Anti-Global Warming Propaganda Goes Here

Discussion in 'Global Warming' started by Pressed_Rat, Mar 7, 2007.

  1. Pressed_Rat

    Pressed_Rat Do you even lift, bruh?

    Messages:
    33,922
    Likes Received:
    2,454
    Anti-Global Warming Propaganda Goes Here

    Here you can all have fun posting your ANTI-Global warming Bull Shit propaganda.

    Here, and ONLY here, in this thread from now on.

    Cause once you post it here, it's done, you can't repost this shit anywhere else on these forums. Posting this shit up on any other thread on the Hipforums will result in bans.

    NO DUPLICATE POSTS PLEASE! SAY IT ONCE!

    Got it?

    Also, this WHOLE FORUM, is about Global Warming, NOT AL Gore. So if you post shit up about him, it will be deleted.

    Also we prefer PEER-REVIEW scientific studies, as opposed to INDUSTRY PAID PROPAGANDA (they are paying $10,000 per article denying global warming and human contribution to it).

    Any such articles or references are subject to deletion without notice.

    This website is NOT for posting PAID PROPAGANDA, got it? (they ain't paying us so why should we put up with this BS?)

    -Skip
    webmaster of hipforums
    do not delete


    DISCLAIMER: The title of this thread (as seen from the main page of the global warming forum) was not chosen by me, but by the webmaster, who believes any scientific evidence contradicting the orthodoxy of the manmade global warming dogma/religion should be considered "propaganda" and not allowed anywhere in the global warming forum, except under this thread. The title of the thread was altered without my consent and does not reflect my feelings towards the scientific evidence that I believe irrefutably disproves the MAN-MADE theory/hoax of global warming. The incessant fear-mongering of man-made global warming is being used by globalist power brokers to centralize power and control with international laws, regulations and taxes, while ushering in a tyrannical world government under the auspices of the United Nations.

    --Pressed_Rat





    http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/130207globalwarming.htm


    [​IMG]

    The Creeping Fascism of Global Warming Hysteria
    Man-made orthodoxy is a dogma of coercion, bias, and junk science

    Paul Joseph Watson
    Prison Planet
    Tuesday, February 13, 2007

    The hoax of the doctrine of man-made global warming that is being foisted upon the world by decree, and the junk science that is manipulated to support it, represents a creeping fascism whose agenda to stifle open debate betrays the fact that climate change hysteria is a farce intended to crush freedoms and further centralize global power.​

    The hoax of the doctrine of man-made global warming that is being foisted upon the world by decree, and the junk science that is manipulated to support it, represents a creeping fascism whose agenda to stifle open debate betrays the fact that climate change hysteria is a farce intended to crush freedoms and further centralize global power.

    In an interview with a Czech newspaper, Vaclav Klaus, the President of the Czech Republic blamed the "whip of political correctness" for preventing more scientists and statesmen from going public with their skepticism on man-made global warming. This is precisely what we have arrived at, in a bizarre vacuum of common sense and without any attribution, the establishment and the controlled left have managed to squash reasoned two-sided debate about global warming by coating their argument with the nebulous claim that expressing disagreement is somehow bigoted, backward and even racist.

    The very fact that the man-made advocates have to introduce such a far distant concept as race into a debate about scientific climate change makes it self-evident that their argument is inherently weak and vulnerable.

    In an article we published in November about global warming being primarily caused by the sun, we commented somewhat tongue in cheek that people who express doubts about global warming would soon be compared to holocaust deniers by the media and other self-appointed cultural kingpins who demand total adherence to orthodox religion style beliefs about climate change.

    Here's what we wrote:

    The assertion that global warming is man made is so oppressively enforced upon popular opinion, especially in Europe, that expressing a scintilla of doubt is akin to holocaust denial in some cases. Such is the insipid brainwashing that has taken place via television, newspapers and exalted talking heads - global warming skeptics are forced to wear the metaphoric yellow star and only discuss their doubts in hushed tones and conciliatory frameworks, or be cat-called, harangued and jeered by an army of do-gooders who righteously believe they are rescuing mother earth by recycling a wine bottle or putting their paper in a separate trash can.

    It's not longer a joke.

    The Boston Globe's Ellen Goodman wrote an op-ed last week denouncing anyone who dares dissent against the God-like authoritative status of the IPCC UN report on climate change.

    I would like to say we're at a point where global warming is impossible to deny. Let's just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future.

    This assault betrays what's at the heart of the global warming agenda - a cadre of control freaks who can't respond to the overwhelming evidence that the Sun and other long term natural cycles are responsible for climate change and thus have to resort to vile propagandistic personality attacks to sway the court of public opinion.

    During a debate on the BBC's Question Time program, a panelist's appeal for viewers to simply look at both sides of the argument and consider other causes besides the man-made explanation was met with boos and cat-calls from the audience and the speaker was shouted down. It's now treated as sacrilegious to even question the force fed dogma that leads the automatons to endlessly repeat what has been brainwashed into them by the establishment media like a broken record.

    "We can't afford to have this debate," they scream, arguing that the end is nigh and unbelievers need to be metaphorically burned at the stake of public opinion in the interests of human survival.

    But for those with memories and the nerve to actually think for themselves, the climate doomsayers have been proven wrong throughout the decades. In the late 60's and early 70's, the in-vogue hysteria about climate change and how it spelled the end for humanity as we know it revolved around the concept of global cooling. Again, this arose out of a misunderstanding of long term temperature fluctuations and the fact that the earth was at the end of the cycle of the Little Ice Age.

    Writer John Bender has done an excellent job of compiling quotes from environmental "authorities" of past decades who told us that the sky was falling yet have been completely discredited with hindsight. Keep these dire proclamations in mind when you hear yet another "repeater" regurgitate the brainwashing that he or she has been indoctrinated with by the establishment.



















































    The continued rapid cooling of the earth since WWII is in accord with the increase in global air pollution associated with industrialization, mechanization, urbanization and exploding population. -- Reid Bryson, "Global Ecology; Readings towards a rational strategy for Man", (1971)































































































    The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s, the world will undergo famines. Hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. Population control is the only answer -- Paul Ehrlich - The Population Bomb (1968) ​




    I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000 -- Paul Ehrlich in (1969)​




    In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish. -- Paul Ehrlich, Earth Day (1970) ​




    Before 1985, mankind will enter a genuine age of scarcity . . . in which the accessible supplies of many key minerals will be facing depletion -- Paul Ehrlich in (1976)​




    This [cooling] trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century -- Peter Gwynne, Newsweek 1976 ​




    There are ominous signs that the earth's weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production - with serious political implications for just about every nation on earth. The drop in food production could begin quite soon... The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologist are hard-pressed to keep up with it. -- Newsweek, April 28, (1975)​




    This cooling has already killed hundreds of thousands of people. If it continues and no strong action is taken, it will cause world famine, world chaos and world war, and this could all come about before the year 2000. -- Lowell Ponte "The Cooling", 1976​




    If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder by the year 2000...This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age. -- Kenneth E.F. Watt on air pollution and global cooling, Earth Day (1970) ​

























    The IPCC is a political body, not a scientific organization, therefore its proclamation is purely intended at achieving a political agenda. The document they released on February 2 that was devotedly afforded days of intense coverage by the compliant establishment media was a political manifesto based on a scientific undertaking that has not even been completed. How empirical is a "scientific experiment" whose conclusions are announced before tests have even been completed? The document immediately states that the "scientific" research is being edited to conform to the already released political summary. ​


















































    “Changes (other than grammatical or minor editorial changes) made after acceptance by the Working Group or the Panel shall be those necessary to ensure consistency with the Summary for Policymakers or the Overview Chapter,” states the brief.

    The U.N. has confidently announced "case closed" on man-made global warming because they are editing their own uncompleted report to mirror their pre-conceived conclusion. Hardly "independent" is it?


    [​IMG]

    The IPCC report was piggybacked onto a bandwagon of public relations stunts that had nothing to do with the evidence behind global warming but were enough to leave an impression in the mind of the casual viewer that the man-made explanation was a global consensus. These included the Eiffel Tower's lights being turned off for 5 minutes and a ludicrous incident in which British primate expert Jane Goodall imitated the wild call of a tropical chimpanzee. ​

    Czech President Klaus stated, "Global warming is a false myth and every serious person and scientist says so. It is not fair to refer to the U.N. panel. IPCC is not a scientific institution: it's a political body, a sort of non-government organization of green flavor. It's neither a forum of neutral scientists nor a balanced group of scientists. These people are politicized scientists who arrive there with a one-sided opinion and a one-sided assignment."

    Man-made advocates go to great lengths to highlight the fact that transnational oil giants such as Exxon-Mobil offer thousands of dollars for reports aimed at disproving the UN theory, claiming this taints any opposing viewpoint as biased, and yet conveniently ignore the fact that it was the U.N. itself and Ted Turner, a man-made devotee and advocate of drastic population reduction to save the planet, who gifted the organization $1 Billion which in part funded the IPCC report. Is that not biased? Is that not a example of scientists being lavishly bankrolled to produce evidence that fits a pre-conceived outcome? Is the fact that a carbon tax fueled by fear of climate change that will go directly to assorted U.N. agencies itself a commentary on the U.N.'s role on hyping man-made global warming?

    In addition, Greenpeace are recruiting "global warming field organizer's" whose job it is to lobby members of Congress to push the agenda for man-made global warming. So if you thought your donation was going to help save whales or protect the rainforest you're sorely mistaken - it's partly funding a PR assault that will eventually orbit right back to you in the form of a draconian carbon emissions tax that will do nothing to prevent global warming but will fill the pockets of global government and the U.N.

    Not all scientists were prepared to sacrifice their impartiality to be in on the scam. Dr. Chris Landsea resigned from the IPCC in his own words because, “I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound.”

    Landsea is one of many climate experts, meteorologists, geologists and others who have braved the scorn of the flat-earthers to point out that man-made advocates have utilized myopic and blinkered scientific trickery to make their case.


    (continued in next thread...)​
     
  2. Pressed_Rat

    Pressed_Rat Do you even lift, bruh?

    Messages:
    33,922
    Likes Received:
    2,454
    (continued...)

    Timothy Ball, Chairman of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg, recently penned an outstanding piece in which he detailed how the illusion is being played out and how skeptics of the farce are increasingly being made pariahs simply for having an opposing view. Ball puts it better than I ever could so I make no apologies for quoting his article at length.

    Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was one of the first Canadian Ph.Ds. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition. Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and was a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening. Here is why.

    Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification.

    No sensible person seeks conflict, especially with governments, but if we don't pursue the truth, we are lost as individuals and as a society. That is why I insist on saying that there is no evidence that we are, or could ever cause global climate change. And, recently, Yuri A. Izrael, Vice President of the United Nations sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirmed this statement. So how has the world come to believe that something is wrong?

    Maybe for the same reason we believed, 30 years ago, that global cooling was the biggest threat: a matter of faith. "It is a cold fact: the Global Cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species," wrote Lowell Ponte in 1976.

    I was as opposed to the threats of impending doom global cooling engendered as I am to the threats made about Global Warming. Let me stress I am not denying the phenomenon has occurred. The world has warmed since 1680, the nadir of a cool period called the Little Ice Age (LIA) that has generally continued to the present. These climate changes are well within natural variability and explained quite easily by changes in the sun. But there is nothing unusual going on.

    Since I obtained my doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England my career has spanned two climate cycles. Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact. By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling.

    No doubt passive acceptance yields less stress, fewer personal attacks and makes career progress easier. What I have experienced in my personal life during the last years makes me understand why most people choose not to speak out; job security and fear of reprisals. Even in University, where free speech and challenge to prevailing wisdoms are supposedly encouraged, academics remain silent.

    No one disagrees with the notion that global warming is occurring, but to discount the fact that it has anything to do with that giant flaming ball of fire in our sky that we can barely look at without being blinded is ignorance unparalleled.

    How do we square the fact that almost every planet in our solar system is simultaneously undergoing temperature change and volatile weather patterns? Does this not suggest that global warming is a natural cycle as a result of the evolving nature of the sun and other celestial phenomena? Can Al Gore fill me in on this one?

    Mars, Pluto, Jupiter, Saturn, Triton and numerous other nooks and crannies throughout the solar system are experiencing warming trends and volatile weather patterns. How many SUV's are there on Jupiter?

    The earth and its celestial counterparts are getting hotter because the Sun is burning more brightly than at any time in the past 1,000 years, according to a study undertaken by the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Gottingen, Germany.

    In addition, cosmic rays from exploding stars have now been found to contribute substantially to cloud formation and the greenhouse effect as the London Times reported yesterday.

    The simple fact is that throughout the ages the earth has swung wildly between a warm, wet, stable climate, to a cold, dry and windy one - long before the first fossil fuel was burned. The changes we are now witnessing are a walk in the park compared to the battering that our rugged planet has taken in the past.

    This is not a defense of the oil cartels or the Neo-Con wreckers, who would have every motivation to ignore global warming whether it is man-made or not.

    Nor is it a blanket denial of the fact that the earth is getting very gradually hotter, but how do we reconcile global warming taking place at the farthest reaches of the solar system with the contention that it is caused by human activity? Have our exhaust fumes left earth's atmosphere and slipped through a black hole to Triton?

    Countless other heroes of science have put their reputation and careers on the line in the name of truth to expose the man-made fraud and challenge the creeping fascism being engendered by means of using political correctness to hijack the debate. They have bucked the orthodoxy and risked being stripped of their credentials, as the Weather Channel’s most prominent climatologist would have it. Here are several insightful statements from these brave individuals.

    I have been in operational meteorology since 1978, and I know dozens and dozens of broadcast meteorologists all over the country. Our big job: look at a large volume of raw data and come up with a public weather forecast for the next seven days. I do not know of a single TV meteorologist who buys into the man-made global warming hype. I know there must be a few out there, but I can’t find them. Billions of dollars of grant money is flowing into the pockets of those on the man-made global warming bandwagon. No man-made global warming, the money dries up. This is big money, make no mistake about it. Always follow the money trail and it tells a story. Even the lady at “The Weather Channel” probably gets paid good money for a prime time show on climate change. No man-made global warming, no show, and no salary. Nothing wrong with making money at all, but when money becomes the motivation for a scientific conclusion, then we have a problem. For many, global warming is a big cash grab. The climate of this planet has been changing since God put the planet here. It will always change, and the warming in the last 10 years is not much difference than the warming we saw in the 1930s and other decades. And, lets not forget we are at the end of the ice age in which ice covered most of North America and Northern Europe.
    ABC-TV Meteorologist James Spann.

    "It's not 2,500 people offering their consensus, I participated in that. Each person who is an author writes one or two pages in conjunction with someone else. They travel around the world several times a year for several years to write it and the summary for policymakers has the input of about 13 of the scientists, but ultimately, it is written by representatives of governments, of environmental organizations like the Union of Concerned Scientists, and industrial organizations, each seeking their own benefit."
    MIT's Professor of Atmospheric Science Dr. Richard Lindzen on the IPCC report.

    "Climate keeps changing all the time. The fact that climate changes is not in itself a threat."
    Dr. S. Fred Singer, Atmospheric Physicist at George Mason University.

    Man-made global warming feeds into humanity's arrogant self-importance in thinking that it has become the master and therefore the decider of the earth's destiny. On an individual level, it also helps a person stroke their ego and feel good about themselves for recycling a few beer cans or wine bottles in the belief that they're saving the planet, and also gives them the excuse to exercise their judgment against anyone who doesn't do likewise.

    Fearmongering about an imminent climate doomsday also hogs news coverage and important environmental issues like GM food, mad scientist chimera cloning and the usurpation and abuse of corporations like Monsanto flies under the radar.

    Global warming is cited as an excuse to meter out further control and surveillance over our daily lives, RFID chips on our trash cans, GPS satellite tracking and taxation by the mile, as well as a global tax at the gas pump.

