Originally Posted by Bewolf (Post 433498)

Yeah, well, the difference between Meteors and Super Novas is we have zero ability to have an influence on it. Climate change may be a differnt matter.

Originally Posted by Bewolf (Post 433498)

Common sense certainly does not match "When all the scientists of the world stop barbecuing, stop driving gas powered cars, stop using petro products...etc. Then maybe I will listen".

Originally Posted by Bewolf (Post 433498)

Very comfortable attitude you have, especially given your conditions to change/believe/being convinced are such extremes it is highly unlikely it will ever happen. Kinda shows the true colors here instead of something like a "common sense" approach. You simply do not want to leave your confort zone, at least be honest about it.

Originally Posted by Bewolf (Post 433498)

That said, do whatever you please. Just stop torpedoing those people that actually got themselves a bike for the dayly businesses or are trying to get everything on a bit more sustainable basis.

Originally Posted by Porsche (Post 433505)

"That said, do whatever you please. Just stop torpedoing those people that actually got themselves a bike for the daily businesses or are trying to get everything on a bit more sustainable basis."

I do not think anyone is torpedoing you for utlimateley cutting your costs of daily life for using a bike. If you think you are doing good by being more sustainable then I applaud you. I believe it is the people that want to be more sustainable but are trying to force their whole country and other countries to live by their wants that causes these arguments. Someone had mentioned Germany as trying to be self sufficient in terms of energy use. There is nothing wrong with that. They do not have enough natural resources to sustain themselves going forward so they have to be more efficient than other countries in their use of their natural resources. At some point in history each country is going to have to be conservative with their resources. This all goes back to supply and demand setting prices. However when collectively countries try to tell other citizens that they will have have less disposable income for their own family because they need to pay for other countries to continue to keep polluting then that is global socialism. Read the Kyoto Accord and this is exactly what they were trying to do. I believe we all know that as a world we are all responsible for working together on issues. But country sovereignty is what is at stake with many of the trends that are moving forward. Look in your local news and you will see it every day. The IMF and the World Bank. Educate yourself on this and you will see things in a different light. Who is the IMF to actually dictate to other countries. It seems that some people want to make sure they can control more than just their own country. This is a problem of what I see. Not global warming. That is just a way of diverting everyone's attention away from what they real issues are.

I also want to applaud all the posts here. I am amazed at how many intelligent people there are out there. I have thoroughly enjoyed reading everyones opionons. Well most of them besides the regurgitated propaganda that the media puts out. But I have to say that collectively I think there still are enough people that can think for themselves and come to reasonable/rational deductions of the environment around them to lead the way forward. It is a refreshing feeling to see intelligent debates taking place. Too many times anymore in the U.S. all you hear is the regurgitated propaganda people spat out from both sides left and the right. They blame each side like the other is perfect. Its funny because every bill passed in our country was done by both parties. So the mess we are in here both parties are responsible for. The ironic thing is so many crimes have been commited and not one person has been held responsible for them. You start to wonder about your own country and if there is a true justice system.

Originally Posted by Porsche (Post 433505)

Well most of them besides the regurgitated propaganda that the media puts out. ...all you hear is the regurgitated propaganda

Originally Posted by Bewolf (Post 433465)

...

Edit: kay, I just watched the video. wtf?
Irony, sarcasm, funny music, this thing sounds and looks like a Michael Moore production.
...

The show did not present one hard fact, it just threw one semifact in there after the, without any sources or references to check it up?

That aside, what is all that fear mongering about? This show looks like it was done by fascists countering arguments by communists (or vice versa), instead of an intelligent debate by pros.

You are actually basing your stances on shows like this?

Originally Posted by raaaid (Post 433753)

it doesnt matter global warming is man made or not, contaminating is wrong independently of that

Originally Posted by kendo65 (Post 433765)

There has been a lot of talk in this thread about propaganda, but that video out of anything else discussed comes closest in intent to being real propaganda. Your Michael Moore comparison is a good one. The producer of the Global Warming film, Martin Durkin, has form in producing right-wing equivalents to Moore's efforts.

Against Nature (1997) - criticised the environmental movement for being a threat to personal freedom and for crippling economic development.

The Rise and Fall of GM (2000) - arguing in favour of genetic modification, met with complaints. A joint letter signed by a number of scientists from the Third World was issued in protest of Durkin's claims in this documentary. Dr. Mae-Wan Ho, a scientist featured on the programme, later said of her participation in the programme: "I feel completely betrayed and misled. They did not tell me it was going to be an attack on my position."

Britain's Trillion Pound Horror Story (2010) - makes a case for lower taxes, a smaller public sector and a free-market economy.

The Great Global Warming Swindle (original working title "Apocalypse my Arse") (yes, really...) is more of the same. Professor Carl Wunsch who appeared on the programme has since repudiated it, describing it as 'as close to propaganda as anything since World War II'.

An official judgement by the British media regulator Ofcom found that the programme "did not fulfill obligations to be impartial and to reflect a range of views on controversial issues". It upheld complaints by Sir David King, stating that his views were misrepresented, and Carl Wunsch, on the points that he had been misled as to its intent, and that the impression had been given that he agreed with the programme's position on climate change.

Originally Posted by MadBlaster (Post 433609)

...

Throwing money on a global scale decade after decade down the global warming hole and the hole turns out to be a rat hole, then that would be a tragedy and crime against humanity. The science needs to be nailed down. The re-allocation of resources, based on prudent sound judgement. Not warm fuzzy feeling.

Originally Posted by kendo65 (Post 433778)

Whatever action is taken needs to be balanced and based on fact.

In many fields decisions have to be taken based on the weight of available evidence at that time. Because of the unavoidable time delays in remedying climate damage, delaying until effects are more easily visible may make the situation unrecoverable.

There is a precautionary principle here.

I would suggest it would be more of a 'crime against humanity' to take no action and possibly wait too late than to take measured and balanced action now.

-----------------------------------------

This also raises the issue of what constitutes enough evidence: there has been a concerted effort from the right to deny, distort, and sow doubt in the whole climate field. The tactics (delay, distortion, funding of alternate voices and 'evidence') are similar to those used decades ago by the tobacco companies to counter the emerging (scientific) evidence about the harmfulness of smoking. Part of the strategy is to delay the time when the public will accept that the scientific evidence is unequivocal and overwhelming and that action needs to be taken.

The end goal is the same in both cases - preservation of profit margins.

That is the real crime in all this.