Climate Change Delusions

Sherifu · 11-07-2008 06:22PM

petermcqueen wrote: »

I can guarantee you are prime irish middle class twat.

Fail.

AlmightyCushion · 11-07-2008 06:28PM

petermcqueen wrote: »

I can guarantee you are prime irish middle class twat.

Now to point a few things out, it is assumed when dealing with climate change/co2 issues, one is talking about man made influences. Although man does not have any effect on climate change, blanket media coverage points the finger in this direction. Also we know the climate changes constantly.

You might want to read a few books on logic. I in no way implied that i was a lunatic. You are a classic linear thinker, you could be lead up the garden path without even questioning your choices.

And another thing, why is it only the middle class do gooder twat who is promotes and supports man made climate change issues. Clearly as the big boys know, the more educated you are, the more docile and gullible you become. (and that is not to even mention the smugness of the middle class striver made good).

Learn to debate the topic without resorting to abuse. I won't warn you again.

petermcqueen · 11-07-2008 06:32PM

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

Learn to debate the topic without resorting to abuse. I won't warn you again.

Sorry, but are you the fella with the bebo page???

in the words of my good friend; "the fool's reproach, its a kingly title"

Sherifu · 11-07-2008 06:33PM

Not a bad rereg I guess. Got 20 posts out of it. :pac:

Sarky · 11-07-2008 06:41PM

petermcqueen wrote: »

And another thing, why is it only the middle class do gooder twat who is promotes and supports man made climate change issues. Clearly as the big boys know, the more educated you are, the more docile and gullible you become. (and that is not to even mention the smugness of the middle class striver made good).

Yup, you can't walk ten metres down a street in Zimbabwe without tripping over university queues and PhDs sipping lattes in cafés talking about how everything is just super. Ho ho ho, that Mugabe, making sure everyone's too smart to oppose him, what a genius.

Tell you what, show me some proof that humanity has no effect on the world's weather patterns, and I'll start believing you. Here's a definition of "proof" just in case you're not too sure what it means. You can put it right next to a definition of "insane" for comparison.

PrivateEye · 11-07-2008 06:47PM

the vast majority of pollution is as a result of the likes of China and their love for cheap mass production. Seeing just how keen the lads in China are on human rights, it's surprising they don't care more about the environment.

When you take China, India and other manufacturing heavy weights...and add the military states like North Korea and the U.S (more so in the past) with regards to Arms testing, it quickly becomes clear turning off your lightbulbs isn't worth much.

Sure even the Green Party, the party who apparently love the environment so much, have to take some of the blame. Look at Eamon Ryans change of stance on Shell in Mayo even. They don't want to point figures at big-business, but rather tell us about the 'power of one' and the rest.

So long as the 'quick buck' comes first, the environment will suffer. I really doubt Climate Change is some scam either myself :rolleyes: It's very real. What isn't real is the way people think we can deal with it.

All the middle class rubbish in the Irish Times magazine about organic this that and the other is just people patting themselves on the back, which is normally covered by a sweatshop t-shirt....but at least the chickens had somewhere to run around. The obsession with free-range and organic/ eco friendly stuff is more about projecting an image of themselves as sympathetic 'aware' folk.

Green Party voters are apparently among the wealthiest anyway (No statistics handy, they are online- apparently the PDs, the Greens and Labour voters are generally the wealthiest- with FF the most popular among the overall wearing proletarian 'wurkin' class' ) They tend to be the ones who can afford all the eco-friendly rubbish. Ordinary people are more worried about paying bills than switching the car so it runs on bloody vegetable oil.

Saying all that,
1) I am a vegetarian
2) I've no interest in owning a car

but I despise all this 'you can save the world' nonsense.

I'm not belittling all environmentalists, just the lifestylists who refuse to acknowledge the realities of climate change. Look at Al Gore, the bloke is running a power-station of a house and driving some gas-guzzler around and telling us we can save the world.

I want Jim Corr on our side.

Jim Corr is busy chasing the Jewish Neo-Cons who brought down the twin towers, and the lizard people who control the 'Zionist media'

I want Jim Corr on the otherside of the world.

Jack Sheehan · 11-07-2008 06:52PM

Is this Casey again?

dr.bollocko · 11-07-2008 07:15PM

I whole heartedly endorse this Mc. Queen chap. Great sort. Cheering me up no end.

