Well, MadMonarchist, as fun as a penguin army would be, I don't think you can deny climate change is happening (as opposed to global warming), although I will concede that we need to see exactly how much humans impact it, whether in a significant way at all. Either way though, I do not think it is a priority as much as the "greens" would have it.Although I am sorry to hear about that terrible storm that is underway in America.
I agree that the climate changes -it gets cold in the winter and hot in the summer. I don't think us little bitty people have anything to do with it. It strikes me as rather arrogant to think that our very, very old planet could be doomed by a mere 200 years of heavy industry by a fraction of the earth's population. Mostly though I oppose the use of "global warming" as a way to push socialism and globalization by the political elites of the US, EU and UN. To avoid that I will risk the Penguin Army.
My girlfriend has no water at the moment due to the weather in Texas.
I'm afraid I will have to disagree with you slightly. I am with you that I am skeptical about whether or not it's our fault, but I do think that the Earth is slowly changing it's climate as part of a natural process that makes it warmer for long periods of time, or colder for longer periods of time (and not for winter or summer, I mean those longer geological periods).I do agree that it's hugely overblown as a crisis though. More of something that our infrastructure may need to adapt to as we work on more important things.Incidentally, did you make the de-motivational yourself, or did you find it somewhere?
It's no better here on the east coast. Fortunately we're not having a repeat of last year's snow!
MadMonarchist sums up my feelings on the subject pretty well. The period from the 16th to 19th century is known as the mini ice age because temperatures dropped but humans didn't cause that anymore then they are changing it now. The only reason for this whole global warming/climate change thing is to advance socialism as MadMonarchist already mentioned. Now I am not saying go out and pollute the world. But there is a big differance between being responsible with hazardous waste etc. and the whole climate change movement.
I know we are famous for our artesian wells down here but I didn't know we were piping water all the way to Ireland!!!Seriously though, global warming has been a major issue ever since the first ice age which was when global warming made everything colder and it was all due to those big, gas-sucking SUV's the dinosaurs drove around in. Yeah.Alot of good people buy into the whole thing, some people I am friends with, some I have otherwise great admiration for, but it all looks like snake oil to me. I don't think we can change the weather one way or the other and I think all the hysteria has done is to make guys like Al Gore and carbon credit traders really rich and transfer money from the first world to the third world. I know the U.S. could be totally energy-independent if not for all the environmental restrictions and regulations. Imagine -no more wars fought over oil. But, no, we can't do that because it's not part of "the plan".And who would have thought one silly picture we would result in this dicussion?! And just for the record, that graphic is far beyond my abilities, I just added the caption.
Agreed, Christopher. You probably said it more succinctly than me, I tend to ramble.Though I do not think there is a "socialist conspiracy" behind it. Socialism may be involved, but it is not the driving force. They are truly believing that they will advance the cause of the planet. Misguided, sure, but not malicious.My, I seem to have a lot to say on this matter, so I think I'll just leave that to rest on my part.
(rotfl) Yes, I'm sure you're right. They do just really care about the earth. Not the money, not the power, just the earth -it's all for the poor polar bears! That's the best one I've heard all week!
Well, do we really care about the power we may glean from aiding to restore monarchy? Do we expect out loyalty to be repaid? Aren't we furthering the crazed knee-jerk reactionary conspiracy?No, we do this because we believe it to be right, to be just, to be holy, however we justify it. We rationalize our beliefs. So do they. They're just prioritizing the wrong things.Claiming them to be a part of the socialist conspiracy is abandoning reason. Sometimes the opponent is just as divided and self-destructive as we often are. The climate change people may agree on some things with the socialists, but we, the monarchists, may agree on very similar things to say, the Republican Party, which is detrimental to the monarchist cause in other ways. Heck, a lot of monarchists and traditionalists aided the rise of Fascism, a left-wing ideology, in Italy, because it represented stability, order, and authority, as well as an appeal to the Catholics.It's all a matter of perspective, and rational criticism and self-introspection.But like you say, MadMonacrhist, we must not inhibit ourselves by thinking in -isms. I am sure you do not, and I do not. This whole debate is actually rather silly, considering it has almost nothing to do with monarchism.Well, it's in human nature to argue, isn't it?Jolly good conversation. We can perhaps agree to disagree on certain points.
But my point is that I don't know anyone who advocates monarchy who benefits from it. If there is a way to make millions by arguing for monarchy I would like to know about it and the whole point of monarchists like myself is granting more power to the royals -not myself. If I were gaining wealth or power by it my motives could certainly be questioned just as I question the motives of those who harp on global warming while making millions selling carbon credits or who have stock in wind farms or the manufacturers of solar panels.As for the socialism aspect, it is no conspiracy, it is a fact. The EU constantly justifies itself by saying that national governments cannot combat "global warming" so they need international government and international regulations -international power. It is clearly favoring wealth redistribution. First world countries are the most developed, use the most fuel and pay the most taxes to fuel their cars, buying carbon offsets and credits and so on all the while the US, EU etc send billions of dollars to third world countries.I'm not making this stuff up, they've said it themselves. The Obama administration is full of people who have said "green" is the new "red" and that environmentalism is the means by which they intend to bring about wealth redistribution from the "evil" first world nations of Europe and North America to the poor, perpetual victims of the third world. Ever heard of Van Jones, Obama's "Green Czar"? He said it all in plain English for anyone to hear.
Well, surely then it would be socialism would be the means to the end, not the end itself. I do dislike the green revolution though.I don't really follow what American politicians say, I will admit. That "green is the new red" thing sounds pretty dangerous to me.Very well, I concede the battle to you, if that is the topic of argument here. I obviously misunderstood the whole "socialist conspiracy" as you were thinking of it.
I agree with you Aurelien Nicot that alot of the people involved in the climate change stuff do want to help the enviroment. However, I think that those actually behind the movement and running are using it to advance socialism.