Please dont get me wrong when I post articles and links like this. I do believe that our environment needs to be regulated, that dangerous toxic gas' can be extremely dangerous to our health as well as the health of the Earth we live in. However I just do not know if there is any correlation to this so called global warming effect and dangerous emissions such as CO2. Since there is no real proof of to show me that global warming is real, it sickens me that it can be so high on the agenda of politicians, when real problems like the economy, unemployment, war, and a huge budget deficit loom. Anyways I doubt a US paper could ever get away with an article like this.
Again, I am not saying we do not need to protect the environment and regulate against companies the emit these types of toxins into the atmosphere. However before I go to movies about the end of the world that is intended to boost your political career, I would like to see some more accurate proof.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Let me see, Al Gore pop-science movie bad, this article sheer genius! Come on. You're choosing one piece of shit over another because that piece of shit is telling you what you want to hear.
First, you say you're not convinced there's "proof," but then you're impressed with a list of 100 anecdotal, glib, unsupported claims that cite to nothing, or in some cases cite to the "Emeritus Professor of Biogeography at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London?" Or the "Professor of Geology and Earth Sciences at the University of Adelaide?"
For example, the fact that it was hotter 800 years ago does nothing to prove that we aren't making it hotter today. The fact is largely irrelevant. It's like saying, "I was 300 pounds 10 years ago, and I'm 200 now, so I can eat large pizzas and boxes of donuts without getting fat." My weight gain then was caused by a thyroid problem, so my weight gain today CANNOT be caused by sitting on my ass eating candy bars. One fact has nothing to do with the other. I guess that stuff is convincing for people with no background in logic or science, which is most people, I guess.
It is the equivalent of my new article on "100 reasons Duke sucks:
1. Coack K is a douche.
2. Laettner is a douche.
3. Scheyer is a douche.
4. Some guy at a bar in Stevens Point thinks Singler is s douche.
5. They lost in Madison, North Dakota State won in Madison.
6. You get the idea.
Millions of Duke haters will laud this article as brave, intelligent and having the courage to say what ESPN won't. Sound familiar?
And why do you buy into the bullshit of "an American paper could never get away with this?" It's ironic that Gore put out a movie. To hear the Palinites tell it, Gore would be getting 12 hours a day in free media time on the mainstream network channels to spew his leftist, extreme agenda, right?
Strange that he had to spend his own money to produce a movie, much like Michael Moore, and rely on the market to get his message out - if you didn't choose to buy a ticket or rent it, you didn't see it. Yet, I see Palin on the fucking news every single night. Oh, the bias!
As tired as I am of the whiney, sky-is-falling hippies, I am equally tired of the rich, white, conservatives talking about how they are getting screwed by the media at every turn. Maybe you can explain to me why I've heard or read every one these 100 "reasons" at least a couple times before, living right here in the USA.
I think it's time people start meeting somewhere in the middle. The truth is that the Earth is a complex environment. There are a lot of unkowns and there is a lot of evidence to be sifted through. I just don't see criticizing Gore and celebrating this article. They are in the same extremist shit-heap if you ask me.
TK,
Fair enough. I cannot disagree with you, the article is extremely one sided. But my point is there are two sides to the argument, however one side is rarely ever discussed by American Media outlets. I am not saying that there arent plenty of one sided, right wing articles that get thrown out by the US media. I have seen plenty in the last few weeks criticizing Obama's first year in office.
My point was to simply show that you shouldnt always believe all the rhetoric that you hear. There is often another side of the argument. I personally dont see the media present both sides of the argument as you do. Maybe I am looking through my Duke colored glasses as you so elegantly put, but I do think there is an incredible amount of liberal bias in the media. I admit I dont read and watch every news outlet that exists, so I could very well be wrong. I probably owe Al Gore an apology as well, because like you said he can spend his money on whatever he wants trying to get his point across. I believe in the right to do just that. But then why cant I, on my blog, a forum for my opinions, link an article that states basically the exact opposite of what he is saying?
