Lets just say we agree to dis-agree I guess.I still think you would have a very hard time finding many objective scientists that think its not as I have said.
Freedom, not climate is at risk
- Thread starter Facetious
- Start date
Lets just say we agree to dis-agree I guess.I still think you would have a very hard time finding many objective scientists that think its not as I have said.
can you define "objective scientist" please? it seems like a frivolous question, i know. scientists should by definition be objective; but the entire scientific community has somehow become beholden to mammon. i find myself more often asking "who benefits from this?" when i hear scientists speak; a question i used to reserve for politicians only.:2 cents:
i was away-from-keyboard and didn't see your post until i was done. regardless, that is not really an answer. if i absolutely needed to know one way or another, i would have to "follow the money". scientists need to eat just like everybody else. i don't have any practical knowledge of the scientific community, but i think it starts in schools and has something to do with jobs.
Objective IMO would be one who is associated with an entity as FOX says without a clear agenda.Folks who were formerly associated with energy companies and such are not maybe totally invalid but must be seen in that light.I think most people would think something like "National Geographic" are not biased one way or the other.And even more compelling to me is an example like the top scientist at Nasa who is adamant about the climate change and has gotten heat for it from the administration,I think he clearly is telling what the truth is as he see's it in spite of that,that is him clearly working against his own self interest.Another Objective group to me is all the national academies of science agree on it,I don't think they can be said to have an agenda eitheir way.Do people really beleive scientists say this for some profit motive?Or do the scientists at the UN who have said the same thing represent some conspiracy to punish rich polluting america,I don't see that.To me the only ones driven by profit motives I see are the corporate ones arguing it is all some kinda hoax.And I guess I think 99% of the ones arguing that it is a hoax fall into that group.Like I said find me one national acadamie of science that is on their side or one respected nature group and I will be surprised.The verdict is in among those folks on this.
PS.I just saw the thing about jobs,i'm sorry I don't beleive that.Actually if they were looking to make a profit they would be on the other side of the issuse with the corporations as that is where the money to be made on it is.
Environmentalist jobs largely exist because of the scare.Nobody is going to employ a lot of people who can only say "everything is fine"
All the media have environmental correspondents again whose jobs depend in global warming.Can we expect impartial reporting from them?
I'm sure everything will turn out fine. Either it's not happening or, if it is, there's nothing we can - or SHOULD - do about it anyway because, of course, it's more important to protect global transnational capitalism than it is to make sure a few icebergs don't melt and a few polar bears (or whatever) drown. Now, if you'll excuse me, I've gotta go warm up my SUV (cold day here) for the drive down the driveway to get my mail - I think my Cigar Aficionado magazine might be here!
Capitalism will love it! It's difficult to sell somebody something they already have. But now it will have to be replaced with a new energy efficient model.Energy saving goodies will flood the market.Your gas guzzling car will need to be replaced by one using new technology.
The money guys have already seen this.The oil companies are well placed; in the short term oil demand will stay high anyway because there's no real alternative yet and they will diversify into new energy sources over the medium to long term.It's my belief that there's more money to be made this way than by just carrying on as before.
The money guys have already seen this.The oil companies are well placed; in the short term oil demand will stay high anyway because there's no real alternative yet and they will diversify into new energy sources over the medium to long term.It's my belief that there's more money to be made this way than by just carrying on as before.
Whos freedom? Over 1/2 of the world isn't being asked to change a thing. Third world countries, Asia, and others that are not causing a problem are not being affected at all except by the environmental impact. Europe, America, and Australia are the only ones trying to do anything about what is an obvious problem. Anyone who says otherwise is showing an abysmal ignorance of modern climatology. If nothing is done, everyone will feel the pinch. Look this thread up again in 5 years and tell me what you think. :2 cents:
No offense Facetious, but when I saw the title of this thread I assumed you (or possibly Roughneck) would be the thread starter.
I am often surprised at how the most free country in the World (America) is inhabited by people that are amongst the most fearful (sometimes paranoid) of losing that freedom.
Is there really so few other important things to concern yourselves with?
I am not annoyed or trying to be combative. I am simply curious.
I am often surprised at how the most free country in the World (America) is inhabited by people that are amongst the most fearful (sometimes paranoid) of losing that freedom.
Is there really so few other important things to concern yourselves with?
I am not annoyed or trying to be combative. I am simply curious.
Freedom, terrorism (and communism in the article) and a bunch of other similar words are used for appeal to emotion. That is, if you have a weak argument, you throw in some of those words and people will be more willing to support your cause because they associate it with those particular words. It's fairly common and fairly effective. It also tends to make me write the argument off as pointless, but unfortunately, I'm probably one of few.
I think that some of us living outside the US might be just as free as you are!For a start we don't have your ridiculous drink laws
If you are referring to me; I am Canadian.I think that some of us living outside the US might be just as free as you are!For a start we don't have your ridiculous drink laws
Sorry-missed that! I should have read it more closely.
I'm not sure though that Americans are the freest people .In some areas they are, in others not.Certainly they make the most fuss over it.
