Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

Well, ya think!? Al Gore And Climate Ka-Ching

Discussion in 'The Pub' started by pro-pilot, May 11, 2008.

  1. Well, there seems to be some journalists out there that might want to sniff out the true meaning of the psy-ops that is being pounded into our children and gullible public.

    Keep celebrating earth hour free with that lobotomy operation included.

    Junk Science: Al Gore blames the Burma tragedy on global warming despite growing evidence to the contrary. Could the hype be related to his financial interests?


  2. Al Gore is not climate change, and climate change is not Al Gore.

    It wouldn't matter if Al Gore was a babyraping cannibal, descrediting him would not change the facts on climate change one iota.

    And since most Australians only really hear anything about Al Gore when the 'skeptics' diss him, it's all a bit circular and irrelevant.
  3. Came across this the other day PP and thought of you.


    Dooms day cults have always been around and always will. Global warming could turn out to be the biggest one yet.

  4. I thought you'd grown up and stopped posting this crap PP. Site was becoming enjoyable again with any GW references by you :roll:
  5. when you have a proffesional opinion, then someone will heed your comments
  6. Methinks you're right.

    There's such money in Global Warming it's astounding. Every time I hear an ad for... well, whatever, I keep hearing about the environment. STFU guys!
  7. Site will become BORING if there's a reduction in activity, whatever the kind.

    If you read it, it's actually quite interesting: that GW as an idea must be marketed to people to sell 'green technology'... ie, that advertising might like to take a step ahead of the science :arrow: well, it certainly makes me suspicious of the claims by those involved.
  8. For all PP's pointless posts, occasionally he posts something that makes you think. Personally, if that's all he does, then it's worth the useless stuff. The whole World suffers when we follow an orthodoxy, whatever form it takes. When we stop questioning, bad things will happen.
  9. True, but the whole 'global warming cultists are coming to eat your babies' hysteria is not exactly a case of a reasoned critique of orthodoxy.
  10. Bravus, I'm not concerned with this particular topic, but the more people question, the more we know. There are people of all political colours who would love us to believe this/that and prefer us not to question.
  11. If you do not oppose an opinion, then it becomes an idea.

    If you do not oppose an idea, then it becomes a likelihood.

    If you do not oppose a likelihood then it becomes a fact.

    'Facts' form the basis for policy.

    ... we have a lot of very very shit policies via our government already.
  12. You can't change the world
    But you can change the facts
    And when you change the facts
    You change points of view
    If you change points of view
    You may change a vote
    And when you change a vote
    You may change the world

    Depeche Mode..New Dress.
  13. Oh, I agree with all that. Once again, I have *zero* problems with challenging ideas. I'm a science educator, and have studied and written on philosophy of science. I understand that science only grows by challenging our existing understandings. I'm the kind of person who will play 'Devil's Advocate' in any BBQ conversation where there's an instance of group-think, and point out the alternatives of any commonly accepted idea.

    My point was that pp's other thread 'Lunatics and morons...' and this one, and most of his recent contributions, are not factual challenges on the science of climate change. They are also not reasoned discussions of the political and social moves around climate change. They are radically stated, barely coherent ranting and conspiracy theory. Show me some evidence, show my an alternative opinion and perspective even, but just lobbing random rhetorical hand grenades seems unproductive to me.
  14. Agreed. And something I have often posted about with PP.
  15. it would seem, according to this article, that there is little correlation between CO2 emissions and temperature variations in the atmosphere OR there IS a correlation, and those dastardly greenhouse gasses may have just saved u s from something WORSE than global warming - severe global cooling. The article cites that there has been slight cooling - perhaps without all our emissions there would have been radical cooling - and no-one wants that. Just a thought. In the last 10 years climate stability has been good - maybe it's due to our accidental climate control?