You argue that facts from the article are irrelevant. I would argue that they are just as relevant as anything that exists in the movie. Or that exists in any article saying we need to fear global warming. I know that I cannot prove or disprove anything that is said. I know you cannot either. Go ahead poke holes in the sources of the article, and say that I dont have proof to the other side of the argument. I am glad you did that because that was exactly my point. I dont have proof one way or another, but for everything that can be spouted off one way, I kind find facts that would back up something completely different. You are right though, since I dont have a background in logic or science, (and how could I since I am a duke fan) than I cannot say for sure one way or another who is right. I didnt claim the article was right, I just posted it as a response to everything I see daily regarding global warming. I guess that is the coservative in me that believes there are bigger problems to worry about than global warming and that is why I post things that will contradict popular public opinion.
I am a moderate, I admit that I lean conservative, but I have voted for just as many demoncratic presidents as I have republican. I agree completely that right now the two sides are radically split. Like you so well said you have the hippies on one side and the old rich getting fucked over by liberal media on the other. I think those are two sides that actually do exist, and I will agree we have to meet in the middle. What in my post ever disputed those points? I dont use this blog as a forum for ultra coservatism, even though at times I feel like that is where we should be heading. I do however like to point out things that mean something to me. One of the things I believe in is dont always believe what you read or see at the movies. Which typically is slanted to a liberal point of view. If you want to argue that than you dont follow who makes the movies in this country. There is a liberal bias in media, yes it is a factless claim, that you no doubt will rip apart. As illogical as my argument may seem to you, a man of endless knowledge and wisdom, I do believe that. Deal with it.
I agree, I believe I said the movie is about as stupid as the article. Yet, you tell one to "suck it" and link to the other as if it is somehow meaningful. My point is you can't have it both ways. If you're being honest, either half-assed science with over-confident theory is bullshit, or it's not. When you trash one and endorse another, it looks like you're willing to lean on whatever supports what you already believe. That's the opposite of science and the opposite of learning. You're committing the same error you accuse Gore of committing.
The reality is that you can never have proof on this subject until it is too late or until nothing happens. In science, you find "proof" or something close to proof by having a control group and a test group. You take 1,000 people and give them a drug for 10 years. You take another 1,000 people and give them a placebo. After 10 years, you find out that the drug group got cancer at an 80% rate, while the non-drug group got cancer at a 5% rate. All other things being roughly equal, you have "proof" that the drug causes cancer.
On a smaller scale, we can do this with environmental issues. Take two similar locations, pour a bunch of mercury into the ground in one location, and find out ten years later that the entire water supply of the mercury area is fucked, while the supply in the non-polluted area is still clean. Ta-da. Proof.
On the climate / planetary scale, we will never have proof. We only have one planet. We don't have a spare Earth in the universe closet where we can reduce CO2 emissions and see if anything changes. We're going to have to look at the evidence we have, become as educated as we can about it, and try to make some reasonable judgments about it.
Even the head of Greenpeace - the king shit of all panicking hippies - admitted there is no "proof." There never will be proof. Forget that. It's like telling a priest there is no proof that God exists. He knows that. If you don't give a shit about the reasons he believes in God, because it isn't proof, that's fine. But you can't pretend you're on the high ground by citing an article from some dude who says there's no proof of God because his dog really did eat his homework.
That's my point, Dude. Were you listening to the Dude's story?
By the way, I know who makes the movies in this country. It is the same people who own the newspapers, the television networks, and the major media outlets.
Guess who? Huge, billion dollar corporations and the super rich folks who own them.
Yeah Jews who are 90% liberal.
Just kidding by the way and point taken, but I guess we can around and around my idea that media is liberally bias. That doesnt take anything away from the great comments you pointed out about finding proof in the fact that we are destroying the planet. I honestly never thought about it like that and I am glad you pointed that out.
I wasnt saying I have any answers because I dont. I do what I am told to do, and if there is regulation that makes me do things different i am going to follow along. I do feel however that this is one issue with the far left that I can not get on board with. At least not if it is going to be one of the things they are going to form there platform around. I guess that is why it is a sensitive topic to me. I feel like we are at a crossroads right now politically with a lot of huge issues sitting right in front of us, that are bigger than "global warming". Some of those issues I have touched on, and to be honest neither side has much for answers right now.
I cannot argue with any points you have made and I agree that I was wrong to say suck it gore, when in reality I was linking something with less credibility than the movie itself. Still I firmly believe there is another side or argument to be made, that is often ignored by the left wing in this country.
Post a Comment