Why refute it? Why not simply think that the hypothesis concluded from the data is off kilter? What your link suggests is no different than saying water kills, or air kills. Indeed, even life itself kills.
Earth Hour: Turn Off the Lights!
- Thread starter SirJosephPorter
- Start date
I don't know, I haven't tried, I am not going to try, and I am not even interested. You are trolling. bye
Ya lost me Champ... However, I do love the conspiracy theory angle. It adds a pinch of sinister potential to the debate.... (Oh look! Was that Mother Theresa and Ghandi atop the grassy knoll!?)..... What fun!
Now, about the trivial pursuit questions... Just at the time when you get everyone's interest peaked, you pull-out the rug with a Cliff Clavenesque monent regarding Wisconsonian glaciation... It just doesn't fit in.
It follows that making money is a factor if only because without it, you really can't do much. That said, there are limits to how they make that money--supposedly it only funds what they do (i.e. non-profit environmental/species protection), which is generally considered to be positive even if the means may sometimes be misguided.
As for your money, I don't think the "agenda" is sufficiently obvious to warrant that fear (at least not where publicity via the Earth Hour event is concerned).
Regardless of agendas, the fact that people throughout the world are now participating in this is indicative of public interest in environmental matters and, more importantly, a focus on the need for responsibility.
Even though the idea of turning out the lights for an hour a year--and being criticized for not doing so--may seem laughable for those of use that make an effort not to be wasteful all year round, it's still a big step for the 'me' generation.
Would those be the same glaciers that are now rapidly receding because of said scientific progress?
It's sad because it's come to that level of pettiness--there are an astronomical number of better things to protest.
It's irresponsible because it's deliberately wasteful. (I could also add that it's hypocritical/contradictory because you're protesting WWF irresponsibility/hypocrisy by acting irresponsibly.)
Better?
Yes, but that wasn't my point. See above.
Yes, because it is about global warming. It targets emissions that cause global warming. People who participate in Earth Hour are usually against harmful emissions in general. Hence, Earth Hour is necessarily also about reducing harmful emissions in general.
I have no problem with that...but while industries still continue to $hit out massive amounts of pollutants without need, Environment Canada can shove its bloody vehicle emissions test up the tail pipe! ...>cough<...
This is true. And that also goes for a great many other causes including labour standards, medical practise, military policy, you name it. Business interests almost always win out.
But it's not just because of incentives, people are naturally conservative and like to follow the status quo. They need to really be facing an immediately-percievable threat in order to act differently. That's been the story since times immemorial.
That said, I understand the mentality of those who view "environmentalists" (whatever that means) as sometimes full of it; it all-too-frequently seems that people who are living peachy lives are the first ones to get all morally-superior on environmental issues.
Like when luxury SUV-driving, iphone-addicted, uber-expensive processed food-eating types go around with those re-usable shopping bags in order to show that they care for the environment by not using cheap plastic grocery bags, but then go and buy expensive high-quality plastic bags for their garbage cans (i.e. instead of just re-using the used grocery bags for their garbage).
Or when you get "concerned" Canadians funding charities to protect endangered species in poorest Africa while ignoring African children in those same regions who are condemned to starve to death.
Yeah, I understand the argument; I just think it's directed too broadly. Too many aware, and thoughtful people get thrown into the mix as 'pretentious fools'.
Most bread eaters are utterly unable to distinguish between significant scientific fact and meaningless statistical babbling
captain morgan... Why do you insult me and others when confronted with questions you can't answer or claiming that numerous agencies are fraudulent in their claims made to the public (CONSPIRACY!)?
You are the one who claims a scientific conspiracy not me. If you want to embarass yourself by your lack of vocabulary and what a conspiracy is, that is fine with me.
Who is behind wanting to clean up the excessive chemical pollution and the polluting GHGs and what is their hiidden agenda?
Is it corporations who want everyone to clean up there mess for them and foot the bill for it? Did they CONSPIRE with agency heads in a scientific community? If not them, then who did CONSPIRE with them to to push this green agenda?
So what is it? Milankovitch? Chandler? Schumann? Orbital? The sun? A irridium gas cloud in our section of the milky way on the solar orbit? An unseen brown dwarf? Black hole? Planet X? If it is cyclical as you claim which one is it?
If this were Trival pursuit you'd be losing.
Why doesn't it fit in? The end of the Wisconsonian has plenty to do with today's phenomenon. If you don't know how or why it fits you don't have a leg to stand on claiming it is cyclical then by all means bless us with your occult knowledge.
If you can, lay down who is behind the conspiracy and which natural cycle they are exploiting to convince billions we've gone too far.
Can you do that without insulting anyone and give plausible examples?
Last edited:
Why is it that every time people have nothing more to say they throw out the tire old "troll" tag.
You said "If data shows something to be generally true then that's what it does". I have merely pointed out that "data" can be manipulated and it can be used to suit agendas. It's unfortunate that you equate having your statements challenged to "trolling". Quite frankly I expected a little more from you. I won't be making that mistake again. Have a nice cry.
What do you think Monsanto's or Exxon's agenda is vis a vis their funding of WWF. Do you think their motives are as pure as yours.
