maplesyrup Posted July 10, 2004 Report Share Posted July 10, 2004 Global warming threatens Australian way of life Australia's easygoing beach lifestyle could be at risk if it fails to take immediate steps to significantly reduce greenhouse gases which feed global warming, scientists and environmental groups said this week.Australia, already in the grip of a 100-year drought, must slash fossil fuel emissions or face huge agricultural and economic losses, said a report by the World Wildlife Fund and the Insurance Australia Group. "Our way of life is at risk because Australia is vulnerable to climate change," said the report released on Monday. What better argument than the impact of global warming do we need to cancel our trade agreements and put our governments, rather than the multinationals, back in charge of our societies and our planet? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugo Posted July 10, 2004 Report Share Posted July 10, 2004 We're in a cold summer after a cold winter. It's been proven that the Middle Ages were significantly warmer than the modern ages. Were all those knights and peasants releasing too many CFCs into the atmosphere? It's been proven that sea levels rise and fall and have been doing so for countless millenia, without human intervention. So far, I haven't seen any good evidence that what we do has any significant impact on the climate. Humans are responsible for 5% of global CO2 emissions. At most, humans produce localised and easily reversible changes, for instance, inner-city industrial areas in the 19th Century as opposed to today. The ice caps did not melt during the industrial revolution, when there were no pollution controls at all and everything was powered by fossil fuels. Nor did Great Britain suffer any lasting environmental damage from that era of massive emissions and pollution. What better argument... do we need to... put our governments... back in charge? Yes, because governments have always been 100% trustworthy, and never murdered hundreds of millions of people or started wars of wanton aggression and conquest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maplesyrup Posted July 10, 2004 Author Report Share Posted July 10, 2004 What better argument than the impact of global warming do we need to cancel our trade agreements and put our governments, rather than the multinationals, back in charge of our societies and our planet? War is business, big business. If there were no financial profits to be made on war, we would not have war. Everybody is out of step except the oil industry, eh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stoker Posted July 10, 2004 Report Share Posted July 10, 2004 War is business, big business. If there were no financial profits to be made on war, we would not have war. Perhaps this article rings true eh MS? After hearing Ceaser talk, I tend to believe so: The Socialist Roots of Modern Anti-Semitism Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maplesyrup Posted July 10, 2004 Author Report Share Posted July 10, 2004 After hearing Ceaser talk, I tend to believe so: Please be specific otherwise I have difficulty following your train of thought. I persued the above article and my impression is the way the word socialism is used there is equated to communism, fascism, etc. In Canada those of us who consider ourselves social democrats would shudder at the thought of being considered communist or fascist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stoker Posted July 10, 2004 Report Share Posted July 10, 2004 Please be specific otherwise I have difficulty following your train of thought. Go do a search of Caesar's posts and look for one of his/hers standard anti-Israel rants.......without a doubt, the topic is brought up in thread Caesar posts in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maplesyrup Posted July 10, 2004 Author Report Share Posted July 10, 2004 Please be specific otherwise I have difficulty following your train of thought. Go do a search of Caesar's posts and look for one of his/hers standard anti-Israel rants.......without a doubt, the topic is brought up in thread Caesar posts in. Stoker.....if you are going to cast aspersions on people please back your statements with specific facts. Are you suggesting he is anti-semitic? That's quite a serious statement to make. Isn't it possible to be against the current Israeli government without being anti-semitic? You see I grew up with Jewish people as my friends. Recently though I have become discouraged with recent Israeli governments. Does that make me anti-semitic? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maplesyrup Posted July 10, 2004 Author Report Share Posted July 10, 2004 GLOBAL WARMINGDear Mr. President: Please do something Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stoker Posted July 11, 2004 Report Share Posted July 11, 2004 Stoker.....if you are going to cast aspersions on people please back your statements with specific facts. Are you suggesting he is anti-semitic? That's quite a serious statement to make. To tell you the truth, I don't know for a fact, but caesar's tone towards Israel in other threads, added to his/her's political views in addition towards the article I posted that shows the close ties between Anti-Semitism and Socialism, does tend to let one believe that....1+1+1=3? You see I grew up with Jewish people as my friends. Recently though I have become discouraged with recent Israeli governments. Does that make me anti-semitic? According to your broad stroke that all wars are caused by big business, your Socialist political views, and the above [linked to] article, it would be quite possable for a person to use an equaly broad stroke and call you MS an Anti-Semite........that is if broad stroke are par for the course. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted July 11, 2004 Report Share Posted July 11, 2004 Use the terms anti-Israeli or anti-Zionist or, if you prefer, variations on these terms that don't use the word "anti". Make sure you mean what you say. (Does it make sense to say someone is anti-Canadian?) An anti-semite is anyone against the Lebanese, Palestinians and so on. Too broad for any meaning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cartman Posted July 11, 2004 Report Share Posted July 11, 2004 War is business, big business. If there were no financial profits to be made on war, we would not have war. Can anyone really argue this one? Without big business, the US would not be able to engage in war. Or, do people believe that Bush is so noble as to be concerned primarily about morality? If so, I am sure that there are many other nations without oil that would like to be "liberated". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stoker Posted July 11, 2004 Report Share Posted July 11, 2004 Can anyone really argue this one? Without big business, the US would not be able to engage in war. Or, do people believe that Bush is so noble as to be concerned primarily about morality? If so, I am sure that there are many other nations without oil that would like to be "liberated". What aspects of Big Business forced the United States into the First and Second World war? What aspects brought the United Kingdom and Commonwealth into both? Did Big Business attack the United States on 9/11? Now let's just say that the War on Iraq was about Oil......whats wrong with a nation looking out for it's own intrests? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cartman Posted July 11, 2004 Report Share Posted July 11, 2004 Now let's just say that the War on Iraq was about Oil......whats wrong with a nation looking out for it's own intrests? 1. Morality. It is simply wrong to profit from another person's suffering. 2. Self-interest. It will lead to more terrorism and I am not sure how the Americans are going to pay for this especially when Bush hands out tax breaks. You cannot do both at the same time. War is costly. Stoker, you might be right about WWI and II, but war is now often about business. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stoker Posted July 11, 2004 Report Share Posted July 11, 2004 1. Morality.It is simply wrong to profit from another person's suffering. If it came down to it, I'd rather another person suffer then myself suffer........ 2. Self-interest. It will lead to more terrorism and I am not sure how the Americans are going to pay for this especially when Bush hands out tax breaks. You cannot do both at the same time. War is costly. It depends were the terrorism is.........as long as the increase in terror is only felt in the middle east and not North America and our lifeblood (Oil) is kept flowing, though not being the ideal situation, it's better then an increase of terror felt at home and having some of our Oil supplies compromised. Wouldn't you agree? Stoker, you might be right about WWI and II, but war is now often about business. And I thought for sure somebody was going to bring-up Churchill having stocks in Krupp steel........ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted July 11, 2004 Report Share Posted July 11, 2004 War is business, big business. If there were no financial profits to be made on war, we would not have war. Can anyone really argue this one? Without big business, the US would not be able to engage in war. Or, do people believe that Bush is so noble as to be concerned primarily about morality? If so, I am sure that there are many other nations without oil that would like to be "liberated". I think I can argue with that one! I don't think China or the former Soviet Union had any big business, but I think pretty obviously their ability to participate in a war would have been very formidable, if it had been called upon. Iran fought in a war against Iraq for many years, and I don't think Iran has any big business to speak of. If you look back through history I think you will find that wars predate big business by many years. I think the only requirement to have a war is two groups of people with different opinions, access to weapons, and short tempers. Access to weapons might mean big business to build them, but it could also mean state-controlled means of production (like China) or a government/ruler with the financial resources to purchase weapons. It might even just mean a supply of rocks to throw and sticks to swing. -kimmy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maplesyrup Posted September 14, 2004 Author Report Share Posted September 14, 2004 Blair to urge US to take tougher action on global warming Mr Blair, who believes the Kyoto Treaty does not go far enough, will reiterate his call for the United States to sign it. He will identify climate change as one of the greatest challenges facing the planet, saying that one country acting alone cannot solve the problem. Call me cynical but since when does Blair give two hoots about the environment? This is crass political opportunism. Oh well, I guess environmentalists will take help any way they can, eh! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bro Posted September 15, 2004 Report Share Posted September 15, 2004 If big business was the precurser to all wars ,then Canada would be at the forefront of every conflict in the last ten years,cause there ain't no bigger bussiness in Canada than liberal business. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maplesyrup Posted September 15, 2004 Author Report Share Posted September 15, 2004 Ivan could sink New Orleans 1.2 million people have been warned to evacuate New Orleans - that is quite an exodus! It seems the hurricane season is unusually severe this season - is this a sign of the times because of global warming? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maplesyrup Posted September 15, 2004 Author Report Share Posted September 15, 2004 Direct hit by Ivan could sink New Orleans Nothing like a little doomsday scenario for the media to up their ratings, eh! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest eureka Posted September 15, 2004 Report Share Posted September 15, 2004 I don't know that Blair is being cynical about Global Warming. Britain and Europe have been a decade or so ahead of North America in attempting to do something about Global Warming. Ironically, that is one of the economic factors in America's complaints. The claim is that Europe would profit by the sacrifices that N.A. will have to make (through dragging its feet so far). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theWatcher Posted September 15, 2004 Report Share Posted September 15, 2004 Lets fix the problem of global warmin on MArs too, while we're at it. Global Warming on Mars? So how is it that all the evil capitalists driving SUV's that is creating all the CO2 that is overheating our planet, um, how is it causing Mars to overheat too? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cartman Posted September 15, 2004 Report Share Posted September 15, 2004 As the first post suggests, maybe we should just try to ignore all of the so-called environmental "evidence" and just hope everything goes to plan with no economic or health consequences. We can just say that qualitative research is entirely subjective and quantitative analyses do not ever actually "prove" anything, they merely disprove existing ideas. Good luck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.