MovieChat Forums > Arctic Tale (2007) Discussion > Liberals make me sick!

Liberals make me sick!



Ok, here we are with yet another propaganda movie. I bet you, they might even start showing this movie in schools. They give these "cute" animals "cute" human kid voices, humanize the animals, make the kids relate to their everyday life, and them show them SUFFERING due to the big bad evil HUMAN induced global warming.

I already have my nephew panicking that we're killing the polar bears based on what he hears in school. It's just sickening the length to which liberals will go to push a political agenda on innocent kids.

~I would agree with you, but then we'd both be wrong~

reply

You haven't seen the movie, you're just looking for a post to bash liberals. What a douche!
coprogirl

"'Scuse me while I whip this out"
Blazing Saddles



reply

someone think of the children

reply

So you think Global Warming is not real?

Go to Alaska and take a look on the glacials.

Use your Brain!!!!

reply

Typical Liberal arguement with all of the typical 'facts' to back it up; "Look at the glaciers". Yeah, OK, now what? What about the glaciers?

So here are some facts: My problem with "global warming" is that even the most rabid environmentalists admit that this planet has undergone several ice ages. Since these ice ages happened when there were very few humans on Earth and long, long before the Industrial Revolution and the automobile, what do you think caused both the ice ages and the REAL global warming which followed to melt the glaciers that covered most of North America? Now, you use YOUR brain. If you're honest with yourself you'll admit that prehistoric mankind didn't cause either the global cooling or the global warming of the climate.

Instead of saying "Look at the glaciers in Alaska", (whatever that means), why not say, "Look at the Great Lakes that AREN'T covered by a mile thick glacier anymore". A 1.5 degree average temperature increase over approximately 100 years isn't significant. Might not "global warming" be a completely natural, cyclic occurance, like the seasons, but on a much, much larger (geologic) scale? There's a lot more evidence of a natural cycle that lasts thousands of years than that mankind has had any effect on the global climate in the short time we've been using hydrocarbon fuels. But even a significant global average temperature rise could still be a part of the normal inter-ice-age warming cycle that melted the glaciers long before Columbus. The data they are using to back their theories are preposterously sparse (and localized), sort of like taking three temperature readings five minutes apart in Kansas City in April and saying that, based on the temperature averages and trends, they can predict how hot it will be worldwide in December.

BTW: I'm not saying that we should be wasteful or that we shouldn't conserve energy nor that we shouldn't look for alternatives fuels. I just don't like the scare tactics and deliberately deceptive arguments being used to try to force one group's purely political agenda. But they need some threatening issue to scare the sheep, (sheep who they know won't question anything they say), so they can say they are going to fix it. Manufacture a problem them promise a cure. Otherwise they have nothing to offer, and they know it.

reply

Wow, dude, you sound really crazy! You're clearly an American, too, because the only place there's a "debate" about global warming. Just like it's one of the only industrialized nation with a "debate" over evolution. I personally can't wait for the "debate" over gravity! Something like... Maybe God is holding me on the ground, I guess that means large corporations should be exempt from taxes!

BTW from what I've seen this movie is not about global warming, but more about how much it sucks to live in the arctic. A lot of the footage is twenty years old and has been cleaned up.


Believe in Jesus!!!
It's better for your HEALTH!

reply

Equating global warming politics with gravitational science and creation/evolution debate philosophy? Wow, dude, you sound really crazy! You're clearly European, too, because that's the only place they have such a shaky grasp on logic!

Sounds stupid when someone says it about YOU, huh?



Last seen:
Libeled Lady - 10/10

reply

Nope. I'm American and sick of "conservatives" pretending science doesn't exist because they want to believe otherwise. It's done in the global warming "debate" and the evolution "debate". The connection is clear you take a second to think, but then again if you were capable of that you wouldn't be arguing against global warming, you tool.

I have to admit that you are right in that your post sounds really stupid.

Believe in Jesus!!!
It's better for your HEALTH


P.S. I had sex with your Mom, DoctorStrangelove. I think I got a VD.

reply

Wow, personal attacks! What a surprise!! Take note, everyone... that is what passes for "debate" from the global warming crowd.

