Latest on MJJC

The Global Warming Deception

Bob George

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
1,168
Points
0
Location
Brisbane, Australia
So I made a thread not too long ago called "The Obama Deception" which was really just to share and promote a great documentary I saw with the same title but it turned into a really great discussion about the new U.S. President and if he really is "change", if he really is working for the people, or if he's just working for the banks like every other President.

This thread is going to be similar but about another very popular issue on which I think the the vast majority of the population have been yet again deceived. First, like in the last thread I'd like to share a very interesting documentary. The Great Global Warming Swindle. Watch it if you please. I encourage you to because I don't think many people have even bothered to consider the other side of this issue yet.

The basic points made in the film are that life depends on CO2 so it is not a pollutant, that man is responsible for only a very small percentage of CO2 emissions and that the real cause of global warming and cooling is the sun, not SUVs, air conditioners and light bulbs. But perhaps the best point made against global warming is the political goals of global warming advocates.

Politicians have made it no secret. What they want out of this global warming issue is more taxes on you and me. Carbon tax. Taxing us on the natural emission of carbon dioxide. They have even discussed tracking our carbon footprint and taxing us according to that. That means they'll have to heavily regulate and track our use of electricity, our consumption of food, our travel. That means meters on our cars, buying our food with carbon credits that we have to earn by not using electricity. A lot of ideas are being thrown around and they all mean we'll have to be even more watched and control by the government.

A more scary goal of the global warming movement is population control and sustainability which basically means some of us have to die to save the planet. They want less of us. There are too many people and that's being blamed for global warming. So people around the world are advocating one child policies and similar policies restricting off-spring. God knows what other policies some people are thinking up to cull off the population.

I don't know if man-made global warming, caused by CO2 emissions is real or not (there are convincing, conflicting arguments from both sides) but I do know that I don't like the end goal of the global warming movement. What do you guys think?
 
CO2 isn't the only greenhouse gas that is contributing to global warming, and I doubt the money and effort being spent on the issue is worth them trying to tax us a tad more when they could simply raise the tax on gasoline (or this "CO2 emission tax") like they do on cigarettes and things of that nature.

How big of a threat it is I don't think has been fully determined, but I think its a real issue.
 
ManWearingTinFoilHat.jpg


"With My Degree In Hollywoodized Internet Documentaries,
I Have Proven To Be Greater Than Science."​
 
Global warming in real. It's not just CO2 emissions that are causing it, but it's a mixture of different factors... CO2, deforestation and gas from cattle are the ones that I can think of at the top of my head. As far as I know, up until now our government was trying to convince us that global warming isn't occurring because they don't want to threaten the cashflow from industries such as mining, coal and oil.

They can say whatever they want but the fact of the matter is that animals are going extinct because of it. They're forced out of their usual habitat ranges because the conditions aren't ideal anymore, plant cycles are being disturbed which are in turn disturbing the cycles of animals and insects that depend on them for food, Melbourne has had its hottest day on record this year while another town had its coldest day in the history of Australia not too long ago. Coincidence?
 
Here's yet even MORE evidence of this. Sorry Bob George...this is not a deception, contrary to what the right wing wants us to believe...

A big ice shelf in Antartica is melting:

 
arXter said:
"With My Degree In Hollywoodized Internet Documentaries,
I Have Proven To Be Greater Than Science."​
Click to expand...
The bandwagon is fun to ride on, isn't it? But how is a documentary released on the internet that features qualified scientists and people of expertise any different than a documentary by a politician? Because Al Gore's documentary had a bigger budget, was popular among Hollywood types and is cool to like? You want to fit into that limousine liberal crowd, I get it. But real people are doing real research and getting it out to people via the Internet. I don't know what's wrong with that. That's real journalism if you ask me. People actually doing research and talking to people who are qualified to give an opinion. You can post pictures of people in tin-foil hats all you want just because some of dare to question what's put in front of us instead of arguing your point. That's fine. Go along for the ride. I hope you enjoy it. But I'm trying to have a real conversation here, if you don't want to participate then get out and stroke it to Obama or whatever it is you do.

Look, this is what annoys me. People like the arXter guy become so conditioned to the mainstream belief that even questioning it makes you some sort of kook with a tin-foil hat. I suppose every qualified scientist, every university professor, every mainstream politician that has come out against global warming is also wearing a tin-foil hat? This tin-foil hat nonsense is ridiculous. A blatant attempt to discredit dissenters. I suppose you don't believe that the global warming movement is now talking very seriously about sustainability and coming up with ideas to cull the population either. It's very simple. You're using a computer right now, do a Google search. Search for "Green group calls for one child policy". Or if you can't figure out how to do that on your own, here's the article. I'll save you the trouble: http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25366021-29277,00.html

Not enough? Here, Gordon Brown's top green advisory saying the UK's population of 60 million must be cut in half to just 30 million to save the planet: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article5950442.ece?Submitted=true

Do you have to get spoon-fed the research? Do you global warming believers really agree that half the population, even more needs to be culled to protect the planet? That's just insanity. I want clean air and clean water, but I don't want a population control to achieve that. I don't want a carbon tax, which I'm sure I don't have to go out and find articles on because I know you've all heard politicians advocating it. But I guess that means I go around wearing a tin-foil because I don't want either of those things. The only difference between you and me is that I've grown tired of big government and their attempts to try to control us and our activities as much as possible long before you will, but you will. No sane person could put up with it forever.
 
Last edited:
f_laugh.gif
calm it, sunshine.

so from two lines of a pisstake, you've concluded that i think i'm cool because you think i worship Al Gore the documentarian; that i stroke things on Obama; i'm a 'limousine liberal'; i'm "conditioned" to mainstream belief; i'm a global warming activist who seeks to cull human populations; i bend over for a nice hard thumping from big daddy governments......

of course never mind that there's no reputable scientific institution which disagrees with the big bad brainwashed 'mainstream' view on climate change.

it's these things that make me want to lean more and more towards elitism. this pseudo-intellectual subculture is starting to take the piss.

and on that note, i feel it appropriate to post more pictures of tfhers as thoughtfully suggested:


33a6n84.jpg

2akbmgo.jpg
29bittd.jpg



Ron Paul 08!!


God knows what
Click to expand...
no "He" doesn't.
 
Being critical of the information you recieve from any source does not mean that any information that come from government, big institutions, global reserch teams etc... always should be considered false. Being critical towards the mainstream media does not mean that anything you find on the internet is trustworthy.
Being careful of your sources is determining your credibility in debate.....

I am shore that you know this.



Concider this: even if its false- would it not be a good thing to stop pollution? And to stop using our resources in sutch a way that this world will not sustain the next generations?
Would it not be a great sin to take that risk?
Would it even be sensible not to listen to some of the best scientists living today?
I can not say that i know more then them. That would be idiotic.

And I would not like to tell my grandchildren that all I did to prevent disaster was to debate it on the internet..............
 
movingcoolcat said:
Being critical of the information you recieve from any source does not mean that any information that come from government, big institutions, global reserch teams etc... always should be considered false. Being critical towards the mainstream media does not mean that anything you find on the internet is trustworthy.
Being careful of your sources is determining your credibility in debate.....
Click to expand...
Mainstream political parties deny global warming and oppose carbon tax, sustainability. Mainstream news has given a platform for scientists who doubt global warming. I never said "big institutes" and "global research teams" should always be considered false. If that was the case I'd also have to say those who doubt global warming are not trustworthy either. You should consider all sources. And that's all I'm trying to promote here. I'm giving you all the opposing viewpoint on this issue which I know very few people have even bothered to look at. You seem to making many assumptions about me. That I deny everything mainstream and trust everything on the Internet. What a cop out. If I believed everything on the Internet wouldn't I also have to believe those who support global warming? It just makes no sense to make such assumptions.


Concider this: even if its false- would it not be a good thing to stop pollution? And to stop using our resources in sutch a way that this world will not sustain the next generations?
Click to expand...
No, I don't believe the means justify the end.

Would it even be sensible not to listen to some of the best scientists living today?
Click to expand...
Would it be reasonable to listen to some of the best scientists living today who don't think global warming is as big a problem as others are making it out to be? Of course I know what most scientists are saying and I've listened. I completely acknowledge that the popular belief is that global warming is happening, it's man-made and massive government intervention has to stop it. I am personally agnostic on this issue even though I've been promoting the anti-global warming side in this thread. I just like to play devil's advocate a bit to get people to think. But I really don't know about global warming. I'm very skeptical about it. But even though I don't know if global warming is a major threat, I do know that all the proposed solutions are catastrophic and completely destructive to society and humanity.

And I would not like to tell my grandchildren that all I did to prevent disaster was to debate it on the internet..............
Click to expand...
You're right. But it's good to talk about things and discuss them. I like to raise awareness in my own small way. But simply discussing it online isn't all I do. I write to my local representatives if there's an issue I feel strongly about. I'm glad that my local representative for federal parliament in Australia is on the side of doubting the very alarmist view of global warming and opposing effects to effect the climate that will mean more taxes and bigger government. So I don't need to write in on this particular issue. Perhaps if there was some major piece of legislation regarding global warming I'd writing in to urge him to vote against it. But writing to your local representatives is a very good way of being pro-active in politics. I always encourage people to do it. The next step is running yourself which takes a lot of courage and a lot of skills in public speaking and campaigning. Other then that there's not much one can do to oppose something their against unless they want to dedicate their lives to it.

It'd be nice to tell your grandchildren you fought for the rights and freedoms they take for granted but the sad truth is all most of us will be able to tell our grandchildren is "sorry I didn't do enough in my time to stop this but trust me, the world was once a much a better place". We'll just tell them stories of freedom and liberty that we once had. Concepts that will be foreign to them. But we'll have to keep our voice down so the hidden cameras in our houses don't hear us. LOL, I'm being over-dramatic yes. But we're definitely loosing a lot of our liberties, are we not? Government is definitely getting a lot bigger and a lot more controlling, is it not? Maybe a 1984 scenario is a little over-dramatic, I was being over-dramatic on purpose in case arXter comes back with more tin-foil hat pictures. But every single "solution" for global warming just seems to increase the size, scope and power of government. Just like the right used terrorism to take our liberties away, the left is using global warming. And I know a lot on the left think the means don't justify the ends when it comes to terrorism. So surely you can see where I'm coming from when it comes to global warming.
 
Last edited:
Bob George said:
30,000 scientists isn't a legitimate opposition to the popular belief on global warming? http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/al_gore_global_warming/2008/05/19/97307.html

URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming#cite_note-High_price_for_load_of_hot_air_.7C_The_Courier-Mail-8"
Click to expand...

no.

"university degrees in science".. i love how they make "science" out to be one credible generic degree that automatically qualify you in any specialised area of the universe that is science.

well, i guess at least they actually have a "spoon-fed" degree, eh?

but i think i'll stick with the overwhelming majority of actual experts on this one.
 
arXter said:
no.

"university degrees in science".. i love how they make "science" out to be a credible degree that automatically qualify you in any specialised area of the universe that is science.

well, i guess at least they actually have a "spoon-fed" degree, eh?

but i think i'll stick with the overwhelming majority of actual experts on this one.
Click to expand...
That's fine. So you believe global warming exists. Do you believe it's absolutely important to our survival as human beings to stop it? Do you think global government intervention is the way to stop it? Do you agree with to proposed solution that the majority of politicians and green groups support? What are your thoughts on population control for the greater good of this green earth?
 
I think maybe this is debating two different issues; one is politics and the other is global warming and environmental problems .
Debating those two issues at the same time may cause some confusion, or make the discussion a bit blurry and less likely to go anywhere interesting (IMO).

I have little doubt that we have to handle the issues of pollution, global warming and population growth.
Those issues are real, and very serious, in my opinion.
I see no reason why one should doubt very mutch what is going on in that part, as there are so many independent reports from well respected scientists. As well, this is hardly a popular and optimistic topic to inform people about, so I do think that unless the majority of scientists are a mashocistic and sad bunch of people with a personal need to preach doom and gloom we may as well listen to what they have found out.

However; the solution to the problems is what people may disagree upon.


Maybe it would be better to discuss these issues separetly?

And I do think you are wrong when you say that this arguments are not known. They are. Its just that they are not very credible.
I tend to think "who paid them". As its well known that many big companies have some interest in causing doubt when it comes to environmental issues.
Just like the tobacco companies used to do.........

Its also something to consider that if you do take the environmental issues seriously, it does mean a change in lifestyle for most people if we are to prevent it.

I do think that some times there is just cause for restricting personal freedom. It does depend on the "why". I find it interesting that most people do not care that mutch about loosing freedom when it comes to fighting terrorism, while if you tell someone they have to sacrifice something for the sake of the environment, I doubt they would be as cooperative.
 
movingcoolcat said:
I think maybe this is debating two different issues; one is politics and the other is global warming and environmental problems .
Debating those two issues at the same time may cause some confusion, or make the discussion a bit blurry and less likely to go anywhere interesting (IMO).
Click to expand...
I don't think global warming is separate from politics. It's a political issues. Politicians are using it was the new 9/11 to justify ever bit of new legislation they want to pass.

I have little doubt that we have to handle the issues of pollution, global warming and population growth.
Those issues are real, and very serious, in my opinion.
Click to expand...
Pollution is a real problem, global warming (as I said) I don't know about. But population is not a problem. In Australia where I live we have 20 million people living around the coast of the country but that makes up for just a small percentage of the country's land mass. The majority of the country is unoccupied, except for wildlife. And I'm all for conservation and protecting the wildlife. But I'm just saying that if we wanted to we could allow for massive, massive population growth over decades and generations.

Population growth is really more about politics than environment. The real issue is how do these big governments control so many tens of million, and in some countries, hundreds of millions of people. It is too much for some governments to handle. That's why they want to create a bigger control grid, that's why you hear about one child policies. The environment is about 10%-20% of the reason people are considering population control. But I have a much better solution then culling the population and restricting our offspring.

The problem is that no one single government can effectively govern so many people. Yet we seem to me moving to globalization meaning more centralized power would be responsible for governing even more people. What if we moved in the other direction? What is we decentralized government so that states, shires and local councils had way more power. That way instead of one federal government controlling tens of millions or hundreds of millions of people, one local government governs tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of people. Much more manageable. There would be less of a necessity to shrink the population because suddenly, governments will find they can easily manage thousands of people as opposed to millions.

And I do think you are wrong when you say that this arguments are not known. They are. Its just that they are not very credible.
I tend to think "who paid them". As its well known that many big companies have some interest in causing doubt when it comes to environmental issues.
Just like the tobacco companies used to do.........
Click to expand...
So world leaders and world bankers met in London earlier this year for the G20 summit to discuss centralizing banking and paying for it all with carbon tax yet the scientists who agree with them are independent free-thinkers and the scientists who disagree are working for someone.

What? You disagree with the mainstream belief? Who are you with? Al-Qaeda? lol

It seems to me the other side, the side that wants to create mass hysteria over global warming so they can usher in new policies including the carbon tax have more incentive. Do you think oil companies are fighting with the world banks on this issue? Oil companies are paying off scientists to say global warming is a myth? I don't know. Sounds like you're a bit of a conspiracy theorist to me, lol. Get out the tin-foil hat pictures. This person thinks big corporations are paying off independent scientists to refute global warming.

I do think that some times there is just cause for restricting personal freedom. It does depend on the "why". I find it interesting that most people do not care that mutch about loosing freedom when it comes to fighting terrorism, while if you tell someone they have to sacrifice something for the sake of the environment, I doubt they would be as cooperative.
Click to expand...
Terrorism or environmentalism. Give me liberty or give me death. You have to put your foot down at some stage and say you will not sacrifice your freedom no matter what excuse they use.
 
Global warming IS pollution though. Or a result thereof, anyways. An overabundance of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere is no different than sludge from landfills seeping into the the earth or fuel spills in the waters.

And like I said, I'm no expert, but I'm not sure it even takes a degree to see that the constant burning of fuels and the output of hazardous chemicals and gasses into the atmosphere cannot be good.
 
Bob George said:
I don't think global warming is separate from politics. It's a political issues. Politicians are using it was the new 9/11 to justify ever bit of new legislation they want to pass.


I do think that they are sepearate issues; if one disagree with the scientists about global warming and the cause and result of this, that is one discussion.
In one accepts the findings from the scientist, there is still a big discussion on how to handle it. And there are disagreements on this.
But if you completely disregard the scientists findings, you are left with more of a theory of global warming used as a way to ....................??
One can not discuss this without taking a stand on this issue IMO. Because it leaves the discussion with mainly politics to discuss.


Population growth is really more about politics than environment. The real issue is how do these big governments control so many tens of million, and in some countries, hundreds of millions of people. It is too much for some governments to handle. That's why they want to create a bigger control grid, that's why you hear about one child policies. The environment is about 10%-20% of the reason people are considering population control. But I have a much better solution then culling the population and restricting our offspring.

The problem is that no one single government can effectively govern so many people. Yet we seem to me moving to globalization meaning more centralized power would be responsible for governing even more people. What if we moved in the other direction? What is we decentralized government so that states, shires and local councils had way more power. That way instead of one federal government controlling tens of millions or hundreds of millions of people, one local government governs tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of people. Much more manageable. There would be less of a necessity to shrink the population because suddenly, governments will find they can easily manage thousands of people as opposed to millions.

I actually follow you a bit on the way on this argument. However, if you accept global pollution and global warming as facts, this has to be tackled on an global level. And to do that you need to be able to reach agreements between nations. Pollution and overuse of resources are not local, but global problems. In my opinion it then is logical that we have to work on a global scale.
Another part of this is that trading is also global, and I do not think its possible( or desirable) to go back to "the stone age" when it comes to either trading, communicating, traveling etc.... We are one world. More then ever this is both a blessing and a curse. And either we get scared by this, or we accept the change and find new solutions for new problems that arise with globalisation.


So world leaders and world bankers met in London earlier this year for the G20 summit to discuss centralizing banking and paying for it all with carbon tax yet the scientists who agree with them are independent free-thinkers and the scientists who disagree are working for someone.

What? You disagree with the mainstream belief? Who are you with? Al-Qaeda? lol

It seems to me the other side, the side that wants to create mass hysteria over global warming so they can usher in new policies including the carbon tax have more incentive. Do you think oil companies are fighting with the world banks on this issue? Oil companies are paying off scientists to say global warming is a myth? I don't know. Sounds like you're a bit of a conspiracy theorist to me, lol. Get out the tin-foil hat pictures. This person thinks big corporations are paying off independent scientists to refute global warming.

This has been done by the previous US government. Who was heavily influenced by the oil industry.
And the comparison of this and the tobacco industry is not that far fetched. There are many big business owners that rather prefer the issue of global warming to be questioned. And I do think that playing on the distrust of government is a pretty safe way to go about creating doubt about global warming and pollution and the seriousness of the problem.
If you want to put me in the chategory of conspiracy theorist if I tend to be suspicious about the motives of large international companies, then I happily accept -_-


Terrorism or environmentalism. Give me liberty or give me death. You have to put your foot down at some stage and say you will not sacrifice your freedom no matter what excuse they use.
Click to expand...

Liberty or death is not what this is about. if the scientists are correct you/ your offspring may have no liberty, not due to government but because you will not be able to sustain yourself.
There is a moral and ethical side to this that i wish you would concider;
If denying global warming out of fear of globalisation and lack of trust in government leaves us with an unsustainable world, how can one defend individual liberty? Where do you draw the line for individual rights and freedom at the cost of others? And is not one of the reasons why human kind has reached sutch an advanced position the fact that we do cooperate and subject ourself to rules in society? Has there ever been unlimited individual freedom?

As an end of my part in this discussion;
There is a saying that I find very true;

A man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still.

People can change their opinions a thousand times on their own, but if you try to break his conviction with arguments they will most likely defend their opinion- and with great passion.
And in this case, I do think that argumentation is wasted. Not because you are not informed, and bright. But because you have invested so mutch in your belief that what you want is not arguments against it, but agreement. And as I disagree with your opinion on global warming and we then can not enter in to a more interesting dicussion about how it may be solved (witch could be interesting to discuss), I think I leave the discussion now.:rollingpeace:
 
Bob George said:
30,000 scientists isn't a legitimate opposition to the popular belief on global warming? http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/al_gore_global_warming/2008/05/19/97307.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ce_for_load_of_hot_air_.7C_The_Courier-Mail-8
Click to expand...

A right-wing, conservative website isn't more right than a left-wing, liberal one. It's just the other side of the coin. You seem to advocate that CO2 is global-warming and that's it. There's more to global warming, as others have specified, things that are very much man made and responsible for the changing climate.

If you don't see that, you're actively ignoring facts.
 
movingcoolcat said:
This has been done by the previous US government. Who was heavily influenced by the oil industry.
And the comparison of this and the tobacco industry is not that far fetched. There are many big business owners that rather prefer the issue of global warming to be questioned. And I do think that playing on the distrust of government is a pretty safe way to go about creating doubt about global warming and pollution and the seriousness of the problem.
If you want to put me in the chategory of conspiracy theorist if I tend to be suspicious about the motives of large international companies, then I happily accept
Click to expand...
I think I mentioned earlier that BP changed it's image to become more green and now it's logo is a flower. I found an article from CNN dating back to January this year saying Exxon mobile, the big bad oil company everyone loves to hate, has now joined the global warming movement after encouragement from their shareholders and in particular the Rockefeller family. So big business, in particular the oil companies, are changing teams. So who is left to fund these evil dissenting scientists who aren't so alarmists about climate change?

Sifa_Dias said:
A right-wing, conservative website isn't more right than a left-wing, liberal one. It's just the other side of the coin. You seem to advocate that CO2 is global-warming and that's it. There's more to global warming, as others have specified, things that are very much man made and responsible for the changing climate.

If you don't see that, you're actively ignoring facts.
Click to expand...

I focus on CO2 because that is what they want to tax. Carbon dioxide is the big scary monster of the global warming movement. And population is another thing the greenies want to reduce. Maybe they'll tax us all to death and that'll solve both problems. But the science shows that over the last 3 years, carbon emission and population have increased but the temperature has decreased.

For the last three years, satellite-measured average global temperature has been declining. Given the occurrence also of record low winter temperatures and massive snowfalls across both hemispheres this year, IPCC members have now entered panic mode, the whites of their eyes being clearly visible as they seek to defend their now unsustainable hypothesis of dangerous, human-caused global warming. ~ Professor Robert M. Carter, Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, Australia

ncdcdb5.png


I don't know why this research is just ignored. It should at least be taken into consideration. There's a growing resistance to the global warming movement. It's starting to unravel as a false alarm just like the many, many times (usually 30 years in between) through-out the 20th century when alarmist scientist would create mass panic over catastrophic global warming or catastrophic global cooling. Look, I'm not totally convinced that global warming isn't a real immediate threat. But I'm getting all the more sceptical every time I read something about it.
 
Last edited:
Global warming is real. Scientist can look at the images taken of earth at different times and they can see how it is effecting the Earth. The state of Louisiana around the Gulf of Mexico is an example. Imaging taking of the swampy coastline shows that it is eroding. In other words for example, New Orleans doesn't have the natural buffer from hurricanes it once had. During Hurricane Katrina, the levees did fail, but the eroding made it worst. And yes it is political, because you do have big business like the oil companies wanting to drill oil in some of these protective areas. And Obama believes it is both a national security issue and a danger to the enviroment. And you must admit that there are chemicals in the enviroment that are speeding up some of the Earth natural process, like the warming of the Artics. I'm srue the Earth goes through natural changes, but Man is making it worst. In the end the Earth is going to win if we don't change our behaviors.
 
pamarella said:
And yes it is political, because you do have big business like the oil companies wanting to drill oil in some of these protective areas. And Obama believes it is both a national security issue and a danger to the enviroment.
Click to expand...
Off-shore drilling is a benefit to national security because drilling for oil in your own country means you don't have to import oil from hostile nations like Saudi Arabia and Venezuela. You have to weigh out the benefit of oil independence to national security with the effect it could have on the environment.
 
Global warming is something I have always been a big time believer in. There is so such thing as Global warming. Look at it this way Ice shelves in Antartica the size of the state of Rhode Island have been breaking off. The permafrost in Alaska is melting releasing methane gas. And they say if enough methane gas is release it could destroy the entire planet. That's what the one program that I saw on the HIStory Channel says. Island nations are slowly disappearing because the ocean levels are rising. The snow and ice keeps melting the way it is now in the next 30 years or so there will be no more Antartica. The polar bears there are starving because they have to swim up to 60 miles a day just so they can find enough food for them to survive. And plus they have trouble getting on to the ice. Because the ice can't support them. Which is why I am not very happy at all about the sciencetists having to put the polar bears on the Endangered Species List. And the ancient snow on Mt. Kilamajaro is melting. And that snow could be gone in the next 20 years.

It is those reasons alone why it is very important to recycle and to turn things off when they are not in use. My brother is one that doesn't believe there is global warming. My brother is very f*cked up and a big time stupid idiot for evening thinking that there is no global warming. He seriously needs to watch An Inconvient Truth. I did and it really shock and horrified me when I saw what Antartica looks like now compare to what it had looked like 30 some years ago.
 
What I have researched, Mother Earth has been going through "natural changes" for millions of years...However, despite what others may think...We as human beings have been polluting our natural resources for generations...

HISTORY proves that all these man made pollutants carelessly being disposed of are most definately hurting, effecting Mother Earth in a very "BIG" way...

Think About It..!

Cuyahoga River Fire
On June 22, 1969, an oil slick and debris in the Cuyahoga River caught fire in Cleveland, Ohio, drawing national attention to environmental problems in Ohio and elsewhere in the United States.

This Cuyahoga River fire lasted just thirty minutes, but it did approximately fifty thousand dollars in damage -- principally to some railroad bridges spanning the river. It is unclear what caused the fire, but most people believe sparks from a passing train ignited an oil slick in the Cuyahoga River. This was not the first time that the river had caught on fire. Fires occurred on the Cuyahoga River in 1868, 1883, 1887, 1912, 1922, 1936, 1941, 1948, and in 1952. The 1952 fire caused over 1.5 million dollars in damage.
Because of this fire, Cleveland businesses became infamous for their pollution, a legacy of the city's booming manufacturing days during the late 1800s and the early 1900s, when limited government controls existed to protect the environment. Even following World War II, Cleveland businesses, especially steel mills, routinely polluted the river. Cleveland and its residents also became the butt of jokes across the United States, despite the fact that city officials had authorized 100 million dollars to improve the Cuyahoga River's water before the fire occurred. The fire also brought attention to other environmental problems across the country, helped spur the Environmental Movement, and helped lead to the passage of the Clean Water Act in 1972.

Cuyahoga River Fire Nov. 3, 1952. Courtesy of Cleveland Press Collection at Cleveland State University Library.


The 1969 Cuyahoga River fire helped spur an avalanche of water pollution control activities resulting in the Clean Water Act, Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, and the creation of the federal Environmental Protection Agency and the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA). As a result, large point sources of pollution on the Cuyahoga have received significant attention from the OEPA in recent decades. These events are referred to in Randy Newman's 1972 song "Burn On", R.E.M.'s 1986 song "Cuyahoga", and Adam Again's 1992 song "River on Fire".

Sources: http://www.ohiohistorycentral.org
and Wikipedia.com

Therefore, Cleveland, OH: USED to be called the mistake by the lake...We are very happy to report...NOT NO MORE..!

:angel:Knowledge Is Growth
 
Last edited:
Bob George said:
Off-shore drilling is a benefit to national security because drilling for oil in your own country means you don't have to import oil from hostile nations like Saudi Arabia and Venezuela. You have to weigh out the benefit of oil independence to national security with the effect it could have on the environment.
Click to expand...

But that's why I agree it is politcal. Global warming believers know that the oil companies favor drilling for profits only. How can oil drilling NOT have an impact on the Earth? The oil companies could care less about the Earth. That's why they fight so hard against alternative energy proponents. And the oil companies have influenced some of the decisions made in Washington D.C.

I'm sure the same debate is happeing in other countries.

Obama and people who are against global warming believes in Solar and Wind energy. How is that hurting the Earth?

And there you have both national security and an alternative in stopping global warming and harming the Earth. If we have those alternatives in place, then we don't have to see DOLPHINS, DUCKS, and millions of Marine creatures being killed by some of the many many oil spills I'm sure that take place but we never hear about ALL of them. :cheeky:
 
I agree about the oil companies not caring about the planet. I remember when the Exxon Valdez oil spill back in 1989. I was only 9 years old then but I was so in to watching the news back then. And it was so terrible of what happen to the animals that had lived there. It was so horrible seeing them covered in oil. Exxon was widely criticized for its slow response to cleaning up the disaster. Even now you can still find oil there.
 
LindaC781 said:
The "truth" is out there Bob George...no matter how inconvenient it is...it is out there. It's up to you and others like you to see it for what it is...the truth.
Click to expand...

I have such a problem with the title of the damn propaganda piece. To call it "inconvenient" is simply not true. This global warming scare is the most convenient thing that could have ever happened to them. Now they can do whatever they want and it's all for the cause of global warming. It's quite perfect for them as a matter of fact.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top