New & Not-So-Improved GW Perspective

[exo_doc]

Yes, yet another thread on Global Warming.
I started this thread because the GW debate on another thread wasn't on topic.

My idea was ignored on the other thread, hopefully, because this is the topic here, people might actually tell me what they think. Let me cut and paste what I said:

-------------------------------(On global warming)....

There's people for it ....and people against it.

There's evidence for it,....and there's evidence against it.

And both sides seem to be "fundamentalist" in thier beleifs.

Which brings me back to my original statement, there is most certainly something fishy here.

Leaders on both sides are doing thier damndest to polarize this subject to hide something, to misdirect peoples attention.

In this kind of hostile climate, there is no way the average Joe or Josephine can get real, unaltered, unfiltered, unbiased information to make up their own minds.

And I think this is by design. Why the hell else would leaders and experts get people so riled up, so pissed off, so "I'm right and you're just STUPID" kind of attitude about something that should be carefully studied, discussed, and tested in a rational, unemotional manner?

Instead they are pushing the emotional aspects to this, NOT the data. On EITHER side.

So the real question comes down to, "What are they hiding?"--------------------------------

Or better yet, if they are trying to cover or misdirect, why do it?

Call me crazy.

 

[pixelsmith]

It is very simple really. Do about 8 more years of research and come back... start your research with this quote:

“The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself." - Club of Rome

Now that you have a quick break down of "their" plan, check out the rest of the page where this quote came from, make sure to note the members.
The Green Agenda - The First Global Revolution

To find out who started all this BS read this pdf. It may take a couple minutes to load but it is worth it.
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202007/GWHoaxBorn.pdf

A great web site with lots of information that is updated often with the latest data available is here.
Global Warming Summary
Click on the upper left link to get to the home page with many more links.

Another good site is ICECAP
ICECAP

 

[Sloppy Joe]

I'm personally not convinced on global warming. However, I have no problem advocating for good stewardship of our planet.

 

[pixelsmith]

 

[Sloppy Joe]

best EVER!! hahahahahaha

 

[exo_doc]

OK, pixel. Nice little sarcastic cartoon there, and about as one sided as you can get. I'll have time this weekend to go over those links you posted to see what they say.
Just wanted to let you know I'm still on the fence about this, and haven't forgotten the thread.

 

[exo_doc]

Pixel, I don't know what to make of those links.
For every link that says WHY people are screaming GW, there's one to match it screaming GW fraud.
Check this one out:
http://www.weather.com/outlook/weather-news/news/articles/warmest-year-2010-record_2011-01-14

And that's on the Weather Channel website!
Confusion, obfuscation, vitriol and kindergarten politics.

My original question still stands: How the hell is the average person, not a climatologist or a politician or an actor or anyone else with an agenda, find out the truth? Or at least find unbiased information to make up their own minds?

 

[Sloppy Joe]

I find that the best decision to make, personally, is a middle-of-the-road decision. I don't know what to make of the whole thing, however naturally I'm not against making a better planet at the same time. I don't believe in all the bullshit from either side and I believe that both sides make more or less of it than they should. So although I'm not sure what to believe and I'm not convinced either way, I decide to stand in the middle of the road with disbelief over both sides, but still with a desire of limiting whatever possible damage we might really be causing. "Damage" being defined as "provable science stating that our waste and abuse is harming our planet in some way, whether large or small".

For instance, it's provable that airborne chemical pollutants are destroying the ozone over Antarctica. I'm in favor of limiting pollutants in any way, shape and form. But that doesn't merely go for chemicals. I'm in favor of limiting energy pollutants too, the kind that increases the risk of cancer (i.e. cell phone towers in the middle of residential areas).

Ultimately, I think you just have to figure most of this out for yourself. Take all arguments into consideration, but also account for over-exaggerations and disinformation. Stay guarded, but be open-minded as much as possible.

 

[exo_doc]

Joe, that's probably the best response I've heard.
Fence sitting has a bad rap, but there are some cases, such as this, that I think it's prudent.
I especially like the idea of "If there's a provable cause of harm to the environment, then limits and regulations need to be put in place." (paraphrased)
That's not being alarmist, but it's being responsible.

 

[pixelsmith]

Hey guys while you are saving the planet maybe you could invent some volcano corks!!! Maybe you could talk the continents into staying put too. These volcanos and tectonics tend to mess with the environment far more that humans and something should be done about it.

 

[Jonah]

Hey guys while you are saving the planet maybe you could invent some volcano corks!!! Maybe you could talk the continents into staying put too.

