Lifestyle > Train of Thought

What percentage of global warming deniers can't differentiate?

(1/6) > >>

xckoza:

It seems like half the questions in the global warming section these days are 'if global warming is true why is it snowing today?'.

What percentage of global warming deniers do you think don't know the difference between weather and climate, local and global, or past and present?

Considering this figure and the small minority of people who continue to deny anthropogenic global warming (AGW), what does this tell you about the AGW denial movement?

virtuoso:

Your posting is based on a falsehood, it is an illusion which has been created.

I draw your attention to http://www.petitionproject.org/ and http://www.petitionproject.org/gw_article/GWReview_OISM600.pdf.

It is very clear that the media is not interested in pursuing a balanced approach to journalism, therefore the mainstream media have become irrelevant, they have become avenues from which to disseminate a particular propaganda angle. It is true that there are some investigative journalists, but they are the ones who definitely number in the minority. The vast majority of news is intended to be heard and to be understood in a bite sized manner and of course when you only hear one point of view, it becomes easy to castigate any views outside of this paradigm as nonsense.

Matty:
i haven't done enough research to really form a strong opinion but i'm aware there are two sides to the whole global warming debate. not so much that the world is or isn't getting warmer but the REASONS given for the small temperature increase and the likely policy reactions based on that.

from the title of the post it sounds like anyone not believing the government side of the argument would be classified as a denier. troubling!

RETURN OF THE OVERFIEND!:
I don't know about contributing to climate change,

but I do know carbon dioxide fucks up the air and isn't very nice to breath!

The effects of carbon dioxide are obvious, all you have to do is take a look at any big city, it pollutes the air you put into your lungs, fucks with the view and the overall quality of life.



Sorry virtuoso, I guess I'm with the corporate-banking-industrial elites on this one... 

virtuoso:
The sulphur, the mercury, the smog, is what pollutes the lungs, not carbon dioxide, plus you can't see carbon dioxide unless you are viewing it under controlled conditions. In addition plants emit CO2 during photosynthesis, what are we going to do, cut down all the trees to save us from carbon and oxygen?.  ;D

Rhetorical question, I wonder how many people will look at the links I just posted, since most people won't be bothered to read that, I also draw your attention to

The reason given for not classifying CO2 as a pollutant is based upon the fact that it is a natural component of the atmosphere and needed by plants in order to carry out photosynthesis. No one would argue the fact that carbon dioxide is a necessary component of the atmosphere any more than one would argue the fact that Vitamin D is necessary in the human diet. However, excess Vitamin D in the diet can be extremely toxic (6). Living systems, be they an ecosystem or an organism, require that a delicate balance be maintained between certain elements and/or compounds in order for the system to function normally. When one substance is present in excess and as a result threatens the wellbeing of an ecosystem, it becomes toxic, and could be considered to be a pollutant, despite the fact that it is required in small quantities.


http://environmentalchemistry.com/yogi/environmental/200611CO2globalwarming.html

So now they have decided that there is an "excess", based upon the fact that carbon dioxide levels have risen in this warmer period. However they can not directly correlate this all with man as they well know. That is why they have been playing the word game, it's gone from being called global warming, to climate change. The climate is always changing and indeed right now there is global cooling, it was meant to last a decade, now they are back tracking and saying perhaps 2 decades or more. So in twenty years time, we will see on the surface to air temperature line graph an increase of below 1 centigrade for the last 100 years, followed by a drop again. This is all so deceitful, the only reason why they are using the last 100 years as any kind of guide is because they can then attempt to tie it in with industrial activity - the industrial revolution.

So while it's gone from being denied to accepted that global cooling is taking place, it doesn't matter, it's a short reprieve the sky is falling the sky is falling. The irony is not lost on me, the same people who mockingly respond to posts of mine with bs like the "sky is falling" are the same ones being seduced by this very idea. I remember my geography teacher, who did actually school us well, taught us about how we were all going to freeze to death (according to the so called experts at the time) and that polar bears would be present in Scotland by the year 2000. It seems like the war on terrorism is losing momentum, so instead now it's the war on climate but of course none of these so called wars can ever be won because of their very nature.

Check this out to http://BreakForNews.com/audio/BeautifulTruth090221a.mp3

You can't stop the climate holmes, you can't stop the drugs and you can't stop terrorism
Peace!

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page