Tar.Aldarion · 11-07-2008 07:30PM

Climate Expert wrote: »

Sure read the green forum here. (Which I'm banned from)
Some suggestions from greens about how to save the planet from overconsumption and global warming are
1. Legal enforcement of vegetarianism

Sounds good to me.
/plans
.
.
.
.
/$$$

humanji · 11-07-2008 07:42PM

Jack Sheehan wrote: »

Is this Casey again?

Who else could it be?

I for one am all for man changing the environment. There are too many ugly girls near me and I don't need to see them in short skirts and belly tops. More rain I say, more rain!!!

Jack Sheehan · 11-07-2008 07:56PM

Damn if he isn't the most persistent troll I've ever seen.

dr.bollocko · 11-07-2008 08:40PM

Any argument that states that vegetarianism of any sort is somehow better for the environment is both spurious and illogical.
that is all.

Tar.Aldarion · 11-07-2008 08:48PM

It's probably better for thirsty people, 100,000(:pac:) litres of water are needed to produce a single kilo of beef. woot
Although there'sa lot of water on eartheee

petermcqueen · 11-07-2008 08:53PM

PrivateEye wrote: »

the vast majority of pollution is as a result of the likes of China and their love for cheap mass production. Seeing just how keen the lads in China are on human rights, it's surprising they don't care more about the environment.

When you take China, India and other manufacturing heavy weights...and add the military states like North Korea and the U.S (more so in the past) with regards to Arms testing, it quickly becomes clear turning off your lightbulbs isn't worth much.

Sure even the Green Party, the party who apparently love the environment so much, have to take some of the blame. Look at Eamon Ryans change of stance on Shell in Mayo even. They don't want to point figures at big-business, but rather tell us about the 'power of one' and the rest.

So long as the 'quick buck' comes first, the environment will suffer. I really doubt Climate Change is some scam either myself :rolleyes: It's very real. What isn't real is the way people think we can deal with it.

All the middle class rubbish in the Irish Times magazine about organic this that and the other is just people patting themselves on the back, which is normally covered by a sweatshop t-shirt....but at least the chickens had somewhere to run around. The obsession with free-range and organic/ eco friendly stuff is more about projecting an image of themselves as sympathetic 'aware' folk.

Green Party voters are apparently among the wealthiest anyway (No statistics handy, they are online- apparently the PDs, the Greens and Labour voters are generally the wealthiest- with FF the most popular among the overall wearing proletarian 'wurkin' class' ) They tend to be the ones who can afford all the eco-friendly rubbish. Ordinary people are more worried about paying bills than switching the car so it runs on bloody vegetable oil.

Saying all that,
1) I am a vegetarian
2) I've no interest in owning a car

but I despise all this 'you can save the world' nonsense.

I'm not belittling all environmentalists, just the lifestylists who refuse to acknowledge the realities of climate change. Look at Al Gore, the bloke is running a power-station of a house and driving some gas-guzzler around and telling us we can save the world.

Jim Corr is busy chasing the Jewish Neo-Cons who brought down the twin towers, and the lizard people who control the 'Zionist media'

I want Jim Corr on the otherside of the world.

India and China, India and China, India and China. I am telling you, all those people studying for exams are mad. Just write India and China as the answer to all questions/problems and you cannot go wrong.

Look at the bigger picture. Why has all industry transferred to India and China??? Why have India and China no environmental constraints like the rest of the world??? Look iknto the GATT treaty.

This is all planned down to the last detail, the government are not good guys. You are there to serve them, don't forget that.

petermcqueen · 11-07-2008 08:55PM

Tara Le d'Arion wrote: »

It's probably better for thirsty people, 100,000(:pac:) litres of water are needed to produce a single kilo of beef. woot
Although there'sa lot of water on eartheee

Rubbish.

What, was the cow chatting to the man in the white coat?

humanji · 11-07-2008 08:56PM

Oh just f*ck off.

Tar.Aldarion · 11-07-2008 09:02PM

petermcqueen wrote: »

Rubbish.

What, was the cow chatting to the man in the white coat?

R. Goodland & D. Pimentel, 'Sustainability and Integrity in the Agriculture Sector,' Ecological Integrity: Integrating Environment, Conservation and Health, D. Pimentel, L. Westra, R. F. Noss (eds), Island Press, 2000.

AlmightyCushion · 11-07-2008 09:05PM

Tara Le d'Arion wrote: »

It's probably better for thirsty people, 100,000(:pac:) litres of water are needed to produce a single kilo of beef. woot
Although there'sa lot of water on eartheee

Then that means it's good for earth. If we keep making shít loads of beef, then the sea level won't rise when global warming causes the ice caps to melt.

El_Dangeroso · 11-07-2008 09:06PM

Tara Le d'Arion wrote: »

It's probably better for thirsty people, 100,000(:pac:) litres of water are needed to produce a single kilo of beef. woot
Although there'sa lot of water on eartheee

Please explain to me who is thirsty and why me giving up meat would magically ensure they have water. Irish beef uses very little water. The example you cite is for factory farmed meat where cows are confined to inhumane housing and fed unnatural food that makes them sick, which in turn leads them to be pumped full of pharmaceuticals.

Not good or heathy for anyone involved.

Most Irish beef is pasture fed ergo, heathier, happier cows and healthier, tastier meat, higher in omega 3 (good), lower in omega 6 (good).

They also fart less and are more or less carbon neutral!

Monoculture of corn and wheat is far more detrimental to the environment. People should do their research before falling for vegan propaganda.

Dudess · 11-07-2008 09:09PM

petermcqueen wrote: »

Sorry, but are you the fella with the bebo page???

in the words of my good friend; "the fool's reproach, its a kingly title"

For the personal abuse and the above on-thread questioning of a moderator's decision in an abusive manner, you can take a banning.

By the way, wasn't there very pronounced climate change in the United States when the settlers arrived there and started felling acres of trees...?

PrivateEye · 11-07-2008 09:09PM

This is all planned down to the last detail, the government are not good guys. You are there to serve them, don't forget that.

eh.....thought my opinions on the Governments role in the state of the environment was clear through the paragraph on the Green Party and their change of heart over Shell in Mayo?

A lot of the same companies now convincing us they're 'green', are up to their balls in cheap labour, and indeed pollution, in....you guessed it, mainly India and China.

As for the GATT treaty, and the WTO, of course there's very obvious reasons these countries are allowed provide the cheap services and no-limits production bases they do.

'The Government' were never good guys. In fact, no matter who you vote for- the government get in

....and if its Sinn Fein in the North, or Fianna Fail in the south, they generally none too different.

Still, the point I was making last time, and I stand by is that

*Joe Bloggs in Dublin turning off all the lights in his house to save the environment is worth very little. Our own ministers have gone over to countries that are doing undeniable damage to the environment to try increase our trade with them. We can't have it both ways.

Tar.Aldarion · 11-07-2008 09:15PM

neddas wrote: »

Please explain to me who is thirsty

http://www.ourplanet.com/tunza/issue0401en/pdfs/12-13.pdf

and why me giving up meat would magically ensure they have water.

That alone would not.

Irish beef uses very little water.

Not true.

The example you cite is for factory farmed meat where cows are confined to inhumane housing and fed unnatural food that makes them sick, which in turn leads them to be pumped full of pharmaceuticals.

That is true.

Not good or heathy for anyone involved.

That is true.

Most Irish beef is pasture fed ergo, heathier, happier cows and healthier, tastier meat, higher in omega 3 (good), lower in omega 6 (good).

That is true.

The also fart less and are more or less carbon neutral!

That is lol.

Monoculture of corn and wheat is far more detrimental to the environment. People should do their research before falling for vegan propaganda.

Monoculture is the ultimate evil, Phytophthora infestans will be back.

El_Dangeroso · 11-07-2008 09:23PM

Tara Le d'Arion wrote: »

http://www.ourplanet.com/tunza/issue0401en/pdfs/12-13.pdf

That alone would not.

Not true.

That is true.

That is true.

That is true.

That is lol.

Monoculture is the ultimate evil, Phytophthora infestans will be back.

Maybe I should have said 'less' water, and haven't we no shortage of it

Plus beef isn't the only meat, there's chicken, lamb, pork, phesant, duck, quail, venison the list goes on..

Plus try some insects! They're abundant and free..

Tar.Aldarion · 11-07-2008 09:30PM

They certainly use less all right, a lot of people here will eat american meat though, nearly all, with Irish meat too. Unfortunately, not enough animals can be raised on naturally watered, non-arable land to nearly match the demands of humans. We have it good here, they don't in most places.

I'd eat all the free-bees(pun alert) but without bees the human race could not survive.

El_Dangeroso · 11-07-2008 09:46PM

You hit on a key word there, non-arable land, ie land that you can't go crops on, ie the majority of land on Ireland. If we didn't use that land for animals we could do bugger all else with it.

Factory farmed meat requires lots of arable land a much more rare resource.

Plus we have to replace the calories if we stopped eating meat, this would result in higher intensity crop farming, more nitrates in the soil leaking into the water table and polluting our rivers.

Misguided environmentalists will never come up with a good solution for anything as they can't take the consequences of serious decisions (or look at long term consequences). There are always two sides to a story and someone loses. You want people to live? Animals die. Either by direct death or by land clearing.

You really want to save the environment (as in everything non person)? Start killing people. As was correctly pointed out earlier, people are the problem and we will always swell beyond our means. Even if we all eat only wheat, we will still run out of land and kill off everything in areas of possible farmland. Cutting the human population would make a real impact, especially if it was routine or controlled.

Who is ever going to make that decision though?

Most of meat sold in Irish supermarkets is Irish. Irish farmers fight cheaper foreign meet all the way.

Eat local, eat humane! and er.. stop having so many children!

daveharnett · 11-07-2008 09:46PM

petermcqueen wrote: »

Clearly as the big boys know, the more educated you are, the more docile and gullible you become.

Ignorance is power eh? Sounds familiar. Is it in fact you who is striving for world domiation?

Sarky wrote: »

Tell you what, show me some proof that humanity has no effect on the world's weather patterns, and I'll start believing you.

Much as I hate to defend the troll, it doesn't work that way. The person making the extrordinary claim (the notion man made climate change is extrordinary, regardless of it's popularity, and correctness) needs to do the prooving. The neysayers have no need to disprove it.

dr.bollocko wrote: »

Any argument that states that vegetarianism of any sort is somehow better for the environment is both spurious and illogical.

I'm sorry my friend, but on the global scale, meat is terribly inefficient as a foodstuff, and the industries which create it are major pollutants. F**k it though, it's tasty.

petermcqueen wrote: »

This is all planned down to the last detail, the government are not good guys. You are there to serve them, don't forget that.

Who are these machiavellian geniuses then, to whom you ascribe this masterplan so irresistible as to fool the world's governments, academia and press with one stroke?

blame the aliens, oh please!

El_Dangeroso · 11-07-2008 09:59PM

Dave, please see post above..

We have a choice, we can have a smaller, healthier population or a larger and larger more malnourished one. Not a great choice, but I know what i'd choose.

Why don't people realise that growing crops and meat are bad for the environment equally if done in a high intesity fashion. The key is low intensive but that can support less people..

Tar.Aldarion · 11-07-2008 10:05PM

neddas wrote: »

Plus we have to replace the calories if we stopped eating meat, this would result in higher intensity crop farming, more nitrates in the soil leaking into the water table and polluting our rivers.

No there wouldn't be, people just have to stop wasting food, up to 40% of food harvested can be lost before it is consumed due to inadequate processing, storage and transport. That does not even account for the food everybody throws away, food that goes out of date because we do not need it, food mountains and so on. We don't use nearly all the food priduced, not even close. People are paid to produce food we do not need, this along with teh fact that people could eat the incredible abmount of food used to creat meat in the first place(factory farms)
Ever work in a restaurant? Know how much food they throw away? This happens everywhere. I doubt we would need to increase it substantually at all.

Misguided environmentalists will never come up with a good solution for anything as they can't take the consequences of serious decisions (or look at long term consequences). There are always two sides to a story and someone loses. You want people to live? Animals die. Either by direct death or by land clearing.

I aggree that animals will have to die, I think that people should try to limit the amount of them that have to and it is wise to live trying to do so.

You really want to save the environment (as in everything non person)? Start killing people. As was correctly pointed out earlier, people are the problem and we will always swell beyond our means. Even if we all eat only wheat, we will still run out of land and kill off everything in areas of possible farmland. Cutting the human population would make a real impact, especially if it was routine or controlled.

Who is ever going to make that decision though?

Killing people? I think there are a few that would make that decision all right, and since our society is unsustainable, maybe we will all help each other out with that in the end.

Most of meat sold in Irish supermarkets is Irish. Irish farmers fight cheaper foreign meet all the way.

Eat local, eat humane! and er.. stop having so many children!

They do fight it, they don't really win. And apart from supermarkets there is also the ole fast food places who make a killing here.

Archeron · 11-07-2008 10:05PM

neddas wrote: »

Dave, please see post above..

We have a choice, we can have a smaller, healthier population or a larger and larger more malnourished one. Not a great choice, but I know what i'd choose.

Why don't people realise that growing crops and meat are bad for the environment equally if done in a high intesity fashion. The key is low intensive but that can support less people..

I endorse a selective cull of the human race in order to pacify the angry earth.
Lets draw straws.

Tar.Aldarion · 11-07-2008 10:07PM

But will it be controlled and routine?

Climate Change Delusions

Comments