Ableton Forum

Forge. wrote:

Jack McOck wrote: Again, subtlety and nuance is lost on this crowd.

you mean like the difference between camembert or stilton?

Funk N. Furter wrote:The number of humans is irrelevant. What is important is their ecological footprint. America's per capita ecological footprint is 5x greater than what is globally sustainable. The CO2 footprint of people in poor countries is tiny, eg 100 to 200 times smaller than an American's. In Afghanistan, a hideous product of American foreign policy, the CO2 emissions figure per capita is listed as 0.

Funk N. Furter wrote:

beats me wrote:

Funk N. Furter wrote:The number of humans is irrelevant. What is important is their ecological footprint. America's per capita ecological footprint is 5x greater than what is globally sustainable. The CO2 footprint of people in poor countries is tiny, eg 100 to 200 times smaller than an American's. In Afghanistan, a hideous product of American foreign policy, the CO2 emissions figure per capita is listed as 0.

Sorry, I’m only loosely involved in this topic. I didn’t know that’s the path this thread is going down, although I guess I shouldn’t be surprised. Tip of the hat for sticking to your agenda. Carry on.

That was mainly aimed at Cocky

beats me wrote:

Funk N. Furter wrote:That was mainly aimed at Cocky

But that could be in reference to my statements as well. I’m really not putting much effort into having an intelligent conversation here and I’ll leave the defending of America to those who get all worked into a lather about it.

funken wrote:There is no man-made global warming.

I never even mentioned Cocky or race. I mentioned CO2 footprint per capita and populations, which is central to the theme of the thread. I was referring to what Cocky had said, but I wasn't debating it.

The thread is 44 pages long, and for a while it was just Forge and Krule posting long posts to each other. I was trying to get it broadened out a bit, so more people could get involved.

So, your winging is not helpful.

funk wrote:Why are you posting racist shit?

Forge. wrote:what are you getting some kind of dossier together?

Funk N. Furter wrote:

Jack McOck wrote:...I claimed the sun was responsible for the majority of warming and cooling. You agreed with me up, but also claimed that this changed in the 20th century as the sun was cooling, yet temperatures were still on the increase. However, global temperatures have been stagnating for the past 15 years, which you now attribute to a cooling sun.

Put this altogether, and I can safely say we're in no immediate danger. At least if I follow your logic.

I never said the sun was cooing throughout the 20th century, or that the slowdown in cooling of the last 15 years was due to the sun. The sun goes through 11 year cycles, and should now be at a peak, but it's not been very noticeable. It also goes through much longer cycles (70 years?) and I think we are going into a dip on one of those round about now. So it's possible that this has been part of the low warming in the last year or two. The main cause of the last 15 years was that 1998 was exceptionally hot due to the El Nino.

Apart from that, the only thing I can think of in the 20th century was the cooling effect of pollution (aerosols) in the post war (WW2) industrial boom and trade expansion, which caused the obvious dip in the warming graph.

Sunspots are cold, but low sunspots means cooling. This seems contradictory, The reason is that although cold, they allow radiation out, something like that. We now only see about 3 sunspots. 20 is a common number. The 'little ice age' was one of these long term cycle dips.

We are also still in an ice age. We are in an interglacial period, but the next glaciation won't be for 15-50,000 years.

Funk N. Furter wrote:It's funny isn't it. I won the geography prize at the top school in England, have Maths, Physics and Chemistry A levels and a degree in geology, my next door neighbour is a Physics teacher who has taught astronomy and recently looked at the sunspots, my sister was a Greenpeace researcher/manager, and yet I still can't grasp the basics of global warming.

Forge. wrote:what are you getting some kind of dossier together?

Forge. wrote:

krulecello wrote:
If I have challenged you to think, that's good. I'm still waiting for you to be honest. You do have a habit of pointing the finger at governments and corporations (or anyone else) whilst ignoring your own complicity and the physical reality / facts. You can frame this in whatever way you like, 'conspiracy', 'the real world', 'they be all mighty (monster), me be innocent victim (mouse)', 'relevance', etc.

You can continue to spread as much propaganda as you like about the 'physical reality defying' greenwash technologies in the hope that you wont have to give up 'your' lifestyle.

You can throw as much money as you like, sign as many partitions as you like, chain yourself to as many trees as you like, partake in as many forum discussions as you like on war, poverty, human stupidity, climate change, economy, etc ... you can even vote in 'compulsory democratic' Australian elections and believe, obediently, that your vote counts and that one political party or politician is somehow better than the other..... all are vain attempts to save the very people and places that are currently being destroyed by your 'complicity'.

You are complicit in this corrupt system because you accept its ideology.

By driving a car and traveling by plane, you are highly complicit in the pollution of, and destruction of, life on this planet, right now.

"I never didn't admit that" does not equate to "I admit that."

Well, you can keep accusing me of being dishonest if you like, but I honestly don't know what it is I'm supposedly being dishonest about. Everything I've said here is what i believe to be true, that doesn't mean I'm right, but it does mean I'm being honest.

Okay, for the sake of semantics I'll state more clearly: I fully admit that I am complicit, if that's what you mean.