SPAM This thread is for random spam!!

[Billargh]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vp8vd4X3IGg

I remember when Maddox's videos were actually funny. Hell he even makes Dick Masterson sounds like someone who isn't full of shit the more podcasts they do.

 

[Scouse]

Lol ok m8.

That's not an argument m8. This is.

21 percent of all known mammals, 30 percent of all known amphibians, 12 percent of all known birds, and 28 percent of reptiles, 37 percent of freshwater fishes, 70 percent of plants, 35 percent of invertebrates assessed so far are under threat

It's not about global warming - this is about the ecological devestation brought about by human activity.

My personal opinion is that capitalism don't cost-in biodiversity loss correctly (which would make a lot of pointless products much more expensive, and some activities prohibitively so).

If capitalism did this correctly then a huge percentage of my objections to the system would disappear - perhaps enough of them to swing my position against it to one of support.

 

[Raven]

And its also quite worrying that quite a lot of the climate change mafia want to destroy even more of it by growing biofuels.

We are losing shitloads of rainforest in asia for that crap.

 

[Scouse]

And its also quite worrying that quite a lot of the climate change mafia want to destroy even more of it by growing biofuels.

We are losing shitloads of rainforest in asia for that crap.

I agree 100% (with your assessment of the damaging impacts, rather than with your tin-foil hattery).

They can only get away with this because capitalism utterly fails to assign the correct value to the ecosystems that get destroyed. If it did then biofuels would be completely unprofitable. Therefore, in this case, capitalism = fail.

Unfortunately that's the case in almost every case. Environmental impact should be the first cost considered. Then it can be costed in correctly, the money generated put towards mitigation of that impact and if mitigation is impossible then the action proposed should be curtailed.

In the rare cases that the action proposed cannot be curtailed (because it's an absolute necessity) then it should be costed at a level that allows for massive improvements elsewhere.

 

[Trem]

@Scouse if I were to agree totally with your global warming argument then all I can say is nothing will happen about it on a scale that will change anything. America are making small changes but not big enough changes because they are scared of upsetting the good ol' boys and their monster trucks. Likewise China, no one will throttle them because of the clout they have when it comes to money.

Not that any of us will be around to see it but what will happen with these arguments when the earth enters it's cooler cycle, what is it roughly every 500 or so years the earth goes through warmer and cooler cycles? Don't quote me on that as it's off the top of my head from something I read an age ago and I did follow it up with more reading.

Basically the global warming argument now is a way for more cunts to make more money, for example Tony Blair, they couldn't give a flying fuck about the children. Yes they may care about their own ego and smugness but not THE CHILDREN, THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!

 

[Scouse]

@Scouse if I were to agree totally with your global warming argument

As I've stated clearly, this is *fuck all* to do with global warming.

So, as you've not read my post, or the article I posted, I'll do the same with yours m8.



Edit: To be fair, I figured people would immediately and simplistically equate "environment" to "global warming" and respond in kind. It's why I specifically stated in my original post that "it's not about global warming" (full in the knowledge that people wouldn't read it and/or ignore it before responding). It's a shame that the public are so conditioned to be like that...

 

[Trem]

As I've stated clearly, this is *fuck all* to do with global warming.

So, as you've not read my post, or the article I posted, I'll do the same with yours m8.



Edit: To be fair, I figured people would immediately and simplistically equate "environment" to "global warming" and respond in kind. It's why I specifically stated in my original post that "it's not about global warming" (full in the knowledge that people wouldn't read it and/or ignore it before responding). It's a shame that the public are so conditioned to be like that...

I didn't read it, I never read stuff if I see people use m8 instead of mate

Actually, I did read it m8 and it definitely felt like a global warming post whether you said it was or not.

Edit - anyway, I won't just pinch a paragraph that suits my argument I will just post a link seeing as you keep banging on about global warming @Scouse - http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2000/ast20oct_1/








(FUCKING WANK SMILEY!!! )

 

[Scouse]

it definitely felt like a global warming post whether you said it was or not.

If you respond based on how you feel about a post, rather than to the actual content of the post, then there's something very very wrong there mate.



Ow. Actually typing mate rather than m8 is a pain in the ass

 

[Trem]

If you respond based on how you feel about a post, rather than to the actual content of the post, then there's something very very wrong there mate.

