Where are we going?

[TKDfella]

I really don't understand why many here are arguing against each other...correction, maybe I do. You can argue for this or deny that but there is one point that no one can deny;

We are what we are!

The real point is will we survive long enough to evolve into a species that is better than we are now? Hmmm, 'better' is subjective, I admit, but I think you know what I mean. Our forebears hunted to eat and survive, that instinct to hunt is still there but now it is done for 'kicks'...and we use our technology to help. Many use religion as an excuse to kill others...and we've been doing that for a while haven't we. Some even blow themselves to smithereens in the hope of taking a few others with them. Others go on a shooting spree in Malls, Schools etc....Paedophiles are amass so is corruption and...the list goes on. No I'm not painting a morbid picture of humankind, these are facts. Fortunately some/many of us are comparatively humble, considerate and have enough self control. And therein lay the solution; Humankind must change to the latter! Unfortunately that has to start with the individual. Is there a way out of this rut we are in? I don't know. Is it going to take something the original 1950's movie 'The Day the Earth Stood still'? Or will we maintain that no one has the right to tell us how to behave towards each other. Suppose there is no one else to help or if there is, simply turn away.

I for one, am convinced that we are intelligent enough to change before some catastrophe does it for us. I find it hard to accept that we are barbaric species, bent on forging differences between each other with the intention of driving others into submission....maybe I'm wrong.

[BritManToo]

21 minutes ago, nobodysfriend said:

Meant as an illustration to post # 115 ...

You're assuming the universe is real, and we're not just a computer simulation.

And if everything is a simulation, it doesn't matter what we do to the world because it isn't real.

Edited February 11, 2020 by BritManToo

[nobodysfriend]

6 minutes ago, TKDfella said:

I for one, am convinced that we are intelligent enough to change before some catastrophe does it for us. I find it hard to accept that we are barbaric species, bent on forging differences between each other with the intention of driving others into submission....maybe I'm wrong.

Thanks for your very good post .

Btw , we are just creating our own ' catastrophe ' ---> Bolsonaro and the amazonian rainforest for example ... We are so intelligent , but also so stupid ... it has something to do with education ... We are educated to become members of a society that is based on profitmaking . Profitmaking leads easily to greed and greed to destruction . That is what needs to change ...

[nobodysfriend]

7 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

You're assuming the universe is real, and we're not just a computer simulation.

I feel the pain , what would that be good for in a simulation ... 55

[rwill]

Get out of the house and go enjoy life.

[Suradit69]

12 hours ago, UbonThani said:

Great [sic] Thunberg started a movement for the young people, "

 

Sure conned you. Her parents are using her to make money. Books, videos, sponsorships etc.

She's incredibly annoying.  Of course she seems well-spoken and intelligent when competing with Trump (so would Koko the chimp) but I doubt she'll actually spur anyone to do anything aside from parading about with clever placards, and she diverts attention from the people who have a clue about the mess we're making of the environment.

[sucit]

I think that was a great point about alien invaders. 

 

If aliens were coming to earth and expelling CO2 and other greenhouse gases at the rate we are, the right would believe every word of the science for some reason and would be ready to attack.

 

What a genius argument that is so <deleted> true. lol

[rumak]

12 hours ago, Assurancetourix said:

Yes the Man is fundamentally bad and seeks only one thing, to destroy his neighbor ..
The older I get, the more I want to sink into a completely lost place alone as many hermits did before me and as do some Buddhist monks nowadays who live poorly in a few Wat completely lost at the bottom of Sakon nowhere ..
There will remain the material problem of the overstay .. which I will ignore when the time comes.
in fact one day i may become a new colonel Kurtz 

I am sure if we rode bikes together we would have some similar ideas to throw around..... on our rest stops .    ????      I am all for a positive attitude ( which i try to model MY LIFE on. )

But when it comes to the state of the world,  well,  I just can not convince myself that all is rosy and wonderful.    

[baansgr]

After drudging through the OP, I'm going to sleep, if I don't slash my wrists first

[sucit]

12 hours ago, UbonThani said:

" Great Thunberg started a movement for the young people, "

 

Sure conned you. Her parents are using her to make money. Books, videos, sponsorships etc.

 

It's all about money.

 

Nothing to do with saving anything. Al Gore started the money making enviro con.

Even conservatives used to believe in the threats of human induced climate change in the mid 70's. 

