 5000 year old royal governance. As has often been pointed out by geologists, the Sahara desert was once as lush as the Amazon. The weather or change to that would appear to account for a few other civilisations as well - the Sumerians, Babylonians etc no doubt - though that is supposition on my part. I do remember that Babylon was considered a giant food bowl, something which probably would not apply to that area now since we tend to think of the Middle East as desert supported by food grown on flood plains.
What is evident is that the weather controls the food and the food is how the empire controls the people or maintains their support.
A quick google found this if you want to look into it more:
The link below disproves what you wrote about Rome and the fall of the Roman empire. It was the Huns who pushed the Goths into Italy by forcing them out of their native lands. The Huns were nomadic, no climate movers. If you can come up with any proof regarding the fall of Rome being weather related, I will address your other claims.
"In the late 4th century, the Huns came from the east and invaded the region controlled by the Goths. Although the Huns successfully subdued many of the Goths, who joined their ranks, a group of Goths led by Fritigern fled across the Danube. They then revolted against the Roman Empire, winning a decisive victory at the Battle of Adrianople. By this time the Gothic missionary Wulfila, who devised the Gothic alphabet to translate the Bible, had converted many of the Goths from paganism to Arian Christianity. In the 4th, 5th, and 6th centuries the Goths separated into two main branches, the Visigoths, who became federates of the Romans, and the Ostrogoths, who joined the Huns.
After the Ostrogoths successfully revolted against the Huns at the Battle of Nedao in 454, their leader Theodoric the Great settled his people in Italy, founding a kingdom which eventually gained control of the whole peninsula. Shortly after Theodoric's death in 526, the country was captured by the Byzantine Empire, in a war that devastated and depopulated the peninsula. After their able leader Totila was killed at the Battle of Taginae, effective Ostrogothic resistance ended, and the remaining Goths were assimilated by the Lombards, another Germanic tribe, who invaded Italy and founded a kingdom in the northern part of the country in 567 AD.
The Visigoths under Alaric I sacked Rome in 410, defeated Attila at the Battle of the Catalaunian Plains in 451, and founded a kingdom in Aquitaine. The Visigoths were pushed to Hispania by the Franks following the Battle of Vouill in 507. By the late 6th century, the Visigoths had converted to Catholicism. They were conquered in the early 8th century by the Muslim Moors, but began to regain control under the leadership of the Visigothic nobleman Pelagius, whose victory at the Battle of Covadonga began the centuries-long Reconquista. The Visigoths founded the Kingdom of Asturias, which eventually evolved into modern Spain and Portugal."
Ask anyone in 5 years time how they feel about the accepted and consensus "science" of the 1970's through to a few years ago and spruiked as absolute scientific fact by every major medical deprtment, governments, dieticians, Cancer Councils, Heart Foundations etc. etc. etc. regarding how dangerous dietary fats are for humans, how they cause heart disease and how they should be avoided at all costs and replaced with margarine and the "Food Pyramid" based on eating grains. Ask them how they feel about how this "scientific consensus" on human diet killed millions, created an epedemic of diabetes and human suffering, cost the economy of every western country billions upon billions of dollars. How "science" was so profoundly and utterly wrong and caused such profound damage to so many.
Just like climate, there is actual Science and there is destructive, corrupted "science" driven by vested interests that become "truth" taught in universities and that violently suppress any research that questions this Accepted Doctrine who's questioning may upset Profit Margins and those who base their world view and self identity on the things that they were taught in university.
'Science' and 'scientists' lost their cred with me years ago.
I accept NOTHING they say without question.
You're going to find an absolute truckload of information on here relating to climate science. So much of it your head will spin. You may even be convinced that AGW is actually real.
Like the food humans heat, CO2 is good for plants until there is too much of it.
If that logic were sound, you'd be able to spend all day eating cake without getting diabetes and becoming morbidly obese.
As you shouldn't.
I am, however, bemused by the toxic anti-science and anti-intellectual views so often expressed on this forum (see RNT's post above for a fairly mild example). Where did this notion that most scientists are part of some massive global conspiracy come from?
Also, you guys do realise that it's science that so efficiently brings us that lovely, pure gold and silver we so love, don't you?
I am not claiming any scientific conspiracy here. I am simply pointing out that flawed science became curriculum that became doctrine that was in the end so very wrong and caused so much damage.
I am also bemused when people who follow a doctrine claim that others are anti-science and anti-intellectual. You do understand that science is always evolving and that very often the accepted scientific doctrine is eventually proven wrong by later scientific advancements? My example is a perfect case of just this failure of a scientific doctrine.
The banking system has done far more damage than scientists...
Separate names with a comma.