Bin Laden tape blames US for global warming

[Laukev7]

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id ... _article=1

They are really taking people for idiots  

[Aloone_Jonez]

Some terrorists will believe it - any excuse for propaganda.

[Laukev7]

That's US propaganda, not terrorist propaganda. The idea that Bin Laden would talk about global warming (let alone that he's still alive) is ludicrous.

[Aloone_Jonez]

I would believe either but I take all propaganda with a inch of salt.

[kintaro]

That's US propaganda, not terrorist propaganda. The idea that Bin Laden would talk about global warming (let alone that he's still alive) is ludicrous.

Prove it.

[Calum]

That's US propaganda, not terrorist propaganda. The idea that Bin Laden would talk about global warming (let alone that he's still alive) is ludicrous.

it seems like you'd have to know Bin Laden quite well to make this assertion, right enough.
Certainly, it's the sort of thing a figurehead of terrorist incitement, with an Islamic background, might try and use to gain support, in my opinion.


By the way, the USA is the world leader in industrial and agricultural emissions, isn't it? So for anybody who believed emissions were a main contributory factor towards global warming, this wouldn't be a stretch. Of course you lot are all far too enlightened to fall for that old chestnut.

[kintaro]

I doubt the USA comes close to China in terms of emissions.

[Calum]

that proves it then.

i wonder why you would think that by the way, considering China is mainly a rural country (a lot more rural than anywhere in the US i bet, rural americans still have garages full of SUVs).

still, taken over time (going back to, say, the industrial revolution) and perhaps counting the influence of Western nations on the later development of industrial methods in other countries, i suspect the US has played a respectably sized part in creating what we now know of as global warming.

And by the way, it took me less than three seconds to find this with google: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/env_co2_emi-environment-co2-emissions


Now all i need to do is make sure i don't say "arse" or some other word that people might decide to take offence to, because that would automatically make me childish and prove me wrong all in one fatal instant!

[Aloone_Jonez]

Those figures are just estimates and could be easily be subject to corruption

Do you know how they got those figures?

They look at how much coal, oil and gas are burned by each country. How do they know how much fossil fuels are burned by each country? Statistics provided by the government.

[Calum]

excellent point, however in the past on this board certain people have criticised certain others for having no evidence for their opinion. These statistics are a lot better evidence than saying "I doubt the USA comes close to China in terms of emissions." with no backup whatsoever.

I mean, i could say "I doubt the USA would have any qualms about nuking the rest of the world if it meant more money in their pockets" or "I doubt China will ever do anything about lowering its emissions levels" but this would be totally unfounded, completely groundless, and as a result fairly worthless, as has been established on this board time and again.

Interesting that we've now got to the point where attempting to back up statements with evidence is now treated as invalid. No wonder there's very little actual debate going on round here.

[Aloone_Jonez]

So when someone posts a source to back up what they've said the debate should be over?

I don't agree with that, if that's what you're saying.

Anyway, even if China did emit the most CO₂ it's not that simple as a large proportion of it would be in manufacturing cheap goods for the US.

EDIT:
I'm not saying that posting a source doesn't not validate your argument or that it's a bad thing to do, nor am I saying that because I've stated that your source isn't 100% accurate, your point is invalid.

[kintaro]

I've still seen little that proves global warming other than correlation - the greenhouse effect exists yet it is also known just as empirically that there have been many climate cycles with many natural causes. I don't doubt this planet can get hotter, yet unlike the masses I believe this is the very reason we need to expand our standard of living.

I don't think we should give up our industry. Unindustrialized nations suffer from far more casualties from bad weather including hurricanes. Carbon typically lives in the atmosphere for 20 odd years. This creates an interesting condundrum. We are supposed to sacrifice on the altar of global progress our industry but still survive the disastrous effects of industry - or the climate or whatever. The response to global warming shouldn't be to simply stop surviving, but to wonder how we are going to move forward and survive side by side with our industry.

The best response to global warming is more industry. Nuclear power is a stable source of energy yet it isn't utilized out of the fear of repeated mistakes. There was once a time when steam engines had no safety valves and exploded and killed factory workers. Before that there was a time when mules kicked their captors so hard they bled to death internally. Yet whenever someone wants to erect a nuclear power plant, no matter how advanced it is, people hold it to the standard of the past.

It goes beyond that however - there are far worse risks to this planet which only mankind can counter. An asteroid could destroy ALL life on this planet - leaving an inert rock. We need the ability to remove them from our path. We have that ability within us, maybe it isn't materialized, but the only reason its in the grasp of our imagination is because its feasible to send a rocket into space which ejects a whole lot of carbon into the atmosphere in the process of doing it.

Yet the only response the so called elite can construct is a sacrifice. I might go into conspiracy mode a bit, but before Alex Jones' sold out he released a film called the Dark Secrets of Bohemian Grove. It gives us a look inside an activity that the "Elite" practice. They do a mock human sacrifice and chant about how it sets us free. The biggest problem today is that the only answer Kings' ever had, and the State class ever have is to send Men to their death fighting other Statists.

This is why their only response now to the worlds first disaster, created by man or not, but carried out by the planet is to commit suicide since it is the closest thing these clowns in power know to war. Yet, this human sacrifice serves us no purpose. This time, we can't just be sent into battle. We need to do the opposite, we need to embrace industry and surely we need to improve our standard of livin greatly to be sure our children who inherit that standard of living have the means to survive climate change.


We are no longer slaves building pyramids in Egypt to erect our state class to the god Ra. We are no longer feudal armies warring over Kingly matters. We are an emancipated and free human race. We have machines and industry because of this - yet the Statists, the Kings' their only request is that we surrender this. Promising scientists (mostly those employed by the state, other scientists are too busy unlocking more of natures secrets for industrialists) a massive bounty - the want to send us down the road of serfdom of sacrifice in the name of the most vague collective ever: "The Earth," "The Ecosphere."

The only thing that has changed is the motive to which our lives should be surrendered towards.  Climate change is always happening - and overcoming these natural events is the step to which brings us to an entirely new level of civilization. One where we master the sky, master the earth, and not just survive but prevent all matters of natural disaster. The Statists are the class which are to be left behind, the mindless brutes, and this why in the face of a disaster that could only inspire us to go forward boldly - they tell us to move backward in a suicidal gesture in panic about the state of the world.

[Aloone_Jonez]

I doubt it's going to be as bad as many of the gloom merchants predict: higher temperatures would mean global average rainfall will increase and even biodiversity should eventually recover, as it has done following all previous extinction events.

I agree that using nuclear power would be a good thing but it's not a renewable source so is only a short term fix. We need to move to a renewable energy source in or go back to the stone age.

Talking of natural disasters, I wonder if the human race could survive a KT-like extinction event?

It's kind of sad that the dinosaurs died out but if they hadn't we wouldn't exist but there might be a dinosaur-related species as or more intelligent than us by now; that sounds like a good plot for a SiFi.

[Calum]

So when someone posts a source to back up what they've said the debate should be over?

I don't agree with that, if that's what you're saying.

this is 100% not what i said.

I'm sick of having to endlessly re-explain everything, is this some sort of tactic to make your opponent bored and give up? if so it's worked. Again, no wonder there's no real debate going on here, the few people left are more interested in point scoring (by obfuscation) than in real discussion.

[kintaro]

Who cares if nuclear power is renewable? The real renewable energy is solar power derived from the sun and beamed towards us with microwaves, but its a few decades advanced of us. If anything, we need to go on a massive energy binge with the only Government involvement being to subsidize these projects that are more important than the space program and can power multitudes of large hadron colliders. Once we start getting energy from the sun more directly, and there are projects already moving forward: WE ARE GOING TO WISH WE CONSUMED MORE OF WHAT WE HAVE NOW AND WILL BE WORTHLESS SOON.