Is it OK to jest about global warming?

wayneL · 11 July 2008

2020hindsight said:
here's another great joke ...

lost opportunities - thanks Johnny

http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2008/s2301635.htm

Well here is the cost of taking "opportunities" vis a vis sustainability.

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/BiofuelsBiodevastationHunger.php

doctorj · 12 July 2008

2020hindsight said:
given the consequences of failure, is it ok to jest about it?

Not if it offends a 'pilgrim'

2020hindsight · 12 July 2008

well I've voted other .. comes down to this I guess...

"TELLING A JOKE TO YOUR SICK MUM
versus TREATING HER SICKNESS AS A JOKE"

I expand on the theory on the poetry thread.

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=313810

Smurf1976 · 12 July 2008

Well here's a real climate change joke - and it's from Greenpeace themselves. So it seems that jokes about it are fine.

Greenpeace have once again broken into a coal-fired power station and climbed the stack in order to conduct a protest.

"We'd like to hear the Prime Minister commit to have this station closed down before the next election..." they say.

What's the problem? It's just another Greenpeace power station stunt. The plant is very near the end of its life anyway so will be closed whether Greenpeace protest about it or not. The whole thing is just a sad case of campaigning for something that's going to happen anyway in order to convince their supporters that they're actually making a difference when in this case they clearly aren't.

And it's not the first time either. They once broke into a plant in Victoria and "shut it down". And indeed it was shut down - more than a decade earlier.

In political terms, these fools make Labor and Liberal seem incredibly honest in comparison. Fair enough if you want to protest, but make it something genuine rather than this cheap nonsense that does nothing apart from fooling your own supporters thus keeping the donations rolling in.

Come on Greenpeace and others, tell the truth. The power industry has never denied that it emits CO2, builds transmission lines and wind farms, tried to build dams in the wilderness or whatever. An impact maybe, but you can't possibly argue that the industry hasn't been open and honest about what it was doing and why. If we're going to do something about the environment then we need honesty, not cheap stunts like this one.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/07/12/2301870.htm?section=australia

2020hindsight · 12 July 2008

Well, trees transform CO2 into O2 by day, but when night comes, their evil CO2 producing task, begins. So the moral of the story? - make sure you cut down trees at night.

2020hindsight · 12 July 2008

sam76 said:
What? Like saying it's a "hot" topic?

LOL

hey sam - If I had a dollar for every time I've heard that one, I'd be a millionaire

Pat · 12 July 2008

2020hindsight said:
Well, trees transform CO2 into O2 by day, but when night comes, their evil CO2 producing task, begins. So the moral of the story? - make sure you cut down trees at night.

Thats a good one 2020. I like it .

So many conflicting studies, aguments, hard data.

We only change for profit.

pedro64 · 12 July 2008

Global warming? Hasn't that term been deprecated, in favour of the more vague and ominous "Climate change".

I am undecided on the issue, but my concern with the climate change debate is that it is based on FEAR. I want to head about the POSITIVES.

Bleh. FEAR is the currency of the 21st centuary ;-)

Surly · 12 July 2008

I quite enjoyed reading Michael Crichton's "State of Fear" on this subject.

It threw enought doubt into my mind to look beyond the rhetoric.

On the topic of jokes his point that where ever we have tried to manipulate the environment we have failed miserably come to mind.

cheers
Surly

wayneL · 12 July 2008

pedro64 said:
Global warming? Hasn't that term been deprecated, in favour of the more vague and ominous "Climate change".

I am undecided on the issue, but my concern with the climate change debate is that it is based on FEAR. I want to head about the POSITIVES.

Bleh. FEAR is the currency of the 21st centuary ;-)

Exactly.

There is an agenda beyond climate.

wayneL · 12 July 2008

The greatest joke of all is the absolute mind boggling hypocrisy of AGW protagonists.

On the one hand they froth at the mouth about how we all have to live like cave men and women to stop our planet turning into a boiling watery broth of floating corpses, deserts and ruined infrastructure continuously blown about the globe by massive hurricanes that will encompass entire hemispheres.

On the other hand, their own "carbon footprints" outsize the most strident hedonist.

* Our own klaxon, 2020, refuses to alter his hugely carbon emitting and carbon emission facilitating profession of building infrastructure for those paragon-ly polluters, the large mining companies.

* Fear monger and profiteer in chief, Al Bore, still lives in a huge energy gluttonous mansion, travels by jet and limousine motorcade and has profited nicely from the gullible masses. In the making of "An Inconvenient Truth" indulged in the most disgusting intellectual dishonesty and trickery (eg Polar Bear fiasco) and the most disgraceful junk and downright dodgy science imaginable in order to achieve the maximum fear possible.

* The IPCC, in the most appalling effrontery, conducts their meetings at luxury South Pacific resorts, the resorts themselves are hugely energy gluttonous and are only accessible only by jet travel, for which each and every member must travel vast distances by polluting and carbon belching jumbo jets. They promulgate a vast number of falsehoods and manipulations of data to continue the lucrative gravy train they are all on.

* Politicians perpetuate the dishonesty to promote so called "green taxes" which are nothing more than revenue grabs and have shown to be so.

