Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Current Events & Hot Topics Current Events & Hot Topics

Aerial Footage of Arkansas Tar Sands Oil Spill (It reached the lake).








Join us on the 99% Moms group!
The Ninety-Nine Percent Moms   

If they enforced bank regulations like they do park rules, we wouldn't be in this mess

by on Apr. 3, 2013 at 12:43 AM
Replies (71-72):
Sisteract
by Whoopie on Apr. 4, 2013 at 10:31 AM
Do you have an environmental science background? If not, why would you believe that you know more about such than those who do and who have been working, researching and extracting data for years?

Quoting LindaClement:

Because most of the 1000 asked don't know any more about the science vs. environmental religion than the average person.

Canada's national broadcaster, CBC, swallowed the koolaid a LONG time ago, and it's hard to find any media outlet that doesn't just follow along like good little believers.

You have to look, personally, and you need to have a skeptical, inquiring mind. It's not 'out there'. What is out there is Suzuki's and Gore's and Sierra Club's and IPCC's and Greenpeace's fiction, swallowed whole and uncritically, for the most part.

Quoting Sisteract:

 Playing along with the "semantics" game... when asked via a poll, why did the majority of Canadians say "No" to having a pipeline through Canadian provinces? You know, since Canadians are so individualistic and do not kowtow to fake environmental science information or popula, current group think?


Makes no sense.


Quoting LindaClement:


Why did you suggest that 'Canadians' voted for anything?


Quoting Sisteract:


 Sounds like most Canadians did vote in favor of that "fake" science, individuals or otherwise and said, "No" to the possibility of having an occurrence similar to what just happened down south.


Why makes you think that folks in the US do not have individual opinions on each and every issue? Your assertion is hardly true-


Quoting LindaClement:


Because unlike folks from the US, individual Canadians have individual opinions, and many listen to environmental doomsayers spouting fake science and invective, so they don't all vote the same way.


We don't vote directly for laws of any kind, and the 'no' was on polls, not elections.


Quoting Sisteract:


 That being said, how come Canadians voted NO when it came to the pipeline running through Canadian provinces?


Quoting LindaClement:


My point is: we don't take safety (of people or the landscape) seriously on so many fronts.


When was agriculture 'good for the environment'? Jet fuel explosions? Even without talking about the mess 9/11 made, the environmental cost of flying is NOT a conversation point.


We have a huge international industry built around the new religion of environmentalism, and not one of them has suggested that the 'best' thing for the environment would be to stop flying anywhere, ever. Why? Because they make their billions getting together in various conferences all over the world, so they can nod and pat each other on the back and make scathing remarks about the people who drive, ever, or who think 3rd world employment is worth buying for, or who actually care that safe water supplies exist only in 1st world countries.



Quoting brookiecookie87:




Quoting LindaClement:


If people treated airline crashes they way they're treating this, flight would have been banned in 1961.




I don't know many airline crashes that after they crash they continue to damage the land, the animals, and the peoples lives around the area. Can you show how they do this?

A big point about the Keystone XL Pipeline is an aquifier that it can contaminate. When is the last time an airplane crashed and destroyed a water supply for states across the country?

And let's not forget no one is saying we shouldn't use the oil. If Canada wants to build a refinery on their land they are completely capable of it. It doesn't make sense to build a pipeline across our country that puts lives, the land, and our water at danger so a few people can make loads of money from it.

They can build a refinery near the oil if they want to make money from it.  There is no way to even cross this example to airlines.




 




 




 


Posted on the NEW CafeMom Mobile
LindaClement
by Thatwoman on Apr. 4, 2013 at 12:36 PM

Because of the rigorous scientific scrutiny it doesn't stand up to.

Because of the outright lies (the Himalayan ice caps are melting, the polar bears are dying, Antarctica is shrinking: 3 for 3 in 'complete fiction'.)

Because of some candid, later-denied, comments of key players --and the East Anglia emails.

Because of Bjorn Lomberg's 'The Skeptical Environmentalist.'

Because of McKintric and McIntyre.

Because 'global warming' was --in exactly the same invective and hysteria-- mere decades before 'The Coming Ice Age.' 

