Green Green Green

bigtime

Is it just me or is anybody else sick of this green scare mongering.

Every day it is the same rubbish, crisis, crisis, crisis. You would think the world is going to fall apart.

The only think I see disappearing are my freedoms and financial siutaion. And this is only getting started.

SoupyNorman

bigtime wrote: »

The only think I see disappearing are my freedoms and financial siutaion. And this is only getting started.

Daytime drinking is fun.

GusherING

bigtime wrote: »

Is it just me or is anybody else sick of this green scare mongering.

Every day it is the same rubbish, crisis, crisis, crisis. You would think the world is going to fall apart.

The only think I see disappearing are my freedoms and financial siutaion. And this is only getting started.

Well there's no denying climate change is potentially disastrous for the future. Also its been said that green parties and enviromental awareness tend to grow in boom times, but when recessions hit, people's concerns lie elsewhere. I'm sure as peoples wallets are increasingly empty, the desire for free range chicken, toyota prius' and organic asparagus decline. So you have a point. Greens need to get past the nihilist message they generally portray for positive solutions. What's also clear is that there are left-wing and right-wing ways to solve climate change: ones which put people first and ones which rely on more market-based screwing of the poor.

But that's not to say there isn't a need to tackle climate change. There is no way we can bury our heads in the sand either. It's all about how you do it.

bigtime

GusherING wrote: »

Well there's no denying climate change is potentially disastrous for the future. Also its been said that green parties and enviromental awareness tend to grow in boom times, but when recessions hit, people's concerns lie elsewhere. I'm sure as peoples wallets are increasingly empty, the desire for free range chicken, toyota prius' and organic asparagus decline. So you have a point. Greens need to get past the nihilist message they generally portray for positive solutions. What's also clear is that there are left-wing and right-wing ways to solve climate change: ones which put people first and ones which rely on more market-based screwing of the poor.

But that's not to say there isn't a need to tackle climate change. There is no way we can bury our heads in the sand either. It's all about how you do it.

But, man has no effect on climate changes. Thats the fact of the matter, no matter what the media try and tell the masses.

You are right about the boom/environmental connection. I am constantly amazed by these middle class clowns, the so called experts on these issues. With their mid atlantic accents and "we are all in this togeather" attitude. They spout rubbish, a 12 year old could rip their arguments to pieces, however the tv and radio are on way mediums, just how they like it.

Kipperhell

bigtime wrote: »

Is it just me or is anybody else sick of this green scare mongering.

Every day it is the same rubbish, crisis, crisis, crisis. You would think the world is going to fall apart.

The only think I see disappearing are my freedoms and financial siutaion. And this is only getting started.

What if they aren't scaremongering?

I generally think of it as common sense but unpopular.

Anything to save fossil fuel makes sense as it is a limited resource.

The bigger problem is people who do nothing and think things will continue as they are.

There are people lying on both sides of the argument you need to pay attention to find out who. The method of penalties for everything is a really stupid way to continue but ultimately it is effective. A bit like chuggers.

javaboy

bigtime wrote: »

But, man has no effect on climate changes. Thats the fact of the matter, no matter what the media try and tell the masses.

You can back this up with your own independent research yes?

bigtime

javaboy wrote: »

You can back this up with your own independent research yes?

Sorry, I don't have a government contract, unlike the experts.

bigtime

Kipperhell wrote: »

What if they aren't scaremongering?.

What if could be applied to a lot of things.

Kipperhell wrote: »

Anything to save fossil fuel makes sense as it is a limited resource.

.

Free energy was available long ago.

Kipperhell

bigtime wrote: »

But, man has no effect on climate changes. Thats the fact of the matter, no matter what the media try and tell the masses.

I would consider that a lie or at best a simplification.

Very simply the climate around a city is different to that of the surrounding countryside that is climate change.

GusherING

bigtime wrote: »

But, man has no effect on climate changes. Thats the fact of the matter, no matter what the media try and tell the masses.

You are right about the boom/environmental connection. I am constantly amazed by these middle class clowns, the so called experts on these issues. With their mid atlantic accents and "we are all in this togeather" attitude. They spout rubbish, a 12 year old could rip their arguments to pieces, however the tv and radio are on way mediums, just how they like it.

Yes we have all met the Yummy Mummy in the Land Rover with a 6 litre engine saying 'Yeah we gotta save the planet'. It's a funny image alright and shows how little the message has got across. But you cannot deny that man has an impact on climate change. To say otherwise is wrong, simply put.

bigtime

GusherING wrote: »

. But you cannot deny that man has an impact on climate change. To say otherwise is wrong, simply put.

I can deny. It is a complete scam. Just because a load of government paid white coats say something does not make it true, neither does the fact that the lie is repeated 1000 times a day.

javaboy

bigtime wrote: »

Sorry, I don't have a government contract, unlike the experts.

Ok so how did you arrive at the conclusion that man has no effect on climate change?

Kipperhell

bigtime wrote: »

What if could be applied to a lot of things.

Yes but he was starting with the assumption they are wrong which I was pointing out. We have a limited amount of oil which use for transport, food and medicine to name but a few, I think they are the important ones

bigtime wrote: »

Free energy was available long ago.

And people didn't travel as far or their goods. If you think resorting to sailing ships and animals for transport is the solution fair enough. I would think the reliance on the combustion engine is a big issue if there is limited fuel. Energy is not the only concern. We are likely to have to make radical changes at some point and you could be right that we revert.

Jimbo

I have huge reservations over this whole global warming thing.
Although it has since been overshadowed by controversy, Channel 4's 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' seem to comprehensively disproved many of the arguments for Global Warming.
This site has a petition signed by thousands of reputable scientists.

