Climate Change

[SpheresOfBalance]

No I think you should go out and jump into your BMW. So, what is it's gas mileage anyway. My Yamaha gets 40 MPG.

I think some of the newer BMW's get pretty reasonable gas mileage, over 30. If your Yamaha is a motor cycle, 40 is pretty crappy MPG, better bikes could do a lot better. I wouldn't ride one of those death traps for less than 100 MPG.

No Doc this bit started in another thread, where he whipped out his BMW to be impressive, showing he's caught up in MATERIALISM, which was in fact the subject matter at hand, though his usage did not apply. On the bike in question, I've out ran every BMW, Porsche 911 turbo Carrera, Ferrari and Lamborghini I've ever come across. 60MPG bikes can't do that, Yet it gets better gas mileage than all the cars I've beaten. The point was everyone has a different view of what is best. To you it's a 60MPG + bike, that you're scared to death of. He thinks BMW's are the cats meow. For a performance car, I'd rather have a Tesla Roadster, i.e., instant torque and no carbon footprint. I really don't think it's a good thing to wave materialistic possessions around, especially in a philosophy forum. It was just my way of saying, "so what!" And here, since he scoffed at our new resident vegetarian, Ned, I thought it was again warranted. Of course your mileage may vary.

[Hobbes' Choice]

No I think you should go out and jump into your BMW. So, what is it's gas mileage anyway. My Yamaha gets 40 MPG.

I think some of the newer BMW's get pretty reasonable gas mileage, over 30. If your Yamaha is a motor cycle, 40 is pretty crappy MPG, better bikes could do a lot better. I wouldn't ride one of those death traps for less than 100 MPG.

I did not buy it for the milage, though it is not bad for a 2litre. I bought it for the electric convertible roof, and the leather seats.
As for bikes. My biker days are over. Sold my Harley last year. 55yo post cancer is just too fucking old for British weather.

[thedoc]

No I think you should go out and jump into your BMW. So, what is it's gas mileage anyway. My Yamaha gets 40 MPG.

I think some of the newer BMW's get pretty reasonable gas mileage, over 30. If your Yamaha is a motor cycle, 40 is pretty crappy MPG, better bikes could do a lot better. I wouldn't ride one of those death traps for less than 100 MPG.

No Doc this bit started in another thread, where he whipped out his BMW to be impressive, showing he's caught up in MATERIALISM, which was in fact the subject matter at hand, though his usage did not apply. On the bike in question, I've out ran every BMW, Porsche 911 turbo Carrera, Ferrari and Lamborghini I've ever come across. 60MPG bikes can't do that, Yet it gets better gas mileage than all the cars I've beaten. The point was everyone has a different view of what is best. To you it's a 60MPG + bike, that you're scared to death of. He thinks BMW's are the cats meow. For a performance car, I'd rather have a Tesla Roadster, i.e., instant torque and no carbon footprint. I really don't think it's a good thing to wave materialistic possessions around, especially in a philosophy forum. It was just my way of saying, "so what!" And here, since he scoffed at our new resident vegetarian, Ned, I thought it was again warranted. Of course your mileage may vary.

Just to set the record straight, I'm not afraid of motorcycles, that was just a jab to get your attention. However when I was growing up, living at home, my mother said absolutely no motorcycles, and then I went to college, which they paid for, so I was living under that edict till I was about 22 years old, and by then it was just a habit that I had gotten into. I used to subscribe to Cycle Magazine through the 60's and knew a lot about the bikes of that time. Since I'm stuck in that time frame, there are 2 bikes that, if I were to start riding, it would be a Bridgestone 175, or a BSA rocket, but there is just about as much chance of me buying one of those now, as there is of me starting to ride now.

FYI, I drive a '94 Ford F-150 and I have a '91 BMW 535 that needs some work to get inspected, so that I can drive it again. Before that I drove a Mustang, a Torino, Pintos, Lincolns, and a Jeep pickup, and several others along the way.

[Ned]

Any of you guys care to comment on the "Scientists' Warning to Humanity" article I posted earlier?

I though that it was a shocking document with a LOT of food for thought.

Anyone?

[Pluto]

It is heavy going and after reading it you would come over as insane and alone to refute what's in there. But maybe that's the idea.

