Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Manmade Global Warming, A hoax? A Scam? or a Doomsday Cult? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Don Hurst who wrote (1333)	7/21/2010 1:57:12 PM
From: zoo york	10 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4326

Hi Don! I try to avoid flame wars although sometimes they are inevitable when you post an open forum and there are plenty of nutbars out there with an agenda. I do not consider myself an expert on climate change. I do have a very strong opinion on the matter and am not shy about communicating that. For the record, I believe that the vast majority of people that do believe in man-made global warming full under the following categories: 1) They have succumbed to the endless fear and escalating warnings of doom. They do not have a clue about the science of climate, but they trust the media and assume if it is reported, then it must be true. 2) People who have an axe to grind about other issues, such as overpopulation, save the whales, anti-globalization, etc. They may not care about GW, but since the issues and attention generated by GW are useful to their own agenda, they get on board. 3) People has stand to gain financially from the ongoing hysteria about GW, or the interest in green alternates. It is hard to find an advertisement for a mainstream product these days that does not have some 'green' connection. These products usually cost more and have very questionable benefits, but because they are promoted as 'green' they can be marketable on that basis alone. Most of these ads have some sort of "Do what is right for the environment" pitch. 4) People who stand to gain financially directly from the cult of GW itself. Most of the scientists involved that publish reports on the subject are directly compensated as a result of the bias they present. It is unlikely that a scientist would be supported by the usual green NGAs if he was out to prove that GW is NOT happening. Many of these NGAs have slush funds in the tens of millions of dollars, and they actively promote their own agenda, by paying for 'science' that is going to validate their own claims. To answer your question, I believe their is NO government leadership on the issue. I think you have some uninformed individuals that are seeking to gain political favour by piling on board an issue that the uninformed public is looking for solutions to. How ironic. I doubt very many politicians have the balls to confront the hype and stand up to the fake science. So they pretend to show concern and stay in office. I am cynical as hell on the entire sideshow. As for the notion that one party will put its own politics aside for the good of the nation, lets just examine the behaviour of the Obama administration. They have stated numerous times how they are concerned with the environment, have the courage to make changes, etc. Well, they could have done something proactive about the Gulf oil well disaster but chose instead to talk and make positive noises, but do nothing. They could have mobilized international clean up efforts but chose to do nothing. To do so would have embarrassed the party after stating that the situation was under control. In the end, they chose to circle the wagons and do damage control on their own image rather than take decisive action to participate fully in the crisis resolution. Is this the kind of political action that speaks of doing the right thing for the planet? I do not want to participate in a political argument, I am simply stating why I think the politics of this discussion are completely FOS. Sorry for the long post. My point remains that most of the shrill commentary on GW is coming from people that cannot debate their way out of a soggy paper bag. These people have no understanding of climate or science, but they have the moral high ground. Are you one of those people Don? cheers! mike