If there was any true concern, a change of behaviour would be evident from those who are allegedly most concerned about it. Yet these people refuse to lead on the very issue they lecture us about and continue with lavish lifestyles. It is no wonder the plebeians are catching on to this disgusting fraud.

Yes it is a joke as the protagonists laughingly roll about in pools of public money and cynically manipulate the public for all it is worth. But the joke is wearing thin and the joke is nearly up.

2020hindsight · 12 July 2008

Here's a good one
but - make sure you watch it to the end if you want to get his real message

"plastic !!"

George Carlin - Saving the Planet

wildkactus · 13 July 2008

In the 70's it was global cooling,
now its global warming / climate change
So what will it be in another thirty years. we need to pollute more!!!

This is just one big con / joke being pulled by the scientific community.

Also what happen to the Ozone layer that was going to destroy the world.

2020hindsight · 13 July 2008

wildkactus said:
Also what happen to the Ozone layer that was going to destroy the world.

we acted

wildkactus · 13 July 2008

2020hindsight said:
we acted

did we or did the money run out from the companies promoting the replacement to CFC's

2020hindsight · 13 July 2008

wildkactus said:
did we or did the money run out from the companies promoting the replacement to CFC's

we legislated against wasteful use thereof - did the trick.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_layer

Regulation
On January 23, 1978, Sweden became the first nation to ban CFC-containing aerosol sprays that are thought to damage the ozone layer. A few other countries, including the United States, Canada, and Norway, followed suit later that year, but the European Community rejected an analogous proposal. Even in the U.S., chlorofluorocarbons continued to be used in other applications, such as refrigeration and industrial cleaning, until after the discovery of the Antarctic ozone hole in 1985. After negotiation of an international treaty (the Montreal Protocol), CFC production was sharply limited beginning in 1987 and phased out completely by 1996.

On August 2, 2003, scientists announced that the depletion of the ozone layer may be slowing down due to the international ban on CFCs.[4] Three satellites and three ground stations confirmed that the upper atmosphere ozone depletion rate has slowed down significantly during the past decade. The study was organized by the American Geophysical Union. Some breakdown can be expected to continue due to CFCs used by nations which have not banned them, and due to gases which are already in the stratosphere. CFCs have very long atmospheric lifetimes, ranging from 50 to over 100 years, so the final recovery of the ozone layer is expected to require several lifetimes.

Compounds containing C–H bonds are being designed to replace the function of CFC's (such as HCFC), since these compounds are more reactive and less likely to survive long enough in the atmosphere to reach the stratosphere where they could affect the ozone layer.

2020hindsight · 13 July 2008

The only rules comedy can tolerate are those of taste, and the only limitations those of libel.
James Thurber

Incidentally, the title of this thread is pretty close to what I found on another internet forum.

wayneL said:
On the other hand, their own "carbon footprints" outsize the most strident hedonist.

* Our own klaxon, 2020, refuses to alter his hugely carbon emitting and carbon emission facilitating profession of building infrastructure for those paragon-ly polluters, the large mining companies.

wow wayne ! - that's mean !

PS I've addressed this on the poetry thread.

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=314125

And of course on other threads ... (prior to Tim Flannery's suggested artificial volcanoes)

2020 said:
prof fink, If you're saying Wayne's comment was a hypothetical, then so was mine I guess:-
Wayne :- If the world is doomed, I'm going out in style
Julia :- I believe your facetious comment above in actual fact represents .. much of the population.
Wayne:- It was only partly facetious.
2020:- perhaps Wayne is right. why bother trying
i.e. I'm agreeing with his hypothetical

Of course I believe in action on an individual level. I agree entirely with Wayne and you here

Where I seem to disagree is that I think such efforts should include (but obviously not limited to) writing about it on public forums.

- and showing public support for any and all positives including Kyoto, however small a step they may be.

"spruking" whatever seems to cause some around here concern

2020hindsight · 13 July 2008

apologies, herewith the link to quote mentioned in previous post - my reply to prof frink.

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=237973

explod · 13 July 2008

I think that this is an absolutely disgusting thread.

Global warming is happenning, yes it has happened before, it may be wrong and overstated, but if it is right then the egg on the face is insignificant to the sufferring of your Grandchildren. Should we perhaps not err on the side of caution and do everything we can to do those things that will go away from the use of those things that MIGHT cause global warming.

I think the real problem is overpopulation. The real joke was Peter Costello setting up a scheme to entice people to increase the number of children. Such concepts made people believe that the whole issue is a joke. A bit like the smirk on his face, probably had a lot do do with the loss of face in that government.

I think it is time to look seriously at alternatives

Smurf1976 · 13 July 2008

explod said:
I think the real problem is overpopulation. The real joke was Peter Costello setting up a scheme to entice people to increase the number of children. Such concepts made people believe that the whole issue is a joke. A bit like the smirk on his face, probably had a lot do do with the loss of face in that government.

I think it is time to look seriously at alternatives

It's a hard sell that the alternatives are contraception and abortion when most are expecting a few panels on the roof to be sufficient.

Is it OK to jest about global warming?