The Great Global Warming Swindle, part 7 of 9
May 13th, 2010 | Author: nyt
This film by the documentary-maker Martin Durkin presents the arguments of scientists and commentators who don’t believe that CO2 produced by human activity is the main cause of climate change. It’s all to scare the shit out of us folks! The Illuminati set this up to make us, the people of the world, the problem. Don’t believe it! Resist the New World Order!!!!
@STEEEVVYZ imo, its up to people to look at long term evidence and decide for themselves
@STEEEVVYZ Peace and Love dude…
Some friendly advice that will help you in life… Never have a solid unbrakable belief whilst only using 10% of your brain. Scientific opinions should be made upon unbiest reaserch.
Actually it’s the other way around, since in both cases there was a clash of scientific advancement versus dogma. Our understanding of how the world’s climate works is maturing and bringing uncomfortable information to light, and many people simply don’t like the implications
This reminds me when the church was in power and doctors would not dare to challenge the ideas of Galen (( The church used to teach his ideas and say he was right challengeing him would be like challengeing the church!)) only after Versalius proved it did the church change and its the same with the goverment no one will challenge them out of fear
One thing is for sure,
if the Corporate Media is screaming it, the Politicians are yelling it, if the Kool-Aid drinkers are screaming and threatening death (terrorism?), and nobody will allow reasonable discourse, like ask for some data, then you know something is up.
Carbon, what a f$%king joke…
meanwhile we slaughter people wholesale in the world, torture, spead RADIOACTIVE material by the 1000’s of tons, Dumps POISONS (lead, petros, acids) by the God knows megga tonnes,
Carbon?
Well your argument is based on the premise that the science is completely wrong, the public are being tricked, and that the proof of this is coming to light – I haven’t seen any evidence of this, and I do try to keep up with current events in the subject, so I’d really like to hear about it.
But regardless, science (like wars) will go on whether popular or not – the big difference being that science has always been funded publically and privately with no consideration of what the public thinks
The aspect of my comparison with a war is in terms of support behind its advancement. In the case of war, it tends to produce more economical advancement. When a science garnishes support both politically and publicly it typically is shot forward, with loads of funding etc. Although a lot of publicity also produces, for lack of a better word a lot BS. By reverting back, means past issues will conflict with real problems, but will be treated as just another way to sucker the public for support.
Well could you point out these new facts which haven’t been brought to attention yet? I mean your whole argument hinges on everything behind this environmental push and popularity being proven wrong, but I’ve seen nothing but vague speculation to back that up.
And you can’t seriously compare support for science to the popularity of wars – and science goes on, when has public support controlled this? The most you could really say is that things will revert to how they were before this ‘fad’
I never said jobs would suddenly dry, ESPECIALLY those dealing with medical advancements. I just claimed that it will become more difficult when something becomes the new fad to scrutinize. When a grand scale issue like this that has to much bloat and false information surrounding it becomes exposed. It typically slows causes future scientists to either shy away from pursing those areas, or hold back on new ideas. I will try to discuss more tomorrow as I am out of time.
*Certain areas of science and theories are being promoted as important
Not to cherry pick as I hate to do that but you kind of explained it a bit yourself:
“this is always the case (and government funding in particular can’t help but be politicized)”
I will agree with you on that, the concern I was aiming at was how it is being used for green policies that hurt other countries and is an un-peer reviewed research that has garnered so much support by politicians looking to make money.
*Everyone will be pissed and become anti-science
If people dislike something, it will eventually fall on hard times. Like the Vietnam war, and todays war. It has lost its popularity, and hence its driving force to motivate people in contributing towards it. USUALLY war is an economy booster (although it is a dark way of looking at it), and with all public support, it tends to smolder debates and confusion, eventually dampening military support. Similar concept could apply to the eco-sciences.
*It’s actually not true and it will all be reversed by hitherto-unknown discoveries and developments
To answer this aspect of what you interpreted from what I have posted. And for the good old sake of keeping it relative. In my personal observation, they are not unknown discoveries just ones not brought to attention because of it not being a popular environmentalism view. Especially when the backing of the green policy pushers are political figures using it for money and a shield for scrutiny.
