I am a professional genetic scientist/protein engineer. I started out working next to a new research institute, all swoopy architecture and weird piping poking out the top. Security was tight. We all wondered, what really went on in there? Alien ship on the top floor with frozen bodies? Cold fusion reactor?

I started working there a couple years ago and it turned out to be pretty boring, just the same thing again. Floors and floors of modestly paid scientists on depressing short term contracts, delegating work to attractive young students, trying to find objective truths about problems small and large in scope. No alien ship on the top floor, just a ping pong table (but a nice view area and BBQ).

We Scientists (not a climatologist btw) just try our best, for reasons we doubt ourselves sometimes, to present the closest to the objective truth we can produce and hope someone actually reads it. From our clever predecessors we know all the ways that humans can delude themselves in technical arguments when they want something to be true, and we pounce on other scientists in meetings when they make those mistakes. We can be smartarses in forums pointing out when non scientists show these argument biases again and again and again.

But it's not our fault when politicos try to produce policies that benefit their cronies or increase taxation while sounding green. Or when a weatherman says that the hurricane last month was because of global warming, or that the cold snap last week disproves global warming. Or if a coal mine closes, then reopens with the coal dyed green, marketing them as "antiwarming green gaia powerrocks (tm)"

The scientific consensus on global warming is very clear, and has been verified by multiple avenues of research and multiple groups of scientists who probably don't like each other that much. Sorry.

camber

P.S Global warming actually got me into trouble during my PhD. I calibrated my CO2 analyser using a textbook that gave the 1975 atmospheric content of CO2. After my data was a bit weird my boss pointed out I better check, it had gone up a lot since then :)

I can see it now. Scientists playing ping pong, back and forth, frying up big fat steaks on the BBQ while calibrating their CO2 meters. Please tell us now you work for GE or Monsanto.

Sorry, I try to restrain myself. But gee whiz.:-P

Ok I'll put it another way, when has marxism ever not led to tyranny and mass murder?

Yeah, I think it's worth giving up on.

LOL .... and to think in the mid 70's we were all heading for the big global freeze, the next ice age.

Even if man was contributing to global warming, how long do you think it would take to stop it, or slow it down ... decades, by which time I've heard many scientists say we don't have that long. So I pose the question, if it was really that dire, wouldn't the authorites be stopping ALL industires that produce CO2? Ha ... fat chance.

Man made global warming / freezing ... bah hum bug. It's called progress and no one wants to stop it.

It's as if you think the top tier gives a flying f*** about the future. They care about the now. Quick profits runs the world, not morals. If they know they can live their 50-100 years without some major world ending catastrophe, they don't care. That's how society works.

I don't see much progress in anything tbh. We are ruining the planet for our own existence. People buy bottled water like it's going out of style because 50% of the natural water supply is contaminated by "progress". The only progress I see is making more ways to kill each other both with governments and large corporations all in the name of making money. (weapons, side effects, poverty, etc.,etc.)

But if anyone honestly thinks we can sustain the amount of fossil fuels we are using for 100's of years to come, reality will indeed knock us back into the stone age again. We are definitely not on a path for any sort of prolonged sustainment. Anyone that thinks the world will be fine forever and ever again at our current pace is very very uninformed. I'm just glad I'll be long gone before the eventual wake up call, but in a way I wish I was around for when we ran out of oil.

It'll be interesting watching the droves of people who can't change a light bulb, wire a house, sweat a pipe, build your own home, grow food etc., (in other words, without any of sort of self sustainment ability) run around like clueless morons when they can't turn on their A/C, go to the grocery store, navigate without GPS etc.,etc.,. I don't wish death on anyone, but I love people that think their iphone, internet, television, is life's necessities. Well enough of that ;)

were progressing alright...and we will look like Geidi prime in no time :grin:

Maybe, but man will have had little to do with it.

no need to be around Bliss...just rent the road warrior...that should give you an idea of what it will be like:-P gazaleen aye?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9n29c-q3_8Q

Man only controls it's own destiny. Planet Earth and mother nature will always win. We are just a parasite in the scheme of things. But when we ruin our own eco system, we'll be gone. And the world will just keep on a turnin'. ;)

yes yes! Mad max now! Break a deal, face the wheel! Two men enter, one man leave!

There are enough real life mad max types here in Australia, especially in mining country. Not sure we need any more.

You people like to throw that 'Socialist' label around a lot. It seems to be a blanket term of abuse for anything you don't particularly like, because it doesn't have much to do with any definition of socialism that I've read.

If you described Ireland (and specifically the Fianna Fail government and their policies) as socialist most people would find it hard to stop laughing. The Irish screwup was caused by the banks having to be bailed out and rescued by the (boo hiss! BAD!!!) government/state after fueling a housing boom that subsequently crashed.

Similar situation in Spain afaik.

And to describe the US Democrats as socialist is such a joke ...it really is.

