pro-environment websites
24-Apr-2009, 09:14 AM
#4
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: At your moms
Posts: 2,633
global warming is a liberal tool used to control what you do and buy...hmmm
regardless, global warming is a total crock and we all know it ...its more like global governance than anything else. al gore, a politician not a scientist...think about that one. hmmmm.
regardless, global warming is a total crock and we all know it ...its more like global governance than anything else. al gore, a politician not a scientist...think about that one. hmmmm.
24-Apr-2009, 11:33 AM
#6
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 161
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/24/sc...ef=global-home
The argument has been constantly shifting to fit itself into the ever narrowing crevices remaining.
First it was: It's not happening, business as usual.
Then it was: Well we can't deny that it's happening, but humans aren't causing it, business as usual.
Now it's evolving into it's terminal stage: We're probably causing it, but we can't do anything about it, business as usual.
You'll notice that there's only one consistent component of the argument and that is that there is no need to change anything at all about the way we generate and use energy.
That seems awfully convenient.
Is there any industry that doesn't spend millions on lobbying that hasn't had to adjust its methods or business model in the past 50 years?
That should make you go hmmm.
25-Apr-2009, 05:44 AM
#7
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: At your moms
Posts: 2,633
Much of your sentiment reflects a line of argument that was a completely dishonest attempt to sway public opinion. There's a story here about how some of the main players in promoting doubt about global warming knew as early as 1995 that they were just shilling for the oil and gas industry.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/24/sc...ef=global-home
The argument has been constantly shifting to fit itself into the ever narrowing crevices remaining.
First it was: It's not happening, business as usual.
Then it was: Well we can't deny that it's happening, but humans aren't causing it, business as usual.
Now it's evolving into it's terminal stage: We're probably causing it, but we can't do anything about it, business as usual.
You'll notice that there's only one consistent component of the argument and that is that there is no need to change anything at all about the way we generate and use energy.
That seems awfully convenient.
Is there any industry that doesn't spend millions on lobbying that hasn't had to adjust its methods or business model in the past 50 years?
That should make you go hmmm.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/24/sc...ef=global-home
The argument has been constantly shifting to fit itself into the ever narrowing crevices remaining.
First it was: It's not happening, business as usual.
Then it was: Well we can't deny that it's happening, but humans aren't causing it, business as usual.
Now it's evolving into it's terminal stage: We're probably causing it, but we can't do anything about it, business as usual.
You'll notice that there's only one consistent component of the argument and that is that there is no need to change anything at all about the way we generate and use energy.
That seems awfully convenient.
Is there any industry that doesn't spend millions on lobbying that hasn't had to adjust its methods or business model in the past 50 years?
That should make you go hmmm.
like gore not answering questions? one volcano puts more **** in to the enviroment than everyone on earth combined...sun spots are directly related to the temperature of the earth, co2 levels rise and fall due to the earths temp. not the other way around...plants love co2; plants release oxygen; people need oxygen to breath...do some research and you will find holes all over gores global warming message....like the hockey stick model he uses has a flawed formula as proven by a winnipeg university. main stream liberal media (ie:NYT)owns the general population, and its the reason we have the "greenies" pushing their enviro crap on everyone. controlling the public.
70's = they said global cooling was a problem- we had too much snow
90's = they said global warming was a problem- the summers were too damn hot
00's = they said its a climate change problem- we were too hot but now its getting cold again, we need a new name again."climate change"
the public sheep just follow along listening to the rants of actors and politicians (who are NOT scientists) agreeing because hollywood and the like all agree that "global cooling warming climate change" might do something bad...and YOU caused it
politicians on the other hand are THE biggest problem we have on earth and maybe we need a group to fight them...fight the war on "global political bullshit".
Last edited by LEITNER; 25-Apr-2009 at 06:05 AM.
27-Apr-2009, 12:23 PM
#10
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 161
Oh, I don't care about Gore's message. He's preaching to the retards that make up 90% of our society. It's like criticizing a kindergarten teacher for being simplistic.
Same for all of the newspapers and PR firms involved. They are just pushing sound bites to people who don't know anything. Supporters of both sides come equipped with a nice collection of "thoughts" that they can throw around to make "their" case and what we get is a whole lot of uninformed parrots making a lot of noise.
But ignore that noise, and what you see is that, outside of the paid off guys who work at places like the Marshall Institute (one of their top guys has also made the case AGAINST second hand smoke being harmful, and yes he was paid by a tobacco company at the time. Now he says that climate change isn't happening, and yes he's being paid by an oil company), no serious scientists disagree with the general premise of anthropogenic climate change.
I'm not coming at this as someone who's read a bunch of opinion pieces. I'm a guy who has a degree in Aerospace Engineering, a lot of experience in computer modelling, and I currently work in the energy industry working mainly on heat transfer and flow.
This is happening. It requires a solution. The solution is not some incremental BS like using LED lighting.
Same for all of the newspapers and PR firms involved. They are just pushing sound bites to people who don't know anything. Supporters of both sides come equipped with a nice collection of "thoughts" that they can throw around to make "their" case and what we get is a whole lot of uninformed parrots making a lot of noise.
But ignore that noise, and what you see is that, outside of the paid off guys who work at places like the Marshall Institute (one of their top guys has also made the case AGAINST second hand smoke being harmful, and yes he was paid by a tobacco company at the time. Now he says that climate change isn't happening, and yes he's being paid by an oil company), no serious scientists disagree with the general premise of anthropogenic climate change.
I'm not coming at this as someone who's read a bunch of opinion pieces. I'm a guy who has a degree in Aerospace Engineering, a lot of experience in computer modelling, and I currently work in the energy industry working mainly on heat transfer and flow.
This is happening. It requires a solution. The solution is not some incremental BS like using LED lighting.
27-Apr-2009, 12:28 PM
#11
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: GTA
Posts: 2,305
27-Apr-2009, 03:39 PM
#12
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 161
All three of those countries have a long term goal which is to burn every chip of coal that they can possibly find. Their politicians can not see beyond the relative cost advantage of digging something out of the ground and burning it. In all three countries, there are massive downsides in that a lot of their poor people live close to water.
For a solution, you can go two ways:
You could start by swapping out coal plants for nuclear stations and fixing the problems with the electrical grids.
Or
You could start making plans to relocate all of the people who are living at sea level.
There's money to be made (and spent) in both, but none of them have that short term, and short sighted, appeal of just burning cheap coal without thinking too hard about it.
For a solution, you can go two ways:
You could start by swapping out coal plants for nuclear stations and fixing the problems with the electrical grids.
Or
You could start making plans to relocate all of the people who are living at sea level.
There's money to be made (and spent) in both, but none of them have that short term, and short sighted, appeal of just burning cheap coal without thinking too hard about it.
27-Apr-2009, 03:45 PM
#13
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: GTA
Posts: 2,305
All three of those countries have a long term goal which is to burn every chip of coal that they can possibly find. Their politicians can not see beyond the relative cost advantage of digging something out of the ground and burning it. In all three countries, there are massive downsides in that a lot of their poor people live close to water.
For a solution, you can go two ways:
You could start by swapping out coal plants for nuclear stations and fixing the problems with the electrical grids.
Or
You could start making plans to relocate all of the people who are living at sea level.
There's money to be made (and spent) in both, but none of them have that short term, and short sighted, appeal of just burning cheap coal without thinking too hard about it.
For a solution, you can go two ways:
You could start by swapping out coal plants for nuclear stations and fixing the problems with the electrical grids.
Or
You could start making plans to relocate all of the people who are living at sea level.
There's money to be made (and spent) in both, but none of them have that short term, and short sighted, appeal of just burning cheap coal without thinking too hard about it.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
SilverCRXSi
CFz Discussion
7
31-Oct-2002 06:54 PM
imported_94EG6HB
Custom Honda Civic Exterior - Lighting
0
20-Jul-2002 08:48 PM
imported_bigDrew
Custom Honda Civic Exterior - Lighting
6
08-May-2002 02:26 AM