I'll debate anyone who appears to have some knowledge, but people who act like you aren't worth it. You're on the ignore list.



Last seen:
The Shop Around the Corner - 10/10

reply

You haven't been debating anyone, you've just been making personal attacks yourself. Read a science book and stop whining. Might as well add me to your ignore list, too, little girl.

reply

Thanks for the advice! Bye.

reply

I have a question.

Are you a christian?
You have the smiley faces and the text reading Believe in Jesus.It's better for your HEALTH. Yet, you have P.S. I had sex with your MOM....

That is contradicting and confusing.

AM

reply

[deleted]

First, thanks DoctorStrangeLove for your reply to Imeda_marcos. That was great.
Second, I haven't seen this movie yet. I'm not critiquing the movie, just the politics masquerading as science which is global warming.

If you really READ my posts you'll see that I never once say that global warming isn't occuring. It may well be. But like saying "the sky is blue" is a fact it doesn't necessarily follow that mankind in any way caused it to be true. So, you typically side-step the question about what has caused the warming/cooling cycles which caused the ice-ages since these natural cycles pre-date the Industrial Age and human usage of hydrocarbons. I have yet to hear anyone who believes global warming is man-made answer that question. What caused the global warming which ended the ice-ages when mankind was barely able to warm his caves?

Once you separate the hype and politics from the scientific facts you see that we don't have enough data yet to make a clear determination about global warming - otherwise the climate researchers would all be in agreement, which they aren't. So, by all means, conserve energy and hunt for alternative sources of energy, but don't use global warming as a platform to force these issues. It only muddies the discussion and detracts from the real issue - How do we find enough energy for a growing, power-hungry, world population?

Note: A few decades ago scientists were warning about global cooling, (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling), based on a slight downward trend in temperatures from the 1940s to the 1970s. It made the news and politicians were trying to "fix it". Now, Global warming is being predicted from a slight upward trend over the same amount of time, from the 1970s until the present. What a difference a couple decades make.

So, is global warming a real issue with man-made causes (and solutions) OR is it so far just embryonic scientific data being blown far out of proportion by both the news media eager for a sensational story and by politicians eager for a cause that will get them voted into office? I think it's mostly the latter.


reply

This argument has nothing to do with global warming, you all mindlessly agree with what your political party says.
Everyone who believes in global warming is liberal and everyone who doesn't is republican.
Believe in the constitution and ideals that created democracy, not in a bunch of power hungry *beep* who lie and mislead the public everyday.

Both sides of the global warming argument has some validity, our "pollution" does affect the environment, but not as much as the liberals tell us, they are only using fear to acquire money and power.
The republicans are no different, the only reason the republicans argue against global warming is because the large corporations don't want to loose one cent of profit, they don't care if the environment is polluted.

Ideally, all politicians and power hungry *beep* should be eliminated, so that we could build a true democracy.

Don't believe in political propaganda, believe in ideals.

reply

Hey walter, to be fair... zalag actually said, "look on the glacials". Maybe his vast scientific experience makes him privy to the secret knowledge that the Arctic is actually covered with adjectives!



Last seen:
The Shop Around the Corner - 10/10

reply

Great "debating".

reply

I never claimed to be debating anyone, genius - I've only accepted that a debate EXISTS. Duh.

Let me guess... you think global warming is manmade, right? I'll have to assume so, since you either a) leap to conclusions based on nonexistent facts (like the 'fact' of my debating), and/or b) are too lazy to actually read and try to comprehend the actual arguments.

If you really think my snarky comment was an attempt at debate, then by your own criteria, YOURS is even more pathetic. Golly it's a shame I won't see more of your hyperevolved logic.



