It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Expert: "We're brainwashing our children" about global warming

page: 4
11
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 10:33 AM
link   
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 


Do you feel that the resistance to Al Gore's message is 'hunch-based?' Perhaps I'm misunderstanding. Do you feel the contention that GW is a man-made phenomenon is valid? Do you believe that Carbon-Tax will somehow - 'solve' GW. Do you believe that any scientific evidence contrary to Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' is a fabrication, or presented to ensure that pollution takes the day?

[edit on 9-4-2008 by Maxmars]




posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 10:34 AM
link   
reply to post by budski
 


And there you have a very good case of government hijacking real science for a profit. That the facts are being abused does not make them false.



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 10:39 AM
link   
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 


Of course there's evidence to support the easter bunny theory - it hasn't been seen.

Ever

Apart from a bloke dressed in a cheap costume which doesn't count.

Show me absolute proof that GW exists, as a problem which can be combatted and which in no way ties in with the earth/sun natural cycles.

Show me how 100 years (or so) of data can be of any use on a planet over 4 billion years old.

Show me how 20 years of data can be classed as absolute proof that GW is real and man made - again considering the age of the planet.

Show me why the antarctic ice is increasing due to GW.

Show me why the urban heat island effect is no longer taken into consideration.

Show me that NASA's bad data (proven to be wrong) can be justifiably used to promote this scam.

Show me why the imapct of other species is not taken into consideration IF there is warming.

Show me accurate data from every glacier on the planet that shows they are all melting.

Show me how humans can possibly have an imapct in slowing down GW IF it is real.

Show me that you live as green and sustainable a lifestyle as I do and I may take note of some of your points - until then you're just one more person talking the talk without walking anything except a reasonable line in BS


I say all this as a long standing member of greenpeace with very little energy consumption, no car and very few electrical items.

I walk the walk, do you?



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 10:41 AM
link   
Fools!

Gore is a puppet just like all of you. Global Warming is real, it's largely man made. We all know we are facing doom here. Big oil knows they will die just like the rest of us right?

So why do they want to transform the Earth?
think about it



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maxmars
Do you feel that the resistance to Al Gore's message is 'hunch-based?'


I actually think it's primarily a bunch of right-wing loonies slobbering all over themselves in their desperate need to attack anything put forth by a Democrat. Why do I think this? Because, apparently, he's gone from a guy who made a documentary on the subject, to the sole and lonesome creator of the entire field of science to some people.


Perhaps I'm misunderstanding. Do you feel the contention that GW is a man-made phenomenon is valid?


I do. Not that it's the 100% cause, but, think about it. We are destroying the world's natural respiration - shredding down the forests and disrupting the plaknton of shallow water with runoff - while at the same time we are increasing emissions of greenhouse gasses. Do you believe this has no effect? The laws of physics tell us that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. To pretend humankind has no impact on the world isn't just to deny climate change, it's to throw away some of the basic building blocks of science as a whole.


Do you believe that Carbon-Tax will somehow - 'solve' GW.


Only, only if every cent of said taxes goes to fund alternative energy forms. Otherwise, it's an abuse of the science, as I noted above. Investment in solar, geothermal, and tidal energy isn't going to come from the private sector - the people who have the money to make it worthwhile are already raking in the cash from combustables, so why put money into something that's not so certain a profit?


Do you believe that any scientific evidence contrary to Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' is a fabrication, or presented to ensure that pollution takes the day?

[edit on 9-4-2008 by Maxmars]


I haven't seen the film, so I couldn't say. I do know that the oil lobby spares no expense to trot out its own drive-through doctorates to tell us that not only is burning oil and coal harmless, but that eating it as part of a balanced diet will make our penises way, way bigger.

[edit on 9-4-2008 by TheWalkingFox]



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 11:04 AM
link   
reply to post by budski
 


Perhaps you could try that again, this time without the leading questions and framing the argument? You pretty clearly displayed that you don't have the least bit of interest in seeing answers to your questions, since you're utterly convinced of the answers and any argument otherwise is, of course, wrong.

Fundamentalism is fun, so many people seem to be into it these days.



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 11:09 AM
link   
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 


Or perhaps you could try answering valid questions since you seem to be so convinced of the reality of GW - show me which of those points is not valid.

Fundamentalism isn't my bag - discussing a point and having fun doing it is.



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by mlmijyd

When you want to control a nation you give it a contrived problem and a solution. When you want to control the world give it a world problem contrived and a solution .............. Get it?

Oil, War, hunger, population control, Climate warming, terrorist threats, Free Trade, G8, water control, Food shortages, Cold war, NWO!


VERY well put. I was going to say something along the same lines.. Global Warming (being a "Global" issue - must be solved at a global level), would be a great way to unify the entire world as one nation....to solve one National problem..... which would ulitmately lead to the NWO.

Its all about Politics. Its all about Votes. Its all about who can gain the most power. Who can have the most support?
1.) Create a global problem
2.) Gain Global support to "solve" said problem

...what better way to come into power than to "save the world"...?



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 11:18 AM
link   
is it not possible that the ice caps are melting on time with the earths natural clock to release its reserves of fresh water into the planet? like a giant time-release safe made of ice. or possibly a natural response for the means of diluting the polluted and toxic waters we're stuck with now.



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 11:23 AM
link   
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 


You make me sad. Every rebuttal is on point and stands on its own. I suspect we agree that part of the problem has to do with the politicization of science.

I know that there are those who deeply feel that we (as in the people) represent the solution to GW. I do not. I cannot accept that mankind is the dagger in nature's back. I believe that the stronger the effort to promote man as the 'primary' cause of climate change, the more likely it is that we have missed some vital point of science that will cause our solution to become a subset of a larger problem. I think history bears me out on this.

As a compromise with those who have been fully initiated into the Gore personality cult I offer this: If for every piece of evidence you propose to establish GW as 'primarily' man-made; would you at least 'entertain' evidence that is contrary to the point and address it with the respect you demand for the Gore-esk perspective?

Since on a scientist-for-scientist basis the numbers are against the Gore model, we will forgo that comparison. (Part of the propaganda I was complaining of was due to the blatant tendency of media to 'disregard opposing scientific views.' I was repulsed by the statements of "look at this 'proof' and 'that proof.' When it was shamelessly biased presentations being unilaterally foisted on the public as 'wisdom.') Remember - politicizing science - a no no - all data must be considered NOT just what's convenient for The Inconvenient Truth.

If we could get that much of a level playing field we might see that regardless of how right-wingers, or Hollywood politicians, or Capital-stream engineers can benefit from it - doesn't change scientific truth. Any 'spin' can be countered; and science is NOT subjective.



[edit on 9-4-2008 by Maxmars]



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Frith
Personally I don't think enough is being told to the public, including children about the threat of anthropogenic global warming. As a conspiracy theorist who sees on a daily basis strange jet contrail formations I believe our governments, or at least the USA, is engaged in some type of secret weather manipuation to delay the effects of global warming as long as they can before true action has to be taken.


Of course the funny lines in the sky - as any of our esteemed meteorologists on here - will tell you are simply contrails (Ahem)!

Its not a question of is enough being told, its a question of is everything being told? Our children are largely receiving one side of the story - Theirs. This is my problem with it.

We have heard stories about how some children have been persecuted for having a different viewpoint because they went home and had a talk with Daddy who shared a whole different take on the situation, and then kiddo went to school with a whole new viewpoint.

I want our children to engage in cognitive thought which leads to fruitful discussions based on all of the facts. Let them formulate an opinion on a level playing ground. Let us stop this - oh because we say so mentality - .

By the way my hat is off to the teacher who posted earlier about presenting both sides. I believe I must also praise the school which allowed the obvious break from curriculum. Bravo

[edit on 9-4-2008 by KMFNWO]



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 04:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by KMFNWO

Of course the funny lines in the sky - as any of our esteemed meteorologists on here - will tell you are simply contrails (Ahem)!


Indeed they are
But they may also be unintentionally contributing to global warming and certainly have some impact on weather simply because they result in more high level cloud forming that would normally be the case.

See: www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 05:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maxmars
If we could get that much of a level playing field we might see that regardless of how right-wingers, or Hollywood politicians, or Capital-stream engineers can benefit from it - doesn't change scientific truth. Any 'spin' can be countered; and science is NOT subjective.


Science IS subjective and it is hard to pin point a time in our history when it was any other way. As anyone who has ever tried to do a PhD in a science subject will tell you, no money, means no research. Every year less and less blue skies research is carried out. Great ideas die because we live in a world where you cannot easily live without a regular income. The majority of all scientific research is funded by the private sector. As this research is carried out for a set purpose or ideology, that that does not fit that world view is discarded and left unexplored. Universities are becoming increasingly reliant on private sector funding for their PhD programmes, the exchange of course is that the donor directs the research.

