Encyclopaedia Metallum: The Metal Archives

Message board

* FAQ    * Search   * Register   * Login 



This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  
Author Message Previous topic | Next topic
666head
Metal newbie

Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2007 11:51 am
Posts: 180
Location: Heard and McDonald Islands
PostPosted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 3:41 pm 
 

Well, I'm damn sure that we've all noticed the rising food prices in the last couple of years, and not because of demand. I'm talking about basic food products, fruits, vegetables, etc. Not only that, but I've seen politicians go on and on about how we should take care of our food, and shit like that. That, and the undeniable fact of global warming, I mean,being hot all year long, and have cold periods in June and July! And many retail stores have put limits on how much of a certain food product costumers can buy.

All of that leads me to believe we are headed for some really rough times in the future, and a possible World War III (lets face it, if World Wars I and II were fought for oil, a valuable resource even today, then what would keep the world from doing the same with an even more important resource, food). Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying humanity is doomed or that WW3 is garanteed, but it just scares the living shit out of me the fact that this is becoming a reality.

What do you guys think?
_________________
Crick wrote:
God damn, Funeral Doom on Guitar Hero. Or worse, Drone. Miss one note and you've fucked yourself over for another 10% of the song.

Top
 Profile  
Gorgo
Metalhead

Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2004 6:37 pm
Posts: 441
Location: Belgium
PostPosted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 3:50 pm 
 

Shouldn't worry about it too much, Europe is now fucking up the economical prospects from Africa for their own markets and Africa isen't exactly the continent that is going to win a continental war against Europe. Besides, we have the UN now, many people say that it doesn't really help out, but I think in situations that could lead to a WW, the UN will be able to punish/destroy a country screwing around with the world.
_________________
http://www.myspace.com/midgaardslang
"Flemish Nationalistic Black Metal"

http://www.myspace.com/onrust1
"Acoustic music"

Top
 Profile  
lord_ghengis
Metal freak

Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 8:31 pm
Posts: 5370
Location: Australia
PostPosted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 8:43 pm 
 

I can't honestly see a WWIII occurring. No group of countries intelligent enough to join forces and be strong enough to threaten world super powers would have to also be intelligent enough to realise that fighting the US or Europe would be far too destructive to follow through with.

Top
 Profile  
hells_unicorn
Metalhead

Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 8:32 pm
Posts: 2240
Location: United States
PostPosted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 10:38 pm 
 

Food prices are largely responding to currency inflation. The Federal Reserve Bank has been printing a lot of excess cash in the past 30 years in order to help bail out nearly every corporation that has ever screwed its stockholders out of their shares and their employees out of their pensions. Certain elite businessmen get million dollar bonuses, and anyone who doesn't get the bailout money gets stuck with the consequence of inflation, ergo having no extra money to offset the price increases caused by the inflation.

Insofar as WWIII goes, wars are not fought that way anymore. The new precedent for how human beings annihilate each other was established during the Cold War, otherwise known as proxy wars (this has likely been done in the past, but not with the same level of intelligence technology). The current Middle East situation is largely based on black ops and paramilitary methodologies, with plenty of collateral damage and destroyed civilian infrastructure of course.

The world will always be on the brink of destruction, because that is the reality people choose to accept, and they elect leaders accordingly. I believe they call it a self-fulfilling prophecy.
_________________
My projects:
Frost Giant
Ominous Glory

My reviews.

R.I.P. Ronnie James Dio (July 14, 1942 - May 16, 2010)

Top
 Profile  
Acrobat
Eric Olthwaite

Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 8:53 am
Posts: 6467
Location: Fortress Northallerton, North Yorkshire
PostPosted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 8:23 am 
 

Mutually assured destruction, to my mind, is a still an effective deterrent from a world war. Since when was WWII fought for oil? I know Hitler had aims to conquer the oil fields in central Asia but other than that I didn't know oil was one of it's main causes. And repeated listens to Sodom's Ausgetbombt could turn even the most hardened war monger into a pacifist.

Top
 Profile  
Resident_Hazard
Possessed by Starscream's Ghost

Joined: Thu Oct 07, 2004 2:33 pm
Posts: 2563
Location: United States of America
PostPosted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 9:06 am 
 

666head wrote:
Well, I'm damn sure that we've all noticed the rising food prices in the last couple of years, and not because of demand. I'm talking about basic food products, fruits, vegetables, etc. Not only that, but I've seen politicians go on and on about how we should take care of our food, and shit like that. That, and the undeniable fact of global warming, I mean,being hot all year long, and have cold periods in June and July! And many retail stores have put limits on how much of a certain food product costumers can buy.

All of that leads me to believe we are headed for some really rough times in the future, and a possible World War III (lets face it, if World Wars I and II were fought for oil, a valuable resource even today, then what would keep the world from doing the same with an even more important resource, food). Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying humanity is doomed or that WW3 is garanteed, but it just scares the living shit out of me the fact that this is becoming a reality.

What do you guys think?


I don't think this thread will last long since you're wrong on so many points. For one, I've never once heard a single thing about WWI and WWII being fought for oil. And I've probably spent more time glued to the History Channel (Fuhrer Vision) than anyone else on here. Hitler was a conquerer. WWI and WWII were wars of politics, racial superiority, and imperialism.

For another thing, food prices going up are results of two main things: Rising fuel costs and regular old inflation.

It also depends on what "undeniable facts" there are about Global Warming that have you concerned. For one, from what I've recently learned, not only is it not a man-made phenomenon, but it's also a natural process so strong (relating to the very orbit of the Earth) that believing we can control it in any way is pure folly.

A scenario for bringing about WWIII is highly unlikely. The UN are incredible pacifists (especially where their interests are concerned, i.e. having their corruption exposed in the oil for food debacle due to the Iraq invasion) and much like the League of Nations so long ago, are dead-set on not warring as much as possible.


It's entirely possible that we are headed for some really rough times in the coming years (after all December 21, 2012 is fast approaching!), but a war for food? I doubt it.
_________________
Check out Opinionhated from Amazon-Kindle

Top
 Profile  
saintinhell
Metalhead

Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 8:19 am
Posts: 1426
PostPosted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 9:12 am 
 

Resident_Hazard wrote:
It also depends on what "undeniable facts" there are about Global Warming that have you concerned. For one, from what I've recently learned, not only is it not a man-made phenomenon, but it's also a natural process so strong (relating to the very orbit of the Earth) that believing we can control it in any way is pure folly.


At long last, I see somebody say this. Indeed, maybe what we do will lead to rising temperatures but if the glaciers do melt, then incremental energy savings would hardly reverse the process. It is amazing that people believe in the ability of these doomsayers to see 100 years into the future when we still cannot predict with any substantial accuracy the timing or intensity of an earthquake or tornado.

Top
 Profile  
rexxz
Retired

Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2004 8:45 pm
Posts: 8680
Location: United States of America
PostPosted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 9:16 am 
 

saintinhell wrote:
It is amazing that people believe in the ability of these doomsayers to see 100 years into the future when we still cannot predict with any substantial accuracy the timing or intensity of an earthquake or tornado.


That is an unfair comparison. For one, the people predicting the consequences of global climate change are doing so based on mathematical models from observed data. As far as predicting an earthquake or a tornado it wouldn't even work the same way. At least understand that.

Top
 Profile  
saintinhell
Metalhead

Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 8:19 am
Posts: 1426
PostPosted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 9:20 am 
 

But my dear friend, serious natural calamities can often impact the very climate patterns in the short run. I don't remember which one, but some volcano erupted in the 90s, leading to temperatures dropping worldwide for about a year. It is therefore very fallacious to think we know what the Earth would probably be like many many years in the future based on mathematical models because you really cannot predict major events that might impact climate in the interim period, which may hasten or reverse the process either way.

Top
 Profile  
Morrigan
Crone of War

Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2002 7:27 am
Posts: 9358
Location: Canada
PostPosted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 9:20 am 
 

Confusing meteorology with climatology is one of the AGW's favourite fallacies. ;)

Top
 Profile  
rexxz
Retired

Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2004 8:45 pm
Posts: 8680
Location: United States of America
PostPosted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 9:22 am 
 

Yes, as Morrigan just said, that is not nearly the same field of study saintinhell. It is entirely possible that there might be some event that could change things for a year or two, but given the data that we have, our scales and models should be fairly accurate; barring of course your super volcanoes ;)

Top
 Profile  
saintinhell
Metalhead

Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 8:19 am
Posts: 1426
PostPosted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 9:25 am 
 

..and to add, that volcano was one which had not roared in thousands of years and which scientists had, for all practical purposes, declared dead. The goings-on beneath the earth's surface, the evaporation-condensation cycle, and even the subtle changes in the behaviour of the Sun, all impact climate in the Earth. Tell me which of these are in our control at all?

Top
 Profile  
saintinhell
Metalhead

Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 8:19 am
Posts: 1426
PostPosted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 9:28 am 
 

rexxz wrote:
Yes, as Morrigan just said, that is not nearly the same field of study saintinhell.


Isn't global warming well outside the realm of physics - I am not a student of science - ?? In that case, whatever the field of study, the results can only be probabilistic and not determinate down to the last decimal. Accuracy indeed!!

Top
 Profile  
rexxz
Retired

Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2004 8:45 pm
Posts: 8680
Location: United States of America
PostPosted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 9:30 am 
 

No one is saying that it's under our control. And the probabilities of world-wide scale events that can change the course of the climate are rather slim.

Why would global climate change be outside the realm of physics?

Top
 Profile  
saintinhell
Metalhead

Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 8:19 am
Posts: 1426
PostPosted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 9:33 am 
 

rexxz wrote:
Why would global climate change be outside the realm of physics?


Because it depends on several phenomena concerning the biosphere, which cannot beyond a point be explained by the tools of physics.

Top
 Profile  
rexxz
Retired

Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2004 8:45 pm
Posts: 8680
Location: United States of America
PostPosted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 9:34 am 
 

It is absolutely not outside of the realm of physics though, as you put it. Physical science is still quite involved in the process of global climate change.

Top
 Profile  
saintinhell
Metalhead

Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 8:19 am
Posts: 1426
PostPosted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 9:35 am 
 

rexxz wrote:
No one is saying that it's under our control.


On the contrary, many Green advocates have urged the world to take certain steps failing which the effects of global warming would be felt sooner (though they don't say that doing those 'steps' would avert it). Indeed it is not in our control and therefore we should not fret about it and count ourselves possibly lucky that we would witness the end of our planet. Greenpeace didn't save the dinosaurs, did they? ;)

Top
 Profile  
rexxz
Retired

Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2004 8:45 pm
Posts: 8680
Location: United States of America
PostPosted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 9:36 am 
 

I was specifically referring to people in this thread, with that.

Top
 Profile  
saintinhell
Metalhead

Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 8:19 am
Posts: 1426
PostPosted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 9:37 am 
 

rexxz wrote:
It is absolutely not outside of the realm of physics though, as you put it. Physical science is still quite involved in the process of global climate change.


Physical science is used only to generate various probable scenarios. The subject matter is not energy or matter but the Earth.

Top
 Profile  
saintinhell
Metalhead

Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 8:19 am
Posts: 1426
PostPosted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 9:37 am 
 

rexxz wrote:
I was specifically referring to people in this thread, with that.


Oh, alright.

Top
 Profile  
rexxz
Retired

Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2004 8:45 pm
Posts: 8680
Location: United States of America
PostPosted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 9:40 am 
 

saintinhell wrote:
rexxz wrote:
It is absolutely not outside of the realm of physics though, as you put it. Physical science is still quite involved in the process of global climate change.


Physical science is used only to generate various probable scenarios. The subject matter is not energy or matter but the Earth.


And why do you think carbon in the atmosphere has its effect on global climate change? Certainly this isn't something physical science can explain, is it? ;)

Anyway, the prediction models are based on observed trends and mathematical probabilities. To completely disregard those is just ridiculous.

Top
 Profile  
saintinhell
Metalhead

Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 8:19 am
Posts: 1426
PostPosted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 9:45 am 
 

rexxz wrote:

And why do you think carbon in the atmosphere has its effect on global climate change? Certainly this isn't something physical science can explain, is it? ;)


Firstly, it's not carbon but carbon monoxide. Carbon is not a gas but a non-metal element,if my memory of high school CHEMISTRY serves me right.

rexxz wrote:
Anyway, the prediction models are based on observed trends and mathematical probabilities. To completely disregard those is just ridiculous.


I do not disregard the very phenomenon of global warming, it is a possibility to accept. But to imagine that you know it will befall in so many-odd years and that it is attributable to and can be averted by man-made factors is more than a bit rich.

Top
 Profile  
rexxz
Retired

Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2004 8:45 pm
Posts: 8680
Location: United States of America
PostPosted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 9:48 am 
 

saintinhell wrote:
Firstly, it's not carbon but carbon monoxide. Carbon is not a gas but a non-metal element,if my memory of high school CHEMISTRY serves me right.


Heat convection is under physical sciences.



saintinhell wrote:
I do not disregard the very phenomenon of global warming, it is a possibility to accept. But to imagine that you know it will befall in so many-odd years and that it is attributable to and can be averted by man-made factors is more than a bit rich.


Again, I never made claims that it can be averted by man made factors, so don't attribute that mode of thinking to me (if you were).

However I do think that these prediction models should be quite close if observing trends over such an extended period of time.

Top
 Profile  
saintinhell
Metalhead

Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 8:19 am
Posts: 1426
PostPosted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 9:54 am 
 

rexxz wrote:
saintinhell wrote:
Firstly, it's not carbon but carbon monoxide. Carbon is not a gas but a non-metal element,if my memory of high school CHEMISTRY serves me right.


Heat convection is under physical sciences.


But the moot point is there can be no CARBON in the atmoshere, only gas compounds of it.


rexxz wrote:
saintinhell wrote:
I do not disregard the very phenomenon of global warming, it is a possibility to accept. But to imagine that you know it will befall in so many-odd years and that it is attributable to and can be averted by man-made factors is more than a bit rich.


Again, I never made claims that it can be averted by man made factors, so don't attribute that mode of thinking to me (if you were).

However I do think that these prediction models should be quite close if observing trends over such an extended period of time.


Ah, so you THINK. You obviously cannot say for sure what things will really be like until you actually get there, can you? In which case, the reliability of these predictions, while not entirely suspect, is definitely not to the level of Gospel truth, which is what it is bandied about. You may not subscribe to that viewpoint, but that's a different story and that's what I responded to, originally.

Top
 Profile  
rexxz
Retired

Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2004 8:45 pm
Posts: 8680
Location: United States of America
PostPosted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 9:56 am 
 

saintinhell wrote:

But the moot point is there can be no CARBON in the atmoshere, only gas compunds of it.


:nono: I'd have thought you were above this. Heat convection still applies regardless of whether I left out "monoxide" from my post because I thought it was obvious what I was talking about.






saintinhell wrote:
Ah, so you THINK. You obviously cannot say for sure what things will really be like until you actually get there, can you? In which case, the reliability of these predictions, while not entirely suspect, is definitely not to the level of Gospel truth, which is what it is bandied about. You may not subscribe to that viewpoint, but that's a different story and that's what I responded to, originally.


Do you know what probability is? I'm beginning to think you don't.

Top
 Profile  
Resident_Hazard
Possessed by Starscream's Ghost

Joined: Thu Oct 07, 2004 2:33 pm
Posts: 2563
Location: United States of America
PostPosted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 10:14 am 
 

saintinhell wrote:
Resident_Hazard wrote:
It also depends on what "undeniable facts" there are about Global Warming that have you concerned. For one, from what I've recently learned, not only is it not a man-made phenomenon, but it's also a natural process so strong (relating to the very orbit of the Earth) that believing we can control it in any way is pure folly.


At long last, I see somebody say this. Indeed, maybe what we do will lead to rising temperatures but if the glaciers do melt, then incremental energy savings would hardly reverse the process. It is amazing that people believe in the ability of these doomsayers to see 100 years into the future when we still cannot predict with any substantial accuracy the timing or intensity of an earthquake or tornado.


Check out my last post in the Global Warming thread. I found a show on the National Geographic Channel (an episode of Naked Science) which was about glacial melting, and it was about the first truly logical explanation I've heard on the subject. What we're really facing is a bunch of politicians who think we can slow or reverse global warming with varying degrees of legislation--and all of it ignores the (very real) theory that the oceans rise in, essentially, a cyclical 100,000 year cycle. We're preparing the wrong solutions and will be caught off-guard the way New Orleans was when Katrina hit. Those politicians had been warned for years that they need to do serious work on the levees, and instead, they put all their money elsewhere--and look what happened.

Aside from this, I'm not going to inject any more of the Global Warming stuff into this thread since there is already a thread for it.

[/derailment]
_________________
Check out Opinionhated from Amazon-Kindle

Top
 Profile  
Dark_Gnat
Metalhead

Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2007 12:56 pm
Posts: 484
PostPosted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 11:22 am 
 

The real reason that goods are increasing in price is due to inflation. As previously stated, the Federal Reserve is simply printing more money. As more currency is printed, its worth falls because there is still the same amount of gold, which the currency represents.

The Federal Reserve Bank is a private bank, and it's representatives, such as the chairman are not elected officials. This is a corporation that has a monopoly on U.S. currency.

The other problem is the Wal-Martization of our economy. Consumers are now at the mercy of mega-corporations for food and supplies. This needs to change.

My wife and I are planning to start our own vegetable garden, and we are even thinking about getting our own chickens (for eggs). This is something that would have never crossed our minds a few years ago. We live in a somewhat rural area (dotted with large cities) and we are seeing farmer's markets becoming trendy again. I believe this will become the norm, and that would be a good thing. The produce is fresher, often cheaper and locally grown. Plus, when I pay for it, I know who's getting the profits - the people that actually worked to grow and harvest it, not some multi-million dollar corporation.
_________________
FYI: 89% of all statistics are made up on the spot - including this one - which proves my point.

Top
 Profile  
saintinhell
Metalhead

Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 8:19 am
Posts: 1426
PostPosted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 11:56 am 
 

rexxz wrote:
saintinhell wrote:

But the moot point is there can be no CARBON in the atmoshere, only gas compunds of it.


:nono: I'd have thought you were above this. Heat convection still applies regardless of whether I left out "monoxide" from my post because I thought it was obvious what I was talking about.


Of course heat convection applies, I only pointed out carbon mentioned alone stands for carbon in its normal state, which is a non-metal and not a gas. I didn't suggest that CO has no role in global warming, just correcting a factual error on your part.

rexxz wrote:
Do you know what probability is? I'm beginning to think you don't.


It's not probability alone but the degree of probability that is important. A 60% probability - say- is high enough to warrant attention but not enough to rule out sizeable margins of deviation.

Top
 Profile  
SatanIsMyStewardess
Metal newbie

Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2008 4:10 pm
Posts: 33
PostPosted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 12:37 pm 
 

1. The food 'crisis' is mostly hyperbole cooked up by NGO's to scare up more funding. Yes, food prices are rising, but that's largely a product of increased shipping and production costs. The quantity of food available hasn't slipped meaningfully.

2. There's no food shortage in countries with the ability to project real military power, ergo, it ain't leading to 'World War III.'

Top
 Profile  
Bonesnap
Metal newbie

Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2005 11:34 pm
Posts: 134
Location: Canada
PostPosted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 1:42 pm 
 

saintinhell wrote:
rexxz wrote:

And why do you think carbon in the atmosphere has its effect on global climate change? Certainly this isn't something physical science can explain, is it? ;)


Firstly, it's not carbon but carbon monoxide. Carbon is not a gas but a non-metal element,if my memory of high school CHEMISTRY serves me right.

Pretty sure you mean carbon dioxide.
_________________
When I die, I want to be reincarnated as a random number generator.

Top
 Profile  
Resident_Hazard
Possessed by Starscream's Ghost

Joined: Thu Oct 07, 2004 2:33 pm
Posts: 2563
Location: United States of America
PostPosted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 1:43 pm 
 

Dark_Gnat wrote:
The real reason that goods are increasing in price is due to inflation. As previously stated, the Federal Reserve is simply printing more money. As more currency is printed, its worth falls because there is still the same amount of gold, which the currency represents.

The Federal Reserve Bank is a private bank, and it's representatives, such as the chairman are not elected officials. This is a corporation that has a monopoly on U.S. currency.

The other problem is the Wal-Martization of our economy. Consumers are now at the mercy of mega-corporations for food and supplies. This needs to change.



Don't forget interest rates. The lower they are, the less the dollar is worth. Which is why they Congress has apparently stated that it will no longer lower the interest rate. When it starts going up again, the dollar's value should increase a bit as well.
_________________
Check out Opinionhated from Amazon-Kindle

Top
 Profile  
DanFuckingLucas
Witchsmeller Pursuivant

Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2003 7:30 am
Posts: 7555
Location: United Kingdom
PostPosted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 3:29 pm 
 

saintinhell wrote:
I am not a student of science


Reading your posts in this thread, it's obvious. Please refrain from discussing scientific matters when you lack a grasp of basic scientific principles, m'kay?
_________________
Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing.
_________________
Robots drank my beer.

Top
 Profile  
rexxz
Retired

Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2004 8:45 pm
Posts: 8680
Location: United States of America
PostPosted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 4:28 pm 
 

saintinhell wrote:
Of course heat convection applies, I only pointed out carbon mentioned alone stands for carbon in its normal state, which is a non-metal and not a gas. I didn't suggest that CO has no role in global warming, just correcting a factual error on your part.


And then saying that it rendered my point moot... riiiiiight. For the record, I didn't think it was necessary to call it by the full name when it should have been painfully obvious by anyone reading the conversation that the gas is what I meant.


saintinhell wrote:
It's not probability alone but the degree of probability that is important. A 60% probability - say- is high enough to warrant attention but not enough to rule out sizeable margins of deviation.


Either way, we know that the planet is warming by exponentially increasing rates. You can argue the probability all you want, but until you provide better data or even a better reason to not trust in them, no one will care.

Top
 Profile  
saintinhell
Metalhead

Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 8:19 am
Posts: 1426
PostPosted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 9:18 pm 
 

rexxz wrote:

I didn't think it was necessary to call it by the full name when it should have been painfully obvious by anyone reading the conversation that the gas is what I meant.


It wasn't so painfully obvious to me, which is why I objected. Any problem?

rexxz wrote:
Either way, we know that the planet is warming by exponentially increasing rates. You can argue the probability all you want, but until you provide better data or even a better reason to not trust in them, no one will care.


We don't KNOW, what we are discussing is only trends and forecasts which can in no way be touted as undeniable FACTS. This is what I responded to and it is nothing I can do about if you chose to construe it some other way. Again, the point is not that all the research compiled by various organisations - some of great stature - is hogwash but that to believe that the magnitude of the event and how far/near it is in future would be exactly as per the doomsday scenarios is a fallacy. It would be more in the nature of a fairly well-established and possibly irreversible trend. Maybe YOU yourself didn't suggest as much but you see I wasn't even responding to you in the first place when I made my first post on this thread.


To give an example of some of the ridiculous doomsday scenarios being projected, experts have said large parts of my city would submerge by 2020 - which is but 12 years away. This is apparently backed up by trends of exponential rise in temperatures and drastic change in climate. I have lived here since birth and I have not observed any great discernible change in the climate over the last two decades. The city FEELS hotter but this is because of rapid loss of green cover and the resultant creation of heat islands, the recorded temperature is still in line with what it would have been 10 years ago - hovering around mid-30 degrees C in summer - and the monsoon season is practically unchanged in duration and intensity of rainfall. All I have seen is that every localised cloudburst, every cold winter night is attributed to global warming. This simply doesn't wash with me. It is important to recognize that much of the serious scientific research - which is of real value to us - is lost beneath the vociferous environmentalist hyperbole - the motives of which are as yet unclear to me - which seeks to paint every flash flood and every heat wave as a warning of the impending effects of global warming - and I am not exaggerating, only repeating what I've read in the papers - when the truth is that India for one has had both these problems since the very days when the Brits ruled us. It was earlier a result of lack of urban infrastructure that could shelter the people from natural calamities ; today, it is attributable to unplanned urban sprawl: the end result is the same.

Top
 Profile  
saintinhell
Metalhead

Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 8:19 am
Posts: 1426
PostPosted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 9:41 pm 
 

And I am sorry if the impression got around on this thread that I am an anti-global warming propagandist because that is not what I intended to convey. I only object to the hyperbole surrounding it and its acceptance as an incontrovertible fact.

Top
 Profile  
Noobbot
Mors_Gloria + Thesaurus

Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2008 4:48 pm
Posts: 426
Location: United States of America
PostPosted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 9:50 pm 
 

Morrigan wrote:
Confusing meteorology with climatology is one of the AGW's favourite fallacies. ;)


Nonetheless, it must be noted that only the most conservative models (meaning those inputing less alterations in variables than others) have been within the realm of accurate. I have no doubt that global warming occurs, and that humanity's activities do impact the environment, but the extent to which warming is anthropocentric is still unknown. To me, at least, it seems that this falls somewhere along the thousandths (that being x/1000) of a degree centigrade than the hundredths or tenths as many claim. Were that true, warming within the last century would have been exponentially higher.

Top
 Profile  
666head
Metal newbie

Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2007 11:51 am
Posts: 180
Location: Heard and McDonald Islands
PostPosted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 10:12 pm 
 

Resident_Hazard wrote:
666head wrote:
Well, I'm damn sure that we've all noticed the rising food prices in the last couple of years, and not because of demand. I'm talking about basic food products, fruits, vegetables, etc. Not only that, but I've seen politicians go on and on about how we should take care of our food, and shit like that. That, and the undeniable fact of global warming, I mean,being hot all year long, and have cold periods in June and July! And many retail stores have put limits on how much of a certain food product costumers can buy.

All of that leads me to believe we are headed for some really rough times in the future, and a possible World War III (lets face it, if World Wars I and II were fought for oil, a valuable resource even today, then what would keep the world from doing the same with an even more important resource, food). Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying humanity is doomed or that WW3 is garanteed, but it just scares the living shit out of me the fact that this is becoming a reality.

What do you guys think?


I don't think this thread will last long since you're wrong on so many points. For one, I've never once heard a single thing about WWI and WWII being fought for oil. And I've probably spent more time glued to the History Channel (Fuhrer Vision) than anyone else on here. Hitler was a conquerer. WWI and WWII were wars of politics, racial superiority, and imperialism.

For another thing, food prices going up are results of two main things: Rising fuel costs and regular old inflation.

It also depends on what "undeniable facts" there are about Global Warming that have you concerned. For one, from what I've recently learned, not only is it not a man-made phenomenon, but it's also a natural process so strong (relating to the very orbit of the Earth) that believing we can control it in any way is pure folly.

A scenario for bringing about WWIII is highly unlikely. The UN are incredible pacifists (especially where their interests are concerned, i.e. having their corruption exposed in the oil for food debacle due to the Iraq invasion) and much like the League of Nations so long ago, are dead-set on not warring as much as possible.


It's entirely possible that we are headed for some really rough times in the coming years (after all December 21, 2012 is fast approaching!), but a war for food? I doubt it.


What do you mean that WWI and WWII weren't fought for oil, my Goddess, its basic history, pretty much every single war that happened during the XX Century was for oil, petroleum has been the basis of the world economy for a long, long while. Read a history book from other places and time periods, and it will all start making sense.

As for the global warming thing, maybe you are right and I am wrong. But it is undeniable that climate has been changing, at least a little. Reading past, handwritten documents, climate seems to be highly erratic. Maybe said documents are wrong, but it just makes you think.

As for the food prices, sorry buddy, but inflation ain't the only reason. Sure, China and the EU are rising, but the US ain't out of the picture just yet.

And dude, seriously, when has the UN been completely pacifist. They do whatever the G8 tell them to do. If the G8 wants war, will get war.

And dude, there have been many wars in the past for food. Land=food.

I'm not saying you're 100% wrong and I'm 100% right. Both of us really make good points, but there are just somethings that seem...odd, when you examine them.
_________________
Crick wrote:
God damn, Funeral Doom on Guitar Hero. Or worse, Drone. Miss one note and you've fucked yourself over for another 10% of the song.

Top
 Profile  
saintinhell
Metalhead

Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 8:19 am
Posts: 1426
PostPosted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 10:31 pm 
 

^^^^

Did the UN stop USA's Vietnam expedition? Could they stop the Gulf War? Also remember that the UN did not sanction the Iraq war, USA just went ahead with it anyway. Nothing fundamentally has changed, we thought Russia was gone but they have found stability again and more importantly control huge oil reserves of their own. It's just that fifty years ago people probably believed, whereas now everybody's disillusioned.

Top
 Profile  
Drewbacca
Mallcore Kid

Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 1:29 am
Posts: 6
Location: United States of America
PostPosted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 4:13 am 
 

666head wrote:
What do you mean that WWI and WWII weren't fought for oil, my Goddess, its basic history, pretty much every single war that happened during the XX Century was for oil, petroleum has been the basis of the world economy for a long, long while. Read a history book from other places and time periods, and it will all start making sense.


What history books might these be?

Can you show me a credible source that not only the World Wars, but EVERY 20th Century war was predominately fought for oil (or ANY natural resource, for that matter)?


Quote:
As for the food prices, sorry buddy, but inflation ain't the only reason. Sure, China and the EU are rising, but the US ain't out of the picture just yet.


First off, buddy, he stated TWO reasons for rising food prices. Maybe you should go back and read his post.

Second, what other reasons do you believe there are? I assure you it isn't because of food shortages.

If farmers continue getting incentives from the government to grow crops for ethanol and from private companies to sell their land (that means they stop making food, for those too thick to get it), then a shortage will be a possibility. Until that happens, people will be confusing high food prices with a low food supply.

Quote:
And dude, seriously, when has the UN been completely pacifist. They do whatever the G8 tell them to do. If the G8 wants war, will get war.


The G8, dude, consists of Russia, France, Canada, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States. Two of these countries are North American and as such have tied economies, four are members of the EU, one is a booming Asian nation, and one is, well, Russia. All of these countries and groups of countries have differing interests, needs, and ideas. Therefore, thinking that the UN does as the G8 says is false, especially considering that the G8 was basically organized for discussion and has no administrative power over anything. There is nothing that the G8 "wants."

Quote:
And dude, there have been many wars in the past for food. Land=food.


Before modern times, yes. Things are done a tad bit differently now.

Top
 Profile  
Bezerko
Vladimir Poopin

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 2:50 am
Posts: 4805
Location: Venestraya
PostPosted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 4:37 am 
 

Drewbacca wrote:
666head wrote:
What do you mean that WWI and WWII weren't fought for oil, my Goddess, its basic history, pretty much every single war that happened during the XX Century was for oil, petroleum has been the basis of the world economy for a long, long while. Read a history book from other places and time periods, and it will all start making sense.


What history books might these be?


Exactly. Resident_Hazard explained above, the wars were more about conquering and politics than oil. Hell, if everyone wanted oil, they'd just... Oh, you know, INVADED COUNTRIES WITH LOTS OF OIL?

Don't forget Vietnam, that place is a oil hotspot!

Top
 Profile  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies. Go to page 1, 2  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: OzzyApu, thrashinbatman and 10 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

Back to the Encyclopaedia Metallum


Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group