Last seen:
The Shop Around the Corner - 10/10

reply

Yeah, you saw that too. :-) Either way the "facts" were non-existent.
I see so many purely emotional arguments, "Look at the glacials" [sic], "polar bears are drowning", etc... that I begin to wonder if there are any facts to back up what they truly seem to want to believe. If you dare to question the cause of global warming they brand you a kook and a Luddite. And there is at least one troll here (I believe one you have added to your ignore list as have I) that's just interested in making itself feel important by spewing random gibberish into the grown-ups conversation.

The silly thing is I believe most people would be in agreement if they got rid of the emotion, the hatred of America (both foreign and domestic), and the self-serving politics and simply asked, Where are we going to get enough energy to satisfy the needs of a growing world population both now and in the future? Getting rid of oil doesn't get rid of the living people who need to heat and light their homes, clothe themselves, cook their food, get to work, get their kids to school, etc... And frankly, I'm not convinced that getting rid of every drop of oil would get rid of global warming either.

Should those people burn wood instead? It is afterall a renewable resource. It also pollutes a LOT more than oil and natural gas and we'd soon clear-cut the rain forests burning enough trees to replace oil. How about nuclear? Coal? Hydro-power? Giant solar or wind generator farms? Geothermal? The truth is I have yet to hear a way of producing energy that is acceptable to the people who want us to quit using oil. But the people who need energy are here on the planet NOW and there's more of them arriving every day. You tell that family in Siberia or Minneapolis that they just have to freeze because their way of keeping warm might raise the global temperature another two degrees in a hundred years. Tell that farmer in Egypt or Thailand that he can't farm more than a few acres of land because he must use oxen rather than a faster, more efficient tractor to pull his plow, [even though cattle each year produce tons of methane, a so-called greenhouse gas, while tractors produce none.]

PS I'll be curious in the next few years to see how/if the Global Warming Fanatics tell China and India, (both developing rapidly industrially with already about 1/3 the world's population between them), to stop prospering, growing, and using fuel. If they think the West is bad they ain't seen nothin' yet.

reply

The extreme left ideologues and fascists have a simple solution to that, too... get rid of the people. But just the "undesirables", of course (read: Africans and other nonwhites). Because of "global overpopulation"... another failed apocalyptic prediction from the racist, elitist intelligensia who are afraid of being "outbred".



Last seen:
The Shop Around the Corner - 10/10

reply

methane a 'so called' 'greenhouse gas'? it is.

reply

First off, Global Warming is a real issue. And I think you should't be mad at your nephew becuase he is compassionate about other living things that share this planet with us.

I think the person above me has a valid argument. And I will say that he/she is right, on many points. It could be a cycle. Infact it is.

See the earth goes through this very same cycle that he/she talks about. But the thing is these cycles are contributed to the levels of CO2 in the air.

Ok, so then if you take glacial cores from the dead of the Antarctic, you have a record of the earth's climate that reaches back to about 600,000 years. And in these chunks of ice are airbubbles, full of air of coarse. And if you measure the CO2 levels, you will see what the air was like back then. And if you count the isotopes of the atoms, you can even measure the average temperature of that year(s).

And scientists have proven that with heightened levels of CO2 there was a rise in temperature.

Now, if we keep burning CO2, won't that make things far worse than they ever been?

But I do agree again, why must we scare people, and make it all doom and gloom?

reply

A rise in CO2 levels always happens AFTER temperature rise.

I just want to make that absolutely clear here, since AlGore lies about it to further his agenda.



Last seen:
1776 - 9/10

reply

Al Gore's "agenda"? An agenda involving what? Energy conservation?

Jesus, you're right, what a selfish prick.

reply

I'm glad you agree.



Last seen:
The Shop Around the Corner - 10/10

reply

You're 100% correct, Dr. Strangelove, and I am disgusted that this film was ever made--the propogandists know no bounds in their quest for their totalitarian agenda, even using cute-looking animals to catch the emotions of children (I say "cute-looking," because the LAST thing any person would like to run into out there is a polar bear). I used to think that National Geographic was an honest magazine, but no more. People who "believe" in the lie of "mankind causing the environmental catastrophe of global warming" have no real idea what would actually be demanded of them. Not one person here who argues against you would be able to stand a second of it.