I have not watched Al Gore’s film, I cannot comment on that directly, but from listening to and reading the commentary, mainly in the British media, it seems the belief is that Gore over played the case for Global Warming in his film. The assumption being that the American people would only respond to the need to move towards sustainability if they were scared into it. Gore, or presumably whoever produced the film thought Americans needed to be slapped in the face before they were willing to change their lifestyles. Obviously that is not true in all cases, but if the US is anything like the UK it is also in some cases true. I think it is obvious in either case that the film failed in any purpose, unless of course the purpose was to completely confuse the matter.

Whether the climatic changes we are experiencing are cyclic, caused by us or a combination of both is relatively unknown. While in an ideal world science is objective, it can still only work on the data that is available. And then, only the research that can attract funding is undertaken will look at that data. Very few researchers are looking at the whole picture because, quite simply they cannot afford to or perhaps in some cases, they are told not to look beyond set parameters. No research is set in stone, there are anamolies, there are gaps in the data, there are gaps in history etc etc.

What we do know is that we are in trouble of irreparably depleting our natural resources. This is right across the board, from the fish in the seas to fossil fuels to the food crops that are starting to fail. We are not in danger of extinction simply because of global warming but because we are not adapting to our changing environment. Currently many countries are dependent on imported food stuff. This is a complete waste of resources and is one thing, if we are to survive in the long term that we need to change. It is also something that we as individuals can do to drive the change. Our most powerful voting tool is in our pocket and what we choose to do with that tool. Many aspects of our life are controlled but we still have some choice in how we spend some of the money that we earn. If we stop buying imported food stuffs, processed food stuffs and produce from high density farming, all of us, we will change the way in which our food is produced and transported to us. The majority will not though, because imports are cheap, processed food seems cheap because we consider our time to be more valuable than our nutrition.

While we fail to wake up to our individual responsibility to adapt, we are subjecting ourselves to exploitation. If we do not wean ourselves of mass produced food, the producers will pass on the tax and import tariffs onto us as consumers. They are the ones who are sent the bill but they do not take it off their own bonuses they pass it to us the customers in hidden charges. We don’t notice, we barely even look at the grocery bill. As food scarcity and resources further deplete we will pay the higher prices while those that can’t afford to buy the food in its country of origin starve.

All the while, as the processing and depletion continues the balance between available food and population expands. We are transporting food thousands of miles, using up vital and diminishing fossil fuels just to service basic needs, we are using our fossil fuels further in the manufacture of pointless packaging and refrigeration which both serve to inject toxic chemicals and waste into the eco-system. Everyday life forms on this planet are being driven closer to the brink of extinction because of the greed and consumption of humanity. We share this planet, we are only one of the many forms of life here but we do all the damage.

Eventually change will be forced on us, not by our governments but by the lack of the resources that we take for granted. In the meantime we will be squeezed and penalized for the fact that the majority cannot adapt of their own free will. Fines, tariffs and taxes will all be passed on to us, the masses, of course they will, why should the elites of this world change their spots. They have enough money and access to resources to weather all storms, they fiddle their taxes and they fiddle us. Only by using the most basic laws of economics – supply and demand, can we even hope to change them. More importantly than anything else, we have to stop being dependent on others to provide for our basic needs. They screw us because we let them. As soon as we stop playing they cannot screw us. Change is hard, but at least it is progress. Those that change will simply survive, those that don’t will not.

As I said, I have not seen Gores film, but I do not understand why GW causes such a level of contention. There is plenty of information and we are all equipped with the requisite brain power to form our own opinions based upon that information. For me it is simple, we need to ensure that we are moving towards more ethical consumerism. We should question everything, where it came from, how long it will last. It is important to establish the difference between need and want. I still have a long way to go, but I know where I am going and because of that I don’t fear the future. If more of us don’t start making these changes though we will face major problems and probably societial breakdown in the future. THEY, whoever they may be, can only control us for as long as we are dependent up on them. In short if we change they will also HAVE TO change because we are their bread and butter, because without us they are nothing.


[edit on 10-4-2008 by KilgoreTrout]



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout
Science IS subjective and it is hard to pin point a time in our history when it was any other way.


I'm not trying to be trite here, but Science ISN'T subjective, SCIENTISTS are.

As anyone who has ever tried to do a PhD in a science subject will tell you, no money, means no research.


