Climate change natural says new study

[Gonz]

Where can one get one of those stickers?

Glenn Beck dot com

 

[PrincessLissa]

My biggest objections to 'going green' is the blindness of most of the followers to the fact that all they've done is a shell game. Moving the pollution from one place to another.

This is my biggest concern with the whole "going green" trend. Most people blindly follow what has been told to them from whatever source they hear it from. (Like this nonsense article about how we should not change anything because one study says it is not mankind causing Global Warming) You hear Oprah telling millions to buy a hybrid car to save the worlds pertrolum. But, like you said, she doesn't inform people of the toxic batteries and amount of metal needed to make the cars. Or the pollution that these factories put into the air.

I think that those who are truly going green and not blindly following what large corporations and television stars say and do are the people who are simply trying to use less. For instance, we try to use all natural and less wasteful cleaners and products. I don't mean 7th Gen recycled paper towels, but a few flour sack towles instead. We use less water in our laundry, showers, and dishes. I make my own cleaner using things like baking soda, lemons, and vinegar. I try to buy things in packages that can be reused and then recycled. At Christmas time we reuse our wrapping paper from previous years rather than gathering it al up in a trash bag to be dumped into a landfill.

I really feel that just in those small things that we do in our household, we are helping by using less. We aren't going to buy a hybrid not only bcause we really don't have that money right now, but also because of the toxic materials that are used and the pollution put into the air in other countries who manufactor the vehicles just so we can be in the "green" crowd. Besides, our car works well and shouldn't be wasted in a dump as "scrap". We just try to carpool more and when it is warm we walk to nearby places to run errands to use less gas, create less pollution, save a buck or two, and get some exercise in.

It's not about changing everything around us, it is about using less and learning more. Something that these corporations are not into because they just want those headlines to make Leonard DiCaprio and Julia Roberts say "hmmm, I should do that and up my career with PSAs and visits on Oprah."

Essentially I think that we are arguing the same point. Not all green is good. Sometimes it is just moving the problem to another source for someone else to figure out. There really is no right answer at this point. However, doing what you can to help, and I mean really help with educated decisions, shouldn't be frowned upon simply because it falls under the "green" category.

 

[jimpeel]

they still throw away all of those plastic hangers. They don't even reuse them let alone attempt to recycle them.

I am a cashier at Wal-Mart and we DO recycle the hangers. Yes, they initially go into the trash cans under the registers but the maintenance people pull them out before they throw the rest of the trash into the compactor. We also recycle all of the plastic wrap from the pallets and cases of product that are shrink wrapped.

The next time you are in Wal-Mart and you are in the toy department check out that big ten-foot-tall holder that is full of balls and then imagine one of those full of plastic because that is what we use to stuff the plastic into.

We also recycle all of the corrugated cardboard containers and plastic bottles and aluminum cans.

As for what I do with the hangers, if they are on the clothes when they get to my register I simply wrap them into the clothes and they go right into the customer's bag.

 

[PrincessLissa]

I am a cashier at Wal-Mart and we DO recycle the hangers. Yes, they initially go into the trash cans under the registers but the maintenance people pull them out before they throw the rest of the trash into the compactor. We also recycle all of the plastic wrap from the pallets and cases of product that are shrink wrapped.

The next time you are in Wal-Mart and you are in the toy department check out that big ten-foot-tall holder that is full of balls and then imagine one of those full of plastic because that is what we use to stuff the plastic into.

We also recycle all of the corrugated cardboard containers and plastic bottles and aluminum cans.

As for what I do with the hangers, if they are on the clothes when they get to my register I simply wrap them into the clothes and they go right into the customer's bag.

That is great that YOUR store does that. I have friends at WalMart that are much higher up than cashier and they tell me different. So if your particular store does that, great for you guys! However, when it comes to the stores I have visited, I think I will trust the higher ups and what they tell me goes on in the store.

 

[jimpeel]

A great series of videos on GW which examines the CO2/temperature relationship and expands the debate to 16,000 years and narrows it to 8 years. Depending on where one expands or narrows the debate makes the argument for that side of the equation.

YouTube Video: Climate Change - Is CO2 the cause? - Pt 1 - The first of four parts where Professor Bob Carter uses the scientific method on the popular theory with global warming being linked to CO2 levels. He examines the hypothesis and it fails the test. Does this surprise you?;
Climate change - Is CO2 the cause? - Pt 2;
Climate Change - Is CO2 the cause? - Pt 3;
Climate Change - Is CO2 the cause? - Pt 4.

 

[PrincessLissa]

I am just curious...why is it so important to you to prove that GW is natural? No matter what the cause, shouldn't we be trying to figure out ways to better either the situation or what the situatution might bring?

To me it just seems pointless to work so hard to prove that previous scientific theories are wrong. To me, it is similar to all those out there trying to prove that Neil Armstrong was in a movie theater studio set when he first set foot on the moon.

 

[spike]

I am just curious...why is it so important to you to prove that GW is natural? No matter what the cause, shouldn't we be trying to figure out ways to better either the situation or what the situatution might bring?

Weird huh? I'm guessing it's harder to act irresponsibly if you acknowledge that it might be causing problems.

 

[ResearchMonkey]

Almost as weird as people trying to force you into changes and laws using fearmongering on events that have a history of repeating over and over and that we cannot control even if we wanted too. ...'specially when you're already acting responsible.


...just saying

 

[spike]

we cannot control even if we wanted too

Meh. Don't cut and run.

...'specially when you're already acting responsible.