I wouldn't worry about the polar bears; they've successfully been on this earth through every kind of climatological cycle, including times when the earth was way warmer than it was now (such as when currently frozen and ice-covered Greenland was actually green and had people living on it, thus it's name).

By the way, I wonder if this movie bothered to show that polar bears eat walruses, or are these two creatures shown in this film as a "Disneyfied" band of happy brothers? Polar bears have senses so keen that when a walrus rises up out of the water, a polar bear can smell their breath from very far away--very, very useful for such a predator. But I bet this movie fails to teach something like that; they're just on the intellectual level of fart jokes.

reply

I agree with you 1000% We should pollute MORE not less. That would show those liberal MFers!

Believe in Jesus!!!
It's better for your HEALTH

reply

Carbon dioxide isn't a pollutant any more than oxygen is. Carbon dioxide, which you put forth into the atmosphere every time you exhale, is like oxyen to plant life.

reply

Actually oxygen is poisonous and decays pretty much everything, that's why rust is called oxidation (it's oxygen destroying metal) and why you should have plenty of antioxidants in your diet to fight against the effects of oxygen destroying the cells of your body. Plus when three oxygen atoms combine into a molecule (as opposed to two) it's even poisonous to breathe. So yes, carbon dioxide isn't any more of a pollutant than oxygen, but oxygen will (and currently slowly is) killing you.

It's called science you should look into sometime.

reply

I bet my body is way healthier than your body, Butt Cream! And I can thank my understanding of science for that. (By the way, the global warming scam isn't science, it's politics. I hope you don't figure that out too late!)

reply

>I wouldn't worry about the polar bears; they've successfully been on this earth through every kind of climatological cycle, including times when the earth was way warmer than it was now (such as when currently frozen and ice-covered Greenland was actually green and had people living on it, thus it's name).
I agree that polar bears aren't in any danger of going extinct but I have to correct one thing. If I understand the history, the names "Greenland" and "Iceland" were pure propaganda; one to encourage settlement of a very icy island, and the other to discourage settlers from a much greener island.

An adult male walrus is bigger than an adult polar bear and so is more than a match for the bear, especially in the water. Walrus calves on the otherhand are fair game. Polar bears prefer the much smaller harp, ringed, and (I think) fur seals; people too if they are stupid enough not to respect one of the few animals that isn't afraid of humans.

BTW, to the person who was saying that global warming is killing all the polar bears, I found this interesting tidbit on wikipedia:

Although some local populations of polar bears have been shrinking, their total global population has been growing. Between the 1970s and 2007, the total global population of polar bears increased from 5,000 to 25,000.
That's a five-fold increase during the same span of time that Global Warming has been reported. You won't hear that figure on the news.

reply

>... if you take glacial cores from the dead of the Antarctic, you have a record of the earth's climate that reaches back to about 600,000 years.
I'd be surprised if any glacier anyplace on the planet is 600,000 years old for two reasons. First, there are the natural inter-glacial periods that melt the glaciers. The last ice age was much more recent than 600,000 years ago, more like 10,000 years instead. And second, to qualify as a glacier it has to move. In 600,000 years even the slowest glacier would have completely run its course to its terminus, either into the ocean or a river valley, and replaced itself several times. There shouldn't be any 600,000 year old ice left on the surface of the Earth. Besides, your glacier would have to be several miles deep to get 600,000 slices thick enough to separate each one from the layers on either side. Sorry, I don't buy it.

>... And if you count the isotopes of the atoms, you can even measure the average temperature of that year(s).
I honestly don't see how you could prove that without a time machine. Anything that occured before we started keeping temperature records is all guesswork and the average temperature differences over that same time period are small enough to be buried by the changes caused by any number of natural phenomena (El nino, solar flares and sun spots, meteor impact, volcanic ash in the atmosphere, etc...).

