PDA

View Full Version : Why don't we just come clean about Global Warming?


Bill Thompson
16th December 2009, 11:45 AM
Why don't we just come clean about Global Warming? People respect honesty and this might be a good time to make use of honesty. I think we should just admit to people, "It does not matter if manmade global warming is real or not. What matters is that we act now in order to prevent it from becoming real. Also, we admit that this has been a tool for unifying world governments in a common cause. This will bring us all together and this is a good thing. Also, yes, we do have a one world government in mind. This is called progress. We are progressives. Just look at any story that people write about the future. They all have one world governments. It is a dream. We can make this dream come true. There will be no wars and less hardships if there is a one world government." One thing we can leave out, of course is the fact that we had to disguise our plans for world unity to keep the stupid neocons from finding out. They might not understand or appreciate that.

Upchurch
16th December 2009, 11:53 AM
:popcorn1

Cleon
16th December 2009, 11:59 AM
:popcorn1

Don't bogart the butter.

GStan
16th December 2009, 12:01 PM
I can already tell this thread will be awesome.

(Do I win anything?)

theprestige
16th December 2009, 12:07 PM
Why don't we just come clean about Global Warming? People respect honesty and this might be a good time to make use of honesty. I think we should just admit to people, "It does not matter if manmade global warming is real or not. What matters is that we act now in order to prevent it from becoming real. Also, we admit that this has been a tool for unifying world governments in a common cause. This will bring us all together and this is a good thing. Also, yes, we do have a one world government in mind. This is called progress. We are progressives. Just look at any story that people write about the future. They all have one world governments. It is a dream. We can make this dream come true. There will be no wars and less hardships if there is a one world government." One thing we can leave out, of course is the fact that we had to disguise our plans for world unity to keep the stupid neocons from finding out. They might not understand or appreciate that.
Is this your honest position on manmade global warming and one-world governments?

plumjam
16th December 2009, 12:13 PM
What would be good or progressive about a one-world government?
All other things being equal, this would make global tyranny much easier to introduce and sustain.
In contrast, if you have two or three hundred nation states there is a degree of 'competition' there.. i.e. if your own particular nation state becomes tyrannical you can move (or at least attempt to move) to a less tyrannical one. Plus other less tyrannical states can attempt to intervene and correct the more tyrannical states.

Upchurch
16th December 2009, 12:14 PM
Is this your honest position on manmade global warming and one-world governments?

I believe it is the straw man of other people's position on global warming, brought to you by nearly the entirety of the JREF board who is of the opinion that the US is not a democracy.


Hilarity is almost certainly guaranteed.
:popcorn1

Corsair 115
16th December 2009, 12:28 PM
Doesn't anything mentioning "one world government" belong in the Conspiracies forum?

Upchurch
16th December 2009, 12:42 PM
or Humor.

Bill Thompson
16th December 2009, 01:02 PM
Is this your honest position on manmade global warming and one-world governments?

I want to know if there is really anything wrong with a one world government (how can it be plural? Did you make a typo?).

Bill Thompson
16th December 2009, 01:03 PM
Doesn't anything mentioning "one world government" belong in the Conspiracies forum?
Nope.
Is it something people fear or think there is a hidden conspiracy about?

Bill Thompson
16th December 2009, 01:04 PM
What would be good or progressive about a one-world government?

How about global disarmament?

Lurker
16th December 2009, 01:05 PM
Why don't we just come clean about Global Warming?

*Yawn* There's nothing good on TV, conditions are perfect. Ooh yeah, it's business time. No time to discuss Global Warming and one world govt.

Bill Thompson
16th December 2009, 01:06 PM
or Humor.
What is funny about the OP?
Or absurd?
Or wrong?

Bill Thompson
16th December 2009, 01:07 PM
*Yawn* There's nothing good on TV, conditions are perfect. Ooh yeah, it's business time. No time to discuss Global Warming and one world govt.

