Go to SCIENCE 101 - CHICKEN LITTLE'S JOURNAL
- Add a comment
- Go to Scientific Consensus on Global Warming
Things are not always as they seem, Barbie...
Are you really sure that "...native Indians and Papua New Guineans live perfectly in nature without damaging anything..."? (Hint: This statement simply isn't true!) Would you really want to live without refrigeration and subsist on grubs and bugs for your protein allotment? Is the "spacecraft" interpretation the only explanation for some Peruvian and Egyptian hieroglyphics? Are you unaware of the historical path humans followed to gain knowledge of precious metals extracting?
I sense in you a "new age" person – one who has never learned critical thinking, and who knows virtually nothing about science and engineering.
posted by
arGee
on November 10, 2007 at 6:46 AM
| link to this | reply
Consensus on Global Warming
Precisely what I thought whilst studying Environmental Science in 1998! Why else are we even studying this science when native Indians and Papua New Guineans live perfectly in nature without damaging anything (until dominant churches came along), and know already how things work? Why do hieroglyphics exist in Egypt and Peru of spacecraft? Why are we now looking for other places to destroy? Why did we have knwledge of extracting precious metals etcetera?
posted by
barbiej
on November 10, 2007 at 1:48 AM
| link to this | reply
I have found, Saul...
That you get the most even-handed coverage from FOX News. The mainstream media disagrees vehemently, but when you analyze their totality, FOX definitely comes out with a relatively even set of reporting and opinions from all sides. What the other guys don't like is that FOX actually lets ALL sides speak, instead of just the side management approves of.
But FOX really does have a balance – and it is the only one that does. I can think of only a couple of shows on all the rest that present opposing points of view: John Stossel on 20/20, and another guy whose name and network I can't remember right now, but who did a good program on global warming several months ago, presenting a good, cross-section view of the problem.
posted by
arGee
on October 29, 2007 at 9:57 AM
| link to this | reply
An interesting and needed study, arGee. It's hard to really tell most of
the time what is mostly media hype and what is not. The media, depending upon which ideological bent they have, spins things to reflect favorably upon their particular view, no matter what the statistics or studies actually say....
posted by
saul_relative
on October 29, 2007 at 12:38 AM
| link to this | reply
What is the symbol, Dave?
posted by
arGee
on October 25, 2007 at 12:54 PM
| link to this | reply
Thanks, Living!
posted by
arGee
on October 25, 2007 at 12:54 PM
| link to this | reply
There are always changes, Soul Builder...
And frequently at the local level they are anthropogenic. On a global level however, the sun rules. Ice is disappearing right now, but not so much as in the late 1930s. Sea levels are NOT measurably higher. A far as exploiting the Arctic – sure, why not? It's there, and we need it.
posted by
arGee
on October 25, 2007 at 12:53 PM
| link to this | reply
posted by
_dave_says_ack_
on October 25, 2007 at 10:28 AM
| link to this | reply
posted by
Living_Life_Large
on October 25, 2007 at 5:26 AM
| link to this | reply
arGee
Since 2003, some of the ground observations have noted disappearing ice, inhabitants and sea level increases. I personally believe that it is not man-made( except if one factors in Chemtrails). The oceans can deal with emissions etc. What if there are other things at work? A potentially oil and gas-rich area? I do not put it above anyone to have the technology to make the arctic exploitable!
posted by
Soul_Builder101
on October 24, 2007 at 4:44 PM
| link to this | reply