Uechi-Ryu.com

This type of commercial is what`s needed to open eyes.
Many of us know...30 or so years is NOT a long time.

Don't you know that global warming, indeed all of environmentalism is just a hoax by liberals to limit people's freedom and turn the world over to communists?

Valkenar wrote:Don't you know that global warming, indeed all of environmentalism is just a hoax by liberals to limit people's freedom and turn the world over to communists?

Everyone knows that. Rush Limbaugh has been sayin it for years. Besides it would cripple our economy to actually try and eliminate green house gas production....

And besides, how do we actually know how hot the Earth was before. After all, the temperature increases could just be natural.....

Little evidence has been provided to argue with reason that humans are not having an effect on weather change, more data to prove we are (that I`m aware of). Regardless, reducing what goes into the atmosphere seems sensible. We have no place to go if we destroy our little air bubble in space

Climate-change deniers can imagine all the hypotheses they like, but it will not change the facts nor "the general induction from the phenomena."

None of this is to say that there are no uncertainties left — there are always uncertainties in any live science. Agreeing about the reality and causes of current global warming is not the same as agreeing about what will happen in the future. There is continuing debate in the scientific community over the likely rate of future change: not "whether" but "how much" and "how soon." And this is precisely why we need to act today: because the longer we wait, the worse the problem will become, and the harder it will be to solve.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/com ... t-opinions

We know the climate in different regions due to geological research. I can't remember the exact things they look at and my book and notes are in storage. Due to this research we know that the world climate goes up and down in cycles.

We don't have a long enough baseline of reliable and specific temperatures to know if the current trend is a normal increase or an accelerated increase. Therefore we still don't know if this is a real problem. What we do know for sure is that it's worth looking into.

We really "don't" have enough data--not enough information yet.

Problem is--if we are "wrong" or "right" depending on your point of view we could be looking at a SERIOUS problem

How careful would YOU be if the consequences of being wrong were a slow painful death?

My fear is that too many people are equating "not enough data" with "not enough data means there is NO problem."

We just don't know--I tend to doubt that there is problem--but I just don't know.

The scary thing is that nobody KNOWS.

My best advice when I don't knwo for sure is:

"Be alert and be careful."

Yah - I'm in the place where we don't know if it is cause and effect or not however it is something we can't afford to get wrong.

Besides - less polution, cleaner air, more efficient use of fuels...that should be our goal anyway because it the right thing to do and done well, will make room for greater advances. And one of Gore' really good points is that if you do production of any kind more efficiently then your profit margins will be higher.

So everybody wins.

When I was in School the experts were foretelling the coming of the next ice age.

Now the experts are telling us the polar ice cap will melt.

One of these groups might be correct.

But I doubt the sky is falling!

I certainly wouldn't recommend knee jerk reactions in response to either of these apocalyptic predictions. The accuracy of these experts on predicting weather is about the same as those who read tea leaves to guide us.


Clean air makes sense regardless of what falling sky prophecy one chooses to embrace.

To make economic decisions based on this hooey is a grave error imho.



This is an effective add as far as reaching the target audience and recall. It’s a powerful piece, but it is also misleading and fear mongering. It appeals to us on an emotional level to prop up the sky to save our children. I see this campaign in the same light that I view the crap PETA embraces to promote their dogma.

Willy wrote:When I was in School the experts were foretelling the coming of the next ice age.

Now the experts are telling us the polar ice cap will melt.

One of these groups might be correct.

But I doubt the sky is falling!

I certainly wouldn't recommend knee jerk reactions in response to either of these apocalyptic predictions. The accuracy of these experts on predicting weather is about the same as those who read tea leaves to guide us.


Clean air makes sense regardless of what falling sky prophecy one chooses to embrace.

To make economic decisions based on this hooey is a grave error imho.



This is an effective add as far as reaching the target audience and recall. It’s a powerful piece, but it is also misleading and fear mongering. It appeals to us on an emotional level to prop up the sky to save our children. I see this campaign in the same light that I view the crap PETA embraces to promote their dogma.

Interesting point. I like where it leads to.


Though polution is something to consider. Just visit a country like pakistan, the air is very different from edmonton because pollution is an issue taken seriously so the air is clean while it isnt in pakistan.

But at the same time, if pakistan gave a damn about the envoronment, it would be in WORSE condition then it is now, because it WONT have as much focus on improving it's already crappy position.


I think the same applies for global warming.

"To make economic decisions based on this hooey is a grave error imho."

Every decision is an economic decision, or nearly so. We chose to eat in, or eat out; these choices entail driving, and gas. We chose how we cook. Whether the food is raised efficiently or not. How the land is managed. whether we buy farm or free range. All of these decisions are economic. If we don't base our economic decisions on environmental values hooey, then we'd blow up our national parks to find gold in em, we'd totally ignore mileage when we bought cars, we'd leave all the lights on all the time if the cost is minimal... it makes no sense. The population explosion will end; the use of fossil fuels will end. Our take over of marsh and forest will end. Why not now before we gamble the future and make the world less pleasant at the same time?

Norplant for everyone.

IJ wrote:Norplant for everyone.

Seems unfair to the gay community and folks with preformance issues. How un PC of you Ian.

Why not a chemical lobotomy?

Thorazine for everyone.

When we are all dummied down enough we just might buy into this, "the sky is falling" garbage that we are being spoon fed.

IJ wrote:"To make economic decisions based on this hooey is a grave error imho."

Every decision is an economic decision, or nearly so. We chose to eat in, or eat out; these choices entail driving, and gas. We chose how we cook. Whether the food is raised efficiently or not. How the land is managed. whether we buy farm or free range. All of these decisions are economic. If we don't base our economic decisions on environmental values hooey, then we'd blow up our national parks to find gold in em, we'd totally ignore mileage when we bought cars, we'd leave all the lights on all the time if the cost is minimal... it makes no sense. The population explosion will end; the use of fossil fuels will end. Our take over of marsh and forest will end. Why not now before we gamble the future and make the world less pleasant at the same time?

Norplant for everyone.

If we took the environment too seriously, if the WORLD took it too seriously, there are countries that are having time maintaining an infrastructure.

Do they have the luxury of worrying about the environment? No.

IM not saying we SHOULDNT take it seriously, but how important is it really compared to other things?

Do they have the luxury of worrying about the environment? No.

I remember the days of garbage dumps, the more the pleasant landfill/recycle sites were unheard of. The thought was the garbage had to go somewhere and often the site choosen was based on easy access easy and painless as possible to the $$$. What it destroyed or who it effected (wasn`t the middle class) was not a consideration. We are basically in the same mindset when it comes to greenhouse gases. Short term gain driven by greed by the few. The solution is costly to those with $$$$ and yes they will pass on the cost to those with less resources if forced to spend thier wealth. I`m convienced change will happen whether it be in the worlds climate or worlds economics. One change can rebalance one can`t.