    The extremist wing of the environmentalist movement, characterized by people like Dr. Erik Pianka, advocate the mass culling of humanity via plagues and state sanctioned bio-terrorism, in order to "save" the earth from the disease of humanity. Nazi-like genocidal population control measures and the environmental establishment have always held a close alliance.

    The world is laboring under enforced adherence to a program of mass deception while scientists who attempt to blow the whistle on the fraud are silenced, tarred, ridiculed and fired. The biased control freaks at the United Nations and their intellectually spayed cheerleaders, whose goal it is to use the hysteria of climate change to impose draconian control measures on society and centralize world power, have declared "case closed" on the man-made origins of global warming. However, their foolish attempts to zealously mute mere expression of an opposing view betray the inherent flaws of their own mantra and will ultimately lead to its downfall.
     
  3. mondoglove

    mondoglove Member

    Messages:
    208
    Likes Received:
    73
    it's good to hear an opposing viewpoint, but this article purports the same kind of blanket criticism that it denounces. also, the justification for resisting the scientific consensus (real or not) to avoid UN control measures and the centralizing of world power, is barely elaborated. it seems that this is the real issue, but the article can tell us next to nothing about it. what exactly is this 'centralized world power?'

    carbon tax may indeed fill the pockets of some, but if it results in a reduction in our dependence on fossil fuels, i don't really care. obviously an issue like this one is bound to generate hysteria, but that doesn't mean that everyone concerned about it is an extremist. regardless of whether man-made warming exists, we are still creating environmental disasters on a global scale. what spurs the change in our behaviour isn't as important as the actual change. to step back and examine the issue from a different perspective reveals a global mindset which is concerned about the impact of our species as a whole. the science may be whack but, with leadership and guidance, we can use this mass awareness to begin to combat very real man-made issues such as:

    industrial pollution, destruction of ecosystems- particularly rainforest, localized smog, overfishing, wasteful and inefficient use of resources, to name a few.

    i don't know who would want to argue against a reduction in the above, unless their paycheck depended on it. these problems and others are extremely harmfull to both the environment and human beings. the reason many have difficulty accepting the deniers of global warming, is that they seem to advocate no change in our destructive behaviour. meanwhile, environmentally aware people may make a small change for the better, regardless of global warming's validity.

    i don't agree with the stifling of resistent scientists either, but i welcome a re-evaluation of destructive human behaviour by the greater population. if this leads to the use of sustainable resources, then at least it has an element of good. i do not fear control measures because i don't see how they will adversely affect my life, if they are substantial at all?
     
  4. Pressed_Rat

    Pressed_Rat Do you even lift, bruh?

    Messages:
    33,922
    Likes Received:
    2,454
    First of all, you need to look at the people and organizations promoting this global warming agenda at the top. Then ask yourself what could stand to be gained by them pushing this agenda. This is not some grassroots agenda. This is a political agenda in every way, being promoted from the very top. There is nothing scientific about it. Propaganda and fear-mongering is not science.

    I have no doubt that polluting the air and water is not good for anyone. However, I can't buy into the notion that humans are the cause of global warming when there is nothing to prove that's the case. As a matter of fact, the most solid evidence shows the exact opposite to be true.

    The people at the top pushing this have a globalist, collectivist agenda. First of all they want to create an international global warming tax, which is what the Kyoto Treaty is about. Those at the top -- these globalists -- also want to establish international laws, which equates to more international control and the further erosion of national sovereignty. We have already seen much of this in the way of the World Health Organization and UNESCO, which are both global bodies working to establish international standards as part of the one world/New World Order agenda.

    Most people have probably never even read the Earth Charter, or looked at some of the people behind it. Look into the backgrounds of such shady characters as Maurice Strong and Mikhail Gorbachev, who are spearheading this agenda at the top. Most people have never heard of the UN's 'Agenda 21', much less read what is outlined within it. This all ties in with a complete change in the way we will live our lives. Eventually we will be herded like cattle into UN habitat areas, private property rights will be eliminated, the right to own a vehicle will be prohibited, and, according to their own reports, the population of this planet will have to be greatly reduced. Do you think any of them will volunteer to be euthanized? I kind of doubt it.

