Thanks for many of the responses however some seem pretty canned.
I wonder if we have some bots.
What could be more "canned" than a computer program that seeks out debate on the internet, then offers a canned response, as if it is a real person?
Seems pretty cowardly/ inept to me, if environmentalism is really all about saving the environment AND having knowledge about WTH one is talking
Sure, the canned bot might stifle a few debates here and there involving people using other "canned knowledge," but it will never be able to
overcome the facts, if someone knows the facts and is able to present them intelligently in a debate.
It's too bad that those who "believe" so much in "climate change" (and the disastrous consequences for all mankind, because of mankind), sure are
taking a cavalier attitude about presenting their case, considering that their case is hanging by a thread, as it is, with it waaaaaaaaaay down on the
list of "concerns" among the human populace right now.
To me, this just shows how weak their argument is. It's like an election campaign or something, with the auto-bot trying to drum up votes in
desperation. Pretty pathetic if you ask me. No bot can replace a knowledgeable human, at least not yet. Maybe someday everything we read on the net
will be someone's bot doing all the thinking, talking, debating for them, but right now, AI just isn't advanced enough. It can spew links
haphazardly, I imagine, which is fitting also, since much of the whole man-made "climate change" argument, with their phoney drumming up of numbers
and facts and e-mail agendas and Al Gore and his hypocrisy, is fairly haphazard too.
I love the environment. I want to take care of it too! I want clean air/water for all! We need to do all those things because it's good for us.
We don't need phony political agendas driving it, because nothing good ever comes from phoney political agendas that are really nothing more than the
acquisition of more power for politicians and their enviro-cronies, like the bankrupt/never did anything solar companies Obama invested all that
taxpayer money in, for zilch, except it made a few of the higher ups at those companies incredibly wealthy, in an incredibly short period of time.
I'm with you on the cause of the environment, I just don't think the answer lies in running from the truth, or using bots to supposedly defend an
agenda one believes in, as if it is a campaign drive rather than a seeking of the truth, and a following through on those truths. Fukushima scares
the crap outta me, and I have loved ones on the West Coast that just say "meh, we're fine..." and "the media" says they are, or are ignoring it.
THAT is a MAN-MADE disaster that I can be alarmed about! CFCs? Ppppppppfffffffttttttt. The ice core samples dating back millions of years show
regular intervals of global warming and cooling. To suppose it is a new phenomena is to simply deny the truth. We can't do that if you want to
really go somewhere with an environmental agenda.
I know I'm hearing that the Fukushima disaster is "nothing to be alarmed about because it's like a thimble full of poison in a lake, nothing will
even know it's there, it'll be so dilute..."
I hope they're right, and we need to find out if they are instead of wasting time on something that has happened for countless eons on this planet,
and blaming it on US. JMO of course!