Carbon Calculator

Húrin

derry wrote: »

So Civilisation needs saving more than the planet.Which one you preferr to save the most .The Irish one from inner cities.Maybe the Myan from central America..Or the tribal Civilisation in south American jungles.Maybe even the gooose steppers Civilisation from the past

We live in a global civilisation nowadays.

The rest of your post did not answer mine, but rather attacked my character, or was an unintelligible rant. I'll answer you only if you answer my actual points. Putting words in my mouth is not worth my time.

derry wrote:

I am a christian too even practice it

So you think I'm a "bleeding heart" to think that the third world needs are more important than the first world's greed? It's a label I am happy to take given who is on my side:

Luke 3:11 wrote:

John the Baptist answered, "The man with two tunics should share with him who has none, and the one who has food should do the same."

I could just say that you are going in for the religion of climate change denial. You have presented no better arguments than your own opinions, but are claiming that they are facts. So why should I argue with you?

derry

H&#250 wrote: »

I could just say that you are going in for the religion of climate change denial. You have presented no better arguments than your own opinions, but are claiming that they are facts. So why should I argue with you?

OK lets try and get to point without ruffling feathers.I dont enter the forum to argue .I enter to to debate .As a joe soap without a degree in science and having seen lots of quazi science eposodes in my life come and go at this stage the question for me is is global warming climate change whatever just another fad or a real issue.

The first time I ever heard of CO2 Global warming to be a threat to the world was in ~1975 on a channel four program called Alternitive three.I wont go into to the program except it predicted the imminent end of the world from CO2 and then the program broadcast in May or June said it was a April first hoax.Go figure.

Prior to that in that period all the universities were predicting the imminent arrival of the Ice age.Go figure.

Now since then is all full circle and now CO2 is going to cook our goose.
Having monitered the subject for many years and watched the players in the subject and seen big chunks of the CO2 green house warming theory torn apart and binned at this point of the debate I now am much less enamoured with the concept of Climate change facts.Thats not to say that climate change doesnt exist and neither is it to say it does exist .Best I can tell with the info out there and being in many forums world wide debating the issues the human race is more like fleas in a Jumbo jet trying to predict the next hot or cold spell as and when the plane flys to differnt climates.The science is in its infancy.Its a subject best I can tell that requires lots of debate both for and against so as to ensure the truth will win out.

Unfortunatly The CO2 debate moved out from science and went ferrel into quazi science and suedo religion and now its a real pain to wade through the stuff as its every where

Once we the world start the which religious camp are you in then debate is stifiled walls get built and science investigation gets distorted and we arrive at these crossroads where big operators stand to win big monetry advantages proving one side over the other

Science gets thrown out the window

As someone who prefers the truth to get out warts and all be it that CO2 is harmless or its lethal whatever I get non plussed when I see a media circus and new religious fanatizm coming into what is meant to be essentialy a Science debate

So much as I would strive to aim for energy effiency and make less polution I wont take on CO2 emmissions in itself as the evidence for me is way too weak to stand serious scrutiny

H&#250 wrote: »

So you think I'm a "bleeding heart" to think that the third world needs are more important than the first world's greed? It's a label I am happy to take given who is on my side:

Having lived and worked in the third world there is no desire in those parts of the world to be dependent on our handouts

Its the fishing hoook versus the fish problem.Its easy for us in this part of the world to imagine that if we can supply our solution to thier problems we can solve the problems there .
Often all we end up doing is making things a hole lot worse .
The consistant message from the third world is please pass down to them our old machinery so they can start to Industrialise and supply jobs and wealth.We consistantly say no can do as we need to scrape it as its too polluting and we go onto giving them CO2 lectures.
Often we cant afford to give them the new high teck non poluting solutions so they do without and we stuff thier faces with fish .
Now if it turns out in ten years time that CO2 was just another fad we have held up the advance of that third world country.
So for me its simple I wont fall into the CO climate change camp on the flimsy evidence I have seen to date.The evidence is way tooo thin to decide what cap limits on the futures CO2 emissions of third world .
The CO2 debate has looks to me to have done more to damage the naturaly evolving industrial futures of lots of third world countries.

Worse is the CO2 story has made it more easy for the big multinationals to dictate terms to these countries.These terms often mean that the best land is taken in a big buy out and used to grow cash crops often whose purpose is to make bio fuels .Locals are driven out as they have no funds to buy the title to the land often the land they been farming for hundreds of years which they considered to to be thier land .Then we find that the locals are now landless and working for slave rates like $1 a day or scrathing a living in the badlands where the water or soil is bad .Then the cash crop will be harvested to be sold into our fuel tanks.Then the third world country get CO2 points for growing stuff which gets sold to the world CO2 markets and the money for this goes to the local president and his family and the locals get squat.

So then we say Bio fuels farming is all bad.In other third world countries the local farmers own and farm the land and make Bio fuels and then we decide not to buy it as its bad for the planet whatever and cusae them to go bankrupt and lose thier machinery or farms

Thye story of the third world is littered with well intensioned seagull management solutions that never often ask the locals what do you guys really need.These projects often come in with unsuitable ideas and unsuitable equipment and a dictate to the locals how the solution will help them and some agenda to prove and when it fails they pack up and blame the lack of the locals abilty to learn whatever

One big case was in the 1950,s the british government decided to spend 2 Billion on clearing thousands of acres of land in Tanzania to make Tanzania a peanut growing country.For years the locals tried everthing to explain to the British that part of Tanzania the brit had chosen had a special weed that kills peanut plants and therefore there was no way that part of Tanzania could ever grow peanuts .The project has become famous as the third world peanut syndrome

The best way we can help the third world when we go there often is just to listen to the locals and then try to fit our solutions to thier needs.Often the solutions they propose can generate lots of CO2 .Thats just something we got to live with as we dont have enoeugh proof that CO2 is that bad.Later when these third world countries are making eneogh wealth then we can see to sell them solutions that make less CO2.Most helpers in the third world withdraw all the help if they see the project makes to much CO2 as its against thier local policy

The third world needs our help not our fish or our blinkered belief systems .

Its not easy to help the third world if we impose our baggage on them

H&#250 wrote: »

We live in a global civilisation nowadays.
The rest of your post did not answer mine, but rather attacked my character, or was an unintelligible rant. I'll answer you only if you answer my actual points. Putting words in my mouth is not worth my time.

No if you read it again I debated the points .Sometimes I shortened the stoff to show you that what you said had several meaning and that it wasnt for sure I was going to take the meaning you wanted

Its called a debate cut and thrust of debate and isnt a fight to the death or something.

All humans have tendency to bring thier belive systems into any debate.Even I err in this .However in debate which strive to get to follow science debates these are generaly not good points to use as the subject matter can have only three possibilties
CO2 accumilation is bad gas for some reason .CO2 is harmless gas .finally there exists the possibilty that CO2 accumulation is benifitial gas for the planet.
From these three possibilties religious zeal or mantra pontifications from pro CO2 climate change thery wont change the final result one bit.

So yes I will say my opinion again .There is no absolute proof yet that CO2 is a climate changing gas .In science the onus is on the climate change adhertant to prove conclusivly thier case.Instead they opted to use apolitical suedo science solution the IPCC to dictate terms in the debate .

Thats not proof that goose stepping over science.

Derry

derry

H&#250 wrote: »

I could just say that you are going in for the religion of climate change denial. You have presented no better arguments than your own opinions, but are claiming that they are facts. So why should I argue with you?

OK lets try and get to point without ruffling feathers.I dont enter the forum to argue .I enter to to debate .As a joe soap without a degree in science and having seen lots of quazi science eposodes in my life come and go at this stage the question for me is is global warming climate change whatever just another fad or a real issue.

The first time I ever heard of CO2 Global warming to be a threat to the world was in ~1975 on a channel four program called Alternitive three.I wont go into to the program except it predicted the imminent end of the world from CO2 and then the program broadcast in May or June said it was a April first hoax.Go figure.

Prior to that in that period all the universities were predicting the imminent arrival of the Ice age.Go figure.

Now since then is all full circle and now CO2 is going to cook our goose.
Having monitered the subject for many years and watched the players in the subject and seen big chunks of the CO2 green house warming theory torn apart and binned at this point of the debate I now am much less enamoured with the concept of Climate change facts.Thats not to say that climate change doesnt exist and neither is it to say it does exist .Best I can tell with the info out there and being in many forums world wide debating the issues the human race is more like fleas in a Jumbo jet trying to predict the next hot or cold spell as and when the plane flys to differnt climates.The science is in its infancy.Its a subject best I can tell that requires lots of debate both for and against so as to ensure the truth will win out.

Unfortunatly The CO2 debate moved out from science and went ferrel into quazi science and suedo religion and now its a real pain to wade through the stuff as its every where

Once we the world start the which religious camp are you in then debate is stifiled walls get built and science investigation gets distorted and we arrive at these crossroads where big operators stand to win big monetry advantages proving one side over the other

Science gets thrown out the window

As someone who prefers the truth to get out warts and all be it that CO2 is harmless or its lethal whatever I get non plussed when I see a media circus and new religious fanatizm coming into what is meant to be essentialy a Science debate

So much as I would strive to aim for energy effiency and make less polution I wont take on CO2 emmissions in itself as the evidence for me is way too weak to stand serious scrutiny

H&#250 wrote: »

So you think I'm a "bleeding heart" to think that the third world needs are more important than the first world's greed? It's a label I am happy to take given who is on my side:

