ALERT: The Anonymous Group - Anarchist Criminals

wtf are you on about? Have you lost the plot? We are talking about some of the most authoritative voices of capitalism. The main journals of the capitalist system.

only retards, seeing as NK bears little resemblance to what the main socialists defined socialism as, which is workers (ie public) ownership and control of industry.

It is a basic requirement for socialist leaders to take the average wage. Lenin and Trotsky did it. The famous children's author Arthur Ransome went to Russia while the Bolsheviks were in power and he along with many others testified that the Bolsheviks took no privileges. In fact when he visited a jail, the prisoners got better meal than the local Bolshevik leaders.

He is a clueless idiot.

 

Probably not if you factor in costs like congestion and global warming.

Dont talk (*)(*)(*)(*)e or I will put you on ignore, suicide is not a joking matter.

Bull(*)(*)(*)(*). Poor people are most affected by it.

This is a fantasy. Most multinationals take the wealth and leave little for the country they are mining or drilling in. Yes they pay a bit more than local companies, to reduce staff turnover, they can afford to when they are extracting that country's resources so cheaply. As well as paying a bit more than the local average wage, they also resort to techniques such as genocide and war, pollute the local environment, prop up dictators and so on.

Lets take a typical example. RTZ in Panguna, Papua New Guinea. Dumped more than 1 billion tons of mine waste into the Pangana, Jaba and Kawerong rivers killing all aquatic life in 480 square kilometer river system. The waste formed a deposit approximately 20 kilometers long, upto a kilometer wide and several meters deep along the rivers with a copper contaminated outwash fan in Empress augusta Bay covering nine square kilometers.

Wrong. Socialism would have no profit but would produce a lot more, and there would still be incentives. Profits on the other hand work against innovation and production in many ways. Too much to spell out in a short post, this needs a thread on its own.

Name the scientist and his qualifications and expertise. Name the report you refer to. Did you read my link at realclimate? Did you? If not, you are a total waste of time.

You are full of (*)(*)(*)(*) and you know nothing about the subject, all you do is read stupid rightwing blogs and fill the gap between your ears with garbage.

There is not plenty of evidence which refutes the consensus position.

"Oreskes, 2004

A 2004 article by geologist and historian of science Naomi Oreskes summarized a study of the scientific literature on climate change.[118] The essay concluded that there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. The author analyzed 928 abstracts of papers from refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, listed with the keywords "global climate change". Oreskes divided the abstracts into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. 75% of the abstracts were placed in the first three categories, thus either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, thus taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change; none of the abstracts disagreed with the consensus position, which the author found to be "remarkable". According to the report, "authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.""

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Oreskes.2C_2004

Yes, you can buy nets for them from Oxfam etc. There are various ways malaria can be combatted. The mossies have developed resistance to DDT so it's not so effective these days. DDT is pretty toxic to humans btw. DDT has been opposed by locals as well as environmentalists etc.

Which is what we should be prioritising now, not waiting until catastrophe strikes.

I am scientist and you are a hysterical right winger, just a small step away from a real conspiracy theory nutter. Most if not all conspiracy theories come from the right. Anti AGW is one obviously. If you wanna discuss the environment and AGW, I need facts not waffle.

Did you read the link? My links are by actual climate scientists.

1. Which ice age?

2. Explain how continents clustered on the warmest part of the planet causes an ice age.

3. "The allowed CO2 to be removed even has the ice sheets expanded to the polar ice caps."
wtf does this mean?

4. "Only when most of the land was covered would greenhouse gases have started to build up to levels high enough to overcome the cooling effects of the extensive ice cover."
and this? Why would greenhouse gases build up when land is covered in ice?

I think this is an extremely confused half hearted attempt to paraphrase some (*)(*)(*)(*) you have read somewhere.

why not?

It's fact, google it.

UN warns of looming water crisis

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/1887451.stm

"More than 2.7 billion people will face severe water shortages by the year 2025 if the world continues consuming water at the same rate, the United Nations has warned. "

 

Too big a question to answer in one post. The 'if this is true' bit makes no sense anyway. The fact that there has never been socialism doesnt really affect the reasons for advocating socialism, if anything it strengthens them.

So?

Well, you just said all systems so far have been unfair. So it's not saying much.

You are just saying this. You have no evidence to support it. What about the fact that for most of our existence, life was mainly pretty much egalitarian? Do you know why we learned to talk?

 

People who want to use public transportation can do so. People who want to use a car can do so as well. People can also car pool. These are hardly problems concerning society. Unless you are a crazy environmentalist who is just concerned about too many cars on the road.

(*)(*)(*)(*) kooks.

How do you put anyone on ignore anyway? I've never done it.

