Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have a question for those that continue to debate that humans are the cause of global warming and that we need to be concerned for the environment as a result. Clearly, there are different perspectives on this and the debate rages on and will continue. If the end result you want is for people to be environmentally conscious, why not simply talk about how dirty the air, water, and land are and that we need to protect if for future generations. Present readings of air and water quality. Talk about the fact that you can't go in the ocean in California after it rains. The debate about the existence/causes for global warming seem to be serving as a distraction from the real point - we need to take care of the environment.
I enjoy nature and think we need to preserve it. The debate about global warming is a turn-off for me.
I think, just trying to be fair, and not confrontational, it is because such a debate would arise with the same objectors no matter what the focus of the issue happened to be. A cleaner environment is bad for the big corporate empire, and much or most of the population still believes the orthodoxy of the big corporate empire. Every pro-environment position since long before the global warming issue has met with the same resistance from the same people.
As a consequence of hman behavior, global warming is the most apocalyptic sceniario so far advanced in environmental warnings, so it has simply become the one most vociferously attacked.
These things swing in very unpredicatable ways. When Reagan appointed Interior Secretary James Watt (whose definition of a 'wilderness area' was a parking lot without lines painted on it), environmental organizatins suddenly realized a huge increase in their memberships and donations, as even ordinary people recogmized the danger of the environment under such stewardship.
Like the tax industry... If you remove the income tax... a lot of tax filing businesses will go bankrupt and we have a high unemployment rate and affect the economy... Because we "create" jobs with the myth of global warming due to CO2, if we let it go.. a lot of people would be unemployed... I turned off to global warming from CO2 a long time ago when they kept "switching" theories and blaming every natural disaster to it... Then I started listening to those who explained why global warming was happening and why it wasn't related to CO2 emissions... they haven't changed their answers since that time years ago... if you want other people to believe global warming is from CO2 emission then provide IRREFUTABLE evidence and everyone will accept it... they can't because it simply isn't true... I am all for saving the environment with less deforestation, clean air, clean water, recycling, more efficient energy sources, etc. etc. But everytime someone LIES to me about global warming from CO2 emissions, it makes me want to buy a Hummer instead of the hydrid honda civic. Now, I am not completely pro-environment as I still believe animals and plants are acceptable forms of food and advocate large scale food production, drilling of oil in natural reserves, increasing energy demand, etc etc
I agree with you. However, as you point out, when there is an argument presented that touches people now, such as the example you mention with Watt, people are more energized by it. This hits home more than "the sky is falling" arguments and are more likely to get a response from the general public IMO. As for the objectors, it's hard to argue with the fact that beaches in California have to be closed after a storm for public health reasons.
Global warming or not, we are running out of oil and we need to free ourselves from foreign interest entanglements. Alternative energy just happens to create less pollution, too
Global warming or not, we are running out of oil and we need to free ourselves from foreign interest entanglements. Alternative energy just happens to create less pollution, too
I have a question for those that continue to debate that humans are the cause of global warming and that we need to be concerned for the environment as a result. Clearly, there are different perspectives on this and the debate rages on and will continue. If the end result you want is for people to be environmentally conscious, why not simply talk about how dirty the air, water, and land are and that we need to protect if for future generations. Present readings of air and water quality. Talk about the fact that you can't go in the ocean in California after it rains. The debate about the existence/causes for global warming seem to be serving as a distraction from the real point - we need to take care of the environment.
I enjoy nature and think we need to preserve it. The debate about global warming is a turn-off for me.
All you need to do is look at the people yelling and screaming "global warming" and look at where they make their money and you have your answer as to why they continue to try to debate the issue.
Gore, makes 100% of his income off of the global warming scare, by creating a tax sceme to sell tax credits by one of his companies.
GE, who just convinced the government to make the standard light bulb illegal in a year, will make hundreds of millions by selling their new light bulb.
I compare the global warming issue to the insurance industry. Convince the government that it should be a law to require insurance because the insurance industry profits from peoples inability to self insure.
Global warming or not, we are running out of oil and we need to free ourselves from foreign interest entanglements. Alternative energy just happens to create less pollution, too
Evidence has shown that we are not even close to running out of oil. There is enough to last us well beyond the point that oil use is feasible because of alternative energy technology that will be available in the next 20 years. The problem is because of legal restrictions and costs, imposed by the government to drill and refine new sources, that its not economically feasible to drill for new wells.
If the government was serious about pulling us off of foreign interests, which would be a positive move, they would remove restrictions to allow more drilling in the USA. Why arent they? Well one could accuse them of profiteering off of the high prices, (after all, they do get tax revenue from it) but you also have to consider that the environmental "wackos" have helped to contribute to our problems by limiting our ability to compete world wide.
I can't believe grown adults believe this conspiracy theory garbage, it sounds like stuff a 13 year old would say on the playground.
The evidence for Global Warming wasn't drummed up by the Bilderburgs, and certainly GE didn't pressure the government to ban incandescent bulbs (BTW, why the heck would you want to use an incadescent bulb in this day and age? Why do you see the scam there? I don't. )
Global warming isn't a lie. It's caused naturally by elements in the air. Of course, emmiting mass quanitites of those same elements by burning fossil fuels feeds the natural phenomenon and speeds up what will happen naturally.
It's like knowingly heating up the waters during hurricane season... it may not do anything, buy why help nature cause a catastrophy?
Is recycling a lie, too?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