And don’t worry about grammar, hell with a 500 character limit sometimes breaking the rules is a great idea!
What specific field of biology are you hoping to go into, if you don’t mind me asking?
I mean correct me if I’m wrong but this is the basis of your argument:
*Certain areas of science and theories are being promoted as important
*The public and media believe this is true
*It’s actually not true and it will all be reversed by hitherto-unknown discoveries and developments
*Everyone will be pissed and become anti-science
and then as a bonus
*Al Gore is responsible for all of it somehow
Even if the science WERE wrong (seriously, if you know something new let me know) things go on
Well I agree that the funding focus may well move from certain specific areas to others, but this is always the case (and government funding in particular can’t help but be politicized) – but opportunities in say immunology aren’t going to suddenly dry up because everyone cares about ecology, green power etc, and a lot of this funding is new and coming from other sectors and investors who see a new growing market- at the expense of other markets (like petrochemical) sure, but you’re not in those
Apologizes for any grammatical mistakes. I type these exceedingly fast, due to being pressed for time.
Also you exaggerate my mentioning of damaging the views ecological sciences as it being destroyed. I never said it, only possible outcomes of a damaged image of the science. Past history has shown, when something is dampened enough, further advancement in that specific area tends to be very very slow. So I am not bananas when I mention my observation, on what looks very bad for the future environmental scientists.
All you did in order to pose the argument in your favor is mention CURRENT support for green policies. As I am more directed at the future of it. So to answer your question as of present, their is currently alot of money and opportunities in the field IF what you are doing is relative to what is popular. So in effect opportunities outside of this realm are slim, and the future for the integrity of the science is dampening as, money oriented and political oriented policies pollute the science.
The facts the media are finding are from other scientists themselves. I never implied that the media is finding facts that they think are. Nor did any aspect of what I have been saying in the entire discussion had to do with current SUPPORT for green policies. My first statement, was directed at the ridiculous methods politicians and scientists went about promoting false ideals. And now as it is getting exposed could possibly harm my future in ecological areas.
Turn it off! LOL … Yet they arrive in carbon making monster machines. What A joke!!
I asked you how bringing attention, and global support and funding to the (very broad) sphere of ecological science and green technology is ‘ruining your future biology career’, and all you’ve done is imply that some magical hitherto-unknown scientific discoveries will be made (not even by science, by the media of all things) that will destroy climate science as we know it, and that there’ll be a backlash
What are these facts that have been uncovered by the media? I like to know of developments
You’re also phrasing what you are say, as me claiming that everything NOW this moment in time has hit the fan. What has happened now will contribute to the future. Nor did I say everything is fine. I had suggested alternatives other concerns apart from what Al Gore and none peer reviewed research wants to do. There is just to much secrecy and money involved, and it is moving away from solving ecological issues. There is no longer a massive (Global Push) as many nations are backing out.
I would like a definition of people like yourself, as I have yet to label you anything at all. Anyway, yes the media is already beginning to report on the other side of the issue, and as a result are uncovering startling facts. Facts that are counter and quite frankly, more logical than what has been provided by none peer reviewed research. People do not like to be shafted when it comes to big issues. And when things eventually take-off it will damage the views of environmental concerns.
This is what I’m saying,it’s being touted as ‘the biggest sham in history’ by people like yourself,whereas the rest of the world (yes,this includes the media) is promoting environmentalism and ecology (and all the research and development that goes with it) more positively than ever before. There’s a massive global push to move in that direction,the people making that difficult are the ones claiming everything is fine and it should be business as usual. Which environmental fields are losing out?
You may continually insult me, but what I say rings true. The lies Al Gore has made, has impacted the views of environmental awareness and damaged the image of environmental issues. You may say it is one of the most positive times for eco-awareness, but it is also being touted as the biggest sham in History. It will most likely will end much of the funding toward new, more realistic environmental concerns. Research cannot be done without money to support it. Once its gone, you cannot move.