 

[pixelsmith]

Jonah I think you have a twin here...

did you want to add something other than a cartoon?

 

[pixelsmith]

The warmist bible has been exposed for what it is.
Main Findings of the Citizen Audit of the 2007 IPCC report

 

[Sloppy Joe]

That's not being alarmist, but it's being responsible.

I agree. And most everyone would also agree that they want to live in a safe/healthy environment. But let's not go overboard and support an argument, one way ot the other, that might be completely wrong. These people are so polarized that they can't see past the flaws in their own research, even with the flaws being clear as day. So I figure with regard to GW, don't accept anything as an absolute truth, however, why not be a good steward anyway and do our best to take care of this planet we all share.

That lady looks like she's about to spank the crap out of that guy. So I'm not sure if you're implying that maybe I should sexually assault pixelsmith.

 

[pixelsmith]

That lady looks like she's about to spank the crap out of that guy. So I'm not sure if you're implying that maybe I should sexually assault pixelsmith.

Maybe Jonah is into that sort of thing... his avatar's gaze seems to support the possibility.

 

[exo_doc]

That lady looks like she's about to spank the crap out of that guy. So I'm not sure if you're implying that maybe I should sexually assault pixelsmith. [/QUOTE]

LMAO!! A good spanking doesn't necessarily equate to a sexual assault Joe, but you could give it a good try!!!!!
My post-modern left-wing liberal tree-hugging hippie oath to semi non-violence won't let me follow my more base instincts.

 

[plumbbob12]

Foolish-Earthling
The simple answer is Machiavellianism- which uses “cunning and duplicity in statecraft” in order to get the population to do two things. The first thing needed is to make the people fight against each other in order that they do not join forces and overthrow the ones in power. The second reason is to confuse the issue so that the population is easily directed toward whatever goals will insure personal gain for those in power. <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" /><o></o>
Let’s face it; no one wants the idea of global warming to be right. Whether it is the sun that is causing GW, or Man, or a combination of both, we all would prefer to go on living in the style we have become accustom too. The Machiavellian propaganda works incredibly well, and has convinced either side that the topic is so full of controversy, that even the climate scientist are hotly debating the reality of climate change. In reality the fact is that climate science agree on about 90 percent of the data, but the remainder is so complex, it is like shooting fish in a barrel when getting the population to side with one knee jerk answer or another. The ones in power know that less than 1 percent of the people out there will actually wade through the science in order to get a real understanding of the real issue. (And yes, there are real issues in the scientific community like rate of change, and models used to simulate future predictions, etc). The remainder will depend on TV and radio personalities from both sides of the issue for confusing dialog that only polarizes the population, while the real power brokers go on making billions off oil and coal, carbon credits, wind power subsidies, and everything in-between. Because when you really boil it down, the quote from one of my favorite movies, “Shooter”, sums it up when the corrupt Senator says, “There are no Good Guys, There’s no Bad Guys, there is only the haves and have-nots” , and we are there finger puppets. pb

 

[exo_doc]

Foolish-Earthling
The simple answer is Machiavellianism- which uses “cunning and duplicity in statecraft” in order to get the population to do two things. The first thing needed is to make the people fight against each other in order that they do not join forces and overthrow the ones in power. The second reason is to confuse the issue so that the population is easily directed toward whatever goals will insure personal gain for those in power. <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" /><o></o>
Let’s face it; no one wants the idea of global warming to be right. Whether it is the sun that is causing GW, or Man, or a combination of both, we all would prefer to go on living in the style we have become accustom too. The Machiavellian propaganda works incredibly well, and has convinced either side that the topic is so full of controversy, that even the climate scientist are hotly debating the reality of climate change. In reality the fact is that climate science agree on about 90 percent of the data, but the remainder is so complex, it is like shooting fish in a barrel when getting the population to side with one knee jerk answer or another. The ones in power know that less than 1 percent of the people out there will actually wade through the science in order to get a real understanding of the real issue. (And yes, there are real issues in the scientific community like rate of change, and models used to simulate future predictions, etc). The remainder will depend on TV and radio personalities from both sides of the issue for confusing dialog that only polarizes the population, while the real power brokers go on making billions off oil and coal, carbon credits, wind power subsidies, and everything in-between. Because when you really boil it down, the quote from one of my favorite movies, “Shooter”, sums it up when the corrupt Senator says, “There are no Good Guys, There’s no Bad Guys, there is only the haves and have-nots” , and we are there finger puppets. pb

Finger puppets huh? It fits as well as anything else I've read.