>And scientists have proven that with heightened levels of CO2 there was a rise in temperature.
I haven't heard of such definitive studies, but that would only be true if CO2 and temperature were linked AND the link was that CO2 caused the temperture increases and not the other way around. Even worse, an apparent connection between CO2 and temperature could be coincidental - both variables could be related to some other factor and have no direct effect on each other. Logically, I don't see how sciencists can rule out that possibility without exhaustively eliminating all other possible contributing factors, (which is essentially impossible).

If you believe that heightened CO2 causes a rise in temperature and those rises in CO2 are captured in Antarctic ice, then what do you think caused the repeated increases in CO2 which have occurred throughout pre-history long before man was even an agricultural species let alone an industrial species? I'm not trying to be argumentative or put you on the spot, I'm really curious.

Finally, anything, including man, that greatly perturbs the number and distribution of O2 producing plants could effect the relative concentrations of CO2 and O2 in the atmosphere much more than your styrofoam cup or your SUV. Plants don't need us to survive but we do need them. And it doesn't matter if the temperature and weather are unchangingly perfect if you can't breathe. I'd worry about that long before I worried about cars and factories.

reply

Excellent post, walter.



Last seen:
Libeled Lady - 10/10

reply

Wow, Arthur, way to be a science jock! Nice.

reply

Not CO2 but water vapor /H20/ is the main greenhouse gas (with clouds up to 85% of warming effect). The warmer air is, the more H2O can it contain, thus GE increases. The phenomenon of Noctilucent Clouds is an example of higher water saturation in atmosphere (mesosphere).

It is interesting, according to some concepts, that Global Warming can relatively rapidly turn to Global Cooling by increasing the planetary albedo (no, it's not The Day After Tomorrow).
Now we have an Interglacial period, which may end soon. See and evaluate pic below:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c2/Vostok-ice-core-petit.png

reply

Your nephew should panic, past generations have royally screwed the future. As this is is obviously just a ploy to bash liberals, I will bash you in return, get off the computer, read all the "facts" in the bible and go masturbate to your Tom Clancy novels.

reply

I've heard the producers are only using registered Democratic walruses and polar bears, too. It's a conspiracy, I tell ya! (;-}

reply

I have a very hard time believing that this movie is out to make humans into the big evil bad guys, seeing as it is made by, I'm assuming, humans. If we're going to use this line of reasoning, we should probably ban Bambi as liberal propaganda.

reply

[deleted]

all you poeple who have seen "an inconvenient truth" and think you've got a pretty good idea on whats goin on, you should watch "the great global warming swindle" (it's on you tube). Then make up your mind on man made golbal warming.

if you still think that Co2 causes our earths' tempreture to raise, then good for you, at least then you've listened to two sides of an argument insted of one.

reply

What possible 'gain' could 'liberals' get by perpetuating a global warming 'myth'?

"Then where does the power come from, to see the race to its end? From within."

reply

If you don't think global warming is real.......I hope your kids are the first to DIE!

reply

In a word, "votes". Scare the sheep enough and you can get them to jump through flaming hoops.

reply

"we should probably ban Bambi as liberal propaganda"
Ban it? Well I think that's going a bit far. How about we just require a warning label, after all, other than the anti-hunting message it's a good film.

reply

It's anti-gun and therefore anti-second amendment. Personally I think we should burn all of the copies outside in a huge pile. All those melting plastic fumes from the DVDs going into the air and the world not instantly ending will TOTALLY disprove this so called "global warming" BS! If 'global warming" is true, then why aren't we on fire?!

Take that SCIENTIST! I hope you all die for disagreeing with anything in the Bible (even the parts that contradict other parts)!


Believe in Jesus!!!
It's better for your HEALTH!

reply

I think the bigger issue hear is a lack of Hollywood creativity. How many of these anti-global warming, anti-development animated movies have we seen over the last couple years? Ice Age 2, Happy Feet, Over the Hedge... it's ridiculous.

Why can't animated filmmakers come up with original ideas like the rest of Hollywood? You know, completely original ideas like Live Free and Die Hard or Rise of the Silver Surfer?

reply

You're kidding, right? Live Free Or Die Hard and Fantastic Four: Rise Of The Silver Surfer are sequels, and bad sequels at that.