Petros.. I respond only in a like fashion. You are welcome to go back and review your responses to the queries. I never intended or implied conspiracy, that was the direction that you elected to take and embellished your position with pointing at the Catholic Church to punctuate the point. I responded in fashion... Where you ever got the notion that I implied 'scientific conspiracy' is a complete mystery to me. Not everyone that merely mentions a group like NASA is implying conspiracy. Maybe where you come from that is the unwritten law, but trust me when I say that you are in very 'select' company of those that claim conspiracy behind every rock.
That said, expect to receive exactly what you offer.
Presumably you are of an opinion that is not parallel with my ideas... Truly, that is fine by me, I really don't care that much. However, it seems that it is the solitary position of the eco-fringe movement to try and ram their religion down everyone's throat. In response to this, I assume counter arguments.. That's all.
Now, you certainly have demanded answers to a multiplicity of questions... I asked one of you a few posts back. You want to discuss something, then it is a give and take arrangement... You address my Q's and I'll respond to yours, but now it's time for you to respond.
I'm sorry but in order for global warming with man and it's CO2 output being the cause is false information put out by multiple agencies REQUIRES a conspiracy. There is absolutely no way around it. So who is behind spreading this false claim and what are the resons?
What would be the point of putting out this false data and claim? Just for ****s and giggles?
Still no cycle you can refer to to back your cyclical claims? Why not?
What would be the point of putting out this false data and claim? Just for ****s and giggles?
Still no cycle you can refer to to back your cyclical claims? Why not?
Really petros... You're playing semantics.
In terms of the false data and claims, there could be many answers taht address that ideal. However, as an example (not a conspiracy alright?) consider Suzuki and his claims that were neatly followed up by a cross-country 'donate to my charity' campaign that he foolishly undertook in a diesel bus. One could lay similar claims against Gore that, coincidentally established a carbon-trading offset company that was open for business just after the release of his documentary.
That said, I do not know for a fact that the motivations of the aforementioned are fraudulent or for personal gain. However, I'm not one that buys to deeply into coincidence.
BTW - I'm still awaiting an answer from you. For one that questioned why I do not possess this 'common knowledge' (I believe those were the words you used), you sure aren't able to comunicate any of this knowledge.
In terms of the false data and claims, there could be many answers taht address that ideal. However, as an example (not a conspiracy alright?) consider Suzuki and his claims that were neatly followed up by a cross-country 'donate to my charity' campaign that he foolishly undertook in a diesel bus. One could lay similar claims against Gore that, coincidentally established a carbon-trading offset company that was open for business just after the release of his documentary.
That said, I do not know for a fact that the motivations of the aforementioned are fraudulent or for personal gain. However, I'm not one that buys to deeply into coincidence.
BTW - I'm still awaiting an answer from you. For one that questioned why I do not possess this 'common knowledge' (I believe those were the words you used), you sure aren't able to comunicate any of this knowledge.
So now it's a coincidence and scientific agencies aren't conspiracing to falsify the claims? boy you are one ****ed up dude.
Why would I want to enlighten someone who thinks this is all a conspiracy and cyclical but has nothing to back it up. You haven't provided any thing for the rest of us other than being an asshole so why would I do for you what you can do for yourself quite easily. Are special or are you just special?
Last edited:
You disappoint me. I expected more from you. If you don't want to enlighten him, enlighten the rest of us.
Don't look at it as a disappointment. Consider it more as the expected response from one with no answers.
I have answers. Still waiting for you to produce a single point based in reality and not flippant bull ****. Why haven't you supplied anything to any of us?
I'll PM the answer to cannuck. Maybe he or she will fill you in.
I'll PM the answer to cannuck. Maybe he or she will fill you in.
You are hilarious! You completely ignored everything I said and pasted in order to answer something I didn't say! :lol: All that my "ranting" should tell you is that WWF pulled a fast one and invented the number of participants before the event.
Where did I exhibit any dismay or disgust? Another invention of your fertile mind. And what I oppose is a massive con job.
Do you even know what I believe? Not if I take you on your word.
Bulltweety! It's extremely easy to get people to support environmental causes, even when they're hoaxes. Especially in Canada where the number (if polls are to be believed) who believe in AGW approaches 80%. I can't recall offhand one single battle that environmentalists have lost.
Whatever the number is, it's not all that remarkable that they made a symbolic statement. That's the easiest of all, a symbol. Getting them to actually reduce their carbon output significantly, now that will be tough.
By the way, who are these "anti-environmentalists" you keep talking about?
Zero? Did I say zero? No, in fact I didn't say any number. I only mentioned that the 1 billion number was picked out of the air before the event, and supplied proof. WWF may have lucked out and actually reached that number, but I doubt it.
Next year? Don't hold your breath. Aussie and N. Zealand had reduced participation from last year. Along with the economic downturn, people might just be getting tired of it by then, especially if Obama starts implementing some of his "climate control" measures.
Nope, my side isn't anti-environment, we're anti-scam. Losing side? Of what? I wasn't even aware that there was any kind of contest.