Skeptical Scientists Urge World To ‘Have the Courage to Do Nothing' At UN Conference

[Reiko]

Here is an example of what these man-made global warming scammers propose in order to steal your money.

A WEST Australian medical expert wants families to pay a $5000-plus "baby levy" at birth and an annual carbon tax of up to $800 a child.

Writing in today's Medical Journal of Australia, Associate Professor Barry Walters said every couple with more than two children should be taxed to pay for enough trees to offset the carbon emissions generated over each child's lifetime.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22896334-2,00.html

[Patroklos]

I think there are enough global warming cultists out there to cover that, one should commit suicide for every person they believe is over their limit to compensate.

Do it, for the children. Gaia demands your sacrifice.

[Wernazuma III]

Such loons are probably bought by the petrol-company scammers who want to steal my money for an easy laugh.

Reiko, are you a one trick pony? You don't even bother to discuss, happy with quoting random stuff that seems to sustain your belief. Whose DL are you?

[Patroklos]

Hmmmm...

A young, perhaps too young, Asian chick trolling a board full of 20+ dudes?

Agent b eator's of course.

[Imran Siddiqui]

You know, people with kids should be taxed.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by Blake

What a beautiful theory. There's only one problem. There's a cancerous plague of mammels on earth which kills off forest and such a lot quicker than it can grow.

And you won't eat meat.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Vesayen

It is almost enough to make me not mind that we’ll see serious climate problems in our lifetime.

why do you mind anyway? It's not like the climate was perfect to begin with.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Vesayen
Rejecting consumerism means making a conscious effort to reduce your consumption of rescources and lessening your total pollution output.

If you are aware of all the crap you buy and make an effort to be less wasteful, you can reduce your trash, a lot.

If you have an energy efficient home, you'll need less power to heat it, saving energy.

Buy energy efficient appliances.

Buy a car with good gas milage, don't even need a hybrid, though it helps.

You don't have to go live in a commune.

Recycling, not buying wasteful products, reusing what you own and voting for politicians who suppor enviromental causes, while also supporting enviromental causes yourself, is better then nothing.

If you really want to go extreme, buy a solar panel for your house, in much of the continental U.S., it can provide a hefty chunk of your power.

Encourage others to do the above activies.

If we do all that there will still be about the same level of global warming unless you prohibit developing countries from matching that lifestyle. If you think anthropogenic global warming = "destruction of the planet" then your version of rejection of consumerism still means "destruction of the planet".

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Blake
Consumerism is basically the belief:

"The more I consume, the happier I am"

Rejecting consumering means rejecting that notion, that "The more I consume, the happier I am"

You can substitute spend for consume, they are much the same.

So the action of rejecting consumerism, really means, getting rid of stuff or not getting more stuff, and being happier for it.

For example, stop accumulating/consuming so much junk, with the money you no longer need, work fewer hours. Spend more time enjoying what you have, spend more time doing what you want to rather than what you have to to earn money, spend more time with your family and friends.

The only people who think "the more I consume, the happier I am" are people who center their entire life on amassing as much wealth as possible. People who have other goals can still consume quite a lot if those goals are materially demanding to achieve. I think most consumption is from people who do not have a philosophy of "the more I spend the happier I will be".

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Geronimo


why do you mind anyway? It's not like the climate was perfect to begin with.

BS. God created a perfect world and it's humans that now are destroying it. In response to this, God is sending destruction to the unworthy through hurricanes and other disasters - even global warming.

[Blake]

Originally posted by Geronimo
The only people who think "the more I consume, the happier I am" are people who center their entire life on amassing as much wealth as possible. People who have other goals can still consume quite a lot if those goals are materially demanding to achieve. I think most consumption is from people who do not have a philosophy of "the more I spend the happier I will be".

Maybe, maybe not.

Maybe they think "If I had more money to spend, I would be happier"

In other words - what is stopping them from spending more, is not lack of will, but lack of income, or excess of expenses.

[Vesayen]

Originally posted by Geronimo


If we do all that there will still be about the same level of global warming unless you prohibit developing countries from matching that lifestyle. If you think anthropogenic global warming = "destruction of the planet" then your version of rejection of consumerism still means "destruction of the planet".

There are other enviromental problems we have to worry about besides global warming.

However yes, it won't be enough if we don't get the developing world onboard.

Who the hell are we to tell China to cut greenhouse gases, when we don't? We have to do it first, or at least start to.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Blake

What a beautiful theory. There's only one problem. There's a cancerous plague of mammels on earth which kills off forest and such a lot quicker than it can grow.

What makes the growth of one species cancerous and another benign?

In the pre-multicellular earth the number of individuals and species on the planet was probably thousands of times as high as it is now. But that earth probably wasn't better in any meaningful sense than the world that came later.

Likewise I think the earth in the absence of a technologically adept species is not intrinsically better.

Why do think it meaningful to describe any of the mammals as a "cancerous plague"?

[Blake]

Originally posted by DaShi

What a beautiful theory. There's only one problem. There's a cancerous plague of mammels on earth which kills off forest and such a lot quicker than it can grow...

And you won't eat meat.

... to farm cows .

[Blake]

Originally posted by Geronimo
What makes the growth of one species cancerous and another benign?

Kills the host rather than benefiting the host.