The Godfather Part II:Greatest Ever

We're gonna raise more hell than Hellraiser.

reply

WTF?! How can you call Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer a bad sequel?! It's the BEST Jessica Alba movie ever made and she only make QUALITY work!

reply

The original poster is an idiot. Try seeing the movie before you spout off about something you know nothing about. 98% of this film is just following the animals doing their thing.

Steve Kraus
Lake Street Screening Room - Chicago

reply

scorp123-1,

It's not a liberal movie, I've seen it. It's cute animals living in the arctic and all of the pits and perils that come with it. It's also National Geographic and they had a hit movie a few years ago called March of the Penguins that made an insane amount of money. I think you need to put the conspiracy theories away my friend the Arctic Tale will not hurt you instead it will keep your kids happy and laughing and in full suspense of the fun animals. So relax pal, there is a slight message about how the ice is melting but they don't go into a long diatribe about how it's your fault so don't worry you'll get no real guilt trip from the cute polar bears and walruses. So just sit back and enjoy the movie and stop ranting about Liberals, ok.

reply

Finally,... someone on this board who actually knows what they are talking about.

reply

That guy has probably only looked at National Geographic for self-pleasuring purposes.

Why is everything a Liberal vs. Conservative thing in the U.S?

reply

global warming is really happening. people shouldn't just think that liberals are trying to scare people. if your child is scared about global warming, well, he should be. there are polar bears dying. they have found several drowned ones. that has never happened before. this is because the polar ice caps are melting. i just hope that people will be able to see this and stop it before its too late. liberals aren't trying to fill your head with nonsense, they're trying to help you. global warming is really happening, and you're ignorant if you don't notice.not stupid, just ignorant.

How does Charlie Brown hold up his huge head?

reply

Hey, you're preaching to the converted.

I'm just saying that every argument, no matter what the subject, seems to turn into a "liberals are losers" or "conservatives are losers" thing in the US. My question was more out of curiosity than it was to point fingers at any group in particular.

reply

The country has really gone to *beep* in the last five years and people want to think its people who don't think like them caused when it's really everyone's fault for watching too much TV and not paying attention to what's going on around them.

Believe in Jesus!!!
It's better for your HEALTH

reply

They 'who?' have found several 'how many?' drowned polar bears 'where?'? Anybody can make random emotional statements - but emotion doesn't make it true. Where are the facts? I can't believe that a polar bear has never drowned before, or are you just saying that nobody has ever seen one drowned before?

So, I'll bite, how did melting ice drown a polar bear, I'm sorry, "several" polar bears? Are seals and penguins drowning also or are just polar bears susceptible to melting ice?

So, who is more ignorant (your words), the person who makes sensational statements without any facts or the person who won't believe the postings of every random, anonymous person on the internet? In other words, why should I believe you - especially when the experts don't agree?

reply

The problem with the polar bears is that they live on land, but what they eat (like seals) live on ice floats. The more Jesus makes the ice melt the further they have to swim between land and ice (dozens of miles) and if it's too far the tire and drown.

Here's a link to a Wall Street Journal article on drowning polar bears: http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB113452435089621905-vnekw47PQGtDyf3iv5XEN71_o5I_20061214.html from December 2005.

Did I commit a faux pas by introducing actual facts to this "debate"?

Polar bears can't eat the penguins living on land because, because they only live in Antarctica while polar bears live in the Arctic and that's much too far from them to swim. Fortunately polar bears are one of the few species to hunt and eat people so they won't totally starve to death.


Believe in Jesus!!!
It's better for your HEALTH!

reply

And here I thought you were serious. Did you actually READ my post before responding?

Anyone who honestly read my comments would realize that simply mentioning penguins in relation to global warming doesn't mean that polar bears are eating them! Silly me - I assumed if ocean levels were rising in the Arctic that the same problem might also be occurring in the Antarctic since everyone knows: 1) the Atlantic and Pacific oceans reach both polar regions, they don't stop at the equator, 2) global warming is, well, GLOBAL - not confined to just the Northern hemisphere. But you simply ignore the legitimate question by intentionally changing the subject with a personal attack.

