Well see that's the problem though, no one knows if it's real or not. Remember the Theory of Eugenics, which stated the human race would die out if
the weak part of the gene pool was not killed off (i.e. all non-white people must die!). The Nazis and the Americans were the big researchers in that
and it was supported by all the big politicians, scientists, and celebrities of the time, and people who said it was bogus were ridiculed and told to
shut up, until it was actually put into practice in WWII; after WWII, it was quickly forgotten about, everyone who had believed in it felt so
Global Warming is a theory, and it could just be another theory of eugenics. Just like that theory, now scientists, even Nobel Przie winners, are
claiming we need to take measures to start "shading" the earth with chemicals released into the atmosphere. These scientists are blinded by their
own viewpoints, failing to realize they themselves are too biased for their own good.
They essentially want to enact something that is COMPLETELY theoretical, I mean HOW IN THE HECK could we know what shading the Earth might do!? They
want to utilize something in which we have no idea what the consequences would be, if there would be any or if they would be drastic, etc....for
something that we also don't even know if it exists.
Remember, despite all the doom-and-gloom about CO2 in the atmosphere, CO2 only makes up less than 1% of the Earth atmosphere.
Regarding Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth," that movie was not true at all. It was based off of the science of climatologist Michael Mann, who was
critisized by scientists who believe in global warming very strongly, for producing incredibly sloppy work, which could be used as fuel for the
Another problem that is huge, regarding environmentalism, is that its research is not conducted in a double-blind fashion. In the medical industry and
others, this is standard practice. It means two groups of scientists or researchers, each with opposing viewpoints, are given the same experiment to
conduct (without being told of about the other team conducting it as well) and told to conduct this research or experiment in an unbiased fashion.
Well that never works, results always come out biased even if the scientists try to be unbiased. Humans will be unconsciously biased a certain way.
Once both results are received, they are reviewed over by a group of scientists of both viewpoints and then conclusions are made ultimately.
This is not done in environmental science, meaning research and results from environmental organizations are just as biased as the research coming
from big oil corporations.
Environmental organizations are no different than the corporations, most of them: they start out with good intentions, but then they begin to fall
prey to corruption and they will thus skew research towards what brings them in more money and keeps them from being dissolved into nothing.
Environmental organizations are also not audited, meaning no one really knows what they do with their money.
When you look at history, since the dawn of the 20th century, there is always some kind of fearmongering going in the media and used by the
government, to scare the public. First there was the Theory of Eugenics, and when it died off after WWII, it was quickly replaced by two major fears,
namely Communism (i.e. Red Scare), and the Soviet Union, and thermonuclear war (though these were legitimate threats). After the Cold War ended, it
was happy time, or so people thought, but it was replaced by (drum roll please) global warming.
When I am 50, there will probably be yet another big threat out there that is going to end the world. And like the Cold War, now movies are being made
and all that on global warming. During the Cold War, books were written and movies were made about the effects of thermonuclear war. Now, movies are
made about the effects of climate change ("The Day After Tomorrow," "An Inconvenient Truth," etc...).
Now I am not saying all of these things are fake or true, I mean Eugenics was a fake threat; Communism and the Cold War and nuclear war were real
threats, but I mean, they were the prevailing threat for about 45 years. Then, with them gone, a new threat was needed, and global warming took it.
As to whether global warming is a real or fake threat remains to be seen. There's two things about global warming unknown: 1) is it happening? Some
people say yes, and you are a fool if you disagree, others say no, and you are a fool for being so sure. 2) is, okay, IF it is finally concluded that
global warming exists, well, is it actually going to be bad for the Earth?
Right now, we know this:
Is the Earth heating up?
It seems so, although no one can be completely 100% sure, the Earth does seem to be in a warming trend.
Is the Earth heating up from global warming?
No one has a clue really, and no the science is not nearly as conclusive as many like to put
If global warming is happening, will it damage the Earth or help it?
No one knows for sure, there's research saying it will cause an ice age
and kill us all, there's research saying it will help everything. Personally, if it is happening, I hope it's the latter
Are scientists, even Nobel-Prize winners who are experts in their field, biased and fallible?
Yes, the Theory of Eugenics shows this and much
recent work done in environmentalism shows this. If some Nobel Prize winning physicist or environmentalist or climate scientist says we need to start
doing :::insert grand plan to save the Earth::: don't put all of your stock into what they're predicting. Climate science and the oceans and all
that are still far too highly misunderstood.
Can we humans stop global warming if it is concluded we are causing it?
Probably not, though some scientists obviously think we can. The
problem is that historically, every time humans have "messed up" the environment, whenever we try to fix it, we end up messing it up moreso.