Pope No Likey Avatar

Uh-oh everyone, the Pope’s got a new beef: people are caring more about the environment than the magic man in the sky!

He’s worried about this new movie called Avatar, heard of it? Just in case you haven’t (wink wink), it’s a “going native” movie with a core message of protecting nature from industry. The horror!

This scares the Pope:

Vatican Radio said Avatar “cleverly winks at all those pseudo-doctrines that turn ecology into the religion of the millennium.”

Pope Benedict XVI has spoken of the need to protect the environment, but warned against “neopaganism” and the danger of turning nature into a “new divinity.”

In Avatar, “nature is no longer a creation to defend but a divinity to worship,” the radio reviewer said.

Apparantly this is more of a concern than protecting Africans from AIDS.

add to del.icio.us  Digg it  add to ma.gnolia  Stumble It! 


23 Responses to “Pope No Likey Avatar”

  1. 1 comdenom January 13, 2010 at 11:18 pm

    Vatican radio didn’t go far enough, ecology worshippers are more accurately a cult. With the billions of your dollars your government spent on the agendized science, jetting around the world campaigning for the cause, summits plus all the advertising and propaganda designed to change our minds could have three times over paid for protecting Africans from AIDS.

    Are you more eagerly depending on your government for your moral guidance. They are certainly imposing it by forcing regulation on industries that you depend on, again at your expense. Those indusrtries are heating and cooling your home and providing means of transportation and meal preparation, even when you have no alternate methods in place. When government increases the cost of doing business those costs get passed to you and jobs are also lost as a result. The cult has also targeted cattle as an ecological enemy…where would it end?

    I agree with the Pope on this one, moral responsibility and accountability would definitely have a sizeable impact on the spread of AIDS. Africa’s Bishop agrees.


  2. 2 Global Villager January 14, 2010 at 12:10 am

    I’m afraid you’ll need to “enligthen” me on exactly how “our” government spent billions of dollars promoting ecology.

    I am also unaware of what regulations you are referring to and on what industries they are being placed?

    Do you have any specifics or is this just empty rhetoric?

    Besides, I think you are missing the point here. It is ludicrous and hypocritical for the Vatican to be criticizing “pseudo-doctrines” when Catholicism is the most giant example of a pseudo-doctrine the world has ever seen.

    pseudo: adjective 1. not actually but having the appearance of; pretended; false or spurious; sham.
    2. almost, approaching, or trying to be.

  3. 3 misunderstoodranter January 14, 2010 at 4:20 am

    comdenom: The true cost, isn’t the shiny coins in your pocket – it is the air you breath, the water you drink, the soil that plants use to grow you your food – that’s the true cost!

    The Pope is deluded – that is why he is the Pope – he thinks that it does not matter what man does to the earth, god will protect it – because we are god’s special little pet.

    We now know through science – big science, that the earth is warming. We also know through big science that the ozone layer is being eroded, and legislation on the use of certain chemicals has stopped the ozone layer being destroyed, and it is beginning to reverse. So legislation works, and if it costs more then it has to be so – unless of course you would rather we didn’t have an ozone layer…

    The issue with pollution is the collapse of the food chain – if that goes, you could be as rich as Bill Gates, and it would make no difference at all – money would be meaningless.

    The Pope is not qualified to speak on such matters – he believes in imaginary gods and superstitious nonsense – he is as mad as your hat.

  4. 4 Rayray January 14, 2010 at 5:28 am

    I guess once they have figured out what happens to unbabtised babies, and why we should not use condoms, they were worried that they might not have anything left to waste their time on. But “thank God for our empty lives!” “Now we can start being movie critics!” -Sayeth the Pope

  5. 5 misunderstoodranter January 14, 2010 at 6:54 am

    All religions are interested in one thing, and one thing only – power.

    They don’t want people to actually think about anything – especially their environment, because doing so leads us to the truth about nature. And that truth does not involve a sentient god. If we don’t believe in god the church doesn’t have any power.

    God is an imaginary social construct that has been used for centuries to control people – and it does this by preventing people from thinking and questioning.

    The latest verbal diarrea to come out of the Pope’s mouth is another example of this vain attempt to steer people away from a real problem and prevent them from understanding the problem, and developing a solution – fortunately it is also another example of the death throes of religion.

