Remember Global Cooling?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jeffrey
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I wouldn’t waste my time to watch that movie.

I’m against the Kyoto Protocol.
DB_AND_ALI said:
Two quick questions :
  1. Have you seen Al Gore’s movie An Inconvenient Truth ?.. and
  2. Have you ever read the content of the Kyoto Protocol that President Bush declined to sign ? [one of the few world leaders who would not sign !].:ouch:
Click to expand...
 
Of course the phrase “Global Cooling” was never used

There was conjecture about glaciation but there was never significant scientific support only popular attention (Like the ever popular Jethro Tull album “Stormwatch”).

Several scientific bodies had pooh-poohed the idea before the Newsweek article

So the analogy to the current situation is false. But if it makes you feel any better go ahead. :rolleyes:

Bottom line: Don’t get your science from Newsweek or popular films.

Scientific bodies on the other hand….
 
DB_AND_ALI said:
Two quick questions :
  1. Have you seen Al Gore’s movie An Inconvenient Truth ?.. and
  2. Have you ever read the content of the Kyoto Protocol that President Bush declined to sign ? [one of the few world leaders who would not sign !].:ouch:
Click to expand...
President Bush was not involved. It was President Clinton who presented it to the Senate for Ratification.

A treaty, according to the US Constitution, is negotiated by the President, and then takes effect when ratified by the Senate.

President Clinton presented it to the Senate. The Senate may vote to ratify it at any time. Once they do that, the US would be obligated under it’s provisions.

So why don’t you ask Sen Reid (D-NV) on why the Democratic-lead Senate has not brought up the treaty for ratification.

It’s THEIR decision, Bush is out of the picture on this one.
 
Brendan said:
President Bush was not involved. It was President Clinton who presented it to the Senate for Ratification.

A treaty, according to the US Constitution, is negotiated by the President, and then takes effect when ratified by the Senate.

President Clinton presented it to the Senate. The Senate may vote to ratify it at any time. Once they do that, the US would be obligated under it’s provisions.

So why don’t you ask Sen Reid (D-NV) on why the Democratic-lead Senate has not brought up the treaty for ratification.

It’s THEIR decision, Bush is out of the picture on this one.
Click to expand...
What are my chances of getting an invite to the White House so that i can ask The President personally ? I live in Africa !!!😃 😃 😃
 
Jeffrey said:
I wouldn’t waste my time to watch that movie.

I’m against the Kyoto Protocol.
Click to expand...
Why comment on something at all then…??? I thought this forum was meant to stimulate thought and debate amongst folks !!!
P.S. Why are you against the Kyoto Protocol ?:confused:
 
DB_AND_ALI said:
What are my chances of getting an invite to the White House so that i can ask The President personally ? I live in Africa !!!😃 😃 😃
Click to expand...
And he would tell you to go ask Congress,

The whole point is that it is now up to CONGRESS, not the President, to vote on.

But even the Democratic controlled Congress has not bothered itself to bring it up for a vote.

President Bush does not play any part what so ever it’s ratification
 
follow the money.

a LOT of people are making a lot of money off scaring folks with the global warming hoax. thats why it’s perpetuated in the media and among society.

When they say think green… they mean cash.
 
thechrismyster said:
follow the money.

a LOT of people are making a lot of money off scaring folks with the global warming hoax. thats why it’s perpetuated in the media and among society.

When they say think green… they mean cash.
Click to expand...
I think we would all do well to remember Herbivore’s First Law of Epimistomology: “Just 'cause I don’t know what’s happening don’t mean I got to accept the first cockamamie explanation that comes down the pike.”😃

That goes double if they want you to shell out big bucks and cripple your economy.
 
Brendan said:
And he would tell you to go ask Congress,

The whole point is that it is now up to CONGRESS, not the President, to vote on.

But even the Democratic controlled Congress has not bothered itself to bring it up for a vote.

President Bush does not play any part what so ever it’s ratification
Click to expand...
IIRC the Clinton administration never formally submitted it to the Senate and the Bush administration has indicated that it will not do so.

The Senate in 1997 passed a motion that they didn’t think the US should be a signatory until certain items were addressed but technically it is still up to the president to submit it or not.

Since it expires in 2012 I don’t think anyone would consider it worth the political capital needed especially since the US has already endorsed the Washington declarations regarding post Kyoto agreements.
 
thechrismyster said:
follow the money.

a LOT of people are making a lot of money off scaring folks with the global warming hoax. thats why it’s perpetuated in the media and among society.

When they say think green… they mean cash.
Click to expand...
Are you suggesting that no one makes any money selling oil?
Or selling books and making TV shows saying that everything is OK?

Or taht there aren’t those who own the media outlets and make their cash just by letting the battle rage on?

