global warming and the political agenda

[hydrogen3]

global warming and the political agenda

 

[Just_Me_D]

The global warming/climate change agenda is indeed a farce. Man did not create this planet nor did man create anything from something that was not supplied by this planet. Having said that, we have zero control over climate, and just like there are four seasons, the climate changes all the time without our intervention. Unfortunately, far too many people have bought into the save the planet crap. I guess it makes them feel good to *think* they are actually saving something GOD-made. They don't want to see that it's all about the transfer of wealth and power, but I suppose it's their choice, right?

 

[HankAZ]

The global warming/climate change agenda is indeed a farce. Man did not create this planet nor did man create anything from something that was not supplied by this planet. Having said that, we have zero control over climate, and just like there are four seasons, the climate changes all the time without our intervention. Unfortunately, far too many people have bought into the save the planet crap. I guess it makes them feel good to *think* they are actually saving something GOD-made. They don't want to see that it's all about the transfer of wealth and power, but I suppose it's their choice, right?

The folks like Al Gore, who are supposed to be championing this whole thing are (1) among the largest abusers of their so-called mandates, and (2) have gotten obscenely rich from spreading these lies.

I’m all for being a good steward of the planet and its resources, but you are absolutely correct in that man did not create this planet/solar system, and, likewise, man does not have it in his power to destroy it.

Also, the fact that Obama is pushing ANY program convinces me that he’s a fraud, a socialist with his own agenda, and cannot be trusted. Look at his history of “bending” the truth. If his lips are moving, you can bet it’s gonna cost the American tax payers big time… and that he’s lying again.

 

[hydrogen3]

climate change—is a hoax.

 

[John Yester]

I always go with..... trust no one.....

 

[Ledsteplin]

climate change?is a hoax.

The man caused variety is a hoax. Whatever we experience is Mother Nature doing her thing.


Sent from from my iPhone 5

 

[Highrisedrifter]

I'm not sure how to respond to that article. Maybe I'll think of something once I stop laughing.

 

[anon7833325]

So I suppose little things like the Cuyahoga River catching on fire, repeatedly, also had nothing to do with man? Or the people in West Virginia that can't drink their tap because of the "sludge" from coal mining. To discount the real impact we have on the environment around us is to be blind. But, to each their own.


Sent from my iPhone 5S or iPad mini

 

[the_tech_eater]

The global warming/climate change agenda is indeed a farce. Man did not create this planet nor did man create anything from something that was not supplied by this planet. Having said that, we have zero control over climate, and just like there are four seasons, the climate changes all the time without our intervention. Unfortunately, far too many people have bought into the save the planet crap. I guess it makes them feel good to *think* they are actually saving something GOD-made. They don't want to see that it's all about the transfer of wealth and power, but I suppose it's their choice, right?

It really means a lot to me that you posted that! It is such a blessing to have you as a leader here at iMore! I agree with everything that you posted. The earth had been having periods of climate change for 6000 years. And right now, maybe the earth is slightly warmer. But in 20 years, it could go through a period of global cooling.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Just_Me_D]

It really means a lot to me that you posted that! It is such a blessing to have you as a leader here at iMore! I agree with everything that you posted. The earth had been having periods of climate change for 6000 years. And right now, maybe the earth is slightly warmer. But in 20 years, it could go through a period of global cooling.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thank you...

 

[hydrogen3]

So I suppose little things like the Cuyahoga River catching on fire, repeatedly, also had nothing to do with man? Or the people in West Virginia that can't drink their tap because of the "sludge" from coal mining. To discount the real impact we have on the environment around us is to be blind. But, to each their own.


Sent from my iPhone 5S or iPad mini

Please...

Rivers don't "catch fire" as Water can not support combustion. However, Chemicals in water may burn.. So... a river catching fire is not from "climate change". Neither is "not being able to drink tap water" a result from "climate change".

Climate change defined.

 

[anon7833325]

Please...

Rivers don't "catch fire" as Water can not support combustion. However, Chemicals in water may burn.. So... a river catching fire is not from "climate change". Neither is "not being able to drink tap water" a result from "climate change".

Climate change defined.

You know, had you read the words in my post you would have seen "environment". Not "climate". Never said those things constitute climate change. I was merely taking exception to this seeming idea of "man can't hurt the planet" mindset.


Sent from my iPhone 5S or iPad mini

 

[anon7833325]

It really means a lot to me that you posted that! It is such a blessing to have you as a leader here at iMore! I agree with everything that you posted. The earth had been having periods of climate change for 6000 years. And right now, maybe the earth is slightly warmer. But in 20 years, it could go through a period of global cooling.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And 6000 years? Hate to break it to you, the earth has been around just a bit longer than that. But thank you. Your blessings make my world so complete. See? I can also do sarcasm.


Sent from my iPhone 5S or iPad mini

 

[anon7833325]

But more to the basic point, yes, chemicals in water burn. Shocker!!! But, to take your mindset, the chemicals HAD to be in there naturally. Because man can't harm the planet, right?


Sent from my iPhone 5S or iPad mini

 

[the_tech_eater]

And 6000 years? Hate to break it to you, the earth has been around just a bit longer than that. But thank you. Your blessings make my world so complete. See? I can also do sarcasm.