The banks caused the mess in the US too, and if they hadn't had the big bad state to bail them out you people would be in a much worse situation than you already are.

like i said, wonderfully simplistic.

so if everyone did that, or became entrepreneurs in whatever field, do you not think there would be failures due to the sheer level of competition? where would start up investment come from? what about comparative levels of education, socio-economic backgrounds, sheer ability... i mean seriously, you expect 50% of spanish youth to just go out there and make money from... what? thin air? who is going to spend money on their enterprise if no one has money?

is this that american dream thing?

if they aren't republican then they are damn well socialist.

it's the black and white world show! basic understanding of the political spectrum not required!

I know the situation is dire for much of the world's youth. I didn't mean to imply there is a one size fits all cure.

Pretty much plus one to this. I used to work in government-funded research in the UK. People who do this sort of stuff aren't in it for the money. They're not into trying to scam the general public out of money to fund their lifestyles. If they do want more money, it's to fund their actual research. They're driven by a desire to find stuff out, and also to earn the respect of their peers.

To make a slightly tortured analogy, they're like people who fly online and insist it's full switch - they want other people to say "That guy's good!". So there are egos involved. This means, as Camber pointed out, that the scientific consensus is not normally arrived at though some chummy agreement.

Before anyone jumps on this post, I'm not claiming that these people do their stuff for free, or that they'd turn down the chance to get paid like Premiership footballers. But I bet if they did get paid that much, they'd use a good chunk of the money to buy better scientific gear, rather than two Lamborghinis.

Success for them is not about earning more and more dosh.

On the other side of the fence, to my mind, you have the petro-chemical industry. I think we can agree that they do measure success in terms of profits. Why could they possibly opposed to the idea that the burning of fossil fuels is something that we should be curtailing?

Of these two sides, which is the more powerful, in terms of shaping world economy and politics? A bunch of people who just want to prove that they're right to their own small community, or a bunch of people who can convince nations to go to war in their interests?

If there is a conspiracy involved in proving the validity of the theory of man-made climate change, I know who I think is behind it.

lies.

again though, that's not marxism in it's true form - it's perverted and used to give the same old style of inequality a nice bit of window dressing. basically, like religion, it's a nice ideology until the people in charge start to use it for their own ends.

when has an unfettered free market economy not led to a collapse of financial institutions which has severely impacted the lower tiers of society? when has it led to a level of economic equality that doesn't see large numbers disenfranchised, disillusioned and destitute? how far are you from a financial calamity - 6 months sick with something that renders you unable to work and isn't covered by health insurance? a natural disaster? a downturn in the market for your products?

oh but of course.

then there's the tales of patents for various renewable or non-fossil fuel driven systems being bought up by petro-chemical companies, stock piled to ensure the company survives beyond stocks and supply of said fossil fuels. i mean it's a conspiracy theory, but the depressing thing is that it is entirely credible. why hurt their market share before they have to, right?

No, I am afraid it is good old mostly taxpayer funded research in the land of Aus. I have never actually seen anyone play ping pong but the the BBQ sometimes gets a workout after 5pm on Fridays ;)

Scientists used to be more fun before OH&S, risk assessments and whatnot. Putting dry ice into tiny capped tubes was always fun, then put them down other scientist's lab coats without them noticing (and then sneak away before they explode) :)

Crisis? What crisis?

http://www.pbase.com/daverilstone/image/143872175.jpg

You blame the banks. I blame the borrower. There seems to be no personal responsibility anymore. This is the bigger joke. The democrats purposely worked the banking system ala GSE fannie mae/freddie mac to gain votes from the middle and lower classes. Everyone with half a brain knows this. The republicans are to blame in that they allowed it to continue. It is a socialist agenda when it comes to housing in usa. Exhibit A, the deduction of mortgage interest on the tax return. But ultimately, it is because the sub-prime borrowers welched on their obligations. It was all about the democrats selling the so called american dream of owning a home to their constituency. If you go on youtube, there is a good video somewhere pre-crisis of republicans trying to stop it, and barney frank throwing his power around to stop him. Barney Frank has since admitted it didn't work out as the thought. Really, the man should be in jail along with a lot of other people on both sides.

edit:
I should add, "the state" didn't bailout the banks in usa. the taxpayer did. Most people don't even pay income tax here. So, ultimately, it was wealth transfer scheme from the taxpayers to the deadbeats and massive collateral damage economically as side effect.

everything is a distraction from the truth as this thread

the banks are borrowers as well.

lending money to people who are desperate for money but have no means to pay it back is not the hallmark of responsibility.

anyway, thought you were done with this thread? or do you want that chat now to work out why you have so much hate in your soul?

Is it a coincidence that a discussion about climate change turns into a discussion about Marxism ? I think not ..

As taxpayer for many years and someone who paid off his mortgage only to see his house fall in value the last few years due to the deadbeat socialist, maybe you understand where I'm coming from. This government finances its activities two ways. Taxes and debt. There is no getting around that. Most would rather spend like crazy, not pay taxes and pass the bill to future generations until the value of the dollar goes to hyperinflation and economic collapse. It is despicable and reason why the socialist/communist should be persecuted at every level.;)

i see. house valuation, like any investment, can go down as well as up. surely you read that bit of small print? and every government operates on tax and debt.

perhaps a socialist ran off with your mother or high school sweetheart? could this be the root cause of your hatred? we need further sessions though. open your heart.