Conditions of what?
Weather or Politics?

Praktik
16th December 2009, 01:07 PM
Ya it's pretty sad really.

I remember reading a Jones screed on the Rockefellers and the NWO and taking apart some report for a "globalist" NGO somewhere that listed things like the following as "trans-national" issues that require international cooperation:

- environmental problems (pollution doesn't have to pass through customs)
- criminal networks
- disease outbreaks

Jones went on to describe such items in the list as "trojan horses" for One World Government, the flimsy excuses proffered by the "globalists" to justify expansion of international cooperation.

So tell me, exactly how are atomized nations without an international archictecture of cooperation supposed to address transnational criminal, environmental and health issues?

Isn't international cooperation the only way?

I was a student of International Relations in uni and it was a little strange to come out of that environment and be confronted with such a simple-minded view of things...

Further, it is pretty ironic to see some of the greatest concerns of sovereignty eminating from America, a country whose power translates to increased influence through international cooperation since its influence guarantees the architecture of organizations and the "rules of the game" are suited to its self-interest.

Look at the IMF and the WTO for example... in the UN it has veto power. Various treaties were negotiated (im including CUFTA and NAFTA) with outcomes weighted heavily to US interests (for example, under CUFTA and cont'd in NAFTA, the US retained the right to assess countervailing and anti-dumping duties, a key concession sought by the Canadians - further, they stated that "any future act of congress" could amend their understanding of the treaties).

In a world of growing international cooperation the stronger states are not shedding sovereignty - they are in fact, enhancing it.

Bill Thompson
16th December 2009, 01:10 PM
Is this your honest position on manmade global warming and one-world governments?
Well, it is my current position. You see, I did not jump on the bandwagon just because Al Gore was writing a book. I am not a climatologist so I waited to see what scientists had to say. So when the UN seemed to back it up, I believed it. But now it looks like it was all untrue. So, why did AL Gore talk about it? Maybe to sell a book? But I know some Democrats and some other people think a one world government would be a good idea. Do you think it is a wrong idea. How come?

Eyeron
16th December 2009, 01:25 PM
All around the mulberry bush
The monkey chased the weasel;
The monkey thought 'twas all in fun,
Pop! goes the weasel.

Upchurch
16th December 2009, 01:29 PM
What is funny about the OP?
Or absurd?
Or wrong?

Absurd and wrong. Funny is subjective, but I think it is that as well.

You were maybe doing okay until you landed on this:
Also, we admit that this has been a tool for unifying world governments in a common cause. This will bring us all together and this is a good thing. Also, yes, we do have a one world government in mind. This is called progress. We are progressives. Just look at any story that people write about the future. They all have one world governments. It is a dream. We can make this dream come true. There will be no wars and less hardships if there is a one world government."
For whom were you speaking when you wrote this? Certainly not the current Democratic Party nor any progressives I can immediately think of.

Bob Blaylock
16th December 2009, 01:33 PM
Why don't we just come clean about Global Warming? People respect honesty and this might be a good time to make use of honesty. I think we should just admit to people, "It does not matter if manmade global warming is real or not. What matters is that we act now in order to prevent it from becoming real.


If it's not real, then there's no need to “act now in order to prevent it from becoming real”.

And even if it is real, it does no good at all to “act now in order to prevent it from becoming real”, if the act that is undertaken is one that will be ineffective at best, and which, in the course of being undertaken, will prove expensive and burdensome and destructive to freedom.

Upchurch
16th December 2009, 01:34 PM
Touche.

It's all absurd and wrong, then.

Praktik
16th December 2009, 01:40 PM
I'm still hung up on the One World Government angle.

We're talking about a treaty here.

So when the American government settled accounts with the Indians and made treaties with them, were these steps towards One World Government?
What about the Paris Convention (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Industrial_ Property)of 1883? The Convention on International Civil Aviation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_International_Civil_Aviation)?

