DMSP F-17 and F-18 satellites have a story to tell, are we listening?

[PB666]

29 minutes ago, Darnok said:

Never said things about banning devices.

 

No, we should make to pay countries that made mistakes. That would be fair approach.
We shouldn't punish countries that didn't do much harm so far. In law system in my country punishment comes after crime, not before.

 

Education is key, not forcing people to do what you think is best for them, unless you want to act like WWII German people.

Since they are TOP1 industry with space program and many new technologies I wouldn't call them developing country

Who is developed for you if China is still developing?

EDIT: ohh and China is independent from "clean energy" of any other countries, so they are not colony, they are colonizer. That was the key of their growth... independence and ignoring limits of CO2 emissions?

Any country not part of the OECD is considered to be developing. BRICS are developing but not yet OECD ..........Brazile, Russian, India, China, South Africa. It also sometimes includes Mexico and S. Korea. i would also include indonesia, saudi arabia. Just about everything else is classic third world. 

[Darnok]

9 minutes ago, PB666 said:

Any country not part of the OECD is considered to be developing. BRICS are developing but not yet OECD ..........Brazile, Russian, India, China, South Africa. It also sometimes includes Mexico and S. Korea. i would also include indonesia, saudi arabia. Just about everything else is classic third world. 

You have really serious issues with looking at real world... if you consider Greece or Estonia more developed than China

OECD is just organisation created by Western countries and they are accepting members that obeys their rules, it has nothing to do with level of development.

Same as BRICS, this is just organisation with some mutual agreements and businesses, not something anyone should consider as "standard" of any kind.

[Nibb31]

49 minutes ago, Darnok said:

Never said things about banning devices.

You said we should prevent companies from making phones, TVs and iPads, or that we have to stop people from buying them. Same thing.

Then you say that people should be free to do whatever they want. Which is it?

49 minutes ago, Darnok said:

No, we should make to pay countries that made mistakes. That would be fair approach.
We shouldn't punish countries that didn't do much harm so far. In law system in my country punishment comes after crime, not before.

Is preventing kids from smoking "punishment"? Punishment is childish. It doesn't solve any problems and it doesn't achieve anything. Nobody here is talking about punishment, except you.

We are talking about not repeating the same mistakes twice. Once you realize that banging your head against the wall hurts, then the clever thing to do is to stop doing it.

We are talking about building the foundations for a sustainable economy, not one that is reliant on finite resources that are running out and is causing pollution that the whole world suffers from.

If you want to get rich countries to pay, that is what we have been saying all along. Rich countries should be helping poor countries to develop a sustainable economy based on sustainable energy.

49 minutes ago, Darnok said:

Education is key, not forcing people to do what you think is best for them, unless you want to act like WWII German people.

You are preaching one thing. You want to "educate" people so that they align with your warped vision of the world. How is that any different?

BTW, this is the third time you Godwin this thread. Do you really want to have it locked ?

 

[Darnok]

38 minutes ago, Nibb31 said:

You said we should prevent companies from making phones, TVs and iPads, or that we have to stop people from buying them. Same thing.

Then you say that people should be free to do whatever they want. Which is it?

You are twisting my words... I've asked how many devices do we really need?

Because IMO we are wasting all that CPU power in smartphone, pc, game consoles, tablets and tv (unless we play KSP), so maybe it would be better to have less, but more universal, devices. And I am sure it would be better for environment if we would produce less boxes as garbage.

People should do whatever they want with their land and resources, right now they are not allowed to do that.

 

Quote

Is preventing kids from smoking "punishment"? Punishment is childish. It doesn't solve any problems and it doesn't achieve anything. Nobody here is talking about punishment, except you.

And that is problem, because everyone should start to talk about punishments for countries that are and were consuming most of Earth resources.
Punishment solves many problems, if you punish child for doing something wrong it won't do it again. But if you say to that child "don't do it, it is bad" it won't listen.

 

Quote

We are talking about not repeating the same mistakes twice. Once you realize that banging your head against the wall hurts, then the clever thing to do is to stop doing it.

What is more important for you... independence or forcing people to agree with you?

Of course people should be educated, but their views shouldn't be narrowed. You think you know solution for climate change issue, but what if your way of thinking is wrong?
Each country should be allowed to develop its own solution for this problem. Countries are not children, they shouldn't be dependent from "parents" (more developed countries), they should try to solve their own problems like adult people. And be able to decide how to use their resources in best way for them.

 

Quote

We are talking about building the foundations for a sustainable economy, not one that is reliant on finite resources that are running out and is causing pollution that the whole world suffers from.

You can't build sustainable economy transferring tons of money away from your country
That would destroy your industry, make huge unemployment and make your country dependant on richer and more developed exporters of new technologies.
 

Also clean energy is not sustainable source of energy, so that is double no. You are building foundations for dependant colonies with lots of uneducated and unemployed poor people.

 

Quote

If you want to get rich countries to pay, that is what we have been saying all along. Rich countries should be helping poor countries to develop a sustainable economy based on sustainable energy.

You are talking about creating economical dependencies that would allow rich countries sell expensive technologies to poor countries. What is leading to rich become richer and poor wasting their money and slowing down progress. That includes having less money on education, health care, own industry or even developing new technologies, since their funds are transferred to foreign companies.

Rich countries should sell "clean energy" technologies and patents, or better free those patents, not sell only manufactured products. That would allow poor countries to develop its own industry, reduce unemployment and improve standards of living and education.

That is only help that poor countries needs right now.

 

Quote

You are preaching one thing. You want to "educate" people so that they align with your warped vision of the world. How is that any different?

BTW, this is the third time you Godwin this thread. Do you really want to have it locked ?

 

People should be educated by teachers with many views and each person should be able to decide on its own what to choose.

BTW @PB666 started this Godwin argumentation not me. I am only showing you where you both are close to those views.

 

You ignored some of my questions from previous post

Quote

So making them (countries) being poor for longer time is going to help them, how?
So how those rich countries become rich? If not by pulling more and developing their industry faster than others?
So why others have to pay for US ignorance and mistakes?

 

Edited May 18, 2016 by Darnok

[PB666]

41 minutes ago, Darnok said:

You have really serious issues with looking at real world... if you consider Greece or Estonia more developed than China

OECD is just organisation created by Western countries and they are accepting members that obeys their rules, it has nothing to do with level of development.

Same as BRICS, this is just organisation with some mutual agreements and businesses, not something anyone should consider as "standard" of any kind.

I have no issues, talk to the OECD and goldman sacks, I use their definitions.

BRICS is a contrivation of goldman sacks. Do you know how to read wikipedia. Or do you define everything in the Darnok dictionary?

[Darnok]

2 minutes ago, PB666 said:

I have no issues, talk to the OECD and goldman sacks, I use their definitions.

BRICS is a contrivation of goldman sacks. Do you know how to read wikipedia. Or do you define everything in the Darnok dictionary?

I define things by logic, not other people definitions. Because they may intentionally name/define things wrongfully.

[PB666]

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-36315952

https://www.rt.com/business/243561-china-coal-power-plants/

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/261668.php

http://www.economicshelp.org/india/problems-indian-economy/

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs313/en/

15 minutes ago, Darnok said:

I define things by logic, not other people definitions. Because they may intentionally name/define things wrongfully.

IOW, you pull them out of your caboose.

[Darnok]

13 minutes ago, PB666 said:

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-36315952

https://www.rt.com/business/243561-china-coal-power-plants/

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/261668.php

http://www.economicshelp.org/india/problems-indian-economy/

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs313/en/

IOW, you pull them out of your caboose.

And all those links should lead me to what conclusion?

You think you are educated peson yet only solution you can suggest is mordern global slavery to save not "the World", but your style/standards of life... and you can't see it is only for short time, as long as there will be some slave force to power up your country economy.

Also you accused me of using WWII German ideology, but you have no idea about this ideology. You think that more developed country and its people have rights to order poorer countries about how to manage their resources and lands.
That would means that life of person from richer country has more value than life of person from poor country... since poor person have no rights to make decisions about their life or resources. Which is exactly what Germans believed during war.

 

[PB666]

21 minutes ago, Darnok said:

And all those links should lead me to what conclusion?

You think you are educated peson yet only solution you can suggest is mordern global slavery to save not "the World", but your style/standards of life... and you can't see it is only for short time, as long as there will be some slave force to power up your country economy.

Also you accused me of using WWII German ideology, but you have no idea about this ideology. You think that more developed country and its people have rights to order poorer countries about how to manage their resources and lands.
That would means that life of person from richer country has more value than life of person from poor country... since poor person have no rights to make decisions about their life or resources. Which is exactly what Germans believed during war.

Global slavery- where did I suggest.
WWII german ideology-where did I accuse.
This is a discussion group not the G7 summit. I have stated my opinion that the thread should be left to climate snaps in 2016 you drag it back into your dumpster, I respond to your critique, you get upset, that i created  the game you decided to play.
I stated quite readily, given any spot in the world, almost, I would not start out enslaving myself to the regional elite, that I would if starting over, build on alternative because they are more cost effective if I don't have access to power, and more empowering if I do. You are the one who is trying to sophistrate the argument turning your means of enslavement into an argument that I want to enslave. I neither make solar panels or wind turbines, nor power inverters or electrics. Nor do I sell transmission lines, telephone poles or anything of that manner.

The more you talk the more you paint yourself.

 

[fredinno]

On the plus side, the Earth is now apparently greener than ever. http://www.iflscience.com/environment/despite-decades-deforestation-earth-getting-greener

[PB666]

6 minutes ago, fredinno said:

On the plus side, the Earth is now apparently greener than ever. http://www.iflscience.com/environment/despite-decades-deforestation-earth-getting-greener

Someday greenland will be green.

 

[sevenperforce]

15 hours ago, Darnok said:

As for magnetic field, how much more heat, radiation and energy is delivered to us when field is getting weaker? How much more energy and radiation was delivered to Earth when we had ozone layer issues? How much those things can increase global temperature?

Not. Not in comparison to anthropogenic climate change. 

18 hours ago, Scotius said:

See guys? Just like scientific community, we can't form a consensus. "Climate is changing! No, it isn't." "It's humanity's fault. No, it's a natural cycle." "We are going to suffer because of it. No, we will be fine." One opinion per user. There is no agreement about causes of changes either. How can we reach any conclusion if we don't know what is exactly happening and why?

Unlike the scientific community, there is no peer review here to separate the informed from the uninformed, the facts from the emotion, the thoughtful from the clueless. That's why the scientific community HAS formed a consensus.

And, like it or not, there is a consensus here too. It is a plurality, not a majority, and it is buried under a lot of noise from misinformation, but it is here. You just have to know what to look for. 

22 hours ago, LordFerret said:

Sun spot cycle studies have been peer-reviewed since there has been peer review. What is it you're referring to?

Obviously I was referring to all the fallacious claims in your post, not to the existence of sunspot cycles. 

The notion that there is some equal balance between scientists and Nobel laureates who accept anthropogenic climate change and those who reject it is a laughable fantasy. 

More generally...

A few years ago, Enbridge Oil was operating a crude oil pipeline which suffered a catastrophic rupture. Due to a ridiculous amount of corporate stupidity, proper safeguards were not in place and so they continued pumping crude straight out the end of the ruptured pipe and into the Kalamazoo River for over 24 hours before they finally realized what had happened. 

After a year-long investigation, federal government issued just three sanctions. The first was a 3.5 million dollar fine, the largest ever levied against an onshore oil pipeline operator. The second was a massive, company-wide recertification of all their operating procedures, at a cost nearly equal to the fine. The third was perhaps the simplest: Enbridge was required to shut down their entire system for about three days, long enough to perform pressure testing to ensure there was no chance of a similar rupture in the future. 

Enbridge paid the fine. Enbridge did the company-wide recertification. No problem. 

And that third sanction? Enbridge sued the United States to avoid having to shut down their system for three days. Because the fine and the cost of recertification and the cost of a 40-month federal lawsuit was NOTHING compared to the amount of money they would have lost by shutting down their system long enough to test it. 

And they didn't even own the oil. They were merely being paid to transport it. 

THAT is how much money is involved in fossil fuels. And that's why I laugh and laugh every time I hear someone claim that there is some secret environmentalist lobby paying scientists to agree with global warming. It is pretty much the most ridiculous thing ever. 

[Snark]

Hi everyone,

This may have started off as a scientific question about climate change, but it very rapidly turned into a political free-for-all, so this thread is being locked.

As you are all no doubt aware, politics is a topic that's expressly forbidden on the KSP forums... with good reason, as this thread demonstrates.  Please refer to the forum guidelines, particularly rule 2.2.b.

There are plenty of forums out there on the Internet for discussing politics to your heart's content.  Let's try to keep it out of our little space game, shall we?

Thank you for your understanding.