|
|
|
|
#1
06-12-2012, 07:04 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Seriously?!?
This is a new one to me, coming to a flight sim forum to debate the merits, or otherwise, of global warming; and as usual anyone who takes an objective stance is a Nazi or a Communist. Left and Right do not need to dominate your thinking of politics or your ability to question something. It is right that both sides are examined and a consensus is reached. However that does not appear to be the objective of the original post. Climate change...is it natural, is it being accelerated by humans? I do not know, obviously there are a range of theories. Some are being pushed by lobby groups on behalf of groups with a vested interest in fossil fuel production and say that it is not happening. Some have no vested interest and say it is not happening, however I am more inclined to be sceptical of the ones with the vested interest, for obvious reasons. On the other side, the only people who really have a vested interest in an alternative to fossil fuels are those that produce systems for renewable energy. That is not the majority of people who were originally advocating this idea. Governments are running with this idea...does this make it bad or wrong, or a conspiracy to deny you or me our supposed rights? No. What is wrong in a country being able to secure it's own energy without the threat from another of a hike in prices, eg OPEC in the 1970's, or Russia controlling the flow of gas to the Ukraine and Europe. It is right that a country should be able to provide it's own energy using the means available, some of these means DO pollute one way or another, whether it is CO2 or contaminating an area with nuclear waste etc. Even some renewables, it can be argued, can cause a form of pollution - some people hate the sight of wind farms for example - it's not emitting anything but some people think they're ugly and spoil the landscape. So what is wrong with governments pushing for their own countries to secrure their energy security? There is an initial outlay. One way or another it will have to be paid for, whether by a state introduced tax or through increased bills so the company introducing the new forms of energy does not hit it's profit margins. I would rather it was done by the government as in some areas I trust them more than a private company. A private company is not run with public interest in mind it is run for the benfit of its share holders. The share holders of a government are essentially the public so it stands to reason that the interests of the government are to satisfy it's shareholders... I personally do not agree with everything that comes from the 'eco-mentalists' (to quote Jeremy Clarkson). I do not see that an electric car is better than a petrol car. The idea seems flawed as it's range is poor, and it charges from a source that is powered by fossil fuels...so how does it reduce pollution? I would however argue that the hydrogen fuel cell has the potential to be better than both an electric car and a petrol/diesel car. However it has drawbacks. The production process uses a lot of energy...a way needs to be found to do this efficiently and on a huge scale to make it a feasible source of energy. Who should pay for this? Why shouldn't government subsidise it? What is the difference in government subsidy and private investment...one way or another you, as a consumer, will pay in the end. However the government can later sell the technology and make the money back for the public. A private corporation has already taken your money, made a profit, created new technology and then sold the product making more money...they benefit more and you are still out of pocket! As for the financial crisis...that can be explained by the human condition of greed. How anyone can justify some of the huge wealth when you can look around, not just the world but their own countries and see desperate poverty. I'm talking the US, the UK as well as other parts of Europe. The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer, the gap is widening. As a Police Officer in the UK I have seen some of the absolute poverty and it is shocking and kept quite well hidden. The conditions some people live in are horrendous. Maybe they caused some of it themselves, but not all of it. There has always been rich and poor and a capitalist system needs these distinctions to be able to work. Seeing these conditions leaves you in a dilemma. State welfare is one of their life lines. Take it away what happens? Will these people just curl up and die? Can a moral nation allow that to happen? Or will these people fight for their lives? Will they turn to crime (more so than already) to stay alive and try to live up to the ideals of society of having more more more? Which is cheaper? State benefits for the poor or paying the high costs of fighting crime and compensation for those who have lost as a result through theft, damage, injury and loss. Neither can be justified, and as with the debate on climate change the whole thing is an experiment. There will be different methods tried all over the place and will come to different conclusions to suit each societies needs. Left or Right, private or government, it doesn't matter so long as the process is agreed upon implemented and done with the good of everyone in mind, not just the few at the top. |
|
#2
06-12-2012, 08:02 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Good post OD.
----------------- Personally speaking, I have had enough of trying to deal with the pure idiocy expressed by several people (Atag_doc, MadBlaster) on this forum in the various political threads that have appeared recently. They are like people who demand the right to believe the sky is coloured green with orange polka dots, who when challenged by any evidence-based reasoning that it may actually be blue, retreat into a fantasy land of conspiracy and denial, and accuse you of infringing their freedom of speech. Last night's posts took the biscuit (e.g. "Today both Republicans and Democrats have been co-opted by Progressives" and "In Europe Right and Left are Socialist." Atag_doc). How do you even begin to reason with that? I have concluded that it's not possible. I understand now why Andy lost it and got banned. It is very difficult to deal with such narrowly disguised arrogance and closed mindedness. So, guys, stay in your familiar, right-wing comfort zone. Keep believing that the entire world beyond a narrow, right-wing, Fox News-fed grouping is a socialist conspiracy whose only goal is to find ever more novel ways of increasing your taxes. I won't be posting replies to any of your nonsense any more.
__________________
i5-2500K @3.3GHz / 8GB Corsair Vengeance DDR3-1600 / Asus P8P67 / GTX-260 (216) / WD 500GB Samsung 22" 1680x1050 / Win7 64 Home Premium CH Combat Stick / CH Pro Throttle / Simped Rudder Pedals |
|
#3
06-12-2012, 08:35 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
Cheers |
|
#4
06-12-2012, 02:18 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
__________________
“Violent, irrational, intolerant, allied to racism and tribalism and bigotry, invested in ignorance and hostile to free inquiry, contemptuous of women and coercive toward children: organized religion ought to have a great deal on its conscience.” ― Christopher Hitchens |
|
#5
06-12-2012, 02:46 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Well I received this today, oh joy the idiots will now regulate us even more, based on bad science again
__________________
 GigaByteBoard...64bit...FX 4300 3.8, G. Skill sniper 1866 32GB, EVGA GTX 660 ti 3gb, Raptor 64mb cache, Planar 120Hz 2ms, CH controls, Tir5 Last edited by SlipBall; 06-12-2012 at 02:48 PM. |
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