    Why don't you try looking into the man who founded the modern day environmental movement, Prince Bernhard (founder of the World Wildlife Fund), who was an ardent supporter of the nazis and eugenics, as well as the founder of the Bilderberg Group, whose goal is the creation of a fascistic one world government.

    Lastly, read the quote in my signature area. If this doesn't give you some idea what this is all about, I don't know what will.
     
    Farmnaked likes this.
  5. RawAndNatural

    RawAndNatural Member

    Messages:
    743
    Likes Received:
    20
    Core ice samples are scientific evidence, and not political propaganda. The majority of scientist agree that global warming is due to human activities, and that global warming is real.

    The oposing camp is empasizing that global warming is a "theory". A very small minority of scientist side with this camp.
     
  6. Pressed_Rat

    Pressed_Rat Do you even lift, bruh?

    Messages:
    33,922
    Likes Received:
    2,454
    From what I can see, the majority of the scientists who believe that global warming is caused by humans are the ones who are paid to come to that conclusion.

    As far as the core ice samples, they do prove global warming exists, which I am not denying. However, Antarctic ice core samples show that the rise in carbon dioxide levels lags behind temperature rise by 800 years.
     
  7. mondoglove

    mondoglove Member

    Messages:
    208
    Likes Received:
    73
    the agenda 21 situation fails to evoke much reaction out of me, and i have looked at a range of opinions on it. some of the methods and ideas i disagree with, but i refuse to be afraid of the spectre of global masters.

    i think the leap from agenda 21 implementation to forced human habitation areas and reduced property/transportation rights is a little far fetched. i know these things are outlined in the manifesto to some extent, but i fail to see how the population would simply submit to this total control. where individual rights are concerned, i think we have as much, if not more to fear from the state. some worse than others.

    the issue of climate change is much bigger than politics. our political structures are a somewhat arbitrary social construction, while earth's weather patterns have very concrete live-or-die implications. in this sense i find it strange that you would focus on the UN angle of the issue in the face of things like mass migration, access to resources and increased natural disasters.

    again, the denial point of view doesn't advocate any solution or method of dealing with the issue, it just tells us not to believe the scientific consensus. i'm less interested in wether climate change is man-made, and more concerned about devising ways of softening the blow. we must reduce our dependence on finite resources and suspend the destruction of the biosphere.
     
  8. mark777

    mark777 Member

    Messages:
    15
    Likes Received:
    0
    At least the hole in the ozone layer and this deadly bird flu is out of the news now. Yes our politicions are pandering to the global warming believers, by getting energy efficent cars, but effectively doing nothing about it in reality, here in new Zealand, but it seems public opinion is in favour of co2 induced global warming, and all major polictical parties promising to do something about it even though none believe in it.
     
  9. mogarth456

    mogarth456 Member

    Messages:
    7
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well there are things you can do to help reduce the amount of harm you are causing the enviroment, you can do this by offsetting your carbon on websites such as; www.co2debt.com . On these sites you are able to prevent climate change by funding ethical reforestation projects. I personally found that www.co2debt.com was the best site for this because of their strong relationships with other non-profit organizations
     
  10. JibberJabber

    JibberJabber Member

    Messages:
    98
    Likes Received:
    0
    I saw this very good documentary on global warming recently. You should watch it too. It's long, about an hour...but take the time and see the whole thing.

    The short version? The planet was warming up before we ever built a factory. It would keep warming even if we closed every factory right now, or never built one. And then it would start cooling off again. That's nature.

    And even if this trend continued, it's not the end of the world. The middle ages were significantly warmer than it is now (guess it was all the industrial pollution?) and life somehow survived. There are people whose business is making an issue out of global warming, and they want to make sure that business is good.

    Global warming hysteria has a number of negative effects, but perhaps most damning is the chilling effect that certain international global warming policies and initiatives have on the developing world. Forcing people to live in squallor because a bunch of folks feel like they need to make an issue out of something that isn't is extremely arrogant and ego/ethno-centric. There are better and smarter ways to protect the environment.
     
  11. Nalencer

    Nalencer Dig Yourself

    Messages:
    2,421
    Likes Received:
    2
    That's absolutely right.
     
  12. JibberJabber

    JibberJabber Member

    Messages:
    98
    Likes Received:
    0
    Right on man...glad I'm not getting flayed alive.

    So far.
     
  13. lovelyxmalia

    lovelyxmalia Banana Hammock Lifetime Supporter

    Messages:
    5,536
    Likes Received:
    9
    the Better World Project that I am working on does promote the ceasing of global warming, however, I completely agree with you. I just feel that people can make our environment a better place by NOT throwing their recyclables in the garbage and by buying energy efficient appliances/cars/etc...this may not be needed to cease global warming, but it is helpful to the wallets of people and the environment.

    I would rather see people picking up local parks and recycling their unused items, than to see people go energy-efficient, but I feel that tips to cease global warming go hand-in-hand with helping our environment.

    Thank you for this info, though. Maybe those who are trying to stop global warming don't realize that there is no use...maybe they're just blinded to it.
     
  14. Nalencer

    Nalencer Dig Yourself

    Messages:
    2,421
    Likes Received:
    2
    The people at the top who are pushing the global warming nonsense don't care about the environment at all. It's being used to push an agenda for global control. Simply put, they've created a global problem, because they know that a global problem will require global "solutions". Hence, global laws and taxes which erode national sovereighty and human rights.

    I'm not saying that people aren't damaging the environment, but they are not causing global warming. While environmental damage is happening, it's not nearly on a large enough scale to cause any major upheaval, despite what some would have us believe.
     
  15. JibberJabber

    JibberJabber Member

    Messages:
    98
    Likes Received:
    0
    Watching this again...take a look around minute 40 or so with Patrick Moore describing a situation within Greenpeace that he disagreed with...banning chlorine worldwide. "I think this is outside of our jurisdiction to ban an entire element." Brilliant! I couldn't imagine banning chlorine...FFS, that's what I use to clean my stuff.

    A lesson to be learned from this, global warming aside, is that environmental activism sometimes amounts to a lot of hysteria and extremism, and not rationality.
     
  16. JibberJabber

    JibberJabber Member

    Messages:
    98
    Likes Received:
    0
    And re:recycling...I've read in several places that it actually costs more, energy-wise, to recycle many plastics than it would to just make more plastics. I'm not 100% sure this is the case, or that this is always the case, but it's something to think about. If it were true, then maybe recycling is another thing that is more about business sense than conservation/environmentalism.
     
  17. lovelyxmalia

    lovelyxmalia Banana Hammock Lifetime Supporter

    Messages:
    5,536
    Likes Received:
    9
    I never thought of it that way. You are probably right. It probably costs more to run the machines in the plant that remolds plastic. However...our landfill in my town supports 8 surrounding towns. This landfill is over 5 sq.mi. This may not seem like much, but it has been overfilled for over 10 years now, causing 310 ft masses of...well...dump.

    If we could just eliminate this waste, somehow...maybe reuse what we have or find new uses for paper products-i.e. burning it...it could be better.
     
  18. JibberJabber

    JibberJabber Member

    Messages:
    98
    Likes Received:
    0
    5 square miles of garbage seems huge. I know it's just a drop in the bucket compared to what communities actually produce, but still...it's pretty mind boggling to think about it.

    Hopefully, as time goes on and technology, planning, and engineering play their roles, problems like this will be addressed properly. There probably won't ever be a better solution than burying most of the stuff...but surely we can find cost-effective ways to bury it and after some generations reclaim the land. Wouldn't it be amazing if you could tell your grandkids, "See this park? Well, when I was a younger woman, it was a 300 foot tall pile of garbage, more than 2 miles wide!"
     
  19. Nalencer

    Nalencer Dig Yourself

    Messages:
    2,421
    Likes Received:
    2
    I say we blast it into space.
     
  20. Any Color You Like

    Any Color You Like Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,147
    Likes Received:
    3
    Martin Durkin, the director of this film

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Durkin_(television_director)

    I suggest you take a look.
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice