Flying Solo: Choose Freedom Over the Nanny State

Here is a prime Video example on how far the left will go to push their Climate Change ideology on everyone they can! www.youtube.com...

The Harrison Ford thing is a little over the top, but to be fair everyone should be doing their part.

95% or scientists agree man made climate change is real

And if for some stupid reason its not, what harm can it do to make more sustainable, eco friendly decisions about our progression as a species?

reply to post by ghostsoldier


I have no idea where you got your facts but 95% of scientists do not agree that there is man made climate change in fact the climate gate scandal proved the opposite and that most scientists made up the data or had idea how to interpret the data and most scientists worth their weight in salt disagree completely that any global warming is happening at all,and the harrison ford thing was over the top at all..

Originally posted by zeroeffect
reply to post by ghostsoldier

 

I have no idea where you got your facts but 95% of scientists do not agree that there is man made climate change in fact the climate gate scandal proved the opposite and that most scientists made up the data or had idea how to interpret the data and most scientists worth their weight in salt disagree completely that any global warming is happening at all,and the harrison ford thing was over the top at all..

Alright let's follow your logic here, so a few (in fact a very few) scientists were found to be changing their interpretation of data and discounting opposing opinions. You say this shows "most scientists" did this.

So a few Catholic priests are pedophiles, therefore you must think most of them are and the whole Church should be arrested because pedophilia is incredibly immoral and illegal.

So a few teenagers commit robbery, therefore you must think that most of them do and they should all be locked up too.

So a few American soldiers committed war crimes in Iraq, therefore most of them did, and every soldier should be treated as a war criminal.

Do you see how misguided and silly this conclusion of yours is?

I think ghostsoldier is right about their take on the issue, even if man-made global warming turns out to be untrue, creating a more sustainable and ecologically friendly society in general will give major benefits anyways.

However regarding weather or not global warming is happening at all:
www.bbc.co.uk...
There's the average temperature of earth, I think that would prove that the planet is getting warmer.

Interestingly check out how that matches up with the carbon emissions graph:
www.bbc.co.uk...

All things aside you are right about one thing zeroeffect, I couldn't find a source where it said that 95% of scientists supported man-made global warming. The number I kept coming across was 97% believe it.
www.cnn.com...

That's incredibly wide acceptance in the scientific community. I think you may have to re-think your position there zeroeffect.

reply to post by ProjectJimmy


Actually sir i think you missed the whole climate gate scandal in which evidence and letters were given of global warming data being manipulated and misquoted from disreputable sources and yes the BBC was amongst one of those that chose not to report this but has been changing their tune as of lately do to pressure by scientists to report the real facts.. as, shown herewww.youtube.com... the real data by real scientists show their isnt global warming and hasn't been in quite some time and the earth is getting slightly cooler. though while i agreed and respected some of what you said keep an open mind watch that link and get some real facts. Lord Monckton is very credible and has actual data to back this up...

[edit on 10-3-2010 by zeroeffect]

I fail to see why anyone would actually WANT to believe that climate change is real.

Not only is the evidence so overwhelming that the entire thing is a staged stunt, but if it were real, and we accepted the public policy being put forth - we would all be a bunch of slaves to government.

Who in their right mind would want that?

Lets see.

Glaciers not melting:
theresilientearth.com/

Climate data from NOAA was faked:
www.americanthinker.com...

Climate data from CRU was faked:
wattsupwiththat.com...

Climate data from AU was faked:
wattsupwiththat.com...

Climate reports in the IPCC were not peer reviewed and faked:
wattsupwiththat.com...

Polar ice cap data was faked:
blogs.telegraph.co.uk...

I mean the list goes on and on and on and on.

What more will it take?



[edit on 11-3-2010 by mnemeth1]

In response to mnemeth1,

All those links you just provided, still only count for a minuscule fraction of what scientists on a whole are saying.

Perhaps you should do some more research.

We are already slaves to the government, ever think that if we as a people weren't forced to survive off centralised energy systems (ie, every home was self sufficient from solar, wind etc) that there would be less dependance on the nanny state to begin with?

Dun dun dun....

reply to post by ghostsoldier


That's blatant B.S propaganda there are 5 data sets that the scientists work from and already 4 out of 5 data sets have been proven to have had data faked,doctored or falsified so no that isn't a small amount by any means its a cover up to get everyone to follow the new green religion with a caramel socialist nuget

reply to post by zeroeffect


???

There are well over 300 datasets, and only a small amount of them have been fabricated etc. - probably by ego hungry scientists.

What do you want, to live next to a coal factor and drive your F250 to work 3 miles down the road to work in an oil refinery?

[edit on 12/3/10 by ghostsoldier]

The climat is always changing, moving from one extreme to the other. I remember when I was growing up the big fear was that we were going to go through another ice age. Then the dust and fear subsided, and now we have global warming, only for it to go away and it is climate change. The problem I have with the entire climate change issue is that it is too political and those who are descenting or choosing to disagree are publically slandered or threatened to shut them up. That is not the way science should be. Though I do agree with the video, that we can not allow ourselves to go into the nanny state. I don't want to be told that I can not have a cheese burger or walk down the street enjoying a good cigar or what I can or can not do in the privacy of my own home. The governement is starting to impede in our personal lives too much these days. Gone are the days of the red pens and where children are not allowed to compete cause they might not be the best at what they do and find out.

reply to post by sdcigarpig


Its the lack of proper education about things. If they had professional debates on in primetime instead of some cheezy sitcom soap-opera, maybe we'd be better off. The average citizen doesn't often have to come out of their little sphere they walk around in, because thinking about big-hard things is scary or boring. TPTB don't want educated citizens who can exercise critical thought and make informed choices for long term prosperity. They want people who are smart enough to be slaves, but dumb enough not to see beyond their own struggle.

I agree its too politicized, but thats the way our decisions are made, unfortunately voting every 4 years is the best humans have come up with so far .

But think of it this way:

Would you
A - Rather live next to a coal station
B - Live next to a solar farm etc

A - Walk the streets filled with carbon-monoxide
B - Walk the streets filled with oxygen from trees

A - Continue filling rubbish dumps that last for 1000's of years
B - Have everything biodegrade into the land

A - Drive noisy, polluting, increasingly expensive to run cars
B - Drive a quite, clean, that eliminates the need for petrol

Its easy... If you cant breath the stuff that's coming out of the exhaust pipe then it cant be good.

Again if everyones house was self-sufficient, THERE WOULD BE LESS RELIANCE ON A NANNY STATE.


[edit on 12/3/10 by ghostsoldier]

OK Ghostsoldier,

You think this is all about "saving" the Gia?

You think those scientists don't have a reason to lie?

Why are all the major banks CRYING A RIVER right now because cap-n-trade is dead?

Listen to these bankers cry:
www.smh.com.au...

Also, why are the oil companies crying a river if they are supposedly the ones to be hurt by cap-n-trade?
www.businessgreen.com...

The f'n CEO of Shell oil is out there crying for cap-n-trade.

If you have one braincell left rattling around up there, use it to think about this for a minute.

Then Google what the oil companies exposure is to a cap-n-trade tax.

Its next to nothing.

The entire thing was concocted by ENRON! to wipe out the coal industry, their major competition.

The oil companies WANT cap-n-tax so they can shut down coal. The banks WANT cap-n-tax so they can run up a massive derivatives ponzi. The IMF world bank WANTS cap-n-tax so they can install a world banking system.

These are the reasons!

Also, the scientists in question are all funded by GOVERNMENT - GOVERNMENT benefits from the cap-n-trade tax. They have INCENTIVE to lie!


[edit on 12-3-2010 by mnemeth1]

reply to post by mnemeth1


I don't live in the US, so I only have a peripheral understanding of this Cap-n-Trade tax, sounds similar to our Emissions Trading Scheme - which is bull-$#!7 to a large degree, particularly if the cost is rolled down the line till the consumer-tax payer is to pay for it. That is wrong!

But moving toward a sustainable and eco-friendly future is the right thing to do.

PS thanks for that information, I don't feel like reading through it all now, but it has shown me something I wasn't considering before.

Personally I would prefer to see a much more radical approach to this issue. This whole business of them maintaining there power structure while attempting major transitions is why so much simple stuff is so clogged and slow to move forward.

But again, if I cant put my head behind an exhaust pipe and remain healthy, its probably not good on a larger scale either.

And is anyone else scared that there is less than 20% of the worlds rainforests left? Not mention everything else.

So I'm pretty sure we would be having a big enough impact on the health of this planet, and steps should be taken to bring it back to balance. I'm not sure if what they're proposing is the right way to go about it.

reply to post by ghostsoldier


Rain forests aren't going away because of global warming.

They might be reducing in size due to over-logging, but not because of global warming.

Global warming is a gigantic farce being perpetrated by the oil companies and banks.

I think that guy was a little too passionate for harrison ford.most of us will agree that global warming is a farce and was only acceled through al gore, and hippys.

Fear is a powerful motivator to the masses.