You do it quite often. You respond to what you read in a post no matter if it is not what someone is actually saying. I don't care obviously because it's a forum and peoples brains read and take text in differently, to think that makes people wrong then that is a very wrong way of thinking

 

[Trem]

A recent article in the West Australian newspaper reported that a woman,
Mrs.Maynard, has sued a Perth Hospital, saying that after
her husband had surgery there he lost all interest in sex.

A hospital spokesman replied:
"Mr. Maynard was admitted for cataract surgery. All we did was correct his eyesight."

Spoiler

 

[Raven]

m8 m8 m8 m8 m8 m9 m8 m8 m8 m8

 

[Scouse]

to think that makes people wrong then that is a very wrong way of thinking

Not really. It's simply factual.

If people aren't talking about the topic at hand it's not actually a discussion.

 

[Trem]

Not really. It's simply factual.

If people aren't talking about the topic at hand it's not actually a discussion.

What thread is this?

 

[Scouse]

What thread is this?

I was going to respond with something glib like 'don't know - I didn't read the title' but then I realised your point is actually an argument against worthwhile intellectual discourse inside a thread, the purpose of which is to discuss anything that comes to mind.

Of course, you could start a thread called 'the random freeform emotional word-association thread' which could be an awful lot of fun. But that ain't this thread.

 

[Raven]

gay.gif

 

[Scouse]

becomingtoht.jpg?

 

[caLLous]

 

[Bodhi]

That's not an argument m8. This is.

That's not really an argument either m10, as the link you have provided doesn't actually back up the rest of the drivel you've come up with. It mentioned 3 specific population decreases, one due to global wombling, another in Madagascar (hardly a capitalist nation), and another due to the building of a damn in Tanzania - a dam built by the government owned electricity company - very capitalist! It does make some links to human activity, absolutely bugger all to capitalism however.

There was one of these studied earlier in the year as well, which I read as it sounded quite concerning - until I looked at who performed the study - one of the IPCC's chief womblists Paul Ehrlich, you know the guy who, in 1971, predicted that Engliand wouldn't exist in 2000 due to all the horrible things we were doing to the environment. I filed that along with "No snow by 2007" and all the other associated shite predictions the activists have come up with.

Seriously, the eco-loons may get a bit further with their message if they didn't go straight for the "We're doomed" rhetoric. As we've heard it all before, and by the 1345th time they've cried wolf over something, people have lost interest. In fact of all the concerns people have - environmental doom is pretty much rock bottom.

 

[Scouse]

It mentioned 3 specific population decreases

17,291 species out of the 47,677 assessed species are threatened with extinction

Hmm. Just 3 eh? So only 3 out of the 47,677 assessed species count? I mean, it's an awful lot of work to simply discount out of hand and ignore.

Do I have to provide 47,674 other papers for you to read and "debunk"?


Your blindness on any environmental topic is wilful tbh - utterly religious

 

[Job]

Tried booking through BNB, what an utter pile of shite, 3 rejections then accepted paid 350 quid, taken out the account, owner rings up a week later to say it has been double booked, 2 weeks of emails and still haven't got money back off bnb.
The owner says he is ditching them because they do it all the time, they take the money even if the owner rejects it.
He's practically been in fistfights with three people at the door for the same room.

 

[Scouse]

You mean airbnb? Sure that the guy isn't having you on?

Anyway:


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=elwZguvbAP8

 

[Job]

That's not really an argument either m10, as the link you have provided doesn't actually back up the rest of the drivel you've come up with. It mentioned 3 specific population decreases, one due to global wombling, another in Madagascar (hardly a capitalist nation), and another due to the building of a damn in Tanzania - a dam built by the government owned electricity company - very capitalist! It does make some links to human activity, absolutely bugger all to capitalism however.

There was one of these studied earlier in the year as well, which I read as it sounded quite concerning - until I looked at who performed the study - one of the IPCC's chief womblists Paul Ehrlich, you know the guy who, in 1971, predicted that Engliand wouldn't exist in 2000 due to all the horrible things we were doing to the environment. I filed that along with "No snow by 2007" and all the other associated shite predictions the activists have come up with.

