Anti-Global Warming Propaganda Goes Here

Well, I didn't watch the movie anyway. I was agreeing with JibberJabber's summary. I see there that he argues in favor of GMO crops. He loses all credibility right there.

Not that I take back anything I've said about global warming. Just that I agree that this guy doesn't seem like the best person to be listening to.

 

The film was long ago debunked as based on false or outdated science.
http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=223598&page=1&pp=10

 

The "problem" is, that the raw resources people need, isn't so scarce as the enviro-wackos would have us to believe. Thus, it quite often costs more, to gather and sort all the stuff to recycle, than what the resource is worth.

According to some encyclopedia, 8% of the earth's crust is aluminum. And according to some news report I heard some years ago, about the only thing that saved any money to recycle, is aluminum. About 4 cents a can, I seem to recall hearing somewhere. Only 4 cents? And that's largely the energy saved in not having to process new ore? It would make far more sense for people to stop smoking nasty cancer stick cigarettes, as for most shop-aholic Americans, especially with easy credit and manufactured Federal Reserve "inflation," 4 cents is practically nothing, and now thanks to the community recycling pickup that "environmentalists" have imposed upon us, do we even get any of the money anymore for turning in recyclables?

We wouldn't even have "overflowing" landfills, if it wasn't for all the politicking in locating new ones. It's not merely "NIMBY" with so-called "environmentalists," but also "BANANA."

Not In My BackYard, and
Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything.

Well apparently, trash cans do need someplace to be emptied. Well unless we want to be like India, and just throw trash anywhere?

 

Oh really? Well even if what you claim is supposedly "true," it's still a far better video than Al Gore's crock-umentary of "An Inconvenient Truth."

Yeah, how "inconvenient" that some people aren't luddites, and actually like how modern technology does help for even the working poor to enjoy more things previously only available to the rich, such as say, electric lights, refrigeration or air conditioning. How "inconvenient" that most people don't prefer to take all day walking everywhere, rather than driving. How "inconvenient" that we don't have to make slaves or animals do all our work for us anymore?

I don't see backward luddites, or anti-people globalists, like Al Gore, suggesting anything any better. What's in it for me? Will I get any of the payouts of this huge global warming swindol?

How dare man try to pretend he is "god," and able more to "change" the weather than nature forces such as God, or a theory worthy of a lot more investigation, the sun.

And if so-called "scientists" were to see if they can dupe a gullible public with alarmist reports that the sun is going to "explode," as in the movie, Supernova, I probably wouldn't believe that either. Oh yeah, well tell me about the money-trail or the possible agenda of whoever would make up such lies? Plot-spoiler: And as usual, the "crisis" was solved, in the movie, by "Oh well, we goofed." The leading (alarmist) scientist had a plus sign in his mathmatical equations, where he should have had a minus sign. How typical. These modern "high priests" so-called "scientists" apparently aren't always so smart as they fancy themselves to be.

 

And why does a guy "lose credibility" for favoring GMO crops? Quite a lot of people don't believe humans should use any means of anti-life, awkward "birth control," myself included, and what if GMOs might be needed just to continue to feed the naturally burgeoning world population?

As I expect that the "food replicators" of Star Trek, probably won't come online, within the next few years? It will likely take longer, so what about looking at some sensible intermediate alternatives to get by, in the meantime? So I am open to considering GMOs, responsibly done and not the work of careless "mad scientists."

BTW, I like such good documentaries, and I am watching (or listening) to the video, right now.

 

You write well. What a waste of an intelligence

 

...there is global warming, that I never denied.

 

Well, I guess if you are going to dismiss the peer-reviewed papers put forth by anyone and everyone who says the IPCC and their conclusions are bullshit out of hand, then you'll be waiting a very long time!

Oh wait, how about I track down some of the writings of people who were on the IPCC to put together their most recent report, but had their submissions censored despite the IPCC keeping their names on the report. Yeah, that'll do. People like Paul Reiter and Christopher Landea are just two of many whose findings were removed from the IPCC, because global warming is a popularity contest, not true science. Science is fact, not consensus despite what you may have heard.

 

Paul Reiter is an epidemiologist, not a climatologist, and I can't find any information suggesting that his "submissions" were "censored" - at any rate they would be in the field of the putative effects of climate change on mosquito-borne malaria epidemics, not to do with the physical science basis of anthropogenic effects on climate change. Would it be beneath me to mention his association with a thinktank funded by Exxon Mobil? Quite possibly, since evidence of such a connection is not necessarily evidence of bias or corruption, but, well, it's just another thing to think about.