And I don't know why you are getting upset with me. The only people who buy into this stuff are guilty people. Besides, environmentalist have no problem killing you if it justify the means. The means which are saving the planet.

"If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels." - Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, patron of the World Wildlife Fund

Poor people are the most affected by it thanks to the Global Warming prevention and those (*)(*)(*)(*) Environmentalist.

At least the poor in those countries are paid and have money to feed their families. The other alternatives are prostitution or crime.

Who owned the Jaba River in New Guinea around the time of the pollution? No one. Property owners have an incentive to keep their own property clean. Roads, waterways, rivers which are frequently owned by government are frequently used to dump stuff people no longer want. If no one owns the property then there is no incentive to actually keep it clean.

If places were privately owned, there would be much more incentive to actually keep the area clean. Also businesses wouldn't be able to dump their waste in Rivers and Lakes.

If something is too complicated to understand then it most likely fails by definition. Where would be the incentive to actually produce a lot more than before if there is nothing in it for anyone? How does demand offset increasing supply and vice versa?

Ian Plimer. He is a supposedly geologist. And I obviously read the link, otherwise I would have never posted the video.

And all you do is read Marxist blogs and fill your head with marshmallows. The problem with consensus is that it's consensus. Debates aren't settled with consensus. Debates are settled with the evidence presented.

Besides, more than 30,000 scientist have signed a petition claiming they dispute man-made global warming.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...petition-denying-man-made-global-warming.html

Fly nets work great when you're in one place or sleeping. But if you have to move around your screwed.

When used in large quantities. There has never been a single case of DDT ever harming or killing anyone before it was banned. And the only reason locals oppose DDT is because officials and food importers coerce locals out of using it.

It's not viable and it's too expensive to produce, therefore it would be too expensive to provide for the common man. Only the super rich like Al Gore would be able to afford it. He's probably the only one who would want to use it anyway.

So you are a scientist. So what? I suppose that is suppose to mean something.

I like how you keep assuming that I'm a right-winger. But I guess anyone who is to the right of you would be considered a right-winger. I also like how you just assume that you that I read right wing blogs when you're the only one who is subjective to just reading conventional opinion and passing it off as fact.

I only pay attention to economic matters and global markets. I only speak my own opinions and they are based on what gives people the ability to prosper.

Conspiracy theories like the 2012 Apocalypse, Area 51, 9/11 Inside Job, Global Warming, The Loch Ness Monster and other conventional urban myths?

Last time I checked, all of those theories were originated from the left. Not the right.

You can't have a conspiracy theory position to another theory. I'm a skeptic. Or denier or which ever you prefer. Last time I checked the default position of scientist was skepticism and yet so many scientist are so willing to side along conventional wisdom without looking at all the evidence.

So? There are plenty of actual climate scientist in the world which disagrees with conventional wisdom.

Quaternary.

There were some areas with unfrozen land. Not everywhere.

It means the spread of ice resulted in even more cooling of the earth. This reflected more of the Sun's energy back into space.

Have fun.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEsygjXunTs"]Debate[/ame]

No, it's not a fact. We've been drilling for oil for over 100 years. And all of a sudden half of the proven reserves amount to only 40 years of oil left. That's stupid. Resources don't get scarcer and they don't just disappear. We have yet to actually drill in any of the places which does have oil and proven oil reserves are not the measure of the future supply. We've been drilling for over a century. The deepest mine only goes about 15 miles below the Earth's surface and it's 4,000 miles to the center of the Earth.

Geologist just say whatever they want just to pass an agenda and collect grant money. They are not to be trusted when it comes to economic matters!

What gives the UN credibility on anything? What have they ever predicted which turned out correct?

 

First, you original premise was completely false. Many different forms of socialism have been tried and failed. Some idealistic nonsensical "pure" socialism would fail just as all modified ones have done.

Second for most of the life of mankind it was survival of the fittest. Both the fairest and most unfair system of all time. But brainless yahoos did not last long. They became predator poop.
Just as the brainless dolts that think socialism has any redeeming qualities become poop for the real predators that run socialistic systems.

And what more proof than a functioning, analytical, mature brain is needed to KNOW socialism is a silly but dangerous pipe dream?

 

Not if it isnt there.

As I said, congestion costs British businesses £20 billion a year. That's quite a lot of money.

I dunno on this forum, never tried it. I had to do it on TR because half the people there are utter scum and there is no moderation.

You shouldnt suggest to strangers on the internet that the kill themselves.

Support

support

support

Bizarre idea

Why not start a thread on it? Then I can give it a proper explanation.

