Man Made Global Warming

[MadBlaster]

Originally Posted by Bewolf

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.

yes it may or it may not.

Originally Posted by Bewolf

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".

actions speak louder than words in my book. substance over form. maybe you haven't been paying attention. scams are going on constantly all around all over the world.

Originally Posted by Bewolf

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.

I like to think I'm not a push over. I call it as I see it. I see a scam so far.

Originally Posted by Bewolf

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.

Not torpedoing anybody. You know it cuts both ways. 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.

[MadBlaster]

Originally Posted by Porsche

"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.

yes. qft, I agree. props to you too.

[=CfC= Father Ted]

Originally Posted by Porsche

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

Which is this? Propaganda that says it's fine to carry on burning fossil fuel? Or propaganda that says we should avoid destroying our environment?

If I say that I'm using my common sense to interpret the findings of the scientific community to suggest to me that climate change is affected by humanity, then I'm close-minded?

How am I any more close-minded than the guy who says, "Well, it's the government, so I don't trust it"?

[MD_Titus]

you're being a socialist and he's being right?

[raaaid]

i have ideas from right wing and left wing both so i dont fall for that

media want people arguing lefts right, divide and conquer

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

[kendo65]

Originally Posted by Bewolf

...

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?

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.

[Skoshi Tiger]

Originally Posted by raaaid

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

+1

[MD_Titus]

Originally Posted by kendo65

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.

you mean it's baseless propaganda?

can't be. it's from the political right, and they're called the right because they're always right. i call socialist defamation and expect a lawsuit to follow.

[kendo65]

Originally Posted by MadBlaster

...

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.

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.

[MadBlaster]

Originally Posted by kendo65

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.

So now profits are evil. Your true colors revealed. It is obvious you and me will never agree. Maybe this will make you "feel" better. It looks like the world is on verge of global recession. GDPs all over the world are declining. People are dying every day. Freedoms are being taken away daily. All this goes to your socialist agenda of less profit to the "capitalists" and more haphazard wealth transfers. The new normal, the new world order. So you want to do more? Here in California we just had a primary to put another tax on cigarettes on top of all the others that already exist to balance the state budget. The votes are still being counted and as of today, it is losing. I suggest to you the people who voted against it like myself are for the most part, non-smokers. We just don't like government trampling all over peoples freedoms and doing the money grab. I'm pretty sure everyone knows by now the effects of smoking, just as they know the dangers of riding motorcycle without a helmet, just as they know about not wearing a seat belt, not wearing sunscreen, not getting enough exercise or too much exercise, vitamin C...etc., etc., etc. There's a role for government. It should not be to be the babysitter. But that is what it has become, to give the "scientists" some "jobs" to justify the waste of tax dollars we throw at these so called "problems". But I'm sure you would disagree. The so called "scientific community" would never try to scam us or try to profit, would they? Really, you live in a box. It's another nice day here in CA. I think I'll go outside.