Christopher Landsea is an expert on hurricanes and resigned due to an objection to a comment a colleague on the IPCC made - to the media, outside of the IPCC - about global warming being responsible for an increase in hurricanes. Indeed a controversial claim as Landsea articulately explains in his resignation open letter to the community. The comments this individual made went well beyond what the IPCC report itself suggests, of course, and Landsea's criticisms of this individual's misuse of his association with the IPCC are principled and thoughtful. Landsea himself does not dispute global warming and is quoted on the wiki page you gave as saying:

"we certainly see substantial warming in the ocean and atmosphere over the last several decades on the order of a degree Fahrenheit, and I have no doubt a portion of that, at least, is due to greenhouse warming. The question is whether we're seeing any real increases in the hurricane activity."

With thousands of scientists involved in the IPCC process it would be surprising if a few of them did not object to its practices or disagree with its methods or with other members of the panel. The whole process is one of dispute and debate in order to attempt to hammer out a reasoned, rigorous and properly evidenced summary of what the climate community can agree upon as the best interpretation of the current science of climate change - with all the nuances, caveats and error margins that entails.

Evidence of disagreements, yes - as you'd fully expect, and I'd be more worried if there were no evidence of heated disagreement - but I see no evidence of suppression of contrary findings. Certainly in these two cases, they are not related to disputes about the physical science basis of anthropogenic climate change at all.

 

.

 

A short and sweet answer from me for this one:

I did not pick up my views about whats happening here from any kind of "propaganda". I was a thoughtful child, one of those silent types, and i took myself off on walks in the countryside from about age 10. I came to my very own conclusions based on what i had observed

As for it being "forced down our throats through television etc" in Europe...If only that were true! Its consumption consumption consumption here still, buy more, more more. Theres VERY little evidence that global warming is happening in our everyday advertising, and being the silent type i am, i often get to hear many European people talking on the subject, and i can assure you that most are still stuck in their ways, still believe everything will be ok no matter what, and are going on as usual

This is from first-hand personal experience. The rest aside

 

P.s-Im not naive. I totally think we have a lot to fear from control, the corruption of the government, all the rest of it. But saying the whole viewpoint of global-warming being at least in part man-made is wild hysteria is unfair to those who are doing their bit to try and improve our quality of life and help all other creatures on this Earth. Theyre not, to my knowledge, doing it out of any kind of desire to control or scare or anything else. Even if bigger organisations MAY possibly be. I feel its important to make this distinction

 

Oh and the (again, very simple) way i see it? Better safe than sorry, as my mum says What harm does it do to wash your clothes on a lower temperature, or turn off your lights when youre not in the room? None at all. Even if the whole thing is a sham

As i said before, if this is solely about not believing all you hear and not accepting control by big companies and those "higher" than us, then thats a totally serperate issue and i agree fully. But really, all this bleeting about global warming is pointless...cant we just do our bit (just INCASE theyre right and were killing the planet) privately without submitting to unfair rules and leave it at that? Win-win situation. The fact remains, we dont need all this smoke and bullshit in our air, water and on our land, and neither does any other creature

If your intention in posting this was NOT to discredit those who believe, as i do, we should be caring for the planet, then youve failed imo. Because people read these things and take them the wrong way. They dont take them as warnings about the government. They take them as an excuse to do whatever the hell they like and slag off anyone trying to make a difference

 

Not surprising. Most of the internet (presumably a primary source for people who aren't active in academia) is flooded with green and alarmist reports. It becomes an echo chamber by, of, and for the Chicken Littles of the climatologist world.

And government supported think tanks are the only ones claiming that global warming is happening, because creating a problem where there is none ensures that they will continue to have a long and happy career cashing in on government research grants (by far the most lucrative area of federally funded research...take that Exxon Mobile conspiracy theorists!) with their otherwise useless degrees.

 

In order to support the assertion that the problem is fictitious you would need to disprove the evidence which supports the theory or come up with new evidence which demonstrates otherwise. Given the amount of funding over the past decades from the energy industry poured into studies attempting to do just that it is telling that no such reliable evidence has been forthcoming.

Scientists make their careers by publishing new information which challenges some aspect of current scientific knowledge and makes a substantive contribution to knowledge. Falsifying a theory and discerning new evidence which enhances our understanding of something or overturns something we previously thought we new is the holy grail of the working scientist. If you really think there is no incentive to find evidence which overturns the consensus opinion on this or any other area of knowledge and proves other scientists wrong, then you are quite, quite mistaken