And the WSJ article you cited even says that the bears probably died in a storm due to high seas. Storms aren't uncommon in the polar oceans and while polar bears are excellent swimmers they don't have gills so they can drown just like any other air-breather, it doesn't require global warming.

Your apparent attempts at sarcasm or humor and your obvious religious bigotry detracts from any serious argument you might accidentally make. But you don't seem to be concerned with the facts so much as deliberately pushing people's buttons with provocative attacks on religion and personal attacks on the poster, rather than the facts. I truly feel sorry for you.

I don't have time to feed the trolls - one more addition for my ignore list.

reply

And another one whos idea of intelligent discussion is name calling. Just because you want to believe something doesn't make it true, nor does it mean anybody else has to agree with you.

You yourself say that the cause of the changes is open to disussion. Can you accept that any global weather changes could be entirely natural and not affected by man at all? We have been an industrial planet for about a second, geologically speaking, but apparently ice-ages have been coming and going for much, much, much longer than that. That to me suggests that large-scale, weather pattern changes aren't caused by humans but are completely natural. Do you believe in ice ages? If so then you apparently believe that prehistoric men caused the end of the last ice-age. How else could it have happened if global warming isn't natural?

I agree that any supposed global climate change is open to debate and discussion. I also know climate researchers who don't believe that global warming is happening at all, or if there is a change that man has nothing to do with it. I personally haven't made up my mind yet because: 1) I'm still open-minded, 2) I haven't seen enough data to convince me one way or the other, and most important, 3) I don't have a personal political agenda to force on other people.

>If you took your politically oriented butt outdoors and opened your eyes you'd realize this.
Right, because global changes that have supposedly been occuring over decades are obvious at a casual glance. Over the last couple decades where I live the summers have been a bit cooler and the winters both colder and warmer than average. Nothing surprising or alarming there. So who has the political agenda?

>If you think it’s political you should take a trip to Alaska and talk with the native population and ask if they have experiences with climatic changes.
So, is that what you did before you made up your mind about global warming? Which native groups did you talk to - city dwellers or did you actually visit a more "traditional" Native village? Was it on the coast or inland? Aleut? Athebascan? Yupik? What did they have to say?

>You'd be surprised just how very real the temperature changes are and how dramatically they have effected the native wildlife population and their traditional ways of living.
You're right, I'd be surprised if global warming effected the wildlife dramatically or affected their, (I'm assuming here you mean native Alaskans and not the wildlife's), traditional ways of living. Just how traditional are you talking? The snow machine, outboard motors, firearms, alcohol, packaged foods, and factory made tools and clothing have affected their traditional ways of living far, far more than a degree or two rise in the average temperature.

You should limit your arguments to topics you know something about.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

>LMAO walter907 aren't we thin skinned when the term "half-wit" is considered name calling.
>Let me go slow for you because you don't seem to be able to read and comprehend what I had previously posted.
>NO WHERE in my post did I attribute global warming to any specific cause.

No, of course you didn't. You just started your post with the standard reply in this forum to intelligent discussion, name-calling, (and then called me "thin-skinned" for pointing it out). You may not have specifically pointed to one cause but you attacked the person who dared suggest that this issue has become politicized. You can't serious believe that it hasn't!

>I know scientists whom are very conservative and who subscribe to the theory of global warming being caused/exasperated by man’s carbon emissions pollution.
I think you meant "exacerbated". In any case, as I stated, unless you have another explanation for the ice-ages ending then global warming is a natural occurrence. If we had the power to stop geologic changes I don't think that we should. I also said though that I keep an open mind. I don't rule out that man may have a very small contributing affect. With or without that affect conserving the limited resources we have and polluting less are worthy goals in their own right. But the data are so limited and localized that the conclusions being drawn from them are ludicrous.
Most of the Western world allows its citizens the freedom to choose. But people who want to force other people to act as they wish them to act are using this issue as a big hammer to try to scare people. Even worse are the politicians who don't care about the issues