Actually, and again please accept that this is not intended to be a 'mincing of words' I feel I have to re-frame that statement as well. PhD research is a 'higher education' construct built from within a system who's primary purpose is no longer to increase the body of human knowledge - it's purpose NOW is to increase capital flow to empower the educational institution's power base, making chancellors, presidents and other university elites politically relevant.


The majority of all scientific research is funded by the private sector.


I disagree - at least here in the US - MOST research funds are funneled through private enterprise with the actual funds coming from the government (the people). The concept of the 'immense' investment in research by private concerns represents a public relations victory for organizations, like Big-Pharma, and other mega-industrial complexes, to justify charging exorbitant prices for their goods and services. Having been a research foundation financial analyst I can state quite confidently, there is NO WAY privately funded research even approaches the 1/10th mark of what the people pay through 'funneled' funds (it's almost like a money laundering scheme - but that's a topic for another day).


As this research is carried out for a set purpose or ideology, that that does not fit that world view is discarded and left unexplored.


Therein lies, IMO, the bias or 'subjective' aspect of research, not the science itself. With few exceptions, (and those are mostly historical) 'research' is a business activity; the most 'attractive' parts of research hinging on 'profitability and commercial applicability' nothing more - altruistic intentions are window dressing to encourage investment. Also, most 'research universities' are in effect 'selecting' which research they support in terms of two factors, commercial application (patents, etc.) and political worth. Universities will soon have to pay the piper for the tacit cooperation in the 'obfuscation' of scientific data that was 'inconvenient' to the sponsor - most notably, in the pharmaceutical arena, but we will soon start seen many more examples of where that 'greed-based bias' has crept into the system. And I might as well admit, this is a natural development with all organizations involved in 'market-related' research which were entrusted with self-policing.


Universities are becoming increasingly reliant on private sector funding for their PhD programmes, the exchange of course is that the donor directs the research.


This is because public funds are being controlled much more diligently than before. So they simply co-mingle federal funding with 'private' on the new higher Ed's sweetheart 'research' - the darling 'multi-disciplinary' research activity. But even that 'practice' is becoming more difficult to carry out - hence pure research is becoming less and less of a cash cow. THAT'S why funds are getting more difficult to secure.

It's all greed - these companies are NOT the heroes their PR people tell us they are - they are guilty of sacrificing the purpose of research for profit. This is not a bad thing until you begin to see - they are not trying to make a living - they are demanding to make a killing, anything less is not worth their time.

But all this is to say that Al Gore has partnered himself with these same people - and he may be as big a dupe as he genuinely wants to be a hero. Feed his ego, wind him up, and watch him go!


...I think it is obvious in either case that the film failed in any purpose, unless of course the purpose was to completely confuse the matter.


You know, I would bet you a dollar that there are some here who might very well believe that is EXACTLY the purpose behind the 'disagreement.' Imagine how much 'research' funding the government might 'invest' into resolving the dispute. Imagine how much 'profit' for the 'private' sector to be directly involved in this 'mystery.'


... only the research that can attract funding is undertaken will look at that data. Very few researchers are looking at the whole picture because, quite simply they cannot afford to or perhaps in some cases, they are told not to look beyond set parameters.


Very true, and (IMO) that was the reason for creating and funding government agencies to 'manage' 'coordinate' and 'promote' research. I wouldn't expect, nor disagree with a private company reticence to pursue research that is not profitable - that is NOT the reason they are in business. But the government CAN research without the need to satisfy stockholders profit models. They can support and integrate research efforts at from a broader perspective - the problem is THOSE government entities (and 'state' schools) no longer 'serve' the people. The are populated with corporate cronies and 'industry' consultants which have utterly undermined the intent behind the research in order to control the money.


While we fail to wake up to our individual responsibility to adapt, we are subjecting ourselves to exploitation.


Excellent - well surmised. Adaptation is the key - and its prime obstacle is 'inertia.' We have a dynamic market hell bent on 'raking it in'. Their paradigm is the enemy of adaptation - it's exploitation. And they are quite proud of that fact. They fear and resist ALL change - and their main objective is to control change so they can preserve their profit. Look at Monsanto! They would rather destroy the life cycle of the planet than relinquish potential profit. Look at the Energy combine - do you think any board member ever actually objected to the execution of the plan to defraud people by rigging pricing?

.... as a friend would say..., more to come



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by vor78

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
... isnt it a good thing?

'' now jimmy, turn off the lights, global warming ''

'' now jimmy, close the fridge door, global warming ''

'' Dont get a V6-8 Car jimmy, get a 4 cylnder, ride your bike ''

Arent these good things to be brain washing
?


Why would it be a good thing? If we accept for a moment that global warming does not exist (or at the very least, is unproven) and that such acts are not affecting our environment, then what makes these acts 'good' or 'bad'? It would seem to me to be an attempt to impose one's own views of morality onto someone else with no factual basis.

That said (and before the GW zealots descend upon me), I'm playing devil's advocate here. In reality, I do believe that something is causing climate change on our planet and I've long since accepted that we have a role in it. How much? I do not know, but at the very least, its not completely insignificant.

What on earth (pun intended) does this have to do with a moral view point? Affecting the earths climate is not a moral issue but a physical one. Either we are or are not causing it. We either do nothing (US viewpoint) or do something (the rest of the world).

Everybody is being hit with information from both sides but the skeptics are losing the argument rapidly and are resorting to ever more "dirty" tactics...like the above. Key dirty tactic words being things like "moral", "tax", "liberal", "treehugger", "socialist" (yes I have seen that one used and nearly fell of my chair oh the US deperation to invoke McCarthy), "lies" , "anti-capitalist" etc etc Never anything like: "Concern for the earth and all its citizens to ensure a fruitful future".



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 11:11 AM
link   
reply to post by KilgoreTrout
 


As you have stated - change will be thrust upon us, regardless of our course of action. GW is but a tiny fraction of that change. All my objections to the entire GW debate center around the 'glory' of media hype rendering the 'case closed' on GW and what affects it and how much.

I know we probably disagree about the nature of research in general, and I by no means want to imply that research is a 'lost cause' - but I have, over time, begun to recognize a 'prostitution' of research centering around commercial profit and political expediency.

Mr Gore may mean well, and he may me very confident in the research he has chosen to espouse. But this decision is his own, and he wants to use political and diplomatic means via corporate controlled media to make it the planet's view - this is called proselytizing - and fits that description because he has consciously discarded or otherwise diminished the value of scientific data that represents an 'inconvenient truth' (
) to his own ends. And quite coincidentally, the corporate profiteering 'prime suspects' in the wholesale exploitation of the ecosystem - have 'guided' his research and lent their marketing power to his 'structured' solution. I find that highly suspect as well.

[edit on 10-4-2008 by Maxmars]



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 11:24 AM
link   
Buudski why are you listening to "William Gray, the well-known Colorado State University hurricane forecaster", on a matter of psychology. This article is nothing more than bait for an argument....next please...

Regardless it is important that children learn how important it is to protect and respect our planet, get over it the time of abusing it with no repercussions is long gone...



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 12:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Animal
 


I'm sorry, I was under the impression that this is a discussion board.
Is it your assertion that only certain subjects should be discussed and only from the side that you agree with?

What our children are being taught as FACT is THEORY - there is a difference.

There are also two sides to this theory - although the rabid doom mongers who shove this down our throats at every opportunity would like us to believe that only their side has any merit.

This is something that has gone on throughout history - doubters being labelled as heretics and castigated at every turn.

My complaint is that our children are being told only one part of the theory, and that reasonable discussion is quashed.

This is not fact - nothing has been proven, and studies show that the earth has not warmed in the last ten years and is now cooling, on top of which is the vast gap in our knowledge of how CO2 affects the planet.

Also consider how weather events affect the earths temperature, and the way that antarctic data is manipulated and delivered for public consumption.

www.sciencedaily.com...

www.freerepublic.com...

www.foxnews.com...

Any cooling period is now classed as an anomoly whatever the cause, whilst any unusual warmth is always down to GW - doesn't make much sense does it?

On a slightly different note, the climate where I live is classed as sub tropical - last weekend we had snow.
25 years ago you could swim in the sea in april - now you risk hypothermia if you do that.

I'm all for protection of the planet, energy conservation and sustainability and I'm willing to bet hard cash that my lifestyle is more environmentally friendly than yours or 90% of the other people here who buy into this propaganda.

[edit on 10/4/2008 by budski]



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
... isnt it a good thing?

'' now jimmy, turn off the lights, global warming ''

'' now jimmy, close the fridge door, global warming ''

'' Dont get a V6-8 Car jimmy, get a 4 cylnder, ride your bike ''

Arent these good things to be brain washing
?