He is supposedly a geologist, and one of the rare ones who are sceptics. His speciality is mining. Do you wanna have a stab at summarising his wild and ludicrous claims so I can demolish them for you?

have a read of this

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/08/plimers-homework-assignment/

As I say, present the evidence then, either here or start a thread on AGW and we will go through it.

Yes, and out of 30,000 names 200 were climate researchers. In fact there were only 39 actual climatologists, just over 0.1% of the total. There were also 113 in atmospheric science, 0.5%.

We already established that there is only about 40 years worth of oil left, so we should be looking at alternatives. A simple idea is build a load of wind turbines and run trams off the electricity. It's not that expensive. Wind is free. Tram lines are just metal bars on the ground. 22% of Americans are unemployed and another similar figure do useless jobs. Get them building wind turbines and trams. Stop making all those weapons and make green energy instead. America spends $700 billion a year on the military, and they still cant even beat a tin pot bunch of Islamic militants they stupidly created in the first place.

So if you wanna debate science, present a summary of the science together with links and names etc. Give me something to go on. AGW science is well established with thousands of papers of research as I shower earlier I think, none of which dispute AGW. So it's up to you to offer something concrete.

You talk and walk like a right winger, obviously you are economically somewhere in the libertarian camp, and culturally you are right wing, in some ways at least (eg homophobic).

Yes, and you think Keynes is a left winger. Lol.

 

Support.

When you say global warming, you mean it is made up, a fiction. That is not a conspiracy theory, it is a conspiracy. It is you sceptics who argue that AGW is a conspiracy. That idea is a conspiracy theory, so you are the one putting forward the conspiracy theory (that AGW is a conspiracy). This view always comes from right wingers. Especially the oil industry. 911 inside job does come from all sides, I guess. Loch Ness is not a conspiracy theory. 2012 Apocalypse, I dunno, it's not really a conspiracy theory. But it is the sort of crap the conspiracy theorists believe.

The main ones are New World Order type. They believe that governments want to get rid of countries and have the world ruled by big corporations. They have very confused views on things like socialism and fascism, often linking these opposites. They clearly border on the type of anti-government rants that come from the Tea Party and yourself, talking as if the government is controlled by socialists and so on, total nonsense basically. The more far fetched versions say that the governments want to kill 90% of the world population, and that they are run by aliens who live underground (the earth is hollow). Also that they are Jews, but not proper Jews. And Shape Shifters. All our techhnological advances come from these alien life forms who want to enslave humanity.

Yes, all highly credible stuff obviously. They usually round it off with Hitler was on the side of the Jews, the holocaust didnt happen etc.

Oh, and global warming is a conspiracy.

Your position is conspiracy theorist, see above.

I prefer septic. Or denier.

Science should be sceptical and is, but not blindly so, ostrich fashion. The overwhelming evidence says AGW is correct and 97% of the most actively publishing climate researchers say so. Fact. Also, out of 928 papers, none disputed AGW.

No, not many.

The quaternary is the current ice age, nothing to do with the Eocene. The current ice age was probably mainly caused by the formation of the Himalayas and then the weathering of silicates, which suck guess what out of the atmosphere? CO2 preceded temperature.

I think you may be getting confused with an ice age hundreds of millions of years ago, when the continents were clustered near the POLE.

Albedo effect, yes.

Please summarise, i dont have the patience or time for a 24 minute interview. Plus, Ian Pilmer is a dickhead.

There is no oil at the centre of the earth, it is mostly around the same depth. We only have 40 years left because the population has grown. We have less than 40 years proven reserves if you assume population growth.

Want more?



http://thewaterproject.org/

 

If there is no public transportation then people will buy cars. You think people on all these islands in the pacific are struggling to get anywhere because there is no public transportation? There are buses but that is about it. Buses take very long to get to your stop and buses don't run very frequently at night. Neither do trains. Most times it is just best to own your own car.

In terms of what? Global Warming?

I dunno on this forum, never tried it. I had to do it on TR because half the people there are utter scum and there is no moderation.

I never suggested anything. I was merely pointing out how much the guilt trip regarding CO2 pollution is.

You think I'm just posting these quotes for my health? Environmentalist cherish Earth more than they'll ever cherish people. They are worse than PETA. The only good thing about PETA is that they are consistent with their beliefs.

"Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental" - David Foreman

Thanks to the environmentalist movement it is keeping developing nations back from prospering and leading healthy lives. They are against industry. They use kerosene lamps which are horrible. They build mud fireplaces which cogs their roofs. It's disgusting and they die at a very young age because of it.

What are the other alternatives to these people having jobs because of these industries? Working in the fields, chopping down trees to sell as fuel, beginning on the street, stealing, scavengering for aluminum in dumpsters, prostitution. This isn't much an an alternative compared to working for these companies.