[Ned]

The shocking line in the report, that was signed by the majority of the Nobel laureates in the scientists is the following:

No more than one or a few decades remain before the chance to avert the threats we now confront will be lost and the prospects for humanity immeasurably diminished.

The report was published in 1992.

We now know a lot more and it is not encouraging.

Every estimate made about the speed of global climate change has been far too optimistic.

Whole communities in the arctic now are in danger of being flooded out of their homes by the rising sea level due to melting ice caps.

Anyone who is not a total ignoramus, or in the payroll of the fossil fuel industry, can see it.

Whom do we believe: our independent and conscientious scientists, or those who will obfuscate and hedge and confuse for a fee?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Any of you guys care to comment on the "Scientists' Warning to Humanity" article I posted earlier?

I though that it was a shocking document with a LOT of food for thought.

Anyone?

Someone like Hobbes would just say it's a 'conspiracty' to do 'what?' What's in it for anyone to make it all up? They don't need to make up stories; anyone with an IQ of 30 or above can see it happening all around them. We could always start by making euthanasia readily and easily available with no red tape, and stop letting religious fuck-heads dictate to the rest of us--after all, they don't give a damn what happens to the planet because they think they are going to 'live' in eternal paradise after their life here ends.

[raw_thought]

Climate change is a fact. You might as well argue that the earth is flat if you deny climate change.
EVERY scientific organization in the world agrees with AGW. The data is overwhelming and unequivocal.

[Pluto]

Since the start of the century there's been a kind of blanket of doom placed over the world. We are in a transition stage and the blanket is designed to help conceal this change. To overwhelm and fragment any idea of opposition. A number of foxes have been put amongst the chickens. If we talk of weather we must acknowledge the US military project HAARP, which as you may know is able to change and create weather anywhere on the globe. Climate Change is a political tool designed to aid the transformation. The fact that we see evidence of change (through cultural and political channels) is there to strengthen the reality of it in the minds of the (evidence loving) populace.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Since the start of the century there's been a kind of blanket of doom placed over the world. We are in a transition stage and the blanket is designed to help conceal this change. To overwhelm and fragment any idea of opposition. A number of foxes have been put amongst the chickens. If we talk of weather we must acknowledge the US military project HAARP, which as you may know is able to change and create weather anywhere on the globe. Climate Change is a political tool designed to aid the transformation.

It's always more fun to believe nonsense than look at the real evidence. There were also only 1.6 billion humans on the planet in 1900. Squeeze 10 humans into a phone box and leave them there for a few days and see what happens.

[Pluto]

the real evidenc

The world no longer works this way according to the superpower

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality-based_community

[Ned]

Climate Change is a political tool

And here I am, believing all those stupid Nobel prized scientists, by the hundreds around the globe, lying to me about what we have been doing to the planet. Air, Water, Soil, biological diversity, forests, oceans, etc., etc.

How could I be so stupid to believe those mad scientists and to believe even my own eyes?

Reminds me of a joke:

A husband arriving home unexpectedly finds his wife in bed with another man. When he confronts her, the wife denies her infidelity and asks indignantly: “Who do you believe, Elmer, me or your eyes?”

[Ned]

In case you think that climate change will only make you feel only slightly hotter and wetter, I suggest that you read Gwynne Dyer's "Climate Wars" to see how it will change the game on a global scale.

He describes five possible/likely scenarios that will unfold when climate change really kicks in and the shit hits the fan. He had spent 2 years researching the topic and interviewed all the key scientists, politicians and military leaders about the likely outcome.

The US (and other nations') military is taking it so seriously that they devote considerable resources to prepare for it.

[Pluto]

And here I am, believing all those stupid Nobel prized scientists, by the hundreds around the globe, lying to me about what we have been doing to the planet. Air, Water, Soil, biological diversity, forests, oceans, etc., etc.

You put the Noble Prized Scientists up on high as knowers of all, but it's not so. They are open to the same pressures as the next. The prize is given by a system which is itself unethical. Obama was given one before he took office. Why would they lie, maybe to keep their livelihoods, when maybe they actually believe it themselves.

[Ned]

Pluto, why don't you watch actual documentaries about what is happening in the arctic?

The melting permafrost, the disappearing sea ice, the retreating glaciers, the drowning polar bears, the flooded communities?

Then you can decide whom to believe.