Now we have Green party TD Dan Boyle telling us that the National speed limit should be reduced to 80kph to reduce our 'carbon footprint'. It's all getting a bit crazy.

bigtime

jimbo78 wrote: »

I have huge reservations over this whole global warming thing.


Now we have Green party TD Dan Boyle telling us that the National speed limit should be reduced to 80kph to reduce our 'carbon footprint'. It's all getting a bit crazy.

Thats whats its really about, restricting your freedoms and fleecing you.

But these yuppies and housewifes with nothing else to do believe the lot.

"Oh stupid man, is there nothing you will not believe."

GusherING

bigtime wrote: »

I can deny. It is a complete scam. Just because a load of government paid white coats say something does not make it true, neither does the fact that the lie is repeated 1000 times a day.

Why would governments pay scientists to produce reports which essentially mean that the whole way our society and economy operates is in need of radical reorganization? Presumably, most governments would be happy to rest on their laurels?

Anyway, do you deny we are living in a peak oil world? Where prices will always go up from here on (in the long-term)? You admit yourself that your wallet is being squeezed. Whatever about the reasoning behind this financial pain, surely you want something done about it? Doesn't that require a change away from our oil-dependency?

bigtime

GusherING wrote: »

Why would governments pay scientists to produce reports which essentially mean that the whole way our society and economy operates is in need of radical reorganization? Presumably, most governments would be happy to rest on their laurels? ?

They will not be effected. Our government, in case you had not noticed, are nothing more than puppets for Brussels, who arein turn puppets for the UN. It is a war on mankind.

GusherING wrote: »

Anyway, do you deny we are living in a peak oil world? Where prices will always go up from here on (in the long-term)? You admit yourself that your wallet is being squeezed. Whatever about the reasoning behind this financial pain, surely you want something done about it? Doesn't that require a change away from our oil-dependency?

Peak oil, are you aware that they spent 10 years in the late 70's running around north america capping wells?? OPEC is the only oil supplier, and as with any supplied, a reduced supply increases profits.

I am all for a change away from oil dependency, and I am sure that anyone who did produce clean, free energy would be offed. To many interests would be effected. Oil is the biggest business there is.

Kipperhell

bigtime wrote: »

Thats whats its really about, restricting your freedoms and fleecing you.

But these yuppies and housewifes with nothing else to do believe the lot.

"Oh stupid man, is there nothing you will not believe."

I'm not quite sure what you think the conspiracy is?

Is it you think the government are in league with the scientists in order to get more taxes? The government also gain greater control over the people?

Then the only people who fall for this trick are those with greater free time?

Now firstly I don't think our government are clever enough to organise such a worldwide conspiracy. Although they could be getting taken by richer governments and their corrupt scientists or is it some world order?

Yuppies tend to be professions and therefore generally well educated might be able to understand what they are being told. Generally I find housewives complain on restrictions brought in due to green policies.

Can you enlighten us on how you put this conspiracy together?

GusherING

bigtime wrote: »

They will not be effected. Our government, in case you had not noticed, are nothing more than puppets for Brussels, who arein turn puppets for the UN. It is a war on mankind.



Peak oil, are you aware that they spent 10 years in the late 70's running around north america capping wells?? OPEC is the only oil supplier, and as with any supplied, a reduced supply increases profits.

I am all for a change away from oil dependency, and I am sure that anyone who did produce clean, free energy would be offed. To many interests would be effected. Oil is the biggest business there is.

Ok. Well firstly, I disagree with your new world order conspiracy theory. The UN and the EU are not trying to destroy the world.

Oil is a big business, but its a finite one. In fifty years there wont be much oil left for everyone's needs. Therefore it is a big business with a decreasing future. If the oil industry is so powerful, why would it allow its stooge governments to pay scientists to write reports which advocate developing an alternative energy source? You really are living in a dream world where you attack the oil companies yet you attack their critics.

zuroph

jimbo78 wrote: »

Now we have Green party TD Dan Boyle telling us that the National speed limit should be reduced to 80kph to reduce our 'carbon footprint'. It's all getting a bit crazy.

TBH, dan boyle was backin into a corner by matt cooper on the last word this evening and stopped just short of admitting the only reason he was proposing it was to garner media attention and a chance to get on the airwaves to talk about carbon emissions. he admitted it would never be implemented, and even refused to say he wanted it implemented. silly greens

ongarite

zuroph wrote: »

TBH, dan boyle was backin into a corner by matt cooper on the last word this evening and stopped just short of admitting the only reason he was proposing it was to garner media attention and a chance to get on the airwaves to talk about carbon emissions. he admitted it would never be implemented, and even refused to say he wanted it implemented. silly greens

+1 for Matt Cooper then. Reducing the speed limit to reduce our carbon emissions, all motor traffic a year in Ireland contributes only 10% of our yearly carbon emissions with agriculture & heavy industry being the main factor.

Wreck

bigtime wrote: »

"Oh stupid man, is there nothing you will not believe."

That's exactly what I think everytime I read one of your unsubstantiated, fanatical and downright ignorant posts.

Also, can you please explain more about this fantastical war on mankind - stuff like who is waging it and for what purpose - I could do with a good laugh.

randylonghorn

bigtime wrote: »

Every day it is the same rubbish ...

Oh, the irony! :rolleyes:


Oooooh, wait! ... I have another theory!!

Maybe the OP and his numerous clones are actually clandestine agents for the Green Conspiracy (TM)?! :eek:

It's an old and effective political trick to deliberately set up weak, incoherent opponents to your point of view, whose ranting is so annoying to the general populace that it actually sub-consciously bolsters support for the point of view you want to push!