It's worse than you think - Page 5 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Pollution, global warming, urbanisation etc.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
By late
#15065335
Zionist Nationalist wrote:
Climate change is a non issue for me I wouldn't mind democrats at all if this was the main issue
the problem is that the progressives are trying to push it too much
concepts like "Microaggression" being offended easily like a bunch of 10 year old girls by people stating their opinion or saying something (not necessary racist or slur just worlds)
their stance on immigration and "open borders" which is dangerous to the country existence
aggressive feminism and hating white men

Trump has not been diagnosed with being a sociopath it is your opinion and you cant disregard someone because of your opinion because other people think differently than you and its not because they are racists or bigots like you always trying to portrait them
the media and most of hollywood which are rallying behind the "progressive" camp is really pathetic
a bunch of elitist assholes trying to tell everyone how to think and how to live fuck those people



Any excuse in a storm.
#15065378
Pants-of-dog wrote:That is wrong and deliberately ignores the contradiction between neoliberal deregulation and the aims of the climate change movement to impose regulations.


Superficially there appears to be a contradiction but when you understand how the neoliberals are using environmental regulation to financialize nature there really is no contradiction.

“The financial value at stake is mind-boggling – and the business opportunities likely to be created by the shift in the prevailing market paradigm are astonishing…. Who will be the Bill Gates of ecosystem services?” — The Biosphere Economy, 2010

In tandem with orchestrating a frenzy over a Green New Deal via the non-profit industrial complex and media mechanisms, WWF et al were quietly pushing forward with a “New Deal for Nature”. The Green New Deal conjures up images of wind turbines and solar panels that are miraculously perceived as natural and holistic. [The fact that a solar panel and wind turbine has become more strongly associated with nature and environment than an actual tree, insect or animal, is in itself, quite terrifying and a stark indicator in the power of social engineering conducted on the citizenry over the last two decades.] This feat, achieved via powerful branding and NGO association, serves as the bright green mask for the even more sinister deal – the financialization of Nature – reframed as the “New Deal for Nature”.

Yet, it’s not new at all, with the Natural Capital Project (NatCap) having been launched in 2006 and its affiliate, the Natural Capital Coalition, which was formerly the TEEB for Business Coalition (prior to 2014). NatCap and its two NGO partners—WWF and The Nature Conservancy – were involved in the Natural Capital Coalition from the onset. [Source]

NatCap was founded by Stanford University [Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment and the Department of Biology], The Nature Conservancy, World Wildlife Fund, and the Institute on the Environment of the University of Minnesota. The scope of it’s global network includes corporations such as Coca-Cola and Dow Chemical, and institutions such as the US Department of Defense and the World Bank.

The scope of the Natural Capital Coalition is a massive conglomerate of corporate power, including many NGOs and so-called conservation bodies.

Here we can add that “Harnessing the Fourth Industrial Revolution for the Earth”, published by the World Economic Forum’s “System Initiative on Shaping the Future of Environment and Natural Resource Security” is a partnership with PricewaterhouseCoopers and the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment. [Source]

“Taken all together, the value of the total global ecosystem services has been estimated at USD 125 trillion per year, which is almost twice the world’s gross domestic product.”—Natural Capital Coalition, July 12, 2018

The development of the Natural Capital Protocol Project was made possible with generous funding from the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, International Finance Corporation (World Bank) with the support of the Swiss State Secretariat for Economic Affairs (SECO) and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Government of Netherlands, The Rockefeller Foundation, United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), and the UK Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). The Coalition is hosted by The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales (ICAEW). Other funders include; World Wildlife Fund, The Nature Conservancy, the Google Foundation, the Inter-American Development Bank, Unilever, The David and Lucile Packard Foundation, U.S. Department of Defense and the World Bank [Source]

World Resources Institute provided the technical insights and review for the Natural Capital Protocol. The protocol was developed by Conservation International, The B Team, PricewaterhouseCoopers, Sustain Value, ACTS, Arcadis, eftec, Environmental Resources Management (ERM), Imperial College, ISS, Natural Capital Project, Synergiz, WWF, Accenture, CDSB, Deloitte, Dow, eni, GIST Advisory, Kering, LafargeHolcim, Natura, Nestlé, Roche, Shell, and The Nature Conservancy. The protocol was led by the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) consortium. [Source]

Today, the final frontier for the corporate capture of the Earth as a whole, has finally arrived. Other terms thrown into the ring for public acceptance are a “New Deal for Nature and Humanity” and a “New Deal for Nature and People”.