 

Exxonmobile then came out with propaganda such as "experts" denying what their own scientist found in preliminary studies. Throw enough money at something and you can make people believe anything. 

 

So no, it is you who has been conned. 

 

The one thing you got right is it is all about money. And who has more of it, Al Gore, or the oil companies?

 

Your opinion has been bought. 

[soalbundy]

21 hours ago, UbonThani said:

CC is a money making con. Everything is about money. At least you got one thing right.

None so blind as those that won't see

[Lacessit]

11 hours ago, Thingamabob said:

Blaming CO2 for global warning is ridiculous,  puerile ignorance. Also, running cars on batteries is also ridiculous. Lithium and cobalt are difficult and dangerous to mine, and are finite.

It would seem financial institutions disagree with you. There is not a single bank or private financial institution on the planet that will lend money for a new coal mine or coal-fired power station.

Tesla's electric cars are selling well, and the rest of the auto industry is trying to catch up. The share price of Tesla indicates Musk has crucified the short-sellers.

[UbonThani]

8 hours ago, sucit said:

Even conservatives used to believe in the threats of human induced climate change in the mid 70's. 

 

Exxonmobile then came out with propaganda such as "experts" denying what their own scientist found in preliminary studies. Throw enough money at something and you can make people believe anything. 

 

So no, it is you who has been conned. 

 

The one thing you got right is it is all about money. And who has more of it, Al Gore, or the oil companies?

 

Your opinion has been bought. 

Sorry but you are really ignorant. Scientists the world over don't agree with the co2 theory. It's a shoddy unproven theory based on correlation not causation.

 

Educate yourself. This anti oil rant is just leftist tripe. Not science.

 

Tin foil hat people think oil companies run everything.

 

Lots of banks make more money than oil companies. Many oil companies don't make much money at all. Many are exploration companies.

 

Many bankers are behind the co2 movement and invest in renewables.

 

This idea that oil groups run everything is rolled out by ignorant lefties every year with there tin foil hat on.

Edited February 11, 2020 by UbonThani

[UbonThani]

10 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

It would seem financial institutions disagree with you. There is not a single bank or private financial institution on the planet that will lend money for a new coal mine or coal-fired power station.

Tesla's electric cars are selling well, and the rest of the auto industry is trying to catch up. The share price of Tesla indicates Musk has crucified the short-sellers.

Not true. New coal mines are being improved. It depends on financials and govt policy. Loony govs make some approvals difficult if they adopt silly co2 targets.

 

Tin foil people think 3 people run the world but they dont. It depends on each gov policy and local matters.

[UbonThani]

18 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Tesla's electric cars are selling well, and the rest of the auto industry is trying to catch up.

Not in the top 12 selling cars. Do they even make the top 50?

 

Most people prefer fuel cars. Cheaper, sound good and fuel isnt expensive unless you drive a lot.

[UbonThani]

Last year in NSW, just one state of 1 country 14 new coal projects got proven.

 

Worldwide there would be many unless the gov is co2 crazy.

[Lacessit]

11 hours ago, UbonThani said:

Science says alarmists are wrong year after year.

 

Not to mention that there is no evidence of manmade co2 doing much at all. All the alarmists did was take some correlation and argue causation.

 

That is mickey mouse science. If you cannot prove causation you have NO science and none of the alarmists can prove it as climate is complex not simple like the alarmists.

 

No wonder all the alarmist forecasts are so wrong.

 

When you think about it the climate scam is like the food scams against butter, meat and salt. It's all driven by dodgy gravy train people.

 

 

There is no causative link between lung cancer and smoking. However the fact one is 20 times more likely to die of lung cancer ( let's leave out emphysema and heart disease ) as a smoker is sufficient evidence for sensible people to quit.

Heat cells over Australia, breaking up of the Larsen Ice Shelf, disappearance of glaciers in Iceland are not forecasts. They are happening now.

One of the favorite arguments of deniers is climate change is a scam, aimed at getting research funding.

95% of the world's scientists accept climate change is man-made. Their acceptance is based on their training in physics and chemistry, plus the evidence before them.

Probably only 5-10% of said scientists are engaged in climate science themselves. The proposition scientists around the world are part of a giant conspiracy is patently ridiculous. It's more probable the 5% that disagree are bought by the fossil fuel industry.

It's very like the legal battles fought by Big Tobacco for decades against smokers who sued them for damage to their health. The fossil fuel industry is doing the same - deny, deflect, red herrings and propaganda.

