Reply to Re: Global Warming Hoax/Conspiracy?
If you don't have an account, just leave the password field blank.
Global warming may or may not be man-made, but I have some issues with the current hype.
CO2 is supposedly bad, but we breath it out. Doesn't that make us bad? And trees absorb C02, and we only have like a sh*tload-billion trees on the planet.
How long have we had the technology to analyze so much weather data so precisely? We probably don't even have 80 years worth of weather super-data to work from.
There have been e-mails between European environmentalists that are revealed to be saying that data contrary to global warming should be "ignored". And I would actually give it global warming more credit if environmentalists didn't shut off microphones whenever they heard contrary evidence.
And Al Gore, the leading man on the environment issue, doesn't show in his actions that he truly believes in it. He still eats meat, his house uses much more electricity than the average home (I think some studies said twenty times as much), and he flies around in an inefficient jet. He even claimed to have invented the internet, which should have raised a f*cking huge red flag right there. I'd take him more seriously if he actually showed his belief in the cause.
My final problem with climate change (that's what they call it so they can hype when the Earth warms and cools regardless) is that it seems to be more of a political power grab than anything else. Cap and Trade will kill useful companies, feed environmentalist groups and have minimal effect on the climate. And the climate change talks held recently involved some talk of a "world government" backing up any new international laws. That is the ultimate breeding ground for corruption and fulfills at least one religious prophecy. Makes it hard to sleep when you think about that.
Basic point is, I would be more willing to consider global warming as something real if it was an open debate with data coming from multiple trustworthy sources, and if it wasn't prominently used for political power.
CO2 is supposedly bad, but we breath it out. Doesn't that make us bad? And trees absorb C02, and we only have like a sh*tload-billion trees on the planet.
How long have we had the technology to analyze so much weather data so precisely? We probably don't even have 80 years worth of weather super-data to work from.
There have been e-mails between European environmentalists that are revealed to be saying that data contrary to global warming should be "ignored". And I would actually give it global warming more credit if environmentalists didn't shut off microphones whenever they heard contrary evidence.
And Al Gore, the leading man on the environment issue, doesn't show in his actions that he truly believes in it. He still eats meat, his house uses much more electricity than the average home (I think some studies said twenty times as much), and he flies around in an inefficient jet. He even claimed to have invented the internet, which should have raised a f*cking huge red flag right there. I'd take him more seriously if he actually showed his belief in the cause.
My final problem with climate change (that's what they call it so they can hype when the Earth warms and cools regardless) is that it seems to be more of a political power grab than anything else. Cap and Trade will kill useful companies, feed environmentalist groups and have minimal effect on the climate. And the climate change talks held recently involved some talk of a "world government" backing up any new international laws. That is the ultimate breeding ground for corruption and fulfills at least one religious prophecy. Makes it hard to sleep when you think about that.
Basic point is, I would be more willing to consider global warming as something real if it was an open debate with data coming from multiple trustworthy sources, and if it wasn't prominently used for political power.