“The New Deal for Nature is expected to be adopted during the fifteenth meeting in Beijing in 2020.” — Biodiversity International, November 30, 2018

On January 23, 2019 the Natural Capital Coalition released an announcement stating that “In 2020, We Need A New Deal for Nature.” This article was part of the 2019 World Economic Forum “Shaping the Future of Environment and Natural Resource Security” system initiatives. The authors of the article were Marco Lambertini, Director-General, WWF International, Paul Polman, CEO of Unilever, and Børge Brende, former Foreign Minister of Norway (2013-2017) and president and member of the managing board of the WEF. [WEF Board of Trustees, 2017] [WEF Leadership and Governance]

The urgency in accelerating the plan forward is made clear:

“Against this backdrop, we need 2019 to be the year that sees a step-change in mobilising a wider public-private biodiversity action agenda. We need a “New Deal for Nature” to emerge.”

To make this happen, a movement is identified as the vehicle:

“A movement has the combined power and influence to be able to identify a simple set of targets for action on nature that everyone can aim for – so-called “science-based targets” to which every business, investor, NGO, city and government can contribute by 2030, such that meeting them will slow down the damage we are doing to nature, and ultimately restore it to the level science says we need.”

Over and over we are inundated with the “simple set of targets” that “everyone can aim for”. Hence, we witness the creation of mobilizations, global in scale, with no rational demands whatsoever.

The implementation of the New Deal For Nature will lay the groundwork for payments for ecosystem services (PES). This will create the most spectacular opportunity for monetary gain that the financial sector has ever witnessed. New markets offer speculation that promises unimaginable profits. The commodification of most everything sacred, the privatization and objectification of all biodiversity and living things that are immeasurable, above and beyond monetary measure, will be unparalleled, irreversible and inescapable.


In order to manufacture consent from the populace, those rolling out a “new deal for nature” are utilizing the power of holistic language. They are strategically exploiting the very real contempt that we, the public have for externalities (pollution, etc.) – only to sell the financialization of nature back to us as a society. This is very much the same method we witness today as the power elites masterfully exploit the discontent of the youth and the population at large.

http://www.wrongkindofgreen.org/2019/02 ... of-nature/
#15065382
Sivad wrote:Superficially there appears to be a contradiction but when you understand how the neoliberals are using environmental regulation to financialize nature there really is no contradiction.


No. You are just incorrectly arguing that neoliberals are also oppressive technocrats.

“The financial value at stake is mind-boggling – and the business opportunities likely to be created by the shift in the prevailing market paradigm are astonishing…. Who will be the Bill Gates of ecosystem services?” — The Biosphere Economy, 2010

In tandem with orchestrating a frenzy over a Green New Deal via the non-profit industrial complex and media mechanisms, WWF et al were quietly pushing forward with a “New Deal for Nature”. The Green New Deal conjures up images of wind turbines and solar panels that are miraculously perceived as natural and holistic. [The fact that a solar panel and wind turbine has become more strongly associated with nature and environment than an actual tree, insect or animal, is in itself, quite terrifying and a stark indicator in the power of social engineering conducted on the citizenry over the last two decades.] This feat, achieved via powerful branding and NGO association, serves as the bright green mask for the even more sinister deal – the financialization of Nature – reframed as the “New Deal for Nature”.

Yet, it’s not new at all, with the Natural Capital Project (NatCap) having been launched in 2006 and its affiliate, the Natural Capital Coalition, which was formerly the TEEB for Business Coalition (prior to 2014). NatCap and its two NGO partners—WWF and The Nature Conservancy – were involved in the Natural Capital Coalition from the onset. [Source]

NatCap was founded by Stanford University [Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment and the Department of Biology], The Nature Conservancy, World Wildlife Fund, and the Institute on the Environment of the University of Minnesota. The scope of it’s global network includes corporations such as Coca-Cola and Dow Chemical, and institutions such as the US Department of Defense and the World Bank.

The scope of the Natural Capital Coalition is a massive conglomerate of corporate power, including many NGOs and so-called conservation bodies.

Here we can add that “Harnessing the Fourth Industrial Revolution for the Earth”, published by the World Economic Forum’s “System Initiative on Shaping the Future of Environment and Natural Resource Security” is a partnership with PricewaterhouseCoopers and the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment. [Source]

“Taken all together, the value of the total global ecosystem services has been estimated at USD 125 trillion per year, which is almost twice the world’s gross domestic product.”—Natural Capital Coalition, July 12, 2018

The development of the Natural Capital Protocol Project was made possible with generous funding from the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, International Finance Corporation (World Bank) with the support of the Swiss State Secretariat for Economic Affairs (SECO) and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Government of Netherlands, The Rockefeller Foundation, United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), and the UK Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). The Coalition is hosted by The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales (ICAEW). Other funders include; World Wildlife Fund, The Nature Conservancy, the Google Foundation, the Inter-American Development Bank, Unilever, The David and Lucile Packard Foundation, U.S. Department of Defense and the World Bank [Source]

World Resources Institute provided the technical insights and review for the Natural Capital Protocol. The protocol was developed by Conservation International, The B Team, PricewaterhouseCoopers, Sustain Value, ACTS, Arcadis, eftec, Environmental Resources Management (ERM), Imperial College, ISS, Natural Capital Project, Synergiz, WWF, Accenture, CDSB, Deloitte, Dow, eni, GIST Advisory, Kering, LafargeHolcim, Natura, Nestlé, Roche, Shell, and The Nature Conservancy. The protocol was led by the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) consortium. [Source]

Today, the final frontier for the corporate capture of the Earth as a whole, has finally arrived. Other terms thrown into the ring for public acceptance are a “New Deal for Nature and Humanity” and a “New Deal for Nature and People”.

“The New Deal for Nature is expected to be adopted during the fifteenth meeting in Beijing in 2020.” — Biodiversity International, November 30, 2018

On January 23, 2019 the Natural Capital Coalition released an announcement stating that “In 2020, We Need A New Deal for Nature.” This article was part of the 2019 World Economic Forum “Shaping the Future of Environment and Natural Resource Security” system initiatives. The authors of the article were Marco Lambertini, Director-General, WWF International, Paul Polman, CEO of Unilever, and Børge Brende, former Foreign Minister of Norway (2013-2017) and president and member of the managing board of the WEF. [WEF Board of Trustees, 2017] [WEF Leadership and Governance]

The urgency in accelerating the plan forward is made clear:

“Against this backdrop, we need 2019 to be the year that sees a step-change in mobilising a wider public-private biodiversity action agenda. We need a “New Deal for Nature” to emerge.”

To make this happen, a movement is identified as the vehicle:

“A movement has the combined power and influence to be able to identify a simple set of targets for action on nature that everyone can aim for – so-called “science-based targets” to which every business, investor, NGO, city and government can contribute by 2030, such that meeting them will slow down the damage we are doing to nature, and ultimately restore it to the level science says we need.”

Over and over we are inundated with the “simple set of targets” that “everyone can aim for”. Hence, we witness the creation of mobilizations, global in scale, with no rational demands whatsoever.

The implementation of the New Deal For Nature will lay the groundwork for payments for ecosystem services (PES). This will create the most spectacular opportunity for monetary gain that the financial sector has ever witnessed. New markets offer speculation that promises unimaginable profits. The commodification of most everything sacred, the privatization and objectification of all biodiversity and living things that are immeasurable, above and beyond monetary measure, will be unparalleled, irreversible and inescapable.


In order to manufacture consent from the populace, those rolling out a “new deal for nature” are utilizing the power of holistic language. They are strategically exploiting the very real contempt that we, the public have for externalities (pollution, etc.) – only to sell the financialization of nature back to us as a society. This is very much the same method we witness today as the power elites masterfully exploit the discontent of the youth and the population at large.

http://www.wrongkindofgreen.org/2019/02 ... of-nature/


This post of yours, like the cited website, are so poorly formatted that the message is unintelligible.

If you want to actually interact, instead of just copying and pasting whatever you find on the internet that agrees with you, then write an argument.

As far as I can tell, this conspiracy theorist does not even mention neoliberalism.
#15065386
Pants-of-dog wrote:No. You are just incorrectly arguing that neoliberals are also oppressive technocrats.


:knife: at its core neoliberalism is privitized, for profit governance. The administration of everything from defense and prisons to health and education and environment are auctioned off to private corporations. Neoliberalism is highly technocratic, if you doubt that then just go read any of the neoliberal trade agreements.

This post of yours, like the cited website, are so poorly formatted that the message is unintelligible.


It's perfectly intelligible and it's impeccably sourced.
#15065392
Sivad wrote::knife: at its core neoliberalism is privitized, for profit governance. The administration of everything from defense and prisons to health and education and environment are auctioned off to private corporations. Neoliberalism is highly technocratic, if you doubt that then just go read any of the neoliberal trade agreements.


Neoliberalism does not mean “anything bad that is profit related”. It actually has a meaning.

Anyway, none of this changes the fact that the source you cited is a neoliberal that is associated with a group that promotes climate denialism in order to help fossil fuel companies work in less regulated business environment and maximise their profits.

It's perfectly intelligible and it's impeccably sourced.


No.
#15065397
Pants-of-dog wrote:Neoliberalism does not mean “anything bad that is profit related”. It actually has a meaning.


Yeah, and I just stated it. derrr.

Anyway, none of this changes the fact that the source you cited is a neoliberal that is associated with a group that promotes climate denialism in order to help fossil fuel companies work in less regulated business environment and maximise their profits.


None of that changes the fact that the guy has thoroughly debunked the 97% consensus bullshit and all you got for a rebuttal is a lame genetic fallacy.

No.


I like how your obtuse denial is getting more succint.
#15065401
Sivad wrote:None of that changes the fact that the guy has thoroughly debunked the 97% consensus bullshit and all you got for a rebuttal is a lame genetic fallacy.


No. He actually repeated the claims made by the studies I already cited, and then pretended that the media’s misrepresentation of the studies somehow debunks the (verifiably correct) claim that 97% of the scientists who study climate on a daily basis agree that anthropogenic climate change is real.
#15065405
late wrote:
For example, working with the elite was one of the constraints Obama had to deal with. But he still passed Obamacare, which no neoliberal would ever do.


So you think a program which mandates the purchase of defective healthcare products from private corporations is not neoliberal? :lol: It is pure neoliberalism


Obamacare: The Neoliberal Model Comes Home to Roost

As the Affordable Care Act (ACA, otherwise known as Obamacare) continues along a very bumpy road, it is worth asking where it came from and what comes next. Officially, Obamacare represents the latest in more than a century of efforts in the United States to achieve universal access to health care. In reality, Obamacare has strengthened the for-profit insurance industry by transferring public, tax-generated revenues to the private sector. It has done and will do little to improve the problem of uninsurance in the United States; in fact, it has already begun to worsen the problem of underinsurance. Obamacare is also financially unsustainable because it has no effective way to control costs. Meanwhile, despite benefits for some of the richest corporations and executives, and adverse or mixed effects for the non-rich, a remarkable manipulation of political symbolism has conveyed the notion that Obamacare is a creation of the left, warranting strenuous opposition from the right.

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... _We_Let_It
#15065407
Pants-of-dog wrote:No. He actually repeated the claims made by the studies I already cited, and then pretended that the media’s misrepresentation of the studies somehow debunks the (verifiably correct) claim that 97% of the scientists who study climate on a daily basis agree that anthropogenic climate change is real.


yeah , we got your retarded take on it already. Whoever reads it is gonna figure out pretty quick that a) the 97% consensus line is complete bs and 2) you're just desperately flailing to come up with anything you can think of to save it. :lol:
#15065432
I provided the actual studies that show that 97% of climatologists agree that ACC is real.

You provided a biased interpretation of the same studies by a neoliberal pundit.

People can look at both and decide for themselves.
#15065720
Rancid wrote:Antarctica just saw its hottest day on record today.



Do you have a link?

Sorry, just for @Pants-of-dog’s benefit, since he always asks for evidence. Well, he does when anyone writes something he doesn’t agree with. But since we are being scientific, I guess everyone needs to provide a link, whether we agree with their position or not.
#15065730
Antarctica records its hottest day in history
Antarctica’s climate is the coldest on Earth. Land-based meteorological stations have measured temperatures as low as −89.2 °C (−128.6 °F), and satellites identified even lower temperatures: −93.2 °C (−135.8 °F). But these record-breaking temperatures seemed long gone in the Arctic, as the weather resembled an average spring day. According to Argentina’s meteorological agency, the temperature reached 18.3°C on Friday — that’s positive, not negative degrees.

The temperature was recorded at Esperanza base — a permanent research station in the Trinity Peninsula, and one of only two civilian settlements in Antarctica. The record is even more remarkable as it comes only five years after the previous one 17.5°C (63.5°F), set in March 2015. It still needs to be checked and confirmed, but it is unlikely that the weather station made a big error.

The record temperature was affected by strong winds moving down mountain slopes, bringing hotter air towards Esperanza. However, the larger context is telling.

Since the 1950s, the temperature in Antarctica has risen by more than 0.05 °C (0.09 °F) per decade. There is evidence of widespread snow melt and glacier retreat around the Antarctic peninsula, owed to man-made climate heating.

Overall, Antarctica has warmed much more than the global average. A 2012 study from Nature Geoscience found that the average temperature at the Byrd Station (a former US research) station rose by 2.4 °C (4.3 °F), with warming fastest in its winter and spring.

There is also evidence that the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is losing mass at an accelerating rate. Antarctica is losing ice 6 times faster than in the 1980s.

https://www.zmescience.com/science/news ... -07022020/
#15065844
Rancid wrote:https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/hottest-day-on-record-in-antarctica-as-temperature-hits-18-degrees-1.4165652

Lots of news sites have reported it, this is just one.


While the event is significant in its own right (18 C ... hotter than HONG KONG is now!), it must be noted that the station which recorded the temperature is near the northernmost tip of the continent, pretty close to the front which leaves the rest of the continent as cold as it should be. In other words, that place is probably more prone to upward fluctuation than elsewhere on the continent.
#15065861
Patrickov wrote:
While the event is significant in its own right (18 C ... hotter than HONG KONG is now!), it must be noted that the station which recorded the temperature is near the northernmost tip of the continent, pretty close to the front which leaves the rest of the continent as cold as it should be. In other words, that place is probably more prone to upward fluctuation than elsewhere on the continent.


Even if this is true, doesn't change that fact it has seen the highest upward fluctuation. Which could be a leading indicator to a broader trend across the entire continent. All of these things don't happen in isolation.

Even if this is true, it is worth studying further and not ignoring.

I think it's a valid point, but it's not valid to then say that this data point can be ignored because it's just a fluctuation. It must be studied to understand if it really is just a fluke fluctuation or a sign of a broader trend. As far as I know, there is more and more evidence that all of these events where various places are reporting records getting broken are not just a bunch of flukes.

Kind of going back to an earlier point I made. Just because we recognize that these things are happening, doesn't mean you have to also support taking action to stop it.
#15065907
how far back do instrument records go on that continent and what's the instrument coverage of the continent? the hottest day in 100 years isn't all that interesting and if there's only sparse instrument coverage then how can you know that's unusually warm for the continent?

edit: also, how reliable is the instrument record anyway? Most instrument records aren't all that reliable, they're a hodgepodge of different instruments setup in different conditions(some are inside some are outside) read at different times of day(temperatures fluctuate 30 degrees or more diurnally) so it's doubtful that an entire continent, let alone a globe, can be accurately measured to within 1 degree.

This is a major problem for the anthropogenic climate change hypothesis because if you don't know what the average was 50 or 100 years back then you can't really have a scientific consensus that current warming is outside the natural range.
Last edited by Sivad on 09 Feb 2020 19:35, edited 1 time in total.
#15065916
Sivad wrote:how far back do instrument records go on that continent and what's the instrument coverage of the continent? the hottest day in 100 years isn't all that interesting and if there's only sparse instrument coverage then how can you know that's unusually warm for the continent?


Good questions, I'm not a climate scientist, so I wouldn't know. That said, the hottest day on record, is still note worthy, because... it was measured.
#15065926
Rancid wrote:Good questions, I'm not a climate scientist, so I wouldn't know. That said, the hottest day on record, is still note worthy, because... it was measured.


it's worth noting but what's the real significance? We don't know because we don't have a reliable accurate record going back far enough to establish a baseline to compare it to.
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 9

Look at this shit. This is inexcusable! >: htt[…]

Harvey Weinstein's conviction, for alleged "r[…]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

It is pleasurable to see US university students st[…]

World War II Day by Day

April 27, Saturday More women to do German war w[…]