So do you advocate marxism or not?

Lies. But I already knew that. The wizard confirmed it to me yesterday.;)

under ideal conditions yes. but considering those ideal conditions require a completely different mindset and a huge shift in motivational factors for the entire human race - it's not going to happen.

so no.

but there has to be an alternative to the current system, because it sure ain't working.

is that what you call your socialist step-dad?

cute.

Hasn't communism been the predominate system in place for much of the past 100 years in eastern Europe until it's collapse in the 90's?

Wasn't there a wall that ran though Berlin that separated one ideology from the other?

Does anyone have any statistics of the number of people that escaped from West Germany into East Germany where life was good?

Please help me find this information I need it for my dissertation please. I will credit you for it.

Thank you in advance.

I love you

XOXO

Oh and if you could provide me the number persons that were shot in the head or back while they were being traitorous by escaping from the west to the free east that would be helpful to.

Well the North Koreans love not having an electric bill to pay each month.:-P

LOL. FINALLY! FISH IN THE BUCKET!!!:grin::grin::grin:

Moderator: Above troll has engaged in meaningless circular argument and insult relative to me. The above clearly reflects personal attack as exhibit A. This thread is not about me, but above troll has made repeated attempts to make it personal and about me. The above troll has attempted to defend the so called "atheist" and then a short while later making an appeal to GOD! If this is not an illustration of troll behavior, I don't know what is! The above troll has admitted to finding chaos "kind of wonderful" as well. The above troll has not tried to eat my face off, as I suspect influence of bath salts.:!: My helmet an body armor are in place. Code red:!:


more exhibits w/ personal attack:

1) "woeful, truly woeful."

2) "lies."

3) "anyway, thought you were done with this thread? or do you want that chat now to work out why you have so much hate in your soul?"

4) "perhaps a socialist ran off with your mother or high school sweetheart? could this be the root cause of your hatred? we need further sessions though. open your heart."

lol, the irony. who is the wizard then?

doc, slip - yeah that's the kind of examples i mean. it's been called communism, however the same kind of tiered society that it was meant to replace has been in evidence. simply under another name and with far worse consequences than the prevailing political systems.

Lol. That would be the "wizard of smart".;)

Ok I am getting flooded with data from all across the globe.

My crack research team has unearthed a big time secret from the western capitalist pigs that proves more people died trying to escape west Berlin into the communist east.

http://s16.postimage.org/ultw2t26t/traitorsdeaths.png

As you can clearly see by the data nothing is as it seems.

lol doc.

those numbers are made up, right?

as responses go, it was truly woeful.
you make no effort to restrain yourself.
you do have a lot of hate in your soul. why else would you tell someone to kill themselves because of what they believe.
wild speculation as to the cause of your hate filled soul. meant light-heartedly of course. maybe you just fell for some hippy and she broke your heart. it could be any number of traumatic occurrences.

anyway, nice to know that you read about 5% of my posts. any comment on the rest, or has it simply been "judged"?

i think the wizard of smart should be prosecuted under the trade descriptions act.

Forum Rules:
6. Personal attacks - Name calling, insulting others, including cynical, sarcastic and condescending discussion focused on other persons, members, 1C developers and/or their work.

7. Malicious personal attacks - and stalking are considered serious violations.

8. Double Postings of similar content – should be avoided

Ok, I'm slightly confused. Actually I feel like I've stumbled into a Raaaid thread.

Atag_Doc, what exactly is your point?

MadBlaster, what in the name of David Icke are you talking about? And who is The Wizard?

Forum Rules:
4. Sanity and civility will prevail here as on the rest of this forums. The purpose was to allow discussions that don't necessarily deal with IL2 or Cliffs of Dover all the time.

5. Political and religious discussions are prohibited.

So, based on multiple violations of Rules 4, 5, 6 and 8 this whole thread should be incinerated immediately.



I propose instead a 20 page thread in which we all take turns posting
"Oh YES it is !!!!!

"OH, NO it isn't!!!!

War. What is it good for, eh?

The correct response at this point in a forum argument according to netiquette is:

http://i161.photobucket.com/albums/t...ES/NoU-Cat.jpg


though variants of this sort of response often work well in appropriate circumstances ...

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_sNDFfgvnrX...ur+mom+cat.jpg

A lefty troll seeking revenge.

more evidence for moderator below:

MD_Titus said,

"andy got trolled hard in this thread, mostly with the lefty stick but also by the climate change denial schtick and, in honesty, lost it. but he wasn't the only one throwing insults around. to say that "I thought the left were the moderate ones willing to listen to all points of view" is somewhat insulting really, and forgets the left's long love of simply lining up it's enemies and shooting/decapitating/deporting them. we can be just as savage, brutal and blunt as the right, we're all people after all. but that comment also carries the implication that the right don't have to be reasonable and listen to all points of view, which to be fair is usually borne out by observation."