Seriously, the eco-loons may get a bit further with their message if they didn't go straight for the "We're doomed" rhetoric. As we've heard it all before, and by the 1345th time they've cried wolf over something, people have lost interest. In fact of all the concerns people have - environmental doom is pretty much rock bottom.

The thing is with the predictions is they are doing far worse than pure chance, at the.moment you could make big money betting against the models, they are mostly incorrect.

 

[Raven]

I remember about 20 years ago they promised that Northampton would end up a seaside town, yet the sea levels have refused to rise at any un-natural or advanced rate. Complete disappointment.

 

[Moriath]

@Scouse i agree that no one takes the environmental cost into their pricing models. Otherwise a lot of these disposable plastic things would be too expensive to be disposable any more.

And although tenuous there is a small link between yr arguement and global warming as climate change is one of the factors causing extinctions.

 

[DaGaffer]

I remember about 20 years ago they promised that Northampton would end up a seaside town, yet the sea levels have refused to rise at any un-natural or advanced rate. Complete disappointment.

I'm pretty sure no-one said that would happen in 20 years. More like 100.

 

[Raven]

I am pretty sure they did, otherwise I wouldn't have posted it. Used to be all over the Mail.

Obvious bollocks then, obvious bollocks now, obvious bollocks in 100 years.

 

[Bodhi]

Hmm. Just 3 eh? So only 3 out of the 47,677 assessed species count? I mean, it's an awful lot of work to simply discount out of hand and ignore.

Do I have to provide 47,674 other papers for you to read and "debunk"?


Your blindness on any environmental topic is wilful tbh - utterly religious

I discounted it out of hand as the paper clearly did not back up the point you were making - it simply stated that a number of species are "at risk" (without defining the metric they were using to define "at risk"), it said very little about any inferred causality. It certainly didn't say enough to jump to the conclusion it was entirely capitalism at fault, because I'm sorry, but the data to support your conclusion just isn't there.

And to refer to my position as religion? Lol give over, my position is based on logic and looking at the science itself - as my scientific background taught me to. For instance, let's consider the pause in global wombling - 19 years with no significant warming according to the satellite datasets. This was borne out by the surface datasets, until they started adjusting them, so strangely enough the past seemed cooler and the present that bit warmer - i.e they adjusted the data so it fitted their theory better. Now I'm sorry, but if I tried that in Undergraduate Astrophysics, adjusting the data so it fit my hypothesis, I would have been laughed out of the lab.

Good write up below on a recent presentation given by Dr Patrick Moore, well known ecologist and one of the founders of Greenpeace. Lots of good stuff in there, from why he left Greenpeace (not enough science), his problems with Environmentalism (not enough science), his problems with Climate Change (it has very little to do with CO2) and how emission of GHG's can actually be a good thing (thinking being CO2 is important for all plant life, and the amount in the atmosphere was dropping rapidly before we came along - if we hadn't been burning oil, coal and gas we may be currently facing an entirely different problem).

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/...ual-lecture-praises-carbon-dioxide-full-text/

Definitely worth a read, as much of what he brings up is pretty difficult to refute. I think the best the warmists have managed is to call him an oil company shill, which is a bit of a joke when you look at his background.

 

[Scouse]

And again with the talk about global warming rather than biodiversity loss.

The much easier to prove biodiversity loss. You count things. Then you count them again. Then you count them again, and then see what's happening. Easy. /sigh.

 

[Moriath]

And again with the talk about global warming rather than biodiversity loss.

The much easier to prove biodiversity loss. You count things. Then you count them again. Then you count them again, and then see what's happening. Easy. /sigh.

Yes but how much is natural and how much man caused. Millions of species have gone extinct during the life of the planet. Caused not just by predation by man but other species as well. Not considering catastophic events.

Unless you have a comparison of areas not affected by man to those that are you cant be sure that its man that has been the only cause and that it might be natural diversity. Things dying things evolving.

 

[Bodhi]

And again with the talk about global warming rather than biodiversity loss.

The much easier to prove biodiversity loss. You count things. Then you count them again. Then you count them again, and then see what's happening. Easy. /sigh.

You do realise that the study you posted tried to implicate Global Warming don't you? I mean you did actually read past the abstract didn't you?

And, unsurprisingly, you still haven't pointed out where the link to capitalism is in that study you posted.