Friday, May 16, 2008
May 16th
BBC News: US lists polar bear as threatened
Well, S2R, contrary to your own view of ethics, today has given the world a huge indicator that your underlying idea is correct. America, today, protected the Polar Bear. From here on in, ANY Federal or State policy likely to unjustifiably exacerbate global warming IS legally challengable. Note that law and power are required to achieve this type of ethics. The press seem to be in denial. It hasn't hit the front page of American papers or the BBC!
href="http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=517956" id=u-AFrqEzezHIR5SlxaC7FAGMArRJqbxseIRg:r-0_1211934549>Will Canada deem the polar bear - Clearly, there is a knock on effect. We merely need to await the results of the first legal challenge to a climate negative policy to see implementation of the change.
60 Comments
- If you do not have an admin password leave the password field blank.
- If you would like to request a password allowing you to add comments and blog news articles without needing each one approved manually, send an e-mail to the webmaster.
- Your email address is required so we can verify that the comment is genuine. It will not be posted anywhere on the site, will be stored confidentially by us and never given out to any third party.
- Please note that any viewpoints published here as comments are user's views and not the views of HousePriceCrash.co.uk.
1. planning4acrash said...
THE planet Earth has dismissed claims it is in danger from global warming, stressing the worst that could happen is the extinction of the human race.
'If you don't mind, I've got some orbiting to do'
The Earth spoke out after a series of books, television programmes and environmental campaigns urged people to do everything in their power to 'Save the Planet'.
The planet said environmental campaigners should change their slogan from 'Save the Planet' to something more relevant such as 'Save Your Sorry Ar$e'.
2. japanese uncle said...
Environmental charlatan is as vicious and tricky as property charlatans. First of all hunting polar bears (which is incredibly legal in Canada in return for a few thousands bucks) should be made a felony, involving capital punishment, or Guantanamo Bay on the basis of terrorism against nature.
3. James said...
Eh? Clutching at straws, rather?
"A federal judge had ordered the US government to make a decision on the issue by May 15."
"I want to make clear that this listing will not stop global climate change or prevent any sea ice from melting."
4. last_days_of_disco said...
Enter the new environment bubble/mania. We are all going to die, the planet is going to explode. We need to invest in renewable resources.
Well I appreciate there are loads of people who really believe all this stuff, and I want to enphasize the *believe* part here, because if you
fail to see the inescapable validity of the global warming crowd's arguments, you are obviosly a complete idiot (my sister ranted at me when
I dared to suggest maybe Al Gore had some alterior motives).
The bottom line is how can I make money out of this. Yeah, dot com start ups, inside track... I wait in eager anticipation to see what new "inovative" ideas are cooking. Its going to be good. We should start a site envirogreencrash.co.uk.
5. sold 2 rent 1 said...
P4AC,
Nice find. Your nationalpost link doesn't work.
Other ethically related stories today are:
Seismic shift for China's censors
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=517806
This shows that some regimes can change without being toppled.
I fear the NWO won't be as good as China though.
At least the US have Ron Paul to fall back on.
Who do we have? Merve maybe?
Plus: Dwain Chambers' doping methods exposed
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/main.jhtml?xml=/sport/2008/05/16/sofron116.xml
Will ethics return to sport at long last?
6. pelethar said...
Last Days of Disco:
You're right - you are an idiot.
7. James said...
s2r1 - how entirely predictable.
Your first link was published on May 13.
The US has comprehensively rejected Ron Paul.
The Dwain Chambers story broke yesterday.
You predicted none of this. It would be remiss of me not to point out there are a lot of stories in which 'ethical' considerations seem to be secondary too.
8. sold 2 rent 1 said...
last_days_of_disco,
I tend to agree with you.
Maybe P4AC's article is more about the turning point in the "information war" rather than ethics?
An article about "ethics" that turned out to be "unethical" later on? - we shall see.
9. theboltonfury said...
s2r1
please - linking Dwain Chambers to your ethical argument is so weak it's positively feeble
the guy wants to get in the olympics and this is his last throw of the dice. there are NO ethics involved in this at all, just the damocles sword over him of paying back the prize money and a finished career with no other options ahead.
if anything this emphasises that ethics are at an all time low point in sport (athletics in particular)
10. mark wadsworth said...
What LDOD says.
Try this website:
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/
It's basically 'envirogreencrash'
I really believed this enviro-crap until about a year ago, when it dawned on me that it was all a giant scam promoted by people who want to get subsidies for whatever it is they want to do.
This bio-fuels is the worst bit - about half of recent price rises are due to the shift to bio-fuels. it is reckoned that we'd need about half of UK arable land to meet the EU target of 5% bio-fuels. Seems like a crackpot idea to me.
11. sold 2 rent 1 said...
theboltonfury,
"if anything this emphasises that ethics are at an all time low point in sport (athletics in particular)"
Maybe you have hit the nail on the head here - ethics is at an all time low.
Let's face it. We have a western world that doesn't give 2 hoots for the developing world, just as long as they keep producing cheap goods.
There is only one way to go from an all time low - UP.
12. James said...
Right s2r1... so ethics being at a low point *or* at a high point *or* any mix of the two today *or* on any day in the past week serves to confirm your 'theory'? Do you not see how ridiculous that is?
You had ample opportunity to clarify previously. I asked you directly *lots* of times.
The Emperor has no clothes.
13. last_days_of_disco said...
@pelethar
I rest my case :-D
14. afrobaggie said...
The issue I have with scientific research is funding. Modern scientific research relies on funding, usually from a VI, therefore only research that validates a particular VI get funding and therefore from outside of the communtiy it appears that there are mountains of scientific research that back up the VI. Man made climate change has probably suffered the most from this cycle. As religion wanes as a power to keep the masses sated with their lot another control mechanism needs to take its place, the cold war has ended, climate change fills the niche.
The climate has constantly been changing throughout the lifetime of the earth but if we can make you feel guilty about it and tax the hell out of you to boot - brilliant. The modern day tithe.
15. inbreda said...
11. afrobaggie said...
The issue I have with scientific research is funding.
I agree - and as it is the oil companies that do most of the funding, I am encouraged to take environmental concerns seriously. I also have a strong beleif that enviro-problem deniers are basically just lazy people who can't be bothered to get off their butts and do anything.
16. last_days_of_disco said...
@mark wadsworth
I think there is still room for a blogg like this, more dedicated to the effects on the economy and so on.
That blogg would be interesting, pelethar could be greenbay ;-).
Job done.
17. hpwatcher said...
The answer to everything is the same........too many people!
We really need to get rid of one or two billion. Mind you, if the events in Asia are anything to go by, nature seems to be taking the appropriate action herself. These disasters seem to be happening with greater frequency........
18. doom&gloom said...
s2r1 - isn't today (16th May) one of the big days in your predictions? What is going to happen?
19. Si said...
@ Inbreda, exactly. One of them is my brother, and quite frankly he's the laziest person I know!
They also conveniently ignore all the other compelling reasons to reduce energy consumption and find alternative sources, many of which are discussed frequently on this board.
Whether financial types will try to profit from it is another thing entirely.
20. last_days_of_disco said...
@inbreda
So what should we do. Stop smoking? I don't smoke by the way.
This is literally an example of fighting the weather. Are we mad? I personally like the whole greeny lifestyle. I think its nice and kid friendly, but I don't think it makes a difference to the world weather. Its just a great way of getting people to feel good about their morality and have a reason to look down on others. Its a kind of mania, its not really based on reason.
It will play out to some ridiculous extreme, people will learn something useful and then come back to a sensilbe attitude to caring for the environment (I hope). Surely it must be possible to actually have a department of bubbles in the government or something, who monitor these things and put taxes in place to prevent economic disaster.
I spotted an example of this. The National Trust is using this mania for an admirable purpose. Saving peat bogs with all their flowers and environment. It gets people out doing something, getting to know each other and love their country. Their argument is that peat gives off greenhouse gasses when it is left to self destruct is a classic example of playing the enviro card. Its great if it works and we can get people out doing something useful. So I am all for that.
However, don't confuse that with reality. Will it stop global warming? Not a chance. We just must not sacrifice our vital strategic interest as a country for this, at the moment its all dove-tailing nicely, but if it gets in the way of our national interest, then we may need to re-evaluate our position.