 

[chcr]

I am just curious...why is it so important to you to prove that GW is natural? No matter what the cause, shouldn't we be trying to figure out ways to better either the situation or what the situatution might bring?

To me it just seems pointless to work so hard to prove that previous scientific theories are wrong. To me, it is similar to all those out there trying to prove that Neil Armstrong was in a movie theater studio set when he first set foot on the moon.

First of all Lissa, that Neil Armstrong and others have walked on the moon is not a theory, it is a fact. Trying to prove that it never really happened is, indeed, a waste of time.

Now, re global warming. The current scare tactics advocate a course that will adversely affect the economies of most developed nations and will make it virtually impossible for third world nations to improve their situations. The problem with man-made global warming "theories" is that the empirical evidence doesn't back up the claims. Proving that the current fluctuations in temperature are part of the normal ebb and flow of the earth's climate and that the screaming of the doomsayers need not be heeded and will in fact have little or more likely no effect, on the other hand, allows undeveloped nations to compete and what are now relatively stable situations to remain that way. Wasting valuable resources on a theory that's not true in the hopes that it might "better the situation" when in fact, the situation is normal is what would be stupid.

I have another theory, and that is that many people want civilization to end and will do whatever they can to bring about this event.

Try this one one for size:

Nobody is interested in solutions if they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous (global warming) is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are...

former Vice President Al Gore

In other words, Al Gore thinks it's okay to lie about global warming to further his agenda.

Here's one of my favorite sayings regarding "consensus" (as in the "consensus" is that man-made global warming is fact).

Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled.

Michael Crichton

 

[spike]

The problem with man-made global warming "theories" is that the empirical evidence doesn't back up the claims.

Propaganda.

I have another theory, and that is that many people want civilization to end and will do whatever they can to bring about this event.

:tinfoil hat:

In other words, Al Gore thinks it's okay to lie about global warming to further his agenda.

Oil companies etc think it's ok to pay off scientists to further their agenda.

 

[chcr]

Propaganda.

:tinfoil hat:

Oil companies etc think it's ok to pay off scientists to further their agenda.

Of course they do. I keep telling you that there is substantially no difference. You keep ignoring the obvious. This is why it's important to learn enough about an issue to draw your own conclusion instead of taking the word of trained liars and their sycophants. I realize, of course that that was a waste of the miniscule amount of energy it took to type it but, "Better to light a candle..."

 

[Gonz]

I am just curious...why is it so important to you to prove that GW is natural?

So we don't get any more stupid laws restricting our freedoms.

 

[jimpeel]

I am just curious...why is it so important to you to prove that GW is natural? No matter what the cause, shouldn't we be trying to figure out ways to better either the situation or what the situatution might bring?

To me it just seems pointless to work so hard to prove that previous scientific theories are wrong. To me, it is similar to all those out there trying to prove that Neil Armstrong was in a movie theater studio set when he first set foot on the moon.

We are talking about a world carbon tax which will cost trillions.

We are talking about rampant spending on something that is unproven which will cost trillions.

We are talking about the dampening of the economies of all of the developed nations which will cost trillions.

Watch the vids that I posted HERE and HEAR what he says about preparing for whatever consequence that may come -- cooling or warming. All of the press and all of the efforts are being put toward WARMING and they are totally ignoring COOLING.

The fact is that there has been no warming for the past EIGHT YEARS and this, to nmany scientists, is a portent of a possible cooling trend.

Are you aware that there are studies which have "suggested" that human activity may be what has been staving off global warming?

http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20020511/fob1.asp

 

[jimpeel]

I am just curious...why is it so important to you to prove that GW is natural?

For the same reason you are so willing to believe whatever is told you.

Remember when people said "Seeing is believing"? Well, if you still think that then you have to believe that in "Forrest Gump" Tom Hanks shook hands with LBJ and JFK and that Gary Sinise has no legs.

Just because all of the news services pull the same story off of the AP or UPI feeds does not a concensus make. It merely means that they are all printing the same story based upon the ready availability of the story.

 

[SouthernN'Proud]

similar to all those out there trying to prove that Neil Armstrong was in a movie theater studio set when he first set foot on the moon.

But there's one big difference. The moon landings WERE faked.


:tinfoilhat:

 

[Professur]

DP, the root of it is ..... global warming is a smoke screen issue. They're using it just like the canuck poli-ticks use quebec separation. Every time they want to draw the public's attention away from what really matters, out comes the GW flag.

 

[jimpeel]

Oil companies etc think it's ok to pay off scientists to further their agenda.

You made that lame charge back in POST #79 and I showed that that charge had been thoroughly debunked in POST #83 yet here you are making the same lame charge again.

You truly are either:

• Not reading the information because you are afraid it will refute your preconceived beliefs;
• You are simply hard headed and are unable, or unwilling, to accept that your premises are incorrect;
• You want to keep spreading the lie because of one or both of the above;
• Or you are simply here acting as an agent provocateur to simply stir the pot and keep it bubbling regardless of your true beliefs.

 

[ResearchMonkey]

What would ...all of the above, be Alex?

 

[jimpeel]

Of course they do. I keep telling you that there is substantially no difference. You keep ignoring the obvious. This is why it's important to learn enough about an issue to draw your own conclusion instead of taking the word of trained liars and their sycophants. I realize, of course that that was a waste of the miniscule amount of energy it took to type it but, "Better to light a candle..."

Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth. Get enough useful idiots to repeat it often enough it becomes the absolute truth.