Conspiracy theories really don’t impress me.
BIG SECRETS are impossible to keep and no matter how many people benefit from one side, someone will be able to cash in on the other.

PS if Green is the color of cash wouldn’t it then be a good thing to generate new business? What do you have against making money?
 
steveandersen said:
Are you suggesting that no one makes any money selling oil?
Or selling books and making TV shows saying that everything is OK?
Or taht there aren’t those who own the media outlets and make their cash just by letting the battle rage on?
PS if Green is the color of cash wouldn’t it then be a good thing to generate new business? What do you have against making money?
Click to expand...
I’m not saying cash is a bad thing. in fact, money makes the world a better place. I’m just saying a LOT of environmentally focused people are making quite a bit of cash off of a problem that isn’t even really defined - as to cause or control. They’re OPPORTUNISTS as much as they are environmentalists.

and i have no problem at all with that. God bless capitalism. If i could come up with a way to cash in on people’s climate hysteria… i’d be running to the stores to market it.

No different than the oil men… the environmentalists are just cashing in from the opposite side of the same cash cow.
 
thechrismyster said:
I’m not saying cash is a bad thing. in fact, money makes the world a better place. I’m just saying a LOT of environmentally focused people are making quite a bit of cash off of a problem that isn’t even really defined - as to cause or control. They’re OPPORTUNISTS as much as they are environmentalists.

and i have no problem at all with that. God bless capitalism. If i could come up with a way to cash in on people’s climate hysteria… i’d be running to the stores to market it.

No different than the oil men… the environmentalists are just cashing in from the opposite side of the same cash cow.
Click to expand...
The difference being, if I buy a tank of gasoline, I actually get something for my money.😃
 
Jeffrey said:
I wouldn’t waste my time to watch that movie.

I’m against the Kyoto Protocol.
Click to expand...
DB_AND_ALI said:
Why comment on something at all then…??? I thought this forum was meant to stimulate thought and debate amongst folks !!!
P.S. Why are you against the Kyoto Protocol ?:confused:
Click to expand...
The forum is also to express opinions. He was voicing agreement with the preceding post which described the movie as a vanity film put on by a mass murderer and the Kyoto accord as a treaty meant to keep the third-world, places like nearly all of Africa, economically depressed, backward and ripe for exploitation by the industrialized world.
 
thechrismyster said:
I’m not saying cash is a bad thing. in fact, money makes the world a better place.
Click to expand...
Ah ha!
thechrismyster said:
I’m just saying a LOT of environmentally focused people are making quite a bit of cash
Click to expand...
but “money makes the world a better place” :confused:
thechrismyster said:
off of a problem that isn’t even really defined - as to cause or control. They’re OPPORTUNISTS as much as they are environmentalists.
Click to expand...
As were the folks who built the canals or the trans-continental railroads… and the coal mines and the oil wells
thechrismyster said:
and i have no problem at all with that. God bless capitalism.
Click to expand...
Amen!

at least in conformance with Catholic social doctrine
thechrismyster said:
If i could come up with a way to cash in on people’s climate hysteria… i’d be running to the stores to market it.

No different than the oil men… the environmentalists are just cashing in from the opposite side of the same cash cow.
Click to expand...
So the notion that one side has an advantage in concocting a “lie” to the public is not quite right?
Both sides have money to make?

I thought so
 
DB_AND_ALI said:
Two quick questions :
  1. Have you seen Al Gore’s movie An Inconvenient Truth ?.. and
  2. Have you ever read the content of the Kyoto Protocol that President Bush declined to sign ? [one of the few world leaders who would not sign !].:ouch:
Click to expand...
Here’s another question: Have you read the cover story in the August 13, 2007 edition of Newsweek entitled, “The Truth About Denial” ? Were you convinced by the article? If so, you might want to take time to read an answer to the article from one of the “deniers”:
epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=38d98c0a-802a-23ad-48ac-d9f7facb61a7
 
Jeffrey said:
I wouldn’t waste my time to watch that movie.

I’m against the Kyoto Protocol.
Click to expand...
Yuk, why are you showing this picture? What does that have to do with anything. Let her rest in peace:confused:
 
bobzills said:
Here’s another question: Have you read the cover story in the August 13, 2007 edition of Newsweek entitled, “The Truth About Denial” ? Were you convinced by the article? If so, you might want to take time to read an answer to the article from one of the “deniers”:
epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=38d98c0a-802a-23ad-48ac-d9f7facb61a7
Click to expand...
Why would you cite either a Newsweek article or a party political blogg for science information?

As the OP points out the 1974 article sensationalized an early interpretation of data so that to this day you will hear folks say, “remember global cooling” where there was in fact no such thing.

The non-technical press may be a good place to start but you need to have an open mind

Party bloggs are where the choir gets preached to
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top