Because the name has been changed to 'global climate change' because not only is 'the warming' not happening at all, none of the markers for it are indicative that it might --starting with the much higher rates of CO2 released in the atmosphere as global temperatures are dropping.

Solar forcing.

Oceanic CO2 absorbsion.

It's a long list, but mostly it's because I've been aware of these kinds of hysterical doomsaying tales since the early 70s, and they date back well before the 1850s that I know about. Global food crisis, peak resources, peak oil, zero population growth, the population explosion, the 'hot zone' (the earth attacking mass populations of people with untreatable and devastating viruses), peak oil (again), the coming ice age, Y2K (which I knew a LOT about, working in the computer industry in the mid-80s, when it was known about and handled), the ozone hole (is it gone?) and now slowly fading, global warming.

It seems to me that without a pressing, genuine crisis (SARS had a chance to take over, but it failed to kill nearly enough people), people manufacture one --for fame and fortune, to deal with their own existential dread or for the sheer fun of having an impact.

Their total lack of shame in their own failure rate is astonishing to me. The inability for the media to grasp 'oh, just another doomsayer trying to make a name for himself' is amazing.

Quoting Sisteract:

Do you have an environmental science background? If not, why would you believe that you know more about such than those who do and who have been working, researching and extracting data for years?

Quoting LindaClement:

Because most of the 1000 asked don't know any more about the science vs. environmental religion than the average person.

Canada's national broadcaster, CBC, swallowed the koolaid a LONG time ago, and it's hard to find any media outlet that doesn't just follow along like good little believers.

You have to look, personally, and you need to have a skeptical, inquiring mind. It's not 'out there'. What is out there is Suzuki's and Gore's and Sierra Club's and IPCC's and Greenpeace's fiction, swallowed whole and uncritically, for the most part.

Quoting Sisteract:

 Playing along with the "semantics" game... when asked via a poll, why did the majority of Canadians say "No" to having a pipeline through Canadian provinces? You know, since Canadians are so individualistic and do not kowtow to fake environmental science information or popula, current group think?


Makes no sense.


Quoting LindaClement:


Why did you suggest that 'Canadians' voted for anything?


Quoting Sisteract:


 Sounds like most Canadians did vote in favor of that "fake" science, individuals or otherwise and said, "No" to the possibility of having an occurrence similar to what just happened down south.


Why makes you think that folks in the US do not have individual opinions on each and every issue? Your assertion is hardly true-


Quoting LindaClement:


Because unlike folks from the US, individual Canadians have individual opinions, and many listen to environmental doomsayers spouting fake science and invective, so they don't all vote the same way.


We don't vote directly for laws of any kind, and the 'no' was on polls, not elections.


Quoting Sisteract:


 That being said, how come Canadians voted NO when it came to the pipeline running through Canadian provinces?


Quoting LindaClement:


My point is: we don't take safety (of people or the landscape) seriously on so many fronts.


When was agriculture 'good for the environment'? Jet fuel explosions? Even without talking about the mess 9/11 made, the environmental cost of flying is NOT a conversation point.


We have a huge international industry built around the new religion of environmentalism, and not one of them has suggested that the 'best' thing for the environment would be to stop flying anywhere, ever. Why? Because they make their billions getting together in various conferences all over the world, so they can nod and pat each other on the back and make scathing remarks about the people who drive, ever, or who think 3rd world employment is worth buying for, or who actually care that safe water supplies exist only in 1st world countries.



Quoting brookiecookie87:




Quoting LindaClement:


If people treated airline crashes they way they're treating this, flight would have been banned in 1961.




I don't know many airline crashes that after they crash they continue to damage the land, the animals, and the peoples lives around the area. Can you show how they do this?

A big point about the Keystone XL Pipeline is an aquifier that it can contaminate. When is the last time an airplane crashed and destroyed a water supply for states across the country?

And let's not forget no one is saying we shouldn't use the oil. If Canada wants to build a refinery on their land they are completely capable of it. It doesn't make sense to build a pipeline across our country that puts lives, the land, and our water at danger so a few people can make loads of money from it.

They can build a refinery near the oil if they want to make money from it.  There is no way to even cross this example to airlines.




 




 




 



Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)