"treaties" go back thousands of years between contracting parties. What makes the Copenhagen efforts for a treaty on carbon limits more conducive to "One World Government" than say, the WIPO Copyright Treaty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WIPO_Copyright_Treaty)of '96?

The Platypus
16th December 2009, 02:33 PM
I'm still hung up on the One World Government angle.

We're talking about a treaty here.

So when the American government settled accounts with the Indians and made treaties with them, were these steps towards One World Government?
What about the Paris Convention (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Industrial_ Property)of 1883? The Convention on International Civil Aviation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_International_Civil_Aviation)?

"treaties" go back thousands of years between contracting parties. What makes the Copenhagen efforts for a treaty on carbon limits more conducive to "One World Government" than say, the WIPO Copyright Treaty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WIPO_Copyright_Treaty)of '96?

Extreme delusional paranoia, that's what makes the difference. :D

Drysdale
16th December 2009, 02:47 PM
I want to know if there is really anything wrong with a one world government (how can it be plural? Did you make a typo?).

Other than that I cant conceive how it would be possible, are you suggesting it would be more effective? Not sure where you're going here.

Praktik
16th December 2009, 02:48 PM
Greater international cooperation ≠ One World Government

Upchurch
16th December 2009, 02:54 PM
I want to know if there is really anything wrong with a one world government (how can it be plural? Did you make a typo?).
It can be plural in so far that there could be multiple proposals for one world governments or there could be successive one world governments.

theprestige
16th December 2009, 04:05 PM
I want to know if there is really anything wrong with a one world government (how can it be plural? Did you make a typo?).
There's more than one type of government.

Did you mean a one-world theocracy? A one-world dictatorship? A one-world People's Committee of This and That?

You want to talk about a one-world government in the singular, you'll have to pick a single type of one-world government to talk about.

How about global disarmament?
The City of Los Angeles has a one-city government, but not much city-wide disarmament. What makes you think that situation would go away at the global scale?

BenBurch
16th December 2009, 04:16 PM
Don't bogart the butter.

pass the salt

Bill Thompson
16th December 2009, 04:37 PM
Extreme delusional paranoia, that's what makes the difference. :D

How come?
What is wrong with a global government?

Bill Thompson
16th December 2009, 04:38 PM
The City of Los Angeles has a one-city government, but not much city-wide disarmament. What makes you think that situation would go away at the global scale?

I mean no two countries will go to war with each other. I can see how it will be a more peaceful world.

Bill Thompson
16th December 2009, 04:40 PM
If it's not real, then there's no need to “act now in order to prevent it from becoming real”..

Remember the Boy Scout Motto?

Bill Thompson
16th December 2009, 04:42 PM
Absurd and wrong. Funny is subjective, but I think it is that as well.

You were maybe doing okay until you landed on this:

For whom were you speaking when you wrote this? Certainly not the current Democratic Party nor any progressives I can immediately think of.

There really is some legit group. I forget where I heard them. But they meet and Hillary and Bill spoke there once. I guess I will have to do a search for them.

rain
16th December 2009, 04:45 PM
There will be no wars and less hardships if there is a one world government." One thing we can leave out, of course is the fact that we had to disguise our plans for world unity to keep the stupid neocons from finding out. They might not understand or appreciate that.

You have some interesting ideas, but I think you need to think more outside the box. What we really need to do is infiltrate the fundamentalist masses right at the source; we'll call our church the peoples temple and we'll candy-coat our super liberalism with a thin facade of old timey Christian values. When we have those sheepies wrapped around our fingers, then they will truly understand the power of the Marx side.

MattusMaximus
16th December 2009, 04:53 PM
There isn't a flamethrower big or powerful enough to burn down all of this straw... :rolleyes:

theprestige
16th December 2009, 05:09 PM
I mean no two countries will go to war with each other. I can see how it will be a more peaceful world.
Right. It wouldn't be countries going to war with each other, anymore. It'd be gangs of paramilitary insurgents, tens of thousands strong, armed with nuclear weapons.