Notice the preoccupation of left verses right. Nothing about climate change, per say. I guess andy getting banned kind of tweaked him? So the follow up...the circular arguments, the mis-directions, the non sequiturs, the repeated attempts to make the thread about me. Really, pretty obvious. I guess his emotions got the best of him. Anyhoo, I didn't report him. I also gave him chances to cease and desist. But a frustrated troll, what can you do? I leave it up to the moderators to evaluate. I don't want the thread deleted. I stand by my arguments. The thread is pretty good one imo. His stuff, acceptable but misguided until it went personal attack to try deflect the validity of my arguments.

Ok, i'm done for now.

Here are my two cents on your comment. Take a look at this website.

http://www.globalwarminglies.com/Sun.html

I as a 14 year old kid remember watching the news in 1986 and scientists predicting in 7-12 years the earth was going to heat up because of the amount of solar flares hitting the earth. It was one of the first times they were able to truly see the effects of solar flares with satellite imagery. I never forgot this or the idiots who 10 years later started saying that driving cars was causing global warming. Today we realize even more how severe the solar flares are. I hear constantly that they are witnessing larger and larger solar flares. So I think for all of these young kids who have been bombarded with this notion that we should walk or use other means to not pollute. Please before you spout out all the propaganda you are taught at school and you hear in the media. Think for one second. Please go tell India and Russia and China who pollute more than anyone else to clean themselves up. The people that think they have some agenda to protect the earth by attacking people who can think for themselves, look at facts. Most of the people I hear attacking anyone who do not believe in Global Warming as the media portrays it are the dangerous people in our society. These are the people who are easily manipulated and can not think on their own. Many are very far left socialist/marxists. They believe in a world where everyone has to live by their beliefs or they are evil. The Kyoto Protocol called for wealthy countries to pay for other countries like China, India, Russia to continue to pollute as they want. The other countries would then tax their own people to pay for the pollutants that these countries would continue to keep polluting for decades into the future. The funny thing is no one is abiding by this protocol anymore.

http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/items/2830.php

Shrinking ozone hole could speed global warming

http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/cli...global-warming

One thing I have noticed through the years are the leftist young kids that come on forums and just harass anyone with different views than theirs. They can not back anything they say with facts. Instead just repeat propaganda. For some reason these people troll forums of all type trying to force their view as though its a crusade. I have listened to these people and the older I get I realize that 90% of the time they are wrong. I am suspicious of anything that is constantly imbedded in us whether it is at school or on the news. They are doing this to collectively try to control and manipulate your thoughts to what they want. I have seen this in the Stock Market to daily life. We all know about the lies and fraud that took place from real estate to the markets. If you were one of the few people to state this before the crash you were also evil if you were intelligent enough to think for yourself and not be caught up in the propaganda. However now we hear these same people wanting to be bailed out because they can not afford their house that they never could from the beginning. In the end everyone pays for them. People use your own brain! Think for yourself and you will see the deception in front of you most of the time. Be respectful of others views. Question the people who attack your views and see them for who they really are.

Actually the 10 highest per capital co2 producers are:

1. Qatar
2. Trinidad and Tobago
3. United Arab Emirates
4. Netherlands Antilles
5. Bahrain
6. Brunei
7. Kuwait
8. Luxembourg
9. Aruba
10. Falkland Islands


Australia sneaks in at number 11 ... but unlike the first 10 has a relatively large population.

By my calculations that makes AUSTRALIA by far the worst CO2 producing nation in the world.

Bloody Aussies ....

^^^

and that's why all Chinese cities/ major towns are constantly covered in thick heavy smog


http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/...og_782115c.jpg


For those who have been there and choked, you know what I mean...





and Marx labelled them the "useful idiots"






gee whizz bud, I remember a time when it was you doing all that... lol, yes the irony :)







http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_Regulator

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_F...tory_Authority


http://www.clintonmemoriallibrary.co...st_agenda.html

I see.

Nothing really works in a recession, but our system for years has beat the hell out of any others. Even our poor aren't poor by world standards. Not ready to throw it out because of this recession.

it's "per se"

and not in the slightest, i'm simply calling you on your own trolling. in talking to you, how else am i to address you? wizard? mad? mb?

as to the climate change, it was discussed, along with your view that atheists should kill themselves, the general political climate and the seeming preoccupation with climate change being a leftist conspiracy. all relevant, all on topic, as wide as the topic has become.

i see all of this as another attempt to "win" an argument by avoiding the topics being discussed or serious questions asked, and instead resorting to baiting in the rather forlorn hope that i'll go off the deep end at you. :rolleyes:

guess so, but it has the potential to become more than simply a recession. the situation in spain and italy could be as grave, if not worse, than greece or ireland. it's starting to look unprecedented. not sure how it compares to 1929 but the repercussions of that are well known.

Well, all I will add here...Germany has accepted climate change as a fact and is living up to the challenge.

As a side effect hundret thousands of new jobs have been created and a whole new technolgy field got established. Lots of money to be made here.

