Anti-Global Warming Propaganda Goes Here

It's true!

Only a couple of decades ago there was a huge hype about "Global Cooling".

It was really serious - just like Global Warming - and they disgusted taking measures to melt the ice caps.

 

The only climate change has been political climate change.

Now that I've said that for effect, it is true that the earth's climate changes, and with the weather phenomena it's undeniably that there is something going on, but it's not because of carbon dioxide from our cars.

http://www.co2science.org/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=29

 

What exactly happened to the hype over the Ozone Hole?

http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/s703932.htm

Hard to set up greenhouse warming when you greenhouse has a big hole in it.

 

And:

"... Polar bear population in 1972 was 5,000. Polar bear population today is 25,000... "
Glenn Beck, May 14, 2008

Polar bears are not endangered.

 

Why does no one question that Gore is now making his money off carbon offsets, isn't that a conflict of interest?

http://www.billhobbs.com/2007/02/more_on_gore.html

 

Yupyup, I was trying to explain to a friend why an Inconvenient Truth was a load of crap, and she didn't understand any of it because she didn't know why he'd do that.

$$$$$

 

I think the greenhouse gases are supposed to be creating the hole or something

 

Epistemological hedonism: if it feels good, believe it.

If you feel good denying global warming, deny it.

If you feel good believing there's a contradiction between greenhouse gases and a hole in the ozone cap, believe it.

Even refuse thinking, discussing or analyzing it.

Better, make isolated assertions and run to the next forum.

You can even say "they disgusted measures" 'cause "disgusted" means "discussed" because you like to believe it does so.

You can say, if it pleases you, that polar bears tenfolded or they became pink because of Henry Mancini.

You can envy Al Gore, as he has money and reputation you have not, if it pleases your guts. Give green light to your hate for him and all the rich, if it pleases you, or at least it gives vent to that feeling that corrodes your guts.

You live in an era of epistemological hedonism. Technology, capital and people that don't think this way make goods you consume and everyday culture, and you can go on with your life, believing what you want to believe. Take advance of it (Don't protest if your are regarded as the last link of the social chain).

Epistemological hedonism lets you to believe that global warming doesn't exist, and that it is a natural process, and that it is unavoidable though human caused, besides polar bears are happily drinking their piña coladas. There are no contradictions: just believe it so.

Embrace epistemological hedonism. Chose the set of beliefs you prefer. Take the thick menu of this Idea Restaurant and choose any combination: reincarnation, with global cooling, but Jupiter align with unreachable Mars, and, by the way, they are broadcasting from a hidden place in Arizona, because you also can believe that no human objects ever left the Earth.

Believe, and all your dreams will became your personal delusion ...
Believe the same as other, and your dreams will became your group identification...
Believe within a culture of believers, and your dreams will get what is valuable for you...

90% of what's behind Global Warming is epistemological hedonism.
99.5% of what's behind denying Global Warming is epistemological hedonism.

 

Holy shit. For condescending bullshit, that was pretty deep.

 

sure you do, that's why you're so sold on one side of this discussion while ignoring the other side. facts are facts, there is NO solid evidence to verify humans are the cause of global warming.

 

skip, the oregon institute of science and medicine has nothing to do with the oil lobby. where you get that from i do not know. but it isn't from reality. so you actually took the time to look up each and every one of those numerous names to verify wether or not they are scientists of any type? let alone environmental scientists? i smell bullshit.

 

http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/swindle.htm By S. Fred Singer, (Atmospheric Physicist)
March 19, 2007

Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth has met its match: a devastating documentary recently shown on British television, which has now been viewed by millions of people on the Internet. Despite its flamboyant title, The Great Global Warming Swindle is based on sound science and interviews with real climate scientists, including me. An Inconvenient Truth, on the other hand, is mostly an emotional presentation from a single politician.
The scientific arguments presented in The Great Global Warming Swindle can be stated quite briefly:
1. There is no proof that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from human activity. Ice core records from the past 650,000 years show that temperature increases have preceded—not resulted from—increases in CO2 by hundreds of years, suggesting that the warming of the oceans is an important source of the rise in atmospheric CO2. As the dominant greenhouse gas, water vapour is far, far more important than CO2. Dire predictions of future warming are based almost entirely on computer climate models, yet these models do not accurately understand the role or water vapor—and, in any case, water vapor is not within our control. Plus, computer models cannot account for the observed cooling of much of the past century (1940–75), nor for the observed patterns of warming—what we call the “fingerprints.” For example, the Antarctic is cooling while models predict warming. And where the models call for the middle atmosphere to warm faster than the surface, the observations show the exact opposite.
The best evidence supporting natural causes of temperature fluctuations are the changes in cloudiness, which correspond strongly with regular variations in solar activity. The current warming is likely part of a natural cycle of climate warming and cooling that’s been traced back almost a million years. It accounts for the Medieval Warm Period around 1100 A.D., when the Vikings settled Greenland and grew crops, and the Little Ice Age, from about 1400 to 1850 A.D., which brought severe winters and cold summers to Europe, with failed harvests, starvation, disease, and general misery. Attempts have been made to claim that the current warming is “unusual” using spurious analysis of tree rings and other proxy data. Advocates have tried to deny the existence of these historic climate swings and claim that the current warming is "unusual" by using spurious analysis of tree rings and other proxy data, resulting in the famous “hockey–stick” temperature graph. The hockey-stick graph has now been thoroughly discredited.
2. If the cause of warming is mostly natural, then there is little we can do about it. We cannot control the inconstant sun, the likely origin of most climate variability. None of the schemes for greenhouse gas reduction currently bandied about will do any good; they are all irrelevant, useless, and wildly expensive:
• Control of CO2 emissions, whether by rationing or elaborate cap–and–trade schemes
• Uneconomic “alternative” energy, such as ethanol and the impractical “hydrogen economy”
• Massive installations of wind turbines and solar collectors
• Proposed projects for the sequestration of CO2 from smokestacks or even from the atmosphere
Ironically, even if CO2 were responsible for the observed warming trend, all these schemes would be ineffective—unless we could persuade every nation, including China, to cut fuel use by 80 percent!
3. Finally, no one can show that a warmer climate would produce negative impacts overall. The much–feared rise in sea levels does not seem to depend on short–term temperature changes, as the rate of sea–level increases has been steady since the last ice age, 10,000 years ago. In fact, many economists argue that the opposite is more likely—that warming produces a net benefit, that it increases incomes and standards of living. Why do we assume that the present climate is the optimum? Surely, the chance of this must be vanishingly small, and the economic history of past climate warmings bear this out.
But the main message of The Great Global Warming Swindle is much broader. Why should we devote our scarce resources to what is essentially a non–problem, and ignore the real problems the world faces: hunger, disease, denial of human rights—not to mention the threats of terrorism and nuclear wars? And are we really prepared to deal with natural disasters; pandemics that can wipe out most of the human race, or even the impact of an asteroid, such as the one that wiped out the dinosaurs? Yet politicians and the elites throughout much of the world prefer to squander our limited resources to fashionable issues, rather than concentrate on real problems. Just consider the scary predictions emanating from supposedly responsible world figures: the chief scientist of Great Britain tells us that unless we insulate our houses and use more efficient light bulbs, the Antarctic will be the only habitable continent by 2100, with a few surviving breeding couples propagating the human race. Seriously!
I imagine that in the not–too–distant future all the hype will have died down, particularly if the climate should decide to cool—as it did during much of the past century; we should take note here that it has not warmed since 1998. Future generations will look back on the current madness and wonder what it was all about. They will have movies like An Inconvenient Truth and documentaries like The Great Global Warming Swindle to remind them.

 

Thank you Elijah, you said it all perfectly. I haven't seen the film you're talking about, but it's something I'll have to bring up to my school's Environmental Club

As far as what was said earlier, feeling good about believing or something like that - that has absolutely been the argument of the other side and what has kept them from being completely blown out of the water.
If feels much better to be part of the self-righteousness in the moment to "clean up" the planet. It feels better to think you can change the natural climate change.

This generation especially is bored. They feel the need to make a big deal out of something, to have something be their own. Why on Earth we don't all realize we could create quite a revolution out of defending our rights and so forth at the moment is beyond me - but probably lies with the fact that hasn't been as propagated (as of yet).

 

I don't envy Al Gore, I question why he's allowed to profit from carbon offsets. I will never hate a person just because they do or don't not have money. But I will always stand up and bring into the open those that wish to benefit unreasonably from the efforts of others under false pretenses.

Afterall this is the man that said he invented the internet.

Epistemologic hedonism? Doesn't changing consumer markets through the promulgating of false premises and theories lead to more of the same, without actually addressing the real problem. It must certainly feel good to those selling their goods.

 

You were not the particular addressee of my post. Either way I've never known of someone answering "yes, I envy ZZ" in the middle of the debate.

You are not allowed to quote my words and modify the message the way your fake quotation fits your interests. Correct that "mistake" using the editing features this forum provides, and attribute the last sentence to you, not falsely to me, as you did.

I think the concept of good/bad faith is elusive to many who take part in the debate, seen the means used to conduct it.

 

What did I fake? Didn't you say that?

 

Well does it?

 

That really sells your viewpoint to me, NOT!.

 

Not what you said? See the little man can remarket as well. Epistemological Hedonism works both ways for the market and the consumer, and no one should ever assume the other is stupid.
Big words don't always intimidate.

 

This shouldn't be about consumers or market, it should be about protecting the environment, but it's not. It's about market trade. Which lead's me to believe it's a false op. Something designed to develop markets for certain interests. Prove me wrong. Is the environment benefitting , are consumers seeing lower prices, who benefits? All questions we should ask every time our governments ask us to make concessions, when they aren't.