ETA: And that's not even considering the warfare on an epic scale necessary simply to bring about a one-world government in the first place.

Upchurch
16th December 2009, 07:08 PM
There really is some legit group. I forget where I heard them. But they meet and Hillary and Bill spoke there once. I guess I will have to do a search for them.
"Some legit group"? Well, why didn't you say so?

And they *meet*, you say? AND you say the Clintons both spoke there once?

Wow. How could I have doubted a straw man that is based on such high quality evidence?

Seriously, Bill, you have really bad instincts when it comes to politics. Whatever you believe is absolutely correct and is commonly understood, please double check first before posting.

Whiplash
16th December 2009, 07:35 PM
http://i219.photobucket.com/albums/cc49/Whiplashr/subscribe.jpg

JoeTheJuggler
16th December 2009, 08:20 PM
"Some legit group"? Well, why didn't you say so?


Sounds like the D'Amico family--Fat Tony and the Legitimate Businessmen's Social Club.

daenku32
16th December 2009, 08:34 PM
As long as the One World Government doesn't have an electoral college, I'm all for it.

psychictv
16th December 2009, 11:15 PM
You know, I think if I were going to try to enslave everyone under my one world government, cooking up a bogus story about the planet getting warmer due to the burning of fossil fuels and then conspiring with the scientific community to push my made-up story as fact in order to convince the public to conserve energy would be a brilliant way to go about doing it. Such a simple and elegant plan! How could it fail?

Hallo Alfie
17th December 2009, 12:07 AM
What I want to know, is will it be a two party system?

Dr Adequate
17th December 2009, 12:39 AM
I'm still hung up on the One World Government angle.

We're talking about a treaty here.

So when the American government settled accounts with the Indians and made treaties with them, were these steps towards One World Government?
What about the Paris Convention (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Industrial_ Property)of 1883? The Convention on International Civil Aviation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_International_Civil_Aviation)? What about the United States of America? A sinister step towards one world government, don't we think?

Marduk
17th December 2009, 01:06 AM
How come?
What is wrong with a global government?

The Galactic Emperor wouldn't like it
;)

SezMe
17th December 2009, 03:26 AM
But now it looks like it was all untrue.
What changed your mind?

Oliver
17th December 2009, 04:34 AM
Why don't we just come clean about Global Warming?


Because this issue is based on "scientific facts in progress". But since we know that CO² is bad for the environment, we should rather analyze scientific evidence than denying the fact that CO² is a problem...

Dancing David
17th December 2009, 05:35 AM
But now it looks like it was all untrue.

There are multiple converging lines of data to say that the global temperature seems to be rising. When did they suddenly get overturned?

Did they get new data on lake sediments, tree rings and ice cores?

The thing about the one world government, priceless.

Dancing David
17th December 2009, 05:38 AM
What I want to know, is will it be a two party system?

One of the goals of the NWO is to have many more parties than that, you have to have circuses to go with the bread.

Oliver
17th December 2009, 05:55 AM
One of the goals of the NWO is to have many more parties than that, you have to have circuses to go with the bread.


Actually - AFAIK - the NWO is all about a single-party system, and in case of the US that pretty much seems to be in place already... :D :p

Arcade22
17th December 2009, 06:08 AM
Well, if that is the point of the whole Global Warming hysteria, then i am against it.

I sure as hell don't want to be ruled by the hated Norwegians, or any other country for that matter.

Oliver
17th December 2009, 06:16 AM
Well, if that is the point of the whole Global Warming hysteria, then i am against it.

I sure as hell don't want to be ruled by the hated Norwegians, or any other country for that matter.


I do not want to get ruled by anyone. But I personally prefer to have professional, scientific evidence than just a bunch of people who rather believe in Politicians than in Scientists.

Upchurch
17th December 2009, 06:18 AM
I do not want to get ruled by anyone. But I personally prefer to have professional, scientific evidence than just a bunch of people who rather believe in Politicians than in Scientists.

It's a shame we don't also have a wall of separation between science and state, as well.

Drysdale
17th December 2009, 06:19 AM
Because this issue is based on "scientific facts in progress". But since we know that CO² is bad for the environment, we should rather analyze scientific evidence than denying the fact that CO² is a problem...

Alright, I've gotta call on this. Why is CO² bad for the environment exactly?
Does'nt vegetation and other varied life depend on CO²?

Oliver
17th December 2009, 06:25 AM
Alright, I've gotta call on this. Why is CO² bad for the environment exactly?
Does'nt vegetation and other varied life depend on CO²?


It does ... as long there is a balanced amount of CO². However, if there is too much CO² it is pretty much as bad as too less CO²:

See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co2#Toxicity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_poisoning

Lurker
17th December 2009, 06:54 AM
I sure as hell don't want to be ruled by the hated Norwegians, or any other country for that matter.

As a Finn, I agree that Norse rule would be bad but it would only be worse under the dreaded Swedes.

Oliver
17th December 2009, 07:04 AM
It's a shame we don't also have a wall of separation between science and state, as well.


Well, according to a Google-Privacy-Expert who also happens to be half-German like almost 20% of US citizens, he says that Germans are most skeptical about businesses - while Americans tend to be most skeptical about Governments. And science in America is being viewed as a governmental issue rather than the European view that Science is a non-governmental issue. Maybe that differing POV explains a lot about the different cultural opinions about Science.

Bob Blaylock
17th December 2009, 01:54 PM
Because this issue is based on "scientific facts in progress". But since we know that CO² is bad for the environment…


No, we do not “know” this. In fact, CO² is vital for life as we know it. If all the CO² were removed from the atmosphere, nearly all green plants would die off, followed closely by us.

Your statement makes about as much sense as saying something like “We know that the Earth is flat.”

Upchurch
17th December 2009, 02:05 PM
Your statement makes about as much sense as saying something like “We know that the Earth is flat.”

How about his clarification? Does that make more sense?

Praktik
17th December 2009, 02:07 PM
Hey - remember when we found out about the hole in the ozone layer in the 80s and all the nations of the world came together to combat CFCs via treaty - and then we all were enslaved under One World Government?

Geez I wish we coulda just ignored the hole in the ozone layer, I'd trade this one world government for some skin cancer any day!

GreyICE
17th December 2009, 02:41 PM
Hey - remember when we found out about the hole in the ozone layer in the 80s and all the nations of the world came together to combat CFCs via treaty - and then we all were enslaved under One World Government?

Geez I wish we coulda just ignored the hole in the ozone layer, I'd trade this one world government for some skin cancer any day!

I admire the effort, but it's a tad Don Quixote, and this windmill is excessively dense.

PogoPedant
17th December 2009, 03:06 PM
As a Finn, I agree that Norse rule would be bad but it would only be worse under the dreaded Swedes.

Hey now! I'm quite sure even the simple Finnish people would thrive under the sure hand (http://img.nrk.no/img/143222.jpeg) of faint King Harald V (http://gfx.dagbladet.no/pub/artikkel/4/47/472/472692/kongen_orjanellingsvaag.jpg).

Us Norwegians have never ruled anything and it's about time we got to try our hand at dominion!

lomiller
17th December 2009, 03:55 PM
No, we do not “know” this. In fact, CO² is vital for life as we know it. If all the CO² were removed from the atmosphere, nearly all green plants would die off, followed closely by us.


So, does that mean it’s impossible to drown? I mean water is essential for life how could it possibly ever harm you…



Your statement makes about as much sense as saying something like “We know that the Earth is flat.”

Indeed...

Whiplash
17th December 2009, 04:56 PM
Hey - remember when we found out about the hole in the ozone layer in the 80s and all the nations of the world came together to combat CFCs via treaty - and then we all were enslaved under One World Government?

Geez I wish we coulda just ignored the hole in the ozone layer, I'd trade this one world government for some skin cancer any day!


I liked Red Dwarf's take on the hole in the ozone layer. That being that everyone remembers where they were when something big happens in history. And one example was when they put that big toupee on the Earth to cover the hole in the ozone layer. :)

Praktik
17th December 2009, 06:01 PM
ahhh its been too long... I really need to download that again

Praktik
17th December 2009, 06:02 PM
Hey now! I'm quite sure even the simple Finnish people would thrive under the sure hand (http://img.nrk.no/img/143222.jpeg) of faint King Harald V (http://gfx.dagbladet.no/pub/artikkel/4/47/472/472692/kongen_orjanellingsvaag.jpg).

Us Norwegians have never ruled anything and it's about time we got to try our hand at dominion!

As the son of a Finnish mother, I will avow now that the snows will run red with Norwegian blood before I let some fancy shmancy King of Norway call the shots in my ancestral homeland!

SezMe
17th December 2009, 06:26 PM
No, we do not “know” this. In fact, CO² is vital for life as we know it. If all the CO² were removed from the atmosphere, nearly all green plants would die off, followed closely by us.
This must surely qualify as the Mt. Everest of strawmen. Bob, please cite something, ANYTHING, where complete removal of CO2 (not CO2) is under discussion.

Dancing David
17th December 2009, 07:34 PM
Alright, I've gotta call on this. Why is CO² bad for the environment exactly?
Does'nt vegetation and other varied life depend on CO²?


Acidify the ocean?

Bill Thompson
17th December 2009, 07:51 PM
OK, so a real full one world government might be too much to ask for but, at the same time, what is wrong with the idea exactly?

I can see it is all good and I cannot see any bad.

Better tracking down of criminals.
Better trade.
Better sharing of resources.
Less war.
More nuclear weapons disarming.


And that is just with political stuff. There is a whole world of scientific cooperation to consider. You know, China is left out in the cold with the ISS and that has led them to try to do a lot of silly little expensive gestures to try to boost their own ego.

Bill Thompson
17th December 2009, 07:53 PM
What changed your mind?
the whole climategate stuff and Nasa data saying that the earth has not warmed since 1989 and has gotten cooler in the last two years.

Bill Thompson
17th December 2009, 07:55 PM
There are multiple converging lines of data to say that the global temperature seems to be rising. When did they suddenly get overturned?

Did they get new data on lake sediments, tree rings and ice cores?


Yeah, and there are are multiple converging statistics that say the Bermuda Triangle is real. But it isn't.

And there were way too few tree ring samples. I heard that a larger sample debunked the original conclusions.

David Wong
17th December 2009, 08:01 PM
Yeah, and there are are multiple converging statistics that say the Bermuda Triangle is real. But it isn't.

And there were way too few tree ring samples. I heard that a larger sample debunked the original conclusions.

The fact that all of the world's experts on the subject disagree with you doesn't affect you at all?

Do you go to a doctor when you're sick? An architect when you want something built? Or do you dismiss all experts in the world arbitrarily?

David Wong
17th December 2009, 08:02 PM
Alright, I've gotta call on this. Why is CO² bad for the environment exactly?
Does'nt vegetation and other varied life depend on CO²?

Vegetation depends on water, too, but floods are bad news.

Too much of a good thing, even a necessary thing, can be fatal.

SezMe
17th December 2009, 08:30 PM
the whole climategate stuff and Nasa data saying that the earth has not warmed since 1989 and has gotten cooler in the last two years.
The climategate stuff is a tempest in a teapot - a tiny, baby one at that. If that changed your mind you are out of your mind....or don't have one.

SezMe
17th December 2009, 08:31 PM
Yeah, and there are are multiple converging statistics that say the Bermuda Triangle is real.
Now, that's cool. Linky?

zaphod2016
17th December 2009, 08:35 PM
OK, so a real full one world government might be too much to ask for but, at the same time, what is wrong with the idea exactly?

1. It is unnecessary- International law, treaties, agreements and alliances already exist, and have existed for hundreds, if not thousands, of years.

2. It demands a homogeneous world- what form of government are you proposing, exactly? Assuming a Democratic Republic, how exactly do you intend to get the Chinese to go for it? Assuming something other than a Democratic Republic, how do you intend to sell this to the western world?

3. Economic inequality must be addressed first- the economic disparity between the first world and third world is enormous. Any world government would be required to tax the developed world to fund services in the third world. Another example: it would be impossible (at present) to govern the entire world with a single "minimum wage" law; it would demand upper-class salaries in the developing world, thus hindering economic development.

4. What about war? Assuming all military was controlled by the same government, the very concept of military is obsolete. Any war would be either a civil war, or the act of terrorist minorities, rendering advanced weaponry needlessly dangerous (at least until an alien invasion). At the same time, total disarmament is equally impossible; crime and law enforcement will both rely on force, and some form of weaponry will survive.

5. What happens when we elect a jerkface? Even in the "best" democracies, occasionally a lousy President is elected (I'm not naming names). Some of the most ferocious fascists in history were elected; democracy is no guarantee of good leadership. At present, even the worst despot is kept in check by other nations. If we remove this balance, what happens when the next Adolph Hitler is elected? Fascist state, or global civil war? Either way, it doesn't sound like much fun to me.

Just one dude's opinion.

zaphod2016
17th December 2009, 08:39 PM
The climategate stuff is a tempest in a teapot - a tiny, baby one at that. If that changed your mind you are out of your mind....or don't have one.

For those who don't wish to read or can't:

7nnVQ2fROOg

Lurker
18th December 2009, 06:11 AM
As the son of a Finnish mother, I will avow now that the snows will run red with Norwegian blood before I let some fancy shmancy King of Norway call the shots in my ancestral homeland!

Megadittos! The guy can't even spell his own name right (Harald indeed!) so how can we trust him to run Finland? Meanwhile, the Swedes already got their chance and look what happened, Väinämöinen no longer smiles on us and we are punished with only a few hours of light during the winter months.

Darth Rotor
18th December 2009, 06:41 AM
4. What about war? Assuming all military was controlled by the same government, the very concept of military is obsolete. Any war would be either a civil war, or the act of terrorist minorities, rendering advanced weaponry needlessly dangerous (at least until an alien invasion). At the same time, total disarmament is equally impossible; crime and law enforcement will both rely on force, and some form of weaponry will survive.
Not quite. What is most likely to happen is that the military and police function will fuse, as it has done in so many third world nations. There are efficiencies to be had ... :cool:
What happens when we elect a jerkface?
Actually, the more likely question at that scale is "what are the odds that we don't" elect a jerk face? :D

Dancing David
18th December 2009, 05:42 PM
the whole climategate stuff and Nasa data saying that the earth has not warmed since 1989 and has gotten cooler in the last two years.

What data is that?

Just curious.

Can you point to it?

Dancing David
18th December 2009, 05:44 PM
Yeah, and there are are multiple converging statistics that say the Bermuda Triangle is real. But it isn't.

And there were way too few tree ring samples. I heard that a larger sample debunked the original conclusions.

Wow, that is great, says who?

I can cite my sources if you want.

Tree ring data is not as accurate at representations of temperature, it relects many variables.

And your claim about the Bermuda triangle is specious.

"You heard", that is very funny.

PogoPedant
18th December 2009, 06:48 PM
Megadittos! The guy can't even spell his own name right (Harald indeed!) so how can we trust him to run Finland? Meanwhile, the Swedes already got their chance and look what happened, Väinämöinen no longer smiles on us and we are punished with only a few hours of light during the winter months.

So that's one vote for (counting my own, of course), and two against, Norwegian hegemony. I'm beginning to doubt the wisdom of democracy.