If you really thought about it, you would be ashamed of being so gullible.

 

[UbonThani]

8 hours ago, sucit said:

Even conservatives used to believe in the threats of human induced climate change in the mid 70's.

Not really. Bad alarmist scientists told them an ice age is coming. Then the alarmists said run away warming.

 

Both proven wrong since.

 

You lefties keep moving the goal posts.

 

After 50 years of alarmist nonsense the jury is in.

 

It's a con job. You lefties just can't admit it.

 

97% of co2 is natural and there are many factors that affect climate.

 

Still the con rolls on. Trillion dollar con to support.

[UbonThani]

4 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

There is no causative link between lung cancer and smoking. However the fact one is 20 times more likely to die of lung cancer ( let's leave out emphysema and heart disease ) as a smoker is sufficient evidence for sensible people to quit.

Heat cells over Australia, breaking up of the Larsen Ice Shelf, disappearance of glaciers in Iceland are not forecasts. They are happening now.

One of the favorite arguments of deniers is climate change is a scam, aimed at getting research funding.

95% of the world's scientists accept climate change is man-made. Their acceptance is based on their training in physics and chemistry, plus the evidence before them.

Probably only 5-10% of said scientists are engaged in climate science themselves. The proposition scientists around the world are part of a giant conspiracy is patently ridiculous. It's more probable the 5% that disagree are bought by the fossil fuel industry.

It's very like the legal battles fought by Big Tobacco for decades against smokers who sued them for damage to their health. The fossil fuel industry is doing the same - deny, deflect, red herrings and propaganda.

If you really thought about it, you would be ashamed of gullible.

 

8 hours ago, sucit said:

 

[UbonThani]

I see you don't know much about co2 at all.

 

95% or 97 was disproven many years ago.

[Lacessit]

16 minutes ago, UbonThani said:

Not in the top 12 selling cars. Do they even make the top 50?

 

Most people prefer fuel cars. Cheaper, sound good and fuel isnt expensive unless you drive a lot.

Most petrolheads contemplating the performance figures of a Tesla are depressed, because they see the future. As do other car companies such as Mercedes, BMW, Honda, Toyota etc. etc.

It's true people prefer fuel cars - now. That will change when they start understanding the external costs.

[Lacessit]

4 minutes ago, UbonThani said:

I see you don't know much about co2 at all.

 

95% or 97 was disproven many years ago.

SFB

[UbonThani]

Yet the assertion that 97% of scientists believe that climate change is a man-made, urgent problem is a fiction. The so-called consensus comes from a handful of surveys and abstract-counting exercises that have been contradicted by more reliable research.

[UbonThani]

1 minute ago, Lacessit said:

SFB

Your responses are common for uneducated lefties.

[UbonThani]

3 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Most petrolheads contemplating the performance figures of a Tesla are depressed, because they see the future. As do other car companies such as Mercedes, BMW, Honda, Toyota etc. etc.

It's true people prefer fuel cars - now. That will change when they start understanding the external costs.

Low selling car. Takes more energy to make. A con job.

[UbonThani]

 So 64 out of 11,944, or 0.5%, take the view that humans are the main cause of global warming. But that includes all abstracts, including those that did not take a position. It would be nice to take the 64 as a percent of those that did take a position. Unfortunately, in their data set, Cook et al put 4a, those that do not address the cause of global warming, with 4b, those that express the view that humans’ role in global warming is uncertain or undefined. It would be nice to separate them, but we can’t unless we have the even rawer data. So let’s generously conclude that everyone in category 4 has expressed no view. That’s a total of 7970, leaving a total of 3,974 that have expressed a view. The 64 who think the main cause is humans is, drum roll please: 1.6%.

[Lacessit]

Just now, UbonThani said:

Your responses are common for uneducated lefties.

There are times on TV when I have to conclude I am attempting to have a discussion with someone who has the intelligence of an amoeba, and it's better to give up in the interest of my own sanity.

[UbonThani]

So its 64 on the take scientists paid for by left wing unis.

 

1.6% 555555

 

Nice co2 con job.

 

 

[geronimo]

I only started this thread to beat Ivor Bigun's god thread!

[UbonThani]

Just now, Lacessit said:

There are times on TV when I have to conclude I am attempting to have a discussion with someone who has the intelligence of an amoeba, and it's better to give up in the interest of my own sanity.

That's nice. I see you have no knowledge on science. Just abuse. Means you lost.

 

Goodbye.