    Forget the Church, we don’t need it, what we need is young minds free of dogma, free of fear who can explore the natural world and help the world understand it.

    Religion is an unfortunate relic of our past, that demonstrates nothing but our ancient ignorance, stupidity and gullibility.

  6. 6 comdenom January 14, 2010 at 12:42 pm

    To Global Villager: The industries I speak of are all energy producing industries, it’s only economics when companies have been slammed with extra operating costs, they pass that expenditure onto you from raising your prices to job losses.

    From Obama’s mouth; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqHL404zhcU

    EPA imposing regulation; http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/d0cf6618525a9efb85257359003fb69d/d70b9c433c46faa3852576a40058b1d4!OpenDocument

    Here is a nonexclusive list of some government entities that consume your wealth and further devise strategies to regulate you. Not only are they performing job security measures but they are also securing expansion. In 2007 these particular agencies consumed 6.5 billion of your taxes specifically for the “Climate Change” agenda and this does not count the preceding years or the subsequent years or other agencies receiving a constant flow of funds.

    Department of Agriculture
    Natural Resources Conservation Service – Biomass R&D, Section 9008 Farm Bill
    Natural Resources Conservation Service – Carbon Cycle
    Forest Service R&D – Inventories of Carbon Biomass
    Agricultural Research Service – Bioenergy Research
    Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service – Biofuels/Biomass Research, Formula Funds, National Research Initiative2
    Forest Service – Biofuels/Biomass, Forest and Rangeland Research
    Rural Business Service – Renewable Energy Program3
    Rural Business Service – Value Added Producer Grants4
    Department of Commerce
    National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) – Scientific and Technological Research and Services
    NIST – Industrial Technical Services, Advanced Technology Program6
    International Trade Administration – Operations and Administration7
    International Trade Administration – Operations and Administration7
    Department of Defense8
    Research, Development, Test and Evaluation – Army
    Research, Development, Test and Evaluation – Navy
    Research, Development, Test and Evaluation – Air Force9
    Research, Development, Test and Evaluation – Defense-wide – DARPA
    Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-wide – Office of the Secretary of Defense
    Department of Energy10
    Energy Supply and Conservation – Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy11
    Energy Supply and Conservation – Electricity Transmission and Distribution
    Energy Supply and Conservation – Nuclear12
    Fossil Energy R&D – Efficiency and Sequestration13
    Science – Fusion, Sequestration, and Hydrogen
    Departmental Administration – Climate Change Technology Program Direction14
    Department of the Interior15
    US Geological Survey – Surveys, Investigations and Research, Geology Discipline, Energy Program
    Department of Transportation
    Office of the Secretary of Technology – Transportation, Policy, Research and Development16
    National Highway Traffic Safety Administration17
    Research and Innovative Technology Administration – Research and Development18
    Environmental Protection Agency
    Environmental Programs and Management
    Science and Technology
    National Aeronautics and Space Administration19
    Science, Aeronautics, and Exploration
    National Science Foundation
    Research and Related Activities

    Aside from the fact the Catholic Church has flaws, the Pope’s message has merit, does it not make sense that moral responsibility and accountability would definitely have a sizeable impact on the spread of AIDS? Examples of resposibility being abstinence before marriage and being faithful to your spouse. Is it not a moral obligation to protect an unborn child from a death sentence? Does anyone think it’s okay to conceive a child while infected with AIDS? Is it okay to have sex outside marriage and put your whole family at risk of devastation or death?

    You so vehemently oppose the Pope which has only verbalized disdain, yet you’re right on board with a government that has physically controlled you with propaganda assaults, regulations and power leaching.

  7. 7 comdenom January 14, 2010 at 1:42 pm

    To misunderstood; Those shiny coins buy food, heat, clothing and shelter and a job is what provides those same coins. If regulations were imposed the way the Global warming advocates want, our whole energy system would be shut down with no bridge for alternate solutions. They are requesting a whole retooling of our energy dependant system. How many jobs would be lost and what would the financial cost be? This is utterly irresponsible, especially now when we are already in a economically disadvantaged depression. One could only be left to assume they are trying to collapse the whole economy.

    Fabricated crap about the environment is a distraction and a means for monetary gains but more importantly for control. The science is in no way settled on this, in fact they can’t even keep their story straight. And we have proof (you and I) they’ve been trying one thing after another for years.

    Where is your proof that there were holes in the ozone and not a naturally occurring phenomenon (a cycle) of which they just captured part of the phase and started ringing alarms? Ozone thinning and thickening is a seasonal event. Now they are claiming global warming is caused by burning fossil fuels and thickening the tropospheric ozone by raising the C02 levels. A simple and inexpensive fix would be to re-introduce CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons) because “big science” knows that a little CFC can eat a lot of C02.

    C02 levels rising would contribute to more vigurous plant growth, providing more food crop to the world. Myself, living in Michigan could stand a great deal more warming, of which there has been no evidence of in the last few years…only cooling.

    God has not prevented you from thinking or questioning.

  8. 8 Father Time January 14, 2010 at 6:10 pm

    I’m tempted to make a ‘well if the pope can’t identify fiction maybe he thinks the rest of us can’t’ comment but that would be too easy.

    But come on the man has to give us some credit.

  9. 9 Global Villager January 14, 2010 at 10:22 pm

    I am Canadian – so they are not my tax dollars. However, my tax dollars are spent by my government in similar ways and that is not a bad thing.

    We have government (at least in my canuck/socialist interpretation of it) to make decisions and regulate our society for the betterment of everyone. I will gladly pay a few extra sheckles if it means we can introduce more sustainable resource consumption and at least start to help the effect that the 6.5 billion (and growing) people have on the Earth. I readily supported a carbon tax in our previous federal election.

    I entrust the government to make the tough decisions and avoid a “tragedy of the commons” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons)
    where we all (private business included) act on our own short term, profit maximizing, self interests. Sometimes government must exercise their authority and drag us into a situation that is beneficial in the big picture.

    I have a feeling we differ considerably on our political philosophies. I can accept that. What I cannot accept is a denial that human societies (specifically ours here in North America) have no negative impact on the Earth.

    The fact that we pump millions of tonnes of Co2 into the atmposphere cannot have a negligible effect. We may not know what the consequences will be in exact terms but there can’t be no consequence.

    Climate change is given too much press. It is only a symptom of the more significant problem of over consumption and waste of dwindling resources in the face of significant global population growth. We are currently living through one of the world’s worst periods of mass species extinction (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081020171454.htm) because we are leaching the Earth of resources, destroying habitats, and pushing other species to the margin of survival. This is an ominious sign.

    Left to our own devices we will continue to reproduce irresponsibily and gobble up as much as we can whenever we can. It is up to government to regulate our natural failings.

    Or we could listen to the Pope and pray that it all works out and continue to exercise our false sense of dominion over the Earth.

  10. 10 comdenom January 15, 2010 at 1:02 am

    Lets tackle one issue at a time, we can get to politics later.

    “During the late Pleistocene, 40,000 to 10,000 years ago, North America lost over 50 percent of its large mammal species. These species include mammoths, mastodons, giant ground sloths, among many others. In total, 35 different genera (groups of species) disappeared, all of different habitat preferences and feeding habits.

    What event or factor could cause such a mass extinction? The many hypotheses that have been developed over the years include: abrupt change in climate, the result of comet impact, human overkill and disease. Some researchers believe that it may be a combination of these factors, one of them, or none.”

    This excerpt is from the same science source you gave me; http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091127140706.htm

    They don’t know why…how massive was the human population 40,000 years ago that they could possibly over hunt an animal that size and that could in effect feed a great many people for an extended amount of time? There were no industry (no pollution), there was no pavement and there was no leaching of resources. If we are in the midst of a mass extinction and this is the sixth event of its kind then they are falsely ringing the alarm bells. The next apparent step is to scare the bejeebers (can’t spell that one) out of everybody and guilt them into thinking we as a race caused it (on purpose).

    Things happen in this grand biosphere that we cannot control, but they happen for a reason, just as all of natures interactions have purpose, of which we may never know. I believe to renew and cleanse on a continual basis. Show me one ecosystem that doesn’t work in cycles, the earth is in constant motion. We have a huge supply of coal and fossil fuels and if we spent our money more wisely we could make them burn cleaner. This doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be responsible or keep our eggs in one basket. There is no impending immediate disaster for society to think we have to kill ourselves to save the planet.

    C02 is a trace element in greenhouse gas, water vapor is the most abundant and the C02 we emit into the atmosphere is negligible compared to natural emissions.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/ Let me know if you need more sites for reference.

  11. 11 misunderstoodranter January 15, 2010 at 2:50 am

    “Aside from the fact the Catholic Church has flaws, the Pope’s message has merit, does it not make sense that moral responsibility and accountability would definitely have a sizeable impact on the spread of AIDS? Examples of resposibility being abstinence before marriage and being faithful to your spouse. Is it not a moral obligation to protect an unborn child from a death sentence? Does anyone think it’s okay to conceive a child while infected with AIDS? Is it okay to have sex outside marriage and put your whole family at risk of devastation or death?”

    Utterly repulsive view of the world – you should be ashamed of yourself.

  12. 12 misunderstoodranter January 15, 2010 at 3:11 am

    “government that has physically controlled you with propaganda assaults, regulations and power leaching.”

    The governments of the world create the money supply. Where do you think money comes from?

    The central bank lends the money to the state to build infrastructure, the tax you pay is interest on that loan. Without this mechanism there is no fiscal system.

    All you are preaching is negativity, there is an industry in the environment, technologies that will help solve some of these problems and employ people.

    Or if you prefer you can lay the earth’s resources to waste and see where that gets you in 100 years time.

    What you fail to see is that we are animals, we are part of nature, we depend on the environment for our very survival and at the moment we are raping it in the name of relentless profit.

    If you want to believe some man that wears a silly hat and lives in a palace believing in spirits, ghosts, miracles and imaginary gods – then please yourself.

  13. 13 comdenom January 15, 2010 at 10:02 pm

    “Utterly repulsive view of the world – you should be ashamed of yourself”.

    I need more information, please expound regarding whats repulsive about my statement lest I’m left feeling you misunderstood or you’re void of values, morals and humanity.

    “The governments of the world create the money supply. Where do you think money comes from?”

    In a nutshell; Governments created and prints dollar bills or mints coins, they have no value on their own. Money is useless unless backed by the good faith and credit of the country that issued it (goods and services the private sector supplies). What do you think happens when more money is printed than the worth of the GDP?

    It was your money the government lends to the state, trust me you’re paying more than interest on that loan, Your government sustains and expands itself at will and you’re good with that because they’ve convinced you that you need whatever they are offering, in fact they are creating dependence.

    “What you fail to see is that we are animals, we are part of nature, we depend on the environment for our very survival and at the moment we are raping it in the name of relentless profit.”

    This sounds like a religious zealot to me.

  14. 14 misunderstoodranter January 16, 2010 at 1:35 am

    Your view on ‘Catholic’ morals is repulsive – because you imply that people who have sex outside of marriage deserve to contract AIDS. By all means be religious – believe in fairies if you want to – but religion (i.e. the deluded) should not influence law and order, religious people do not have a divine right to tell me what to do – where does the authority come from?. People are different, the Catholic Churches view of the world is sick especially regarding AIDS – it is breeding ignorance and intolerance. I for one do not want people in silly hats muttering rubbish from a fabricated book of fairy tales telling me what to do – I would rather, that academics who’s work can be challenged and peer reviewed were the providers of advice – it is not perfect, but is much better than the religious running it – unless of course you think Iran is a model society that we should aspire to?

    At least a secular state would allow you to *masturbate* your religion in private – an Islamic state would wipe out Christianity – and as the world changes, and becomes more dynamic and multi-cultural, then there is a need for rational secular control more than ever – a government made up of competing religious morals would never work ever.

    I am more than aware that I am dependent on society, and the money supply – but there is nothing I can do about it – as I said you have to make the best of it that you can.

    Spreading misinformation about spirits, devils, sins and saying that god will fix everything – is utterly deluded.

    God is imaginary construct to control the masses – it holds back progress, and prevents discovery, because they are 100% sure they are right.

    Taxation, and the establishment of a secular state is not perfect, but it is more inclusive – as soon as religion gets involved all sorts of twisted moral beliefs come out which destroy the fabric of society and turn man against man.

    There is good work that is being held back because of religious fundamentalists, and this has to be stopped if we are to solve some of the big problems that we are facing relating to food and energy.

  15. 15 comdenom January 16, 2010 at 11:59 am

    I understand why you’re misunderstood, you might want to re-read the whole post and comments again, this time with your blinders off.

    “because you imply that people who have sex outside of marriage deserve to contract AIDS.” Where did you get that? I said that personal accountability and responsibility would have a sizeable impact on managing the spread of AIDS and then I gave examples.

    I said the Pope’s remarks have merit and that I agreed in response to this; “Apparantly this is more of a concern than protecting Africans from AIDS.” from Global Villagers post, don’t forget to click on the link at the end of the original post and read what the Pope’s take on managing AIDS was. The other point I made was incongruousness as indignant opposition to religion yet you’re religiously advocating another environmental cult that has the same effects.

    Never did I advocate religion or Catholicism, so your incessant rant about religion was superfluous; however, while thus speaking, the utopia that you seek can only be found through a benevolent God.

  16. 16 misunderstoodranter January 16, 2010 at 2:37 pm

    Saying that the Pope’s remarks have merit, on the grounds of the arguments you have presented, is immoral. Some people do not know they have AIDS when they conceive a child.

    How can you take responsibility for something you do not know about?

    People do need to take responsibility for their actions, but some people will not at all.

    Therefore it is necessary to regulate, so that others can do the planning and thinking on their behalf.

    Can you imagine a world without regulation of the environment? Do you have any idea, what that would do to your health.


    The Pope is a leader of one of the biggest cults around – and a pretty useless one at that – so if there is to be any cult at all I would rather it be a useful one (like environmentalism), than one that is run by some clown in a hat.

  17. 17 comdenom January 16, 2010 at 11:23 pm

    If you lived in an AIDS ravaged region, would “I didn’t have any idea it could happen to me” cut it? I am not speaking about the instances out of one’s control but one can only assume that whatever you could do to prevent contracting AIDS is the responsible thing to do. Sexual promiscuity spreads AIDS, plain and simple.

    It is our responsibility to make sure our government is regulating justly, regulation is necessary to prevent the immoral man from infecting or infringing on the moral man. A government regulation that only aspires to gain power or money through a faux environmental emergency whose only fix collapses nations economically is not something I can buy into.

    Government is a necessary evil, you question your creator but you don’t question your government…wow.

  18. 18 misunderstoodranter January 17, 2010 at 3:20 am

    “Sexual promiscuity spreads AIDS, plain and simple.”

    So does lack of education and lack of medical regulation. In Amsterdam, where prostitution is legal, prostitutes can have sex with dozens of men each day. Prostitution is regulated the women are checked for STDs including AIDS, and everyone is educated regarding the prevention of AIDS via the use of condoms.

    I fail to see how so weird ‘moral’ standard that says ‘though shall not have sex outside of marriage’ significantly improves the situation. Some people will have sex anyway. It is ignorance that spreads AIDS.

    The Pope’s silly moral regarding the use of condoms, not only spreads AIDs and other STDs, but also leads to increases in population, and unwanted children, placing greater stresses on society as a whole – it is highly irresponsible to suggest what the Catholic Church is suggesting, and it is just as irresponsible to sponsor or support their view on such matters.

    I agree it is our responsibility to make sure our government regulates justly. In a secular configuration this is possible and inclusive of everyone (including the religious and the non-religious). In a secular society (like most westen countries) you can question authority.

    In a religious configuration, where the morals are dictated by some ‘divine insight’ of a group of believers it becomes much harder to do so.

    So yes I do question anyone that claims to be operating by the command of god, particularly if they are also involved in the mechanics of government. The Pope, should keep his mouth shut on such matters, as his uninformed influence has the capability to cause much damage, via the influence of the ignorant and the illiterate.

    I don’t think there is anything wrong in making people aware of their impact on the environment at all. The main environmental issue is that there are too many people in the world.

    A regulation that involves applying a cost to human reproduction and human living (i.e. tax), to ensure that population does not get out of control, and that ensures that we have the processes in place to ensure that we do not spoil our living space is both sensible as well as necessary.

    The earth which although is very large, is finite, and there are still people that live in the world who do not see this, either because they are too stupid to work it out for themselves, or to selfish to care.

  19. 19 EnlightningLinZ January 17, 2010 at 12:14 pm

    comdenom – our government often does stupid things when it comes to climate change legislation, but that doesn’t change the fact that the science supporting the theory that humans are responsible for climate change is really good. Here’s one example: http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/climate-change-deniers-vs-the-consensus/

    Climate Science is extremely complicated (as I’m learning more and more, especially after a conversation I had the other night with my brother, who’s taking it in university), so to a certain extent we have to trust the scientific consensus. But one of the strengths of science is that the information is available to the public and to other scientists, so there are these error-checking institutions in place, and scientists are always held accountable to peer-review and scrutiny. You said “The science is in no way settled on this, in fact they can’t even keep their story straight” as if that’s a criticism, when really that’s a strength of science. Science is not dogmatic, scientists don’t choose the best explanation and fit the facts to that, the consensus changes with new information. It’s the same way that our understanding of things like physics are changing all the time. The scientific consensus represents the theory that is best supported by evidence, but it could always change in light of new information.

    You also speak as though industries are suffering as a result of climate science and pressures by the government, but this is how we end up with the best possible solutions. Green movements put pressure on industries, industries fight back, and people are forced to find solutions that are both good for the environment and cost-effective. The general population wants products and services that are inexpensive, safe for the environment, and get the job done, and the trend is in that direction. Industries that don’t provide what people want will die out, this is how it’s always been.

    As for the AIDS issue, you’re right that sexual promiscuity does contribute to the spread of AIDS. This is why activists promote the ABCs. First, Abstience, second, Be Faithful. But these two often fail miserably, so we need to educate everyone that Condom use is important to stop the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. It doesn’t matter what religions tell people, they’re going to have sex (the most religious states are also the ones with the highest incidences of teen pregnancy), so the consequences of unprotected sex need to be made known to everyone.

  20. 20 misunderstoodranter January 17, 2010 at 2:19 pm

    comdenom: I do see your objections to increasing costs via the injection of money from government, via tax payers etc. into scientific research off the back of hyped-up climate change. (i.e. what is stopping scientists making bullshit up, so that they have research jobs?).

    Which is a valid point.

    However what I have to realised is that, this point is also exaggerated massively, and already widely accepted as a risk to the scientific community, which is why ‘controls’ during experimental research our often deployed.
    A demonstration of such ‘controls’ is in the pharmaceutical industry, which for obvious reasons has to be regulated, and controlled carefully.

    Drug companies now, not only have to test their substances against placebos but also against the best known treatment that is already available. Often drug companies have to have independent trials performed, and verified before the drug can be released to market. In the UK drug companies are not even allowed to market ‘pharmaceutical drugs’ to the public directly – this regulation protects people, but it also puts up the cost of drug development, and inconveniences the public, because they must see a doctor and then a pharmacist to get a drug, even if they know what drug they need to take and have had the drug previously with no ill effects. But I would rather this system was in place than not, because it stops big pharmaceutical companies from ‘marketing’ drug performance to medically ignorant consumers, which would cause a much bigger health issue.

    Fundamentally, people do not like being told what to do or to pay for things that do not immediately benefit them, this is a particular issue with the provision of state run health systems – like the NHS. There is always someone who says “why are we paying for XYZ treatment, it costs too much, and I don’t need it!”, this is natural, and in my opinion healthy, because it makes the establishment accountable for some of its actions.
    However, the media generally knows this and jumps on any negative ‘science’ story it can, so that they can sell more papers, and everyone gets suspicious, cynical and sometimes hysterical, sighting such rhetoric as:

    ‘see the scientists got it wrong – they are not that clever then, all they want is the money, and in 1969 they said we were all going to freeze to death!!’

    Then get back to working in their regular company answering the telephone, and sitting in meetings.

    My point is, it is easy to hype-up something, using fear and ignorance, and create a story that sounds bigger than it actually is. And people often do complain about tax and regulation, but often, they are not in possession of the full facts.

    Ultimately, if there is a conspiracy, involving all scientists and everyone from industry to make you pay more off the back off scientific bullshit, then it will get found out by someone, and in all honesty I hope it does get found out, because that means science is working as it should.

  21. 21 comdenom January 17, 2010 at 4:28 pm

    The science supporting the global warming swindle is not good science; a trick by any other name is still a trick. Cherry picking data is also a trick, please check my Post; “Yes Virginia…” http://comdenom.wordpress.com/2009/12/27/the-truth-squad-in-copenhagen-climategate-un-climate-conference-cop15/
    In particular, this hour long video has credible scientist’s explanation of where and why the concept is wrong; http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5576670191369613647#

    “Science is not dogmatic, scientists don’t choose the best explanation and fit the facts to that, the consensus changes with new information.”

    Indeed scientists do often choose the best explanation that fit the fact, this is how a theory is born, after such, they set off trying to prove their theory correct; a great example is the evolution vs. creation debate. Science has long been trying to reverse engineer how the earth works. Theories are consistently proven wrong by the introduction of new information, often new information would not have been introduced if not for questioning. A peer-review process that operates by limiting invitation to like minded individuals isn’t what I call scrutiny. Not two years ago I watched a documentary regarding the ice cores studies, through the process of analysis the information contained within those core samples showed the earth was in a cooling trend and it was more than likely heading into a deep freeze.

    Climate exists, climate changes, the point of contention is not that we have a changing climate but that the climate is affected by humans (anthropogenic). If humans did not cause climate change then humans, no matter what economical disadvantaged means is imposed, we cannot change the outcome. Climate science is complicated, that’s why they can so easily use it to hoodwink you. Power bestowed to any organization provides the means for corruptness and the environmental movement is no exception.
    Necessity is the mother of invention not by pressure from green movements.

    The United States has already experienced a rise in energy costs, If you’re certain this will not adversely affect you then I understand why you are buying it.

    What is the green equivalent for the light bulb? What is the green equivalent to heating your home?

  22. 22 comdenom January 17, 2010 at 7:01 pm

    To Misundersood; you’re right; there is always the other end of the spectrum. I’ve heard that scientists have a really difficult time even getting a grant for research unless the words “global warming” is in the application. But when push comes to shove, governments are the ones who’ve politicized the science, thus diminishing credibility.

    Sometimes regulation doesn’t go far enough when it comes to measures that are enacted that hasn’t addressed an issue but is only in place to appease the public. Government spends your money not theirs, the story would be a whole different animal if the reverse were true. Until that time we must be vigilant to ensure it’s doing the job it was intended to do.

    Currently the U.S. doesn’t have a national health system but what there is in place that’s government run is not running efficiently and slated for bankruptcy.

    The media is another can of worms.

  23. 23 misunderstoodranter January 18, 2010 at 2:12 am

    Indeed – but to give an example of what happens when fraud is found in the politics of science, you should follow a guy called Proffessor Nutt who was the UKs top drugs advisor, and was sacked by our government for claiming that Cannabis was not that harmful…. yes that is sacked by government…. because he was not saying what the government wanted him to say.

    Now this simple mistake by government, has caused outcry in the scientific community – because science has been politicised.

    However, it does show that people who have ethical morals, like Professor Nutt exist – they will not lie about the truth, and would rather not work at all. Our government was asking him to lie – he would not do it, and he has publicly said this.

    The money supply is fake – and this is part of the problem with world affairs at the moment, people have racked up the debt, because they realise that money is manufactured – it is a construct to keep society ticking over.

    In the UK they have introduced quantitative easing (i.e. printing money) to help with the economy – so in other words, if things get that bad they just change the rules anyway. But despite this desperate measure, our society still functions as it did before.

    I couldn’t give a stuff about the money supply really, or tax, because if I get taxed out of existence then, most of the UK public are as well and there will be mayhem – so I don’t think that will happen.

    But I do care about the environment, because once it is gone – it is gone, there is no replacing it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 49 other followers

Free counters!

%d bloggers like this: