[pp.int.general] Don't roast our planet

[Charly Pache]

Sorry, but I read a lot on this topic, and many scientists disagree, many
many and more and more, you have to stop reading only main stream media
that only repeat the same story again and again. It's like saying ACTA is
good because 90%+ of the lawyers in the field say it's good. The fact is
that the more you read about this subject on the point of view of different
sciences (sun specialists, dendrology, ice carrots, geology and so on), and
then you compare it with the computer model of the IPCC (and you know all
that changing a single parameter can have tremendous consequences, and
that's it is impossible to make a realistic model of the climate), you
start to really doubt about the man-made cause of the warming, which
occurs, but not of 2°C in the last 70 years as said before. The real
scientific approach is to make a real literature review and not say there
is a consensus, there was a consensus about Earth being flat once.. we
should never stop researching.

And by the way, what do the politicians do with the IPCC global warming
assertion? Raise taxes. And create a business market for CO2 emission. And
where do the money of these taxes go? Most of it do not go into
environmental projects at all (it's like this in Switzerland at least) but
fill other budget holes. So even if the idea seems noble, please look
closer, please look behind the curtains.

Please read here for more serious scientists who cast doubts on the IPCC
story:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2674e64f-802a-23ad-490b-bd9faf4dcdb7

And not to mention that it's better to have a warmer climate than a colder
climate, we can protect ourselves from heat, not from cold.

I think many other political do something about environment already, more
or less, but almost none of them do something to protect the consummers
from all the chemical shit the food industry puts into our plates or around
(aspartame and other sweeteners, teflon, bisphenol and many others). This
is really where the pirate party could get sympathy, eventually financing
further studies on these topics.

Best greetings, Charly





On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 6:22 AM, Richard Stallman <rms at gnu.org> wrote:

>    Yes, pollution is a bigger problem than climate change.. once you read a
>    lot about this topic, you notice that human caused global warming is not
>    really an exact science.. and that many scientists disagree, and that
> not
>    every of them are paid by the big oil..
>
> Very few climate scientists disagree.  I think you have been misled
> by the denialists.  Many of them do not hesitate to make things up.
>
>     and that many people standing
>    behind a co2 tax are global money makers as well
>
> That they make money doesn't imply they are wrong.
> One thing about a tax is, the money goes to the state,
> not to business.  No business stands to gain directly
> from a CO2 tax.  On the other hand, the fossil fuel companies
> stand to gain directly from not having a CO2 tax and not
> doing anything to reduce our burning of fossil fuel.
>
> In any case, you are mixing up two different questions.
> One question is whether the problem is real.
> Another question is how to address it.
>
> To cite the second question in the discussion of the first is unclear
> thinking.  You can't make a problem not exist by arguing against a
> proposed solution.  That's analogous to arguing you don't have a heart
> problem because there is something bad about pacemakers.  Even if
> there IS something bad about pacemakers, that has no effect on whether
> you have a heart problem.
>
>                                                     and that they tried to
>    fake the data and put pressure on the scientists who disagree (minority
>    report effect)..
>
> Investigations have found no validity to these accusations.
>
> Nearly all real climate scientists agree that the observed heating
> is mainly caused by human emission of greenhouse gases.
> On the other hand, there are some loud people who say no,
> most of whom are not climate scientists.
>
> Suppose there is a chance that the latter are right.  Should we take
> for granted they are right, and bet our civilization's survival on
> that chance?  That is imprudent.
>
> --
> Dr Richard Stallman
> President, Free Software Foundation
> 51 Franklin St
> Boston MA 02110
> USA
> www.fsf.org  www.gnu.org
> Skype: No way! That's nonfree (freedom-denying) software.
>  Use Ekiga or an ordinary phone call
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.pirateweb.net/pipermail/pp.international.general/attachments/20120517/2f71e9fa/attachment-0001.html>