So, US, please stick to what you think. We have enough competition from China already in this new field.

I meant it as humour (but I suspect you already know that). I'm genuinely puzzled by your last few posts. There are no shape-shifting reptilians as yet (another 'joke' by the way - admittedly not a great one) - but who is The Wizard. Please enlighten me. And sorry for any offence inadvertently caused.

well quite. stimulating a stagnant manufacturing sector in times of recession? the horror, the horror.

Will only work out well, if government subsidy's are not required to keep them afloat.:grin:

Your making it up!

true, but given the current climate (no pun intended) private investment is probably thin on the ground, government subsidy to kick start it is all there is. give it 5-10 years and we'll see if it's a go-er or just another waste of public funds.

It is a new technology. It will take more like 20 years to really establish it. Basically a whole generation. But 80 percent of the population here is willing to pay higher energy bills if it leads to

a) energy independence (no more pesky wars abroad. Anybody calculated those costs into the energy bill?)
b) CO2 reduction
c) lower costs in the long run. And let's face it, gas, oil, uranium are all not going to become any cheaper ever again.

And let's not forget the rule of mass. The more something is produced, the cheaper it becomes. There also still is huge development pontential in all alternative technologies. If you compare it to car or aircraft technology, we are in 1914.

Big part also is making housing more energy efficient. Massive costs now, but given building in Europe tend to stand a couple hundret years, in some cases millenia, it will pay off. But people here are not thinking in today and tomorrow anyways, but 20/50/100 years into the future.

I wish they would let Andy back in, he was entertainment with his Frazier Crane like superior attitude . Watching him fly off the handle was great entertainment . I laughed and laughed .... ;) he was definatley a philosopher king. Porsches comment on page 45 was bang on .Now this is like watching the coyote after he got the roadrunner ..

eminently sensible.

it'll never catch on.

Dude you are really lost!!

Did your parents have any kids who made it through high school??

I see andy has changed his name to oldschool ...

Nope, very wrong there.

Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 491

:rolleyes:

Well his smug spirit lives on ..

1st
Like "minergie", right.
The isolation material uses soo much so grey energy you 'll never be able to make that up for(based on ~20cm and 100years lifetime).
This is a dead end.

2nd
In a Millennium(-nia is plural, btw)?!
What are you talking about? The storage facilities? Do you really think the Norwegians like the idea of having the better part of their country flooded?
What about he impact on the eco-system?



Tue.
Thats why we need to make the fusion work. If we cant, we're f'ed - guaranteed.

Tue again. Only it's Chinese who create and make all that money. You should check the numbers of 2012.
The companies in Germany are struggling and most likely wont make it.

Not according to this:

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming...-countrys.html

which shows China just passing the USA in total (but much less per capita) with the Aussies a long way back (behind Mexico!)

(Presumably the 10 (small!) countries you list as being ahead of Australia per capita aren't included here as in overall terms they're next to irrelevant.)

Originally Posted by kendo65 View Post
...
If you described Ireland (and specifically the Fianna Fail government and their policies) as socialist most people would find it hard to stop laughing. The Irish screwup was caused by the banks having to be bailed out and rescued by the (boo hiss! BAD!!!) government/state after fueling a housing boom that subsequently crashed.

Similar situation in Spain afaik.
------------------------------------------------
So you're blaming too little and ineffective regulation for the problems in Ireland (and presumably elsewhere too). Probably a good point and one I wouldn't disagree with but a strange one to hear coming from the anti-state pro-free market side. So do you think then that governments/states should get more involved in regulating and limiting the market to ensure we don't have a repetition of the crash(es)?

Virtually no-one was in favour of any such measures before everything went belly up. In fact the major voices in the last 30 years had been proclaiming that 'the market knows best' and would self regulate. All that government had to do was get out of the way. That's pretty much what happened - the experiment was run starting with the deregulation of the Thatcher/Reagan era.

The results came through in 2008. Pretty definitively too.

Though the right can't face that fact, which they (accurately) judge is too threatening to their world-view, because to fully absorb the lessons of the crash would mean advocating more regulation and a stronger role for government.


As for the Clinton link, a rabidly biased right-wing hatchet job of a site repeatedly throwing the 'socialist' label actually says much more about their own lack of perspective than it does about Clinton or the Democrats.

But I have now realised that most of you are using the term 'socialist' in the Fox News sense of the term - i.e. worse than 'liberal', but (probably) not quite as bad as serial-killer, rather than any accurate dictionary definition of the term.

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/sec-pornog...4#.T9KQilK8q9s:rolleyes:

Priceless. Any fig-leaf will do apparently. Even if a handful of junior employees watching porn sites was enough to bring down the most powerful economy in the world :rolleyes: , how do you propose that they would affect the quality of regulation in Spain, UK, Ireland as well?

But actually that isn't even the point, because right-wing free market doctrine said that ALL the regulators everywhere could have sat at home all day watching porn because they weren't needed because markets knew best, were self-regulating and definitely didn't need any government interference.

------------

An interesting (sort of...) question - it seems in this thread that the European posters are mainly (though not totally) from a left-wing perspective while, as far as I can see ALL the US contributors are right-wing.

So, are there any American forum-ites at all out there who hold left-ish viewpoints?

More irony. Republicans trying to get more regulation on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and Democrats/Socialists trying to stop it. These roles are usually reversed. All the Dems in this video are liars and thieves and should be arrested. But SEC is too busy surfing porn.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTbIb75JdwY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQXbT5ZMYaY

The 2nd one is particularly good ;)

http://myesoteric.hubpages.com/hub/F...ot-Responsible

http://spfaust.wordpress.com/2011/11...freddie-mac-2/

Priceless. Any fig-leaf will do apparently.:rolleyes:

Oh come on. It's even got a nice graph.

I like a nice graph.

The American view of how the world works is a unique and interesting one.

However even for Americans, blaming the people who lost their homes for the GFC is a new and interesting theory. It would seem that despite assurances that even if they lost their job and could not pay they could simply sell the mortgaged home at a profit (as US house prices "always rise") their "irresponsible house buying behaviour" is the true reason for the GFC not any corporate misdoing.

Of course the main reason for the real estate bubble problems world wide is the detachment of real estate values from a genuine market value (based on its value as a place of business or a residence) resulting in a speculative real estate market where house prices are based on speculative values for capital gain. Gambling in other words.

Not really sure what the connection of real estate pricing with climate change is.

Actually, I'm not (as you put it) "anti-state pro-free market"... you see, too much free-market (as in totally unregulated) is just as bad as too much intervention (as in Government control). Both end up with the masses standing in ruin, asking; "WTF happened?"

The way forward lay somewhere between the two. There needs to be a certain amount of free play and there also needs to be a certain amount of control. Australia set up a very effective regulator "APRA"... you'll have noticed our system did not go under (well not yet, but the socialists in power atm are endeavouring to rectify that). Most of all, there needs to be a high level of accountability. You can't privatise the profits and socialise the losses, neither (as the world has discovered) can socialism survive without capitailism.

The Clinton administration basically made it law (Community Reinvestment Act) that banks could not refuse homeloans to anyone in the their area. ie They made it so banks had no choice but to give loans to people who could not afford them.

Wolf_Rider, I can agree with everything you said there (and believe me, it's actually a relief to be able to find some common ground in this thread).

Apologies if I misinterpreted your personal position, but when you have to interpret someone's viewpoint from a few supplied web-links it's maybe a little too easy to make assumptions.

I think one of the big problems we've had through history is a tendency to be seduced by 'beautiful' theories that provide nice simple readings of reality. They may provide some insights and useful ideas that explain certain aspects of the world but when they move from being tentative partial truths to being dogmatic, unchallengable 'beliefs' then they create problems. I'd count marxism and the extreme free-market variety of capitalism in there.

If I'm an advocate for anything it would be a more balanced, flexible (fairer) capitalism that is less theory driven and more accepting that the market while being essential is not perfect and has limitations. And I'd be in favour of getting more regulation for finance and the banks. They should be serving the rest of society not dominating it. For the last 10 years at least the tail has been wagging the dog.

Basically agree with this. Real estate values, however, are location specific, not global. I guess your referring to mortgage backed securities and cds. Those were detached from the underlying asset values. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the vehicles that allowed for the speculative behavior. From the videos I posted, you can see they all knew in 2004 there was a problem. The lending standards were far too loose as we all know now.

As to relating to climate change, there is a connection in the sense that the losses were socialized to the taxpayer to bail out the banks from all the forclosures, short sales, free rents. Then there were the cataclysmic side effects to the innocent, non-deadbeat homeowners who suffered realized and unrealized losses on their homes. This thing started from the sub-prime market and contagion spread to the prime market and then the "strategic default" took off. So, it clearly shows the wealth transfer effects of socialism, which is at the heart of the climate change scam.

what?
You guys have a very odd relationship to the term "socialism". Reminds me of the Dark Ages in Europe, where everything was blamed on the Jews and witchcraft.

sorry, i was still writing.

I still do not see how climate change, socialism and the real estate bubble have any kind of connection?

Well then, do you see any connection between socialism and a German bailout of Greece? What would you call it then? Charity?;)

Self presevation, more likely.

Still, climate change and sociliasm?

:confused:. Yes, that is what the thread is about. Taxation/regulation on production/activities/behaviors/etc. to transfer/redistribute wealth and take away/limit freedom on a global scale. Climate change being the driver. Watch the video of the first post of the thread. Some would argue the foundation for new world order. I think this is plausible.

Oooooh. You mean because climate change costs, and other counties can't afford those cost yet or are too egocentric to take the responsebility, it is socialism?

Edit: kay, I just watched the video. wtf?
Irony, sarcasm, funny music, this thing sounds and looks like a Michael Moore production. What has concentration of the green house gases have to do with their effectiveness if there is no context to compare it too? What have cathedrals to do with the warmth period? Vine yards have been here forever? The show did not present one hard fact, it just threw one semifact in there after the, without any sources or references to check it up?

That aside, what is all that fear mongering about? This show looks like it was done by fascists countering arguments by communists (or vice versa), instead of an intelligent debate by pros.

You are actually basing your stances on shows like this?

So, let's get that right.
Climates over earth's history have sometimes warmed, sometimes cooled. Sometimes that change was faster, sometimes lower. Sometimes it was caused by Co2, sometimes by Methan, sometimes by changes in the earth rotation axis, sometimes by vulcanic activity, sometimes by meteors. Sometimes that caused massive ice ages, sometimes it caused massive warming periods. With other words, it is an utterly chatotic and unpredictable system. What the show got right was, for example, the little ice age and the warmth period preceeding that one.

That makes any "definities" pretty much impossible.
Added to that, the problem is not nessecarily global warming, but "climate change". Some areas become hotter, some colder. While the arctic ice shield has been shrinking over the last couple decades (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-RMGcu3nEE), and countries bordering that region are trying to secure shipping rights through formerly impassable lanes (North Western Passage, for example) the antarctic ice shield has not changed much at all. That has to do with the oceanic current system, which transports different climates all over the globe. Best example for that is the gulf stream.

Nevertheless, we do have some facts that the climate actually is changing. The video about the arctic ice shield just one example.
Is that casued by humans or not? I actually do not know. Nobody really does.
What we do know, however, is that CO2 is a gas that has some influence on that. It may weaken a cool down effect or strenghen a warming effect.

So the question really is not, did we cause that or not, but rather, do we want to strenghen that development or not.

But let's take a step back first and look at what climate change actually means. Does it mean the end of the earth? Most certainly not. There have been much warmer periods in earth's history and live nevertheless flourished.

However, these effects
a) took a while to establish, sudden changes caused by meteors or vulcanic activity beeing the exceptions.
b) nevertheless and regulary caused a whole lot of species to go into extinction because they specialized on certain climates. You just have the check the end of the last Ice age and the changes in Flora and Fauna it caused.

How does this effect us, IF climate change actually occurs?

Well, it won't cause us dying off. Some areas will even profit from this development, especially the northern hemisphere. Other areas will suffer, especially areas that already are covered in deserts. China actually is aware of this effect, Beijing gets more and sand storms every year, that is one reason why they invest so heavily in renewable energy. For the western world this means not nessecarily direct environmental consequences.
BUT, climate change in human history has often triggered mass migrations. The danger here is that millions of people will try to move to areas more hospitable, which in return may cause tensions, unrest and connected to that, economic turbulences. The world balance as it is now could be seriously disturbed.

Also, what happens once tempreturs in certain areias, like Siberia, rise over a certain threshhold, may be the release of massive amounts of methan, now frozen barely under the steppes soil. Methan is a much more effective Gas then CO2 when it comes to climate change.

Bottomline thus is:

Climate change may or may not occur, but the amounts of CO2 we put into the atmosphere "DOES" have an effect. Maybe a small one, maybe a large one, that is up for speculation.
But the whole system is so unpredictable and inherently unstable that even small amounts "may" have larger consequences further down the road. Butterfly effect is the keyword here. It is this unpredicability that causes countries like Germany to think "kay, better invest and spend a bit more today, even if it is for naught (still has positive effects like energy independence, so it is a winner whatever way you look at it), then to just go on into the unkown with unpredictable risks involved.

Thing is, we simply do not know enough about long term climate effects to take that risk.

There has been no increase in global temperature since 1998. I think that the economic harm of such a system will be great burden to many people.

A comment on people's behaviour in the recent property bubble. There's been some talk of 'deadbeats' and people irresponsibly taking out mortgages that they could never afford.

I think we have short memories. I can talk best about the situation in UK and Ireland just a few years ago. When property prices were continually going up there was all kinds of talk (including from 'experts' who should have known better) about property continuing to rise inexorably upwards essentially forever (ludicrous as it now seems I heard a lot of such talk then - complete with spurious but seemingly 'logical' reasons why). That was the general mood of the time and I recall something akin to panic setting in as people saw their chance of home ownership recede.

As prices continued to rise there was a feeling that if they didn't act now to 'get on the ladder' they would lose any chance of ever owning a home. I'm sure that fear led to many risky gambles where a feeling of desperation over-rode caution and common sense.

That attitude went hand in hand with the over-zealous behaviour of banks and mortgage lenders to fuel and sustain the whole boom.

Yep, the seeds for the housing market implosion were planted long ago.

The other interesting fact is that the repeal of the Glas-Steagal act that allowed lenders to bundle up bad mortgages and sell them as Wall St securities was also signed by none other than Bill Clinton.

Not that the repeal should be laid solely at Clinton's feet, it was definitely a bi-partisan effort.

Sorry, but that's another myth.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/glob...1998-basic.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/glob...termediate.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/glob...2008-basic.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrum...#Warmest_years

It's all about risk assessment. There are a lot of perceived risks to human survival. The sun going super nova, big meteor crashing into the earth, unstoppable plauges, killer bees...etc. As you said, lot of speculation with respect to humans and climate change. But the nut of it is even if it were true, is it bad enough to kill off the human race? We don't know. We do know the sun will go super nova. When all the scientists of the world stop barbecuing, stop driving gas powered cars, stop using petro products...etc. Then maybe I will listen. Until then, I remain extremely skeptical and prefer to rely on common sense. Also, I am not anti-environment. Just, there needs to be a balance and common sense applied. No sense in dealing with invisible monsters:!:

Yeah, well, the difference between Meteors and Super Novas is we have zero ability to have an influence on it. Climate change may be a differnt matter.

Common sense certainly does not match "When all the scientists of the world stop barbecuing, stop driving gas powered cars, stop using petro products...etc. Then maybe I will listen".

Very comfortable attitude you have, especially given your conditions to change/believe/being convinced are such extremes it is highly unlikely it will ever happen. Kinda shows the true colors here instead of something like a "common sense" approach. You simply do not want to leave your confort zone, at least be honest about it.

That said, do whatever you please. Just stop torpedoing those people that actually got themselves a bike for the dayly businesses or are trying to get everything on a bit more sustainable basis.

erm, except the warming/ glacial periods have occured at very regular intervals over the range of the Vostok Ice Core sample, and that same study shows clearly that CO[sub]2[/sub] is not the driver. There is however, a lose correlation indicated but by no means is a cause and effect indicated
Volcanic activity has been recently discoverd occuring in the West Antarctic (yes right under the Larson B shelf which broke off) and also more recently occuring under the Arctic.





yep, that's how bubbles form, and as well know bubbles only reach a certain size before they pop.

no-one really stopped to consider Kondratief (sp) and his "K wave" (rise, plateau, fall) with wars at the peak and major war at the trough. The last trough was WWII

"That said, do whatever you please. Just stop torpedoing those people that actually got themselves a bike for the daily businesses or are trying to get everything on a bit more sustainable basis."

I do not think anyone is torpedoing you for utlimateley cutting your costs of daily life for using a bike. If you think you are doing good by being more sustainable then I applaud you. I believe it is the people that want to be more sustainable but are trying to force their whole country and other countries to live by their wants that causes these arguments. Someone had mentioned Germany as trying to be self sufficient in terms of energy use. There is nothing wrong with that. They do not have enough natural resources to sustain themselves going forward so they have to be more efficient than other countries in their use of their natural resources. At some point in history each country is going to have to be conservative with their resources. This all goes back to supply and demand setting prices. However when collectively countries try to tell other citizens that they will have have less disposable income for their own family because they need to pay for other countries to continue to keep polluting then that is global socialism. Read the Kyoto Accord and this is exactly what they were trying to do. I believe we all know that as a world we are all responsible for working together on issues. But country sovereignty is what is at stake with many of the trends that are moving forward. Look in your local news and you will see it every day. The IMF and the World Bank. Educate yourself on this and you will see things in a different light. Who is the IMF to actually dictate to other countries. It seems that some people want to make sure they can control more than just their own country. This is a problem of what I see. Not global warming. That is just a way of diverting everyone's attention away from what they real issues are.

I also want to applaud all the posts here. I am amazed at how many intelligent people there are out there. I have thoroughly enjoyed reading everyones opionons. Well most of them besides the regurgitated propaganda that the media puts out. But I have to say that collectively I think there still are enough people that can think for themselves and come to reasonable/rational deductions of the environment around them to lead the way forward. It is a refreshing feeling to see intelligent debates taking place. Too many times anymore in the U.S. all you hear is the regurgitated propaganda people spat out from both sides left and the right. They blame each side like the other is perfect. Its funny because every bill passed in our country was done by both parties. So the mess we are in here both parties are responsible for. The ironic thing is so many crimes have been commited and not one person has been held responsible for them. You start to wonder about your own country and if there is a true justice system.

You have some credible sources for that?

Look, it may be that climate change is occuring, it may be it is not. But IF it is, and you have done nothing to prevent it despite enough ppl giving a warning, then please also take care of the eventual problems that may cause later on and do not bother those that started today.

As long we are on one page with this, go on to do whatever you like.

You write as though the earth has never gotten warm in the past:confused::confused:

I am writing about the changes this warming of temperatures brought in the past.
Case in point, last ice age.
Or to specify, i am not afraid about a warmer climate in the future. I do worry over the transition time, however.

We are just at the verge of exiting the warming period that follows each ice age, its like clock work...warm is better than cold, just enjoy the bikini's.

We currently are in a warmth period "within" a cold period, to be exact.
It should be getting colder again, not warmer. And as I said, I do not worry about the climate effects. I am worrying about the political and economic effects.

It is getting colder, right on time. Arctic ice thickening, most ice in years. Glaciers advancing world wide, 500 just in the Himalayas alone, sun spots down to near nothing in activity. Fear the cold!:cool:

Yeah, and if this continues for a successive 10 years, then maybe it's time to relax. Or to start worrying in the opposite direction.

I think you are right