Sydney Self Storage Stuff

i will thanks.
i will thanks.

LeGioNoFZion:

…
LeGioNoFZion:

It sounds like you’ve been following these topics longer than I have. I’m still trying to untangle the truth from the BS…it’s tedious…

If you have anymore resources to recommend, please email the links to my YouTube account…

Thanks,
Mike

…which I find a …
…which I find a red herring that detracts from real issues we should cope with, I mean we have biodegradable plastic now. now isn’t the time to argue over plastic bags when we solved that issue. Yet city council still debates this useless argument for weeks instead of doing what they are paid to do, run things smoothly.

ok well I think we …
ok well I think we can agree in this respect, when I was young I was very active in the GW fight. As I got older and the predictions that spurred me to action proved false I became skeptical.

Now I see both sides employing propaganda and I reject both arguments because people are either arguing to support finacial fabrications like cap and trade, creating an industry, or arguing that there is no personal responsiblity in climate change. I reject attempts to monetize the issue …

LeGioNoFZioN - I’m …
LeGioNoFZioN - I’m not saying that you’re necessarily wrong, that we should accept everything the environmental groups holler at us, that no one profits from the environmental agenda, or that there are no hysterical idiots among the environmentalists.

I AM saying, that the oil companies have MUCH stronger ulterior motives than the environmentalists do.

I’m ALWAYS more skeptical of propaganda, when it corresponds to someone’s balatant profit motive.

great for you, but …
great for you, but far from the unmitigated truth. I have seen the debunked, and the denial machine. I must admit I was less than convinced. Instead I am convinced people have chosen sides, without much concern for what is the actual truth on the ground. I’ve seen it from people in both camps. the debunking of the GGWS seemed full of as much propganda as the GGWS, and that is not the way to the truth. there are corps that profit from both sides, the truth isn’t what any of them think it is

CO2 isn’t poison, …
CO2 isn’t poison, the problem is that it’s a “greenhouse gas.” If it can be drawn out of the atmosphere and stored somewhere, there’s nothing wrong with that.

Plants do this naturally; they’d die without CO2. That’s why deforestation is such a concern.

I’m more skeptical …
I’m more skeptical of the global warming deniers.

Run searches on “The Great Global Warming Swindle Debunked”, “The Denial Machine”, and “most profitable corporations,” for starters.

Then, decide for yourself which side has the strongest ulterior motives.

Or there would need …
Or there would need to be reductions in the way industry works, and revisioning of what machinery and industry is ultimately ‘good for’ in the anthropocene era.

Or, then again, the correction Deep Ecology folks anticipate and call a major human “die off”.

As with so much of the right generally–and I would say the libertarian right in particular–there’s no problem with unregulated industrial capitalism that streets strewn with dead mothers and babies won’t solve.

its just propoganda …
its just propoganda just like an inconvenient truth. they are two sides of the same coin seeking to influence through rhetoric and fear mongering instead of using rational scientific arguments. I see no difference between the GGWS groups and the AIT gore followers. Neither side is committed to the truth, only their version of it.

In its current …
In its current state theres no way solar can power the heavy machinery and industries.

There would need to be leaps in technology before solar ever was even viable.

” “The Great Global …
” “The Great Global Warming Swindle”, It’s just great?”

No it isn’t. It’s propaganda and garbage, produced by energy-company shills.

everybody watch

” …
everybody watch

“The Great Global Warming Swindle”

it’s just great and it’s available on Google videos 76min full length

Cheers

Well, I take yr …
Well, I take yr point, but it’s self-refuting, of course.

The whole problem of industrial pollution (& a good argument can be made to markets generally, but leave that aside if you want) is one of externalities…like razed mountaintops, gunked up streams, fouled air and this amped-up greenhouse effect that’s going to get a lot of people killed.

Google ‘james lovelace’ for a jarring sense of possible scale on that.

would you want this …
would you want this pumped into the ground under your house. Everywhere is someones back yard. SOLAR SOLAR SOLAR. The only long term answer.

The only arguments …
The only arguments that can be made for coal are that we have a lot of it and it is cheap. Not horrible arguments, just very short sighted. Coal is also the single dirtiest(for carbon and many other pollutants) fuel there is. Not to mention the destruction to landscape and the water table that comes from blowing the tops off of our mountains.

Whooo, living in …
Whooo, living in Florida in July, let me tell you the incredible energy of the sun occurs to me pretty often. Seems such a no-brainer in terms of where to pour R&D dollars.

Your framing of the stakes seems both right to me & something totally lacking on the pro-coal side. Which seems nuts.

Sequestration sounds to my inexpert ears absolutely exploding with risks of unintended consequences.

Not since GMO agriculture has something sounded like such a colossally bad idea to rush to market.

The long term …
The long term solution is solar. The universe runs on this. What we should be doing for the sake of future generations is trying not to poison the entire ecosystem so badly that man is wiped from the face of the earth before we become sophisticated enough to use it. carbon capture is just putting the poison somewhere else. There will be leaks or a complete rupture if we try this. Waste of time and $

Hmmm, the …
Hmmm, the impracticality of solar, wind and bio-mass power don’t seem to stop massive investments in it. Sequestration and bio-engineering, while both in early days, offer a non-interventionist approach to climate change which won’t destroy our industrial infrastructure and that won’t do for the radicals of the environmental movement.