Having lived and worked in the third world there is no desire in those parts of the world to be dependent on our handouts

Its the fishing hoook versus the fish problem.Its easy for us in this part of the world to imagine that if we can supply our solution to thier problems we can solve the problems there .
Often all we end up doing is making things a hole lot worse .
The consistant message from the third world is please pass down to them our old machinery so they can start to Industrialise and supply jobs and wealth.We consistantly say no can do as we need to scrape it as its too polluting and we go onto giving them CO2 lectures.
Often we cant afford to give them the new high teck non poluting solutions so they do without and we stuff thier faces with fish .
Now if it turns out in ten years time that CO2 was just another fad we have held up the advance of that third world country.
So for me its simple I wont fall into the CO climate change camp on the flimsy evidence I have seen to date.The evidence is way tooo thin to decide what cap limits on the futures CO2 emissions of third world .
The CO2 debate has looks to me to have done more to damage the naturaly evolving industrial futures of lots of third world countries.

Worse is the CO2 story has made it more easy for the big multinationals to dictate terms to these countries.These terms often mean that the best land is taken in a big buy out and used to grow cash crops often whose purpose is to make bio fuels .Locals are driven out as they have no funds to buy the title to the land often the land they been farming for hundreds of years which they considered to to be thier land .Then we find that the locals are now landless and working for slave rates like $1 a day or scrathing a living in the badlands where the water or soil is bad .Then the cash crop will be harvested to be sold into our fuel tanks.Then the third world country get CO2 points for growing stuff which gets sold to the world CO2 markets and the money for this goes to the local president and his family and the locals get squat.

So then we say Bio fuels farming is all bad.In other third world countries the local farmers own and farm the land and make Bio fuels and then we decide not to buy it as its bad for the planet whatever and cusae them to go bankrupt and lose thier machinery or farms

Thye story of the third world is littered with well intensioned seagull management solutions that never often ask the locals what do you guys really need.These projects often come in with unsuitable ideas and unsuitable equipment and a dictate to the locals how the solution will help them and some agenda to prove and when it fails they pack up and blame the lack of the locals abilty to learn whatever

One big case was in the 1950,s the british government decided to spend 2 Billion on clearing thousands of acres of land in Tanzania to make Tanzania a peanut growing country.For years the locals tried everthing to explain to the British that part of Tanzania the brit had chosen had a special weed that kills peanut plants and therefore there was no way that part of Tanzania could ever grow peanuts .The project has become famous as the third world peanut syndrome

The best way we can help the third world when we go there often is just to listen to the locals and then try to fit our solutions to thier needs.Often the solutions they propose can generate lots of CO2 .Thats just something we got to live with as we dont have enoeugh proof that CO2 is that bad.Later when these third world countries are making eneogh wealth then we can see to sell them solutions that make less CO2.Most helpers in the third world withdraw all the help if they see the project makes to much CO2 as its against thier local policy

The third world needs our help not our fish or our blinkered belief systems .

Its not easy to help the third world if we impose our baggage on them

H&#250 wrote: »

We live in a global civilisation nowadays.
The rest of your post did not answer mine, but rather attacked my character, or was an unintelligible rant. I'll answer you only if you answer my actual points. Putting words in my mouth is not worth my time.

No if you read it again I debated the points .Sometimes I shortened the stoff to show you that what you said had several meaning and that it wasnt for sure I was going to take the meaning you wanted

Its called a debate cut and thrust of debate and isnt a fight to the death or something.

All humans have tendency to bring thier belive systems into any debate.Even I err in this .However in debate which strive to get to follow science debates these are generaly not good points to use as the subject matter can have only three possibilties
CO2 accumilation is bad gas for some reason .CO2 is harmless gas .Finally there exists the possibilty that CO2 accumulation is benifitial gas for the planet.
From these three possibilties religious zeal or mantra pontifications from pro CO2 climate change thery wont change the final result one bit.

So yes I will say my opinion again .There is no absolute proof yet that CO2 is a climate changing gas .In science the onus is on the climate change adhertant to prove conclusivly thier case.Instead they opted to use a political suedo science solution the IPCC to dictate terms in the debate .

Thats not proof that goose stepping over science.

Derry

Húrin

derry wrote: »

OK lets try and get to point without ruffling feathers.I dont enter the forum to argue

I've already said that I will not debate with you unless you stop misrepresenting my arguments, and produce at least some sources for your claims.

Saying I have a fascist or quasi-religious agenda is misrepresention. Saying that I don't want the third world to industrialise is also misrepresention. In other words, you're lying about what I have said. In my post before I tried to deal with your perception that the climate movement is a shady, fascist organisation. But you cannot state it as if it were a fact.

Your most recent post was better than your previous one, but I will not give the dignity of a thorough response until you afford me the same dignity.