21. Baroo said...
"11. afrobaggie said...
The issue I have with scientific research is funding. Modern scientific research relies on funding, usually from a VI, therefore only research that validates a particular VI get funding and therefore from outside of the communtiy it appears that there are mountains of scientific research that back up the VI."
You are misunderstanding the meaning of the word "research". You research things that are not well understood to better understand them, i.e. if you don't know the answer you do some research. What you are describing is not research, but rather something along the lines of what conspiracy theorists do: Only look at evidence to back up what you wnat to believe.
I admit that there is "bad" research that happens where scientists are corrupted into falsifying research, but I BELIEVE that this is pretty rare,on the basis that all the scientists I have met (quite a few) hold their scientific method (impartially experimenting to collect evidence to test a theory) in the highest regard. They have afterall dedicated their lives to it.
However, scientists also get caught up in things called paradigms, which is where they all start to think the same thing. This can lead to concrete and usefull theories (like gravity), but without meaning to these paradigms can make scientists apply a bias to their selection of experiments. Most gravity experiments that are conducted today do not try to disprove gravity as such. More, they test subtleties of well established theories that make up the gravity paradigm.
You could argue that Climate Scientists, on the whole, subscribe to the man made climate change paradigm which in turn could bias their selection of experiments towards those that support the paradigm. The thing is though that paradigms grow over many years precicely because people try to disprove a certain theory and can not. This is the case with man made climate change where lots of people tried to disprove it in the 70's and 80's and guess what? They did not. Yes the evidence is not as exact as that for gravity becuse we are looking at the entire world, not two particles with a known mass. It's a complicated (and chaotic) system that can never be predicted with anything like the accuracy of something like gravity.
The point is this (I knew I'd get there eventually). Just because some people are making money out of "green issues" does not mean that they are a croc of sh!t. That's the world we live in. People make money out of far worse things than climate change/global warming/gap years helping third world nations/amazon deforestation and anything that helps persuade people to have a little more respect for our environment is fine by me.
ps - don't tell me that global warming is a lie because we are entering "a period of cooling" (which I know has not been raised here). Nobody (not me at least) is suggesting that the planet's "natural changes" (whaterver that means) are switching off in response to what people are doing (that would be even more arragant than thinking we have no effect at all!). Our effects on the world are superimposed upon what is already there.
22. Planning4acrash said...
last days of disco. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the survival of the human race connected to the national interest?!
23. tinker said...
hpwatcher said...
Et voilą! The elephant in the room: population.
This from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population
There are 6.5b people on the planet, predicted to be 9b by 2050. The world population doubled in 38 years (1961-1999). There were only 2b on the planet (and a lot more polar bears, etc.) in 1927.
Astonishing! It can't go on can it? Particularly in a consumption driven, 'GDP must grow' world economy.
I do believe that the whole climate change/global warming issue has been hijacked by greeniac politicians for motives other than saving the planet - the planet itself will be fine, but the real problem is too many people, aspiring and 'deserving' to have more... and more.
Heaven help us when developing countries start catching up. Will there be a third world flip for the west?
24. Baroo said...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Co2-temperature-plot.svg
25. Rocko_ftb said...
Finally see the stuff i've been saying for years on a website.
However I have recently expanded the line of argument, rather than "save your sorry ass" it is "save the status quo"
Climate change is bad because all change is bad in some people's eyes, the planet doesn't "care" about it, and if evolution is correct, we shouldn't either!
Especially the pace of change, a few degrees over a few hundred years, could see our natural adaptation to our environment come into play. We could wipe out species only to find new and more adaptable variants come around.
Technology development needs another kick up the backside, without another big war I would suggest climate change is looking like our best option
26. Theboltonfury said...
s2r1 - yes, you've made a fair point and i agree with you
27. theboltonfury said...
s2r - yes, you've made a fair point and I agree. Things cannot get any worse????
28. afrobaggie said...
Tinker bravo!
When we talk about saving the planet, what we actually mean is that we keep it comfortable for ourselves. Our species! No altruism here!
29. Baroo said...
Also, s2r1 - You are a day out. This story was released yesterday!
30. Baroo said...
tinker: "the planet itself will be fine, but the real problem is too many people, aspiring and 'deserving' to have more... and more."
Most of the people you are talking about are aspiring to have something similar to what we take for granted. Do they deserve to live in abject poverty for our benefit. Why are you so much mor "deserving"?
31. sold 2 rent 1 said...
doom,
16 May 2008 marks the turning point in world consciousness from power to ethics.
I can't say anything specific will happen. I am not a fortune teller.
When mapping WW2 battles onto the current "fifth night" you get the Battle for Stalingrad 12-20 May 2008
This pretty much ties in with the Chinese earthquake that happened on Monday 12th.
Expect the drama in China to continue at these intense levels until early next week before tailing off.
It looks like that region was the centre for the destruction, with the Burma floods in the news the week before.
This ties in with WW2 where the German invasion of Russia dominated the battleground for several years in the early 1940s.
It will be 3-4 weeks before we get the destruction move to Europe/US and the western world.
The D-Day landings will be in mid June and expect more financial/polical destruction/scandals in the West.
Burma and China are playing out diferently.
The Burmese authorities are not acting ethically and if they carry on much more they are likely to get overthrone.
The Chines authorities seem to be doing a great job with the relief effort.
In both case I hope to see "ethics" to continue to win over "power".
32. shipbuilder said...
last_days_of_disco - why does the fact that governments can use MMGW as another way to raise tax, or that Al Gore can use it to raise his profile, have any relevance to whether MMGW is actually happening or not?
You make the mistake of assuming that the data is invalid simply becuase someone is benefiting from it.
Whether people are exploiting it, or it will result in a bubble, is irrelevant and an issue to address with politicians and governments, not scientists and environmentalists.
As for the argument that scientists are getting their funding from some pro-MMGW VI - who, exactly? What multi-national business really benefits from MMGW?
It is an inconvenience to business, as all environmental legistaltion always has been, which is why most fight it tooth and nail - have a look at the reaction of car companies to Euro emissions regulation for evidence.
I *believe* this stuff becuase the evidence i've seen and the logic behind why that evidence should be accepted far outweighs evidence or logic to the contrary. If you have sound logic and reasoning other than 'some people who I don't trust may benefit from it', perhaps you could tell us.
33. sold 2 rent 1 said...
afro,
"As religion wanes as a power to keep the masses sated with their lot another control mechanism needs to take its place, the cold war has ended, climate change fills the niche"
Spot on.
The NWO are playing a decent game of illusion football
The formation is:
Climate Change up front
Banking in midfield
Terrorism in defense
Peak oil is on the bench
Religion has been subbed off with a career threatening injury.
The fifth night destruction is all about exposure of lies and corruption of the POWER elite.
All the above are linked
34. shipbuilder said...
Tinker - of course the planet will survive - when people talk of 'saving the planet', they mean that the planet is not something separate from us - our lives depend on it, as to the other species we share it with, who we also rely on. It is wrong to see them as separate issues. If the planet is damaged, we die.
The population argument is part and parcel of the 'green' argument - not a taboo subject - no-one with real environmental interest can ignore it.
Confusing politicians and business jumping on the green bandwagon with long-standing environmentalists is also a BIG mistake.
Only politicians and business dodge the issues and talk of 'sustainable growth' (i.e. tokenism but maintaining the status quo) as being achieveble. Those with a real interest do not have such illusions.
35. voiceofreason said...
Climate Change is only HALF of the reason for moving away from oil BTW.
The more important reason is energy security IMHO.
Remaining reserves aren't enough to bring developing world to developed world living standards.
Hence the less publicised reason for turning to alternative energy sources and more sensibly energy efficiency drives.
36. Planning4acrash said...
S2R. I'm not convinced, but hope to goodness that you are correct about global warming, because the alternative is terrifying!
I personally believe that global warming would be an easy problem to solve. And that it requires an ethical framework that actually helps dismantle the corporate power system. Just because it is being used by NWO or whatever, doesn't necessarily mean that it is all lies. There is a grey area which encompasses the truths, untruths and half truths told and untold. Hopefully you are right, again, I need to see truth, that the grey area will become bright enough to bring forth a new age of ethics. Keep running with those predictions. They are far more fun than reading the horoscope on the London Lite! Hey, would that make you the Mystic Meg of HPC.co.uk?!
37. shipbuilder said...
MMGW as government scam is the one conspiracy theory that everyone wants to buy into because it means we can carry on regardless. Do we have to accept or like the way the government and media are handling it? Of course not, but let's not confuse that issue with whether it is actually happening or not.
38. renting2 said...
Will all this affect the value of my investment igloo?
39. sold 2 rent 1 said...
The over population argument is rubbish..
The greed and power of the NWO has been holding us back via monetary enslavement, wars and suppressing new technologies
Once freed from the power elite 6bn people will quite happily be able to co-create together as a single organism.
40. Davros said...
shipbuilder said...
MMGW as government scam is the one conspiracy theory that everyone wants to buy into because it means we can carry on regardless. Do we have to accept or like the way the government and media are handling it? Of course not, but let's not confuse that issue with whether it is actually happening or not.
.....
Spot on. Scientists have been begging governments to listen to these concerns decades (yes, decades) before any politician had even mentioned it.
41. sold out said...
What about my 3 bed luxury amazon tree house i have just paid 300k for?
42. cornishman said...
"6bn people will quite happily be able to co-create together as a single organism."
just had a fleeting mental image of a huge orgy :-)
43. shipbuilder said...
S2R1 - You really have ignored every single argument that's been put in conflict with your beliefs on this, haven't you? I'll be honest - it's starting to look like a faith rather than reasoning.
"Once freed from the power elite 6bn people will quite happily be able to co-create together as a single organism."
Do you have any evidence, or even any reasoning, as to why this might happen?
44. dohousescrashinthewoods said...
I clearly recall the statement carried a caveat that oil exploration would in no way be hindered.
I remember because it made sense - the US is run by oil and gas companies (according to Gore Vidal at the very least). Imagine this statement was made by Exxon-Mobil to its shareholders and it doesn't look out of place. Social responsibility and business as usual.
45. planning4acrash said...
Until a legal challenge is made to the contrary, dohouse. They made the bear an endangered species because they could not sustain arguments against including it. Just as they will not be able to sustain arguments against not protecting it once it has been put on the list, if legally challenged to do so.
46. pelethar said...
Whether 6bn people can coexist or not isn't really the issue - the fact is the population is still growing exponentially. There is a tipping point somewhere, and whether it's at 5bn, 20bn or 50bn we're going to have to face up to it and decide collectively what we do about global overpopulation soon.
47. last_days_of_disco said...
@shipbuilder
I think we addressed the issue of arguments against global warming by refering to an example site: http://www.worldclimatereport.com/
I am sure there are others. They give cogent reasons for their positions. So portraying those who disagree about global warming as
anti-deluvian is spurious. I am not saying I have a position on glabal warming.
What I am really saying is it is one of those big things that can be used to justify just about anything and actually very little that any of us does
makes any difference whatsoever about it -- this I really do believe. Some use it for good (the National Trust) some use it for evil (fill in your favourite bad guy here).
That is why it scares me. Its an irrational means of controlling policy that does not have a direct correlation with local events. Its a great excuse
for getting things into law that people would normally object to very strongly for good economic/human rights reasons.
Its such a general purpose tool. Its being used to try and control everything we do. So its really powerful. The politcal class has woken up to this.
The economic class or whatever you call them are beginning to and then you are going to see the bubble forming (ramp gold, take the punters money,
you get the idea).
I am not saying global warming in itself is not an important issue that needs careful thought.
What I am saying is its an easy way to influence others, you just have to be able to talk the talk.
48. Bored@work said...
The problems of population actually seems to be edging its way onto the edges of media conciousness. There's even a documentary on channel 4 on 22nd May at 9pm entitled "13 Kids and Wanting More". I for one will be looking on in abject horror at the mixture pure greed and absolute disregard for their fellow (wo)man on display.
49. sold 2 rent 1 said...
pelethar,
"Whether 6bn people can coexist?"
I said co-create. There is a huge difference.
Current forecasts are pop peak of 9 bn around 2070.
ship,
"Do you have any evidence, or even any reasoning, as to why this might happen?"
If evolution is exponential as Calleman's model suggests, we can expect another revolution on the same scale as the internet and industrial.
My guess is the new LHC Cern GRID network that is 10,000 times faster than the internet will play a part.
It goes online this summer. The new revolution will play out in 2 years (say from late 2009-2011)
"The greatest failing of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function.", Dr. Al Bartlett
50. titaniccaptain said...
All this is nonsense...........the lord is coming soon end of story........right im off to a gig playing with with goldie lookin chain and scouting for girls.....also got paul daniels doing a bit tonight should be fun....the lord has been good to me......its all end of days stuff guys as predicted in revelations. Right im off have fun and no talking behind my back ill find out lol
51. doom&gloom said...
s2r1 "the new LHC Cern GRID network". Is that the facility that was in the BBC docu-drama 'End Day'? That's a nice scary one to watch.
I do not agree with Al Barlett at all. If we didn't understand the exponential function then we wouldn't have discovered nuclear energy. Just press '2' then '*' then '*' twice on your cacluator then keep pressing '='. That's the exponential function.
52. This comment has been removed as it was found to be in breach of our Blog Policies.
53. James said...
s2r1 - it's you who 'doesn't understand the exponential function'. Or rather, you didn't until I explained it to you...
Me at 89:
http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/newsblog/2008/04/blog-the-beginning-of-the-end-11972.php
54. shipbuilder said...
last_days_of_disco - fair enough. The bandwagon-jumping by governments and so on could do more harm than good - it would be awful if the 'backlash' against Gore and co. threatened any genuine work being done on the issue. I see your point - perhaps i'm being naive, but I believe that we should at least try to make some difference - surely scaling back our impact on the world can't be a bad thing. I guess it comes back to our system of government - we don't have the power to make the changes ourselves, so we rely on the government to legislate, at the same time taking the risk that they abuse that power.
I still think that, on balance, the scale of the potential problem dictates that some sort of new approach needs taken.
55. shipbuilder said...
There's a big parallel with the 'war on terror', isn't there - using an emotive issue to push through draconian policies. It's a difficult one. I suppose that it means we must try and take more action ourselves and not rely on the government?
56. sold 2 rent 1 said...
doom,
The Times: Coming soon: superfast internet
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article3689881.ece
Regarding exponential function:
Most people don't realise that 3pc steady growth is NOT linear - it's exponential
Even more people don't realise change/evolution is NOT linear - it's exponential.
Exponential change (the J curve NOT S curve) is the key behind the 2011/2012 point of singularity.
Watch one of Bartlett's videos on youtube
57. sold 2 rent 1 said...
shipbuilder,
"There's a big parallel with the 'war on terror'"
Yep. They are big effing lies for a start.
There is no war on terror.
Al-Qaeda was invented by the CIA
Watch "The power of nightmares - episode 3"
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2081592330319789254&q=the+power+of+nightmares&ei=CqItSMvyApSUrgKFibiLCg
58. sold 2 rent 1 said...
P4AC,
"S2R. I'm not convinced, but hope to goodness that you are correct about global warming"
GW exists but it is not man-made.
GW could well be the destruction in the summer of 2011 that we solve through co-creation.
59. Crutchley said...
S2R1,
I'm in the middle of reading 'Black Mass' by John Gray at the moment. I think you'd appreciate it.
He'd describe you as a Millenarian
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millenarian
Crutchley
60. shipbuilder said...
S2R1 - I've seen the Power of Nightmares and, with respect, you're misrepresenting it to suit your view. It doesn't make that simple statement - you're in danger of seeing things only in black and white. The question with terrorism, global warming, or any threat, real or not, which (as last_days said) can be used as a tool for oppression/profiteering/whatever is how do we strike a balance?
In my opinion terrorism is best defeated (as happened in NI) via the intelligence services etc. rather than all-out war and curtailing of freedoms. Global warming is a totally different threat, but I believe a threat nonetheless. The question is - how do we deal with it?