Is it a bizarre idea? What about the Fish Legal organization in the UK? Using nothing more than common law protections they seek compensation from polluters on the behalf of the property owners.

No need. If it has to be that complex then there is already no hope that it'll even work.

Climatologist disagreeing with Ian Plimer. What else is new. I fail to see what this relevancy scoreboard has anything to do with...anything.

http://cyclesresearchinstitute.word...t-of-atmospheric-temperature-and-co2-content/

So? Majority of them were Earth Scientist. That matters just as much.

No one established anything. 40 years is merely a made up number scientist came up with who have no fundamental understanding of economics.

Wind is free. Making the turbines on which it operates is not. If it is too expensive to mass produce then it is too expensive for the common man to afford. Hence, it's not viable.

There are no demand for trains. Infrastructural spending doesn't help anything. Infrastructure only helps after you finish the project and productivity of the nation. America is broke. China can build all these roads and airports because they're rich and they need them. American doesn't need them.

I'd rather waste money building weapons than building technology which is unusable. At least one day someone will actually be able to use a predator drone and kill a terrorist. No one is going to be able to spend millions of dollars for renewable energy. It's too expensive and no one is going to want to buy it.

If there is a demand for a project, the market will know and will provide it. Until then, it makes more sense to find newer ways to use use the same amount of oil to do less and less stuff. It's foolish to pursue projects which can be made cheaper elsewhere.

So if you wanna debate science, present a summary of the science together with links and names etc. Give me something to go on. AGW science is well established with thousands of papers of research as I shower earlier I think, none of which dispute AGW. So it's up to you to offer something concrete.

I'm not a homophobe. I actually like women to a certain extent. Gays just annoy me.

In what way is Kenyes not a left winger? He is the epitome of the Welfare State and is for central planning in every way. He was even gay. He opposes Marx which in your view makes him a right winger.

 

It's also still a theory.

No, we are simply implying that it is not about saving the environment but as a means of passing off an agenda. This agenda also coincides with the Big Government supporters.

We are not conspiracy theorist. We don't justify anything which allows Government to have more control over us. Cap-and-Trade is one of these examples.

9/11 Truthers originated from the left. The Loch Ness may not be a conspiracy theory but the monster which resides in it sure is. Or an urban legends. Whatever you want to call it. As for the 2012 Apocalypse, that stuff can only originate from Hollywood. And Hollywood is infested with leftist ideology.

No one in the TEA Party thinks like that. The TEA Party is for smaller government, not ant-government. The TEA Party believes there is a roll for government. Just as long as it's an legitimate government function. The only people who believe that the Government is out to destroy them are the 9/11 Truthers and the Noam Chomsky idiot supporters.

And the only people who believe in things like that are Islamo-Fascist. They are the only holocaust deniers that I know.

No, I just don't believe in giving someone the power to tell me how to live based on something which has not been prove to exist.

If you create your own study, call it evidence and have a consensus then of course it will be correct in someone's view.

And also none of those papers proves that it exist. Even by the scientific method Global Warming doesn't exist. You can't come up with any scientific theory you like and call it a fact just because it doesn't dispute your claim. There are still plenty of scientist which disputes global warming.

Enough to still call for a debate. You barely hear of any Geo-centrist being heard on a public spotlight for very long.

Whatever.

Summarize what? And why is Ian Pilmar a dickhead? Because he goes against conventional wisdom?

The population has growth every year since the industrial age. Exponential growth doesn't account for anything. Just population increase in absolute terms.

And this means that water is scarce? There is plenty of water in Africa. Just not clean water. Where are the water systems? Where are the water purification facilities? There is no wealth in Africa to create any of these things. Wealth creates a better environment. Poverty creates a worse environment.

 

I'm talking about big cities not Pacific islands

what? Congestion costs British business £20 billion in wasted time.

So you found a couple of dodgy quotes. That means nothing. I happen to know people who work for Greenpeace and they do not place the environment over people, the whole point is that people need the environment.

This is bull(*)(*)(*)(*). The environmental movement is not against developing nations developing. What holds them back is the profit system. The rich countries need to lower their emissions drasically and the developing countries need to slow the GROWTH in their emissions WITH THE HELP OF THE RICH COUNTRIES.

Greenpeace:

"The Solution for the Climate

Make sure emissions peak in 2015 and decrease as rapidly as possible towards zero after that
Developed countries must make cuts of 40 percent on their 1990 carbon emisisons by 2020
Developing countries must slow the growth of emissions by 15-30 percent by 2020, with support from industrialised nations"

What action does Greenpeace propose for developing countries? Mud fireplaces? No, they need to leapfrog the mistakes of the west and go straight to modern green renewables, using the sun, wind, waves, tides, geothermal heat and so on. Greenpeace calls on the rich countries to give €110 billion a year to developing countries to help with that. India has put forward an ambitious solar plan for example. It would mean in 10 years India will be producing 75% of the world's solar energy. 400 million Indians have no electricity and the solar power would help the country's development and end the power cuts.

What? Multinational companies? They are the problem not the solution.

It's up to you, if you want to stay ignorant, stay ignorant.

It's not a complex idea, socialism is the working class owning and controlling industry. Incentives would be provided as necessary but the aim would be to vastly reduce the inequality over time until eventually there is no money and no inequality.

I can, for example, show you how in fact capitalism does not ensure innovation, but socialism would.

It's no good just pasting a link, you need to summarise what science you think proves CO2 is not the main problem.

Not true

Earth Sciences 2,240. That is not a majority out of 30,000 is it?

It is the proven reserves divided by the number of barrels currently being used each year.

"Myth: Wind power is expensive
Fact: The cost of generating electricity from wind has fallen dramatically over the past few years. Between 1990 and 2002, world wind energy capacity doubled every three years and with every doubling prices fell by 15%7. Wind energy is competitive with new coal and new nuclear capacity, even before any environmental costs of fossil fuel and nuclear generation8 are taken into account. The average cost of generating electricity from onshore wind is now around 3-4p per kilowatt hour, competitive with new coal (2.5-4.5p) and cheaper than new nuclear (4-7p)9. As gas prices increase and wind power costs fall – both of which are very likely – wind becomes even more competitive, so much so that some time after 2010 wind should challenge gas as the lowest cost power source.
Furthermore, the wind is a free and widely available fuel source, therefore once the wind farm is in place, there are no fuel or waste related costs."
http://www.bwea.com/energy/myths.html

China's railway passenger traffic sets record high

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/bizchina/2011-10/09/content_13853134.htm

Record Amtrak Passengers Hint at Growing Demand for High-Speed Rail

By Jennifer Booton
Published October 14, 2011
http://www.foxbusiness.com/travel/2...s-hint-at-growing-demand-for-high-speed-rail/

sorry for using FUX News source there

You really have flipped havent you? I just mentioned how India plans to be the world leader in solar. China is already the world leader in renewables. You yourself said in the future cars would run on solar.

ohh, tell me more! You can PM it!!

His view was how to save capitalism, not to scrap it and replace it with socialism.

 

Big cities already have trains. The last thing they need are more trains!

That's an excuse. I'm pretty sure Mexico has no high speed rail and they have a higher productivity rate than the UK.

It's not a couple. It's much more than a couple. These are not just quotes from random environmental activist. I am posting quotes from prominent environmentalist from magazines, to the sierra club to as high as the UN.

Also you don't seem to get it. You are apologizing for a disgusting movement. If I told you these quotes were from Nazis you might agree with me.

Emissions have nothing to do with it. Qatar may be one of the richest Islamic nations in the world but it's no where near as industrialized as the the US.

And while India is wasting time with that, their productivity rate is shrinking. India hasn't figured out a way to escape 2nd world poverty or how to increase the nations productivity.

Being environmentally friendly isn't keeping them fed.

It's a complex idea because it's an unrealistic goal. Without any sort of motive there is no innovation or incentive. People always respond to incentives. Nothing will change that, as long as there is a means and an end. The only way that hair brained scheme can work is if everyone thinks the same, which everyone does not.

In every industry where there is no profit motive, competition and prices it lacks in innovation. This is apparent in Education, Health Care, Housing, and Immigration.

I have to read your stuff but you can't read something which is only a few paragraphs of information? And what exactly should I summarize?

And what makes you so sure that it's only 2,240 Earth Scientist which signed the petition?

That's based on faulty understanding of the actual amount being use. The amount of oil consumed only accounts for the amount of barrels being purchased. Consumption is based upon spending. It's not based upon how much is being used at any particular time.

This is why it makes no sense to determine the amount of oil left. The amount of proven reserves have always increased even with net oil consumption.

The average wind turbine cost anywhere from $2,000 to $10,000. That is not cheap. Especially for a device which operation is determined on the wind. But I'm sure if the average man was forces to use it I suppose it could pay for itself in 10 maybe 15 years. By that time maybe the price will move down a few hundred dollars.

Amtrak's only indicator that there is a demand for High Speed Rail is that more people are using it than ever before. What exactly would that attribute to? It's not like their rates have been decreasing. And every year the yearly Ridership increases. They break their all time record almost every year. Give or take a recession or two. That's nothing special.

If anything I would attribute it to the fact that oil prices have been increasing steadily. This week American stocks were in a Bull rally and price of oil have been to their highest levels since a month ago at $88 dollars a barrel. This doesn't necessarily proves that there is a demand for High Speed Rail. It does show that oil prices forces people to self nation and use less. People stop driving everywhere when they don't need to.

I don't know how they plan to do anything when they can't even become more productive. Like I said, I have no problem with solar if it helps in the long run and increases the productivity of the nation. In the meantime, they have serious structural problems with their economy. China can do it because they are rich.

It makes no sense for Americans to try and develop these things if they are too expensive. If Americans cannot develop something which another country can do for much cheaper then it should be in the business of making those things. Because who are they going to sell them to to offset the man hours and the production cost? No one. The only people who will be able to afford them are the super rich. And selling only to the super rich is not a very good marketing demographic.

http://www.politicalforum.com/picture.php?albumid=16395&pictureid=6233

His idea of saving capitalism was just to consumer without and accountability. A view many Marxist today subscribe to.

 

trams

I dunno why you think Mexico has a higher productivity than Britain. And what do you mean it's an excuse? As for high speed rail, we dont have much and thats mainly intercity, I'm talking about urban congestion vs trams/light rail.

A few random quotes, they mean nothing.

""Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental" - David Foreman "

ok, he sounds like a dickhead.

""If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels." - Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, patron of the World Wildlife Fund"

Definitely a dickhead

"I suspect that eradicating smallpox was wrong. It played an important part in balancing ecosystems." - John Davis Earth First! Journal

another dickhead

"We have wished, we eco-freaks, for a disaster or for a social change to come and bomb us into Stone Age, where we might live like Indians in our valley, with our localism, our appropriate technology, our gardens, our homemade religion—guilt-free at last!" - Stewart Brand Whole Earth Catalogue

so you found four retards? That does not represent the environmental movement. Have you googled them? Your Whole Earth Catalogue existed years ago and represents one person. OK Prince Phillip represents WWF but he is famous for stupid statements.

what are you on about?

well it hasnt started yet so dont blame it

Global warming is causing droughts and floods.

There would be motivation. But the motivation would change over time. Ideas are the product of the material world. Our thoughts are determined by our environment. Even Russia, fettered by the bureaucracy, nearly overtook the USA after starting from a much lower base. Motivation was lacking there, but there was plenty of R&D.

What? America's prosperity was built on immigration. Why do you think there is no profit in housing? I have worked for property developers, they make a fortune.

As I say, Russia had plenty of innovation, their problem was getting it implemented.

In capitalism, most researchers are not gonna get any direct profits, either their company gets it, or they work for universities etc.

And in capitalism, the problem with private research done for profit is that it tends to be stuff aimed at those who have the most money, not the most need.

it was a 25 minute video! You have to summarise the points. AGW is the established position, the research is widespread, thousands of papers, all supporting AGW. If you want to refute it you have to come out with specific points backed up by research.

I googled it, I think it was their own site which said it.

For how long? I tell you, the remaining reserves will be the (*)(*)(*)(*)ty ones, at the bottom of the Arctic oceans or wherever. They have looked at all the obvious places. I nearly went into oil exploration myself, a long time ago, before global warming was common knowledge. You know what? Out of all the geology graduates who were getting jobs in geology, almost all were in mudlogging (oil exploration).

That is small ones for homes and farms. Commercial ones to generate the grid cost about $3 million.

Actually wind is catching on in America.
"Thirty-five percent of all new power generation built in the United States since 2005 has come from wind, more than new gas and coal plants combined, as power providers are increasingly enticed to wind as a convenient hedge against unpredictable commodity price moves."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power#Economics

nice!

No idea what that means.

 

Miami has the Metromover. I've used it, it is very nice and convenient. Miami has a population of 2.5 million residents and over 10 million tourists per year. The ridership of the Metromover was 1000 passengers a day in 2011.

It cost $438 million to build and costs a negative $9 million per year to operate and it carries 365,000 people. Or it costs $24.65 for every person that uses it not counting construction costs. It has been operating for 25 years.

How many more of these should we build

And steamy summers, and freezing winters, and poor reading skills and poor math skills and obesity, and Plantars Warts and sudden acceleration of Toyota's..

 

Miami has a Metro? I've never seen it during my travels there >_>

 

http://www.miamidade.gov/transit/rail.asp

http://www.miamidade.gov/transit/mover_stations.asp

Exactly the problem.

 

Wrong. Socialism has never been 'tried'. You can't 'try' socialism. It's not something you can set up one day and give it a 'try'. You could try to move towards socialism and this was only really ever done by the Bolsheviks from 1917-24. However Lenin knew they had no chance on their own:

"But we have not finished building even the foundations of socialist economy and the hostile power of moribund capitalism can still deprive us of that. We must clearly appreciate this and frankly admit it; for there is nothing more dangerous than illusions (and vertigo, particularly at high altitudes). And there is absolutely nothing terrible, nothing that should give legitimate grounds for the slightest despondency, in admitting this bitter truth; we have always urged and reiterated the elementary truth of Marxism - that the joint efforts of the workers of several advanced countries are needed for the victory of socialism." (Works, vol. 33, page 206)
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/feb/x01.htm
my emphasis

That was in 1922. In 1923 the German revolution finally failed, partly thanks to Stalin, and then when Lenin died and Trotsky was ill, Stalin started to gravitate towards the very people Lenin had been fighting, the anti-socialist bureaucrats they had inherited from the Tsar's regime.

Nowhere else really was socialism tried, certainly not from a Marxist point of view. Mao did not try to achieve socialism in China, Stalin tried to make sure Eastern Europe did not attempt socialism, the Comintern at all times urged Stalin's Two Stage Theory - that countries needed to be properly capitalist before even thinking about socialism. It was just an excuse to abandon and sabotage attempts to move towards socialism.

No, socialism was never tried.

Google idealism and materialism. They are two main strands of philosophy. Marxism is not idealist it is materialist.

You refer to 'pure' socialism in the way the ancaps refer to pure capitalism. This is completely false. As I say, Stalin fought against socialism. He collectivised, but only to remove the threat from the growing middle and capitalist classes. In the 30s he killed many of them and also all the socialists, all the original Bolsheviks. He was fighting the left and the right. He ran a degenerated workers state on the basis of 'socialism in one country', with a bureaucratic dictatorship.

Do you think that fits with what Lenin said above about needing several advanced countries, or this...

"Proletarian democracy is a million times more democratic than any bourgeois democracy" Lenin, 1918, Bourgeois And Proletarian Democracy

Wrong. Man evolved for millions of years without classes. Classes emerged just 10,000 years ago or later. man survived through teamwork. Together they felled trees, built boats and houses, hunted, shared food, developed language in order to be able to co-operate with each other. In fact the first class societies were overthrown and replaced with deliberately egalitarian ones which then lasted 3000 years. Humans had social networks of over 100 miles right back in the last glacial period 30,000 years ago when Neanderthals still existed alongside ourselves.

Yes, all socialists are stupid. Do you know Ed Milliband was taught economics at Oxford by a Marxist? Do you know Marx was voted greatest thinker of the millennium?

No, you are (*)(*)(*)(*)ing clueless. All you can do is trot out a few tired old misinformed cliches.

 

And why do they need Trams?

Because the OECD told me so (Hours worked for total employment).

http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=LEVEL

That's is a UK problem then. The US doesn't have it and it's has the highest productivity rate in the world.

It's not just a few. I only took the time to post 4.

Yes I have Google them. Doesn't change the fact that it was said. A lot of the quotes I have have been made within the last 5 years. There are alot of quotes from people like this. They give off and anti-human caricature that leaves people to believe that they don't care about anyone except for planets. It's no different from the PETA organization. Except PETA is at least consistent. At least they do not engage in hypocrisy.

Qatar's population is the same size of the State of Hawaii. It's not as industrialist nor is it technologically advance. The fact that they have the highest CO2 emissions has nothing to do with their advancement in the industrial age. They're not even considered a first world country last time I checked.

I have no expectations already. I believe their efforts should be made towards industrializing first and becoming productive. Once they have solar energy they have no where to implement it and very few ways to use it.

First it caused floods then it caused droughts. Pick one.

The only motivation in the Soviet Union was coming up with a military arsenal which was more powerful than the United States military. It's only more proof that competition works. Without it, there can be no innovation either.

Never said that there is no profit in immigration or housing. I said that when you eliminate the profit motive you lack innovation. South Africa has it in their constitution that everyone has a right to a home. There are housing shortages in South Africa. There is no profit motive there. Where were also shortages in the California due to price caps on housing and apartments sometime during the 60s.

And immigrant are very profitable. They either come in with a very high or very low skill set.

Profits trickle up. They don't trickle down. Researchers get money from grants which are profits in their own way.

Need is a relative term. My needs can also help out the needs of others.

http://www.biocab.org/Mean_Free_Path.pdf

This paper Determines the Mixture of total emissions of the gasses. Concludes that CO2 and water vapor mix together decreases the infrared radiation absorbed in the air. It also concludes that CO2 is a coolant and has no potential to trap heat.

The more than half of the obvious places have been tapped. The obviously known places doesn't determine what is the future supply. It doesn't always determine why is "easy" to get nor does it determine what are the "obvious" places.

The economics of coming up with the proven oil reserves are just as important when it comes to measuring an estimated future supply. Investors want to know how easy the oil will be to find and how easy it will be to take from the ground. They want to know how pure the oil is. They want to know how much it will cost to refine. The oil reserves which falls below this standard of affordability are not considered developed because no one wants to lose money trying to drill up those reserves. Those undeveloped reserves are not considered among the "proven reserves."

That still cost too much.

That's only among the new forms of power in the US. It's not like it's holding the economy in any way.

It means they believe there is a such thing as a free lunch. They don't understand the difference between cost and prices.

 

There are no authoritative voices of Capitalism. They are just economist who come from all different types of economies around the world.

That is no different from a form of the loony Anarchy movement. Who is going to ensure that the workers have public ownership or control of the industry and not "the boss." Someone had to be in control to make sure that happened.

It is a basic requirement for socialist leaders to take the average wage. Lenin and Trotsky did it. The famous children's author Arthur Ransome went to Russia while the Bolsheviks were in power and he along with many others testified that the Bolsheviks took no privileges. In fact when he visited a jail, the prisoners got better meal than the local Bolshevik leaders.

That's racist. Thomas Sowell is probably one of the greatest minds of our time.

Because it is beautiful. One of the things Adam Smith explains in his book The Wealth of Nations is not only where wealth comes from but in particular how to increase the estates of the least among us. He is deeply concerned about the poor and he takes an approach of what will work to help these people.

And why happens when the minority doesn't agree? Do they just sit back and go along with collectivism at the expensive of everyone else?

Yeah, yeah. I read that all before.

 

Because they get you to work faster, and the alleviate congestion so the buses and cars can go quicker. They go 50mph for most of their journey. Meanwhile traffic crawls at a snails pace. Even on the motorway.

GDP per hour worked, current prices, USD

Mexico 19.8

United Kingdom 46.7

Think again. Your source.

United States 59.5, yes it is a bit higher than the UK. But it's not all down to public transport is it?

Anyway, the Netherlands scores 59.6, and they have loads of public transport including trams. Norway is 75.4 by the way.

Sorry, but they mean nothing. They are stupid statements by a handful of freaks. I actually know someone who was an organiser for Greenpeace.

where do you think their CO2 comes from then?

What? How do you industrialise without electricity?

It does both, and both destroy crops, soil, lives.

"Global warming 'will cause more forest fires, droughts and floods"

http://www.independent.co.uk/enviro...-forest-fires-droughts-and-floods-411918.html

http://www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/fcons/fcons1.asp

"The Consequences of Global Warming
On Weather Patterns
Higher temperatures could lead to increased droughts and wildfires, heavier rainfall and a greater number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes."

read the evidence at the second link, it's very brief and is based on the USA.

well, this bloke is a biologist, the paper was not published in any peer reviewed journal, it was on his website, and it has no credibility. I dunno if he is even a genuine biologist. He makes all sorts of claims.

It is not particularly expensive compared to fossil fuels.

 

Yeah, so if the Economist is left wing, why did it back Thatcher and Reagan?

regular elections
right to recall
average wage for elected representatives

difficult to be racist seeing as I dont know what race he is.

no, the capitalists wont agree, but if they are in a minority and the nationalisation is passed by law, what can they do? Economic sabotage? We will stop them doing that, by any means necessary. Civil war? Unlikely, but they can try. Coup? Possible. Fascism? Possible, but it couldnt succeed if the workers movement was strong. Assassination, intrigue, blackmail, lies? No doubt these things would be tried and dealt with accordingly.

well then you know Stalin wasnt trying to back revolutions around the world, straight from the horses mouth.

 

Backed them in what way? The Cold War Era? That was an East verses West thing. Like I said, even leftist opposed Communism. Not so much anymore. Now the left embrace socialism if the ends justify the means. The American people will never willingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened.

Why have elected representatives -- or an elected process at all -- if everyone is suppose to be Socialist?

He is Black. I figured you would have at least done a Google search on this Marxist defector.

​

Or they can just leave the country. Or set up their own state in the country where they set up their own Rule of Law. Why waste time fighting against someone who has total control of all the resources when you can just defect and set up your own place were everything is privately owned? That's what people during the Cold War tried to do but couldn't because of that pesky wall thing.

Or it good just mean that Stalin is a liar. Or crazy. Made no sense for him to Sabotage Revolutions in Europe since it was all being taken over by Hitler and his National Socialism movement. They both even invaded Poland together.

 

Moderates are strong enough to face the nitwits on the far left and the far right.