Contact   Imprint   Advertising   Guidelines

China, Kites and Greenhouse Gases

Forum for kitesurfers
User avatar
Feng
Very Frequent Poster
Posts: 1063
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 8:37 am
Local Beach: Franceville, normandie, france
Favorite Beaches: beauduc south of france
Gear: Cab 13 SB, Cab 9 Xbow, Cab 8 2013 SB
Brand Affiliation: None
Location: France
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Postby Feng » Wed Jun 27, 2007 7:16 am

gideonlow wrote:Mulholland,

After browsing through this thread, I can see you are (or would be given the chance) the personification of George Orwell's and Franz Kafka's worst fears. Gideon
One thing I remember from the management classes I attented is:

1) Do not try to teach a pig to sing. You waist your time and ou annoy the pig.
2) Do not try to wrestle with a pig, you both get dirty but the pig likes it.

User avatar
eurotrash
Rare Poster
Posts: 31
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2006 4:53 pm
Brand Affiliation: None
Location: Europe - obviously
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Postby eurotrash » Wed Jun 27, 2007 7:17 am

marcfrm wrote:Actually I have tried to be I.R.O.N.I.C.
i should warn you that using irony with mulholland may be leading the target by just a tad too much

better to stick with simple shapes and colors

User avatar
eurotrash
Rare Poster
Posts: 31
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2006 4:53 pm
Brand Affiliation: None
Location: Europe - obviously
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Postby eurotrash » Wed Jun 27, 2007 7:37 am

surfingwithkites wrote:Do you think the global climate cares about per capita emissions or total emissions?

Isn't the per capita thing just a politics of guilt issue?

I'm not sure that mother nature keeps score on a per capita basis; should you?

maybe emissions are emissions?

Maybe countries total emissions are what is important?
Good theory, but it doesn't work that way. If it did they could just divide the U.S. up into smaller regions - "states" say. And none of them would really be too horrible an offender. But that wouldn't make mother nature any happier. Random borders for accounting purposes are of no interest to mother nature. Yes, total emmissions are all the matter in the end, but looking at the average contribution per person is the only thing that makes sense.
I find it funny that the people who are so concerned with this issue are often more interested in pointing fingers than in talking about solutions.
I notice just the opposite. The people that deny global warming are the ones that always say "but look how bad the other guy is". Those that are concerned about global warming seem to say "we need to do something about this - we can't wait for the other guy".

Mulholland
Very Frequent Poster
Posts: 742
Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2006 6:01 am
Brand Affiliation: None
Location: Pacific Palisades
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Postby Mulholland » Wed Jun 27, 2007 7:46 am

gideonlow wrote:Mulholland,

Let me state some key obvious facts:

- Global Warming is a natural occurring process, and good.

- Human contribution to global warming is negligible and demonstrably good for humanity.

- Fossil fuels are self-replenishing and plentiful.

- The established energy industry countries and conglomerates profit very little compared to the corrupt governments that milk them and the taxpayers to the bitter end.

- The technology and economic conditions to make a relatively fast transition from fossil fuels to alternative energy sources are a fiction and a total sham and will cause greater food prices, pollution and not solve the problem.

- A concerted effort to migrate from using fossil fuels to alternative energy would raise food and fuel costs, creating massive detrimental effects, directly hurting all economies, especially those successfully dependent on the most effective fuel available (mostly oil-states and oil companies) while creating massive new industries with even weaker economic benefits in their place, while putting out of work 100s of thousands of people and creating more pollution than before.
Fixed it for you.
And one question that lingers in my mind nearly every day . . . what would the impact have been if the $600 billion+ spent on Iraq so far had been spent on developing alternative energy?

Answer me THAT question.
More terrorism, an emboldened al qaeda, millions more dead at the hands of Saddam Hussein, and a lot of wasted taxpayers dollars stolen from taxpayers. The monies would be used to fund bureaucracies that would handout monies to new conglomerates who would pollute the environment with more angricultural run-off, increase food prices due to the new high demand for corn, suck more fossil fuels to create the ethanol, and create even greater air pollution with the byproducts of burning ethanol.

Gideon, you do know that Bush has devoted 10 billion to the BS solutions to alternative energy? You do know that fossil fuels are naturally occurring and the most effective means of energy transportation, save nuclear, that exists?
Last edited by Mulholland on Wed Jun 27, 2007 7:52 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
spork
Very Frequent Poster
Posts: 2547
Joined: Sat Jun 26, 2004 7:41 pm
Brand Affiliation: None
Location: Mtn View, CA (S.F. Bay)
Has thanked: 9 times
Been thanked: 8 times

Postby spork » Wed Jun 27, 2007 7:51 am

Mulholland wrote:
gideonlow wrote: Mulholland,

Let me state some key obvious facts:

- Global Warming is a natural occurring process, and good.

- Human contribution to global warming is negligible and demonstrably good for humanity.

- Fossil fuels are self-replenishing and plentiful.

- The established energy industry countries and conglomerates profit very little compared to the corrupt governments that milk them and the taxpayers to the bitter end.

- The technology and economic conditions to make a relatively fast transition from fossil fuels to alternative energy sources are a fiction and a total sham and will cause greater food prices, pollution and not solve the problem.

- A concerted effort to migrate from using fossil fuels to alternative energy would raise food and fuel costs, creating massive detrimental effects, directly hurting all economies, especially those successfully dependent on the most effective fuel available (mostly oil-states and oil companies) while creating massive new industries with even weaker economic benefits in their place, while putting out of work 100s of thousands of people and creating more pollution than before.
Intentionally mis-quoting someone is extremely poor practice. If you want to simply nay-say gideonlow feel free to do so, but attributing your words to him is absolutely shameful.
Last edited by spork on Wed Jun 27, 2007 7:54 am, edited 2 times in total.

surfingwithkites
Very Frequent Poster
Posts: 1264
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 9:29 pm
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Postby surfingwithkites » Wed Jun 27, 2007 7:51 am

euro trash writes, "Yes, total emmissions are all the matter in the end, but looking at the average contribution per person is the only thing that makes sense."

Why do you say this?

The "solution" will not come from individual action. Individuals will act in their own best interests just like the "small states" you describe. None will contribute too much individually......Doesn't fit well with your own logic.

Mulholland
Very Frequent Poster
Posts: 742
Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2006 6:01 am
Brand Affiliation: None
Location: Pacific Palisades
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Postby Mulholland » Wed Jun 27, 2007 7:55 am

spork wrote:
Mulholland wrote:
gideonlow wrote:...
Intentionally mis-quoting someone is extremely poor practice. If you want to simply nay-say gideonlow feel free to do so, but attributing your words to him is absolutely shameful.
Could you link the guidelines to bulletin board etiquette, I seem to have misplaced them...If you are too dim to follow a thread, and too serious for humor, than you should probably just keep it to yourself.

The "fixed it for you" wasn't clear enough for you, sporky?

User avatar
spork
Very Frequent Poster
Posts: 2547
Joined: Sat Jun 26, 2004 7:41 pm
Brand Affiliation: None
Location: Mtn View, CA (S.F. Bay)
Has thanked: 9 times
Been thanked: 8 times

Postby spork » Wed Jun 27, 2007 7:57 am

Mulholland wrote:The "fixed it for you" wasn't clear enough for you, sporky?
The "Gideonlow wrote:" was plenty clear for me.

User avatar
Scribbler
Very Frequent Poster
Posts: 532
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2005 5:26 am
Brand Affiliation: None
Location: Abu Dhabi
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 1 time

Postby Scribbler » Wed Jun 27, 2007 9:00 am

surfingwithkites wrote:euro trash writes, "Yes, total emmissions are all the matter in the end, but looking at the average contribution per person is the only thing that makes sense."

Why do you say this?

The "solution" will not come from individual action. Individuals will act in their own best interests just like the "small states" you describe. None will contribute too much individually......Doesn't fit well with your own logic.
Don't be a dummy. Per-capita figures show how irresponsibly wasteful a nation is. Re-read Eurotrash's point about arbitary borders: If you're in the US, you are 6 times more of a problem to the planet than a single Chinaman. So you should maybe do something about it. As an individual.

As we know, in simplistic evolutionary terms, wasteful use of scarce resource generally leads to getting fat & lazy in the short term, hungry in the long, then extinction.
Only the efficient survive the long term, we've only been 'Industrialized' for a century and managed to learn lessons and, often, ignore them.

Mulholland hasn't quite got his head round that because apparently this idea called 'god' gave him fossil fuels to burn without a care in the world...

Good points from Gideonlow and Euroboy... but hey, Mulholland, feel free to rewrite history if you like...

User avatar
Another Toby
Frequent Poster
Posts: 353
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2005 8:08 am
Brand Affiliation: None
Location: Oz
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Postby Another Toby » Wed Jun 27, 2007 9:32 am

The chinese "per capita" figures are misleading, because (as stated right at the top of this thread) they are polluting to build cheap crap for US. It's our pollution, just "outsourced" to China, with it's near slave wages and lax environmental regulations.


Return to “Kitesurfing”