Yes but what else is the mass media brainwashing about climate change. Hurricanes, giant tidal waves, they're pitching sensationalized climate catastrophes as being directly linked to opening your fridge, having a car, etc... They act like the little things consumers can do to help will totally undo what the industries behind real mass pollution have done to the environment... Plus with this climate of fear it seems likely a panicked public could be convinced of any hypothesis that crawled up Al Gores arse and tricked into making any change the Rich people of the world think will make them more money...



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 03:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Jericho-X
 


Originally posted by Jericho-X
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't there like 2500 ca. scientists in the UN that's been pushing this global warming scam..? And yet there are 20.000 others around the world protesting against it??

I don't know how many, but yeah. There's a lot of debate on the issue, there's no consensus on one way or the other.
 




reply to post by Shinji
 


Originally posted by Shinji
OK Let us say that Global Warming is not real or that even if it is humans have little to no effect on it.

(Insert large horror story of energy waste)
Is that really what you would prefer?

Or is it better to teach our kids energy conservation and respect for the natural enviroment, raiseing them in a clean and healthy world filled with many wonderful beutifal and unique species?

This has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the theory of anthropogenic global warming is a fallacy. We're talking about spending time and money on a potentially fake problem, not whether or not we should conserve energy. It's a completely different issue, you're confusing yourself.
 




reply to post by Stanley Mimix
 



Originally posted by Stanley Mimix
I know that Al Gores' documentary isn't all fact, but that is besides the point!

No, that is the point! People like you, who embrace ignorance with open arms, are to blame for the widespread belief in pseudoscience.


Originally posted by Stanley Mimix
Like any other documentary he's just trying to make people aware of a problem that has been there for years, but have never been taken seriously!

Never been taken seriously? What is this, a joke? Global warming is a huge money maker for those who profit from it. Just look at Al Gore's bull# documentary, how much did he make from that? And he got a Nobel prize!


Originally posted by Stanley Mimix
Many have tried to warn us for years, but after Gores' film, it's been taken seriously! And that is why he won the Nobels Peace Price!

His film seemed to do very little. If anything, he spread lies, fake science, and propaganda and in return, made a large profit and got a Nobel Prize. I don't care what the hell your motives are, if you spread lies and propaganda for a profit, you are wrong.


Originally posted by Stanley Mimix
Can you honestly say that when a factory is pumping out black smoke every single minute since it was built, it doesn't have any impact on the environment??

Can you honestly say that when a natural forest fire is pumping out black smoke, it doesn't have any impact on the environment? Of course it does! But it's not a global warming problem. We have to focus on real environmental threats -- and there are plenty -- instead of shifting the focus onto a false, propagandized problem.


Originally posted by Stanley Mimix
In my opinion, everyone that believes that global warming ISN'T man made are afraid of taking responsibility of their own actions!

I don't give a damn what your "opinion" is. There are serious holes in the anthropogenic global warming theory. Is it possible? Sure! But you have to look at facts, what is real, because we can only fight real problems. Otherwise we're wasting time and money at best, and doing severe damage at worst.


Originally posted by Stanley Mimix
What or who are you blaming it on, because you can't deny that the weather is changing and that the polar ice is melting! IT IS A FACT! Go to the artic and see for yourself!

Polar ice melts all the time. We're only concerned because some is melting faster than its being replenished, but this is normal when the earth naturally warms. And I love how you "conveniently" forgot to mention the increase in Antarctic sea ice.
The question is not whether the earth has been getting hotter since the little ice age, but whether or not humans are to blame; and if they are, just how much of an impact we have.


Originally posted by Stanley Mimix
But I don't think that is as important as trying our best to take more care of the planet we live on! No matter if global warming is a fact, and whether it's man made or not!!! I hope we all can agree on that!


...

Still, I do not see any negativity about using GW as an excuse for everybody to be better environmentalists! It's about time!

I don't think you have a clue. By "fighting" global warming, we're hurting our economy (more starving, more poverty, more hardship) and we're making it harder to fight other, real environmental dangers. I know that some of us would be so complacent as to willfully spread ignorance and propaganda, but I think that's morally wrong profiteering (like politician Al Gore).
 




Let's just cut the crap. There are other, real, proven environmental dangers out there, and anthropogenic Global Warming is not one of them -- there's still a ton of debate on the subject. Every invented means to combat it would spell disaster, be it climate catastrophe (some of the more outlandish solutions) or, more likely, economic damage with no benefit.

[edit on 10-4-2008 by Johnmike]




top topics



 
11
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join