Sent from my iPhone 5S or iPad mini

I'm not interested in arguing about it with you here. And I wasn't being sarcastic either. I meant it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[hydrogen3]

No, No, No.

The chemicals were obviously man made. I never said man did not harm the planet. Let's agree to disagree on the issue of climate change..

Regards

 

[Just_Me_D]

So I suppose little things like the Cuyahoga River catching on fire, repeatedly, also had nothing to do with man? Or the people in West Virginia that can't drink their tap because of the "sludge" from coal mining. To discount the real impact we have on the environment around us is to be blind. But, to each their own.


Sent from my iPhone 5S or iPad mini

How far back in time do we go in regard to blaming mankind? Do we go back to the first man? If so, who taught him how to cultivate and live off the land? When he discovered things like coal and oil and how it gave him a good deal of light and warmth, should he had assumed it would harm the planet and discarded the discovery or be thankful for having a means to maintain light in the darkness and for warmth? Should he have not taught those who came after him how to use the coal for his comfort? What about erupting volcanoes that spew lava, smoke and ash for miles covering landscape and flowing into rivers and streams killing multitudes of animals and fish? Is that man's fault? Why can't we keep the outside temperature at 75 degrees year round? Why can't we prevent it from lightning or prevent tornados, tsunamis and hurricanes that kill man and beast alike since we're allegedly in control of the climate? Do I really need to continue?

 

[anon7833325]

How far back in time do we go in regard to blaming mankind? Do we go back to the first man? If so, who taught him how to cultivate and live off the land? When he discovered things like coal and oil and how it gave him a good deal of light and warmth, should he had assumed it would harm the planet and discarded the discovery or be thankful for having a means to maintain light in the darkness and for warmth? Should he have not taught those who came after him how to use the coal for his comfort? What about erupting volcanoes that spew lava, smoke and ash for miles covering landscape and flowing into rivers and streams killing multitudes of fish? Is that man's fault? Why can't we keep the outside temperature at 75 degrees year round? Why can't we prevent it from lightning or prevent tornados, tsunamis and hurricanes that kill man and beast alike since we're allegedly in control of the climate? Do I really need to continue?

Again, I would merely point out, as I already have that I was referring to man's ability to damage the environment. Which, as I'm sure you realize, is entirely different and independent of any alleged ability to control the environment. And it's not a matter of "blaming man" for damaging the environment. It's a matter of realizing that the things we do have consequences. That realization needs to happen even if the actions of early man are entirely understandable, which they are. But now we have the ability to do the same thing in different ways. And, for practical purposes, do you understand the nature of fossil fuels like coal and oil? They are in limited supply. Even if one completely disregards any and all environmental damage resulting from misuse, it should be seen as entirely practical to at least seriously look at developing sources of energy that are not going to inevitably run out at some point.

And to answer your last question, no. You do not need to continue taking this discussion to ridiculous levels. Nor do you need to continue crediting me for saying things I did not say. Conceptualizing controlling the weather and world around us is, to restate this, entirely different from acknowledging the environmental impact of things that we do.

Being a total cynic, I do not expect any of this to resonate with you. And if that's the case, we can agree to disagree.


Sent from my iPhone using iMore Forums

 

[Just_Me_D]

Again, I would merely point out, as I already have that I was referring to man's ability to damage the environment. Which, as I'm sure you realize, is entirely different and independent of any alleged ability to control the environment. And it's not a matter of "blaming man" for damaging the environment. It's a matter of realizing that the things we do have consequences. That realization needs to happen even if the actions of early man are entirely understandable, which they are. But now we have the ability to do the same thing in different ways. And, for practical purposes, do you understand the nature of fossil fuels like coal and oil? They are in limited supply. Even if one completely disregards any and all environmental damage resulting from misuse, it should be seen as entirely practical to at least seriously look at developing sources of energy that are not going to inevitably run out at some point.

And to answer your last question, no. You do not need to continue taking this discussion to ridiculous levels. Nor do you need to continue crediting me for saying things I did not say. Conceptualizing controlling the weather and world around us is, to restate this, entirely different from acknowledging the environmental impact of things that we do.

Being a total cynic, I do not expect any of this to resonate with you. And if that's the case, we can agree to disagree.


Sent from my iPhone using iMore Forums

It should be common sense to know that there are consequences for everything we do. It should also be noted that moving away from an energy source that's been around for ions will also have consequences. It's like the argument of reusable paper to save trees, yet, are we saving trees in that regard? Do we not use 3 times as many pieces of reusable paper than we would have if things have stayed the way they were? What about the food ok' light bulb from our youth. What was wrong with them? Nothing. Yet, we are pushed to use the newer kind that cost more and doesn't last as long. Consequences? More money and more purchases. Of course I can continue, and yes it is "ridiculous", but only to those who aren't open to opposing views.

 

[anon7833325]

I can't speak to the reusable paper. But as far as the new CFL light bulbs, every bulb in my house is one of them. And from my experience, they last quite a bit longer. We used to have to replace the one by our back door every three to six months. Now it's once a year or so.

And I am open to opposing views. What's "ridiculous" is comparing man caused damage (trash in a river) to the natural disasters we see everyday.


Sent from my iPhone using iMore Forums