I just remember how they predicted there would be 50 million climate refugees by the year 2010, that about sums up their levels of prediction.
Pegminer nailed what I was thinking before finishing reading the responses.
There is a global crisis. How do you get a global response to it? We simply don't have good mechanisms in place, right now. The UN is the only mechanism around with infrastructure already in place, despite all its limitations and flaws. It's probably not even close to being up to the task. But it's what exists, for now.
I'd love to see something better. I'd love to know the mechanics and design of something better, too. I'd learn a lot just from reviewing a good arrangement.
Read Garrett Hardin's puzzle posed in The Tragedy of the Commons. Deal with the quandary posed carefully and you tell me how to avoid the trap he presents. It's inescapable without cooperation. How do you see fashioning global cooperation? How would you protect yourself from the things you fear, while at the same time creating a response that is necessary and sufficient and timely enough to do what is right for our children and the environment we hand them.
I don't care who you trust. Or don't trust. But if you can't tell me how you'd fashion a system of global cooperation that actually works, then you offer no solutions at all. You may not see that conclusion, but I do. There is no possible way we survive well in the future without global cooperation. Assume I'm right on that point and you tell me what mechanism you would embrace to get there. Otherwise, we simply have to disagree on the conclusions. And given that, of course we see different roads ahead.
But if you are willing to accept my premise just for the purposes of debate, I'd love to hear what you think would address your concerns while at the same time addressing mine. Design a compromise for me.
I think you have things backwards, AGW theorists would look to the UN for a RESPONSE to global warming, not for information about it.
Here's a question for you. You hate the UN, and think they're out to poison you, govern you, and generally make your life miserable, fine. Consider a hypothetical issue (NOT global warming) that would require essentially ALL the countries of the world to accomplish something. It could be something from a science fiction movie: a giant asteroid heading for the planet, a microbe sweeping the globe that turns people into zombies, whatever. It doesn't what it is, but the key point is that it requires all the countries of the world to do something, or else life as we know it will end.
My question is, how would YOU accomplish whatever it is that needs to be done? You hate the UN, so how could you save the world without involving them? Saying all the countries of the world will cooperate on their own is not an answer--we all know that there are some countries that will deny zombification because of their religion or their politics.
Thank you deniers for supplying even more proof that climate change deniers are either extreme free marketeers or conspiracy theorists.
"Although nearly all domain experts agree that human CO2 emissions are altering the world’s climate, segments of the public remain unconvinced by the scientific evidence. Internet blogs have become a vocal platform for climate denial, and bloggers have taken a prominent and influential role in questioning climate science. We report a survey (N > 1100) of climate blog users to identify the variables underlying acceptance and rejection of climate science. Paralleling previous work, we find that endorsement of a laissez-faire conception of free-market economics predicts rejection of climate science (r .80 between latent constructs). Endorsement of the free market also predicted the rejection of other established scientific findings, such as the facts that HIV causes AIDS and that smoking causes lung cancer. We additionally show that endorsement of a cluster of conspiracy theories (e.g., that the CIA killed Martin-Luther King or that NASA faked the moon landing) predicts rejection of climate science as well as the rejection of other scientific findings, above and beyond endorsement of laissez-faire free markets. This provides empirical confirmation of previous suggestions that conspiracist ideation contributes to the rejection of science. Acceptance of science, by contrast, was strongly associated with the perception of a consensus among scientists."
So I guess you only drink bottled water? Lest your tap water has been contaminated? You do realize that bottled water is usually treated by UV irradiation [radiation that causes cancer in humans if they are exposed to it for any length of time. Also often it is passed through a process of Reverse osmosis... now there is a scary scientific technology, not just osmosis, but reverse osmosis... must be bad? But then to make it worse it is packaged in plastic bottles. And who knows what chemicals leach out of the plastic?
My advice is just stop drinking water. You can't trust anyone.
First of all,informed people actually learn about global warming for themselves, rather than taking the word of Al Gore, President Obama, Maurice Strong, Margaret Thatcher or the UN. But before making wild claims about Agenda 21, you should actually read it.
http://habitat.igc.org/agenda21/index.ht...
Only in large doses. Every vitamin and essential mineral is poisonous in large doses. And would you prefer waterborne diseases.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterborne_...
"When you understand how water supplies are mandated through the UN to have fluoride and chlorine added to them (solids that are extremely harmful to the human body), "
The UN is not controlling your water supply.
Apparently the "precious bodily fluids" character in Dr. Strangelove was based on real people like you.
fluorine and chlorine are halogens and they are actually gases. They often form compounds that are pollutants but I agree with CR that they are better than water born diseases, at least chlorine.
I don't want the UN in control of anything in our country. Frankly I would like to see it moved to Greenland since it suggests it should be a warm place to go. At best they are a bureaucratic nightmare. At worst they are den of socialist snakes who are at their heart anti-American.
Am I the only one who sees the irony in the title of the video you linked to?
"Agenda 21 For Dummies"
How appropriate.
Turn off your PC Zippie and go back hiding in your basement.
A very good summary of the major lies and inane conspiracy theories promoted by the denier industry
But why did you leave out anything about reptilians?
"mandated through the UN to have fluoride and chlorine added to them" Dont be so ******* stupid
Is Global Governance what people really want?
Here's some facts for deniers :
1) The United Nations is a political organization therefore, anything connected to it is political.
2) Agenda 21 Depopulation - (Why would any 'civil' organization in the world want to fund them with this type of Agenda?) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZzSEOgbAaA
3) Rajendra Kumar Pachauri is a very well known socialist who runs the United Nation's IPCC. (Do you think he might want to promote his political agenda and promote a one-world socialist Government?)
4) The World Bank and its very close association to the UN. (Does the Federal Reserve Bank of the United States come to mind?)
5) 1988, Margaret Thatcher (British Prime Minister), nuclear power, Coal Miner's Union of Great Britain, Middle East Oil Cartels, and the development of the IP CC through the UN.
What gets me is that the UN is a big money wasting bureaucracy and that educated people should know better than to trust bureaucrats. With the IPCC's agenda if it's in their best (self) interest to be alarmists on CAGW.
The same reason monkeys trust they're keepers.
because they don't know gold and silver regulate the climate and shouldn't be moved...so they **** it up then make up stuff on top that...because they want to make the rules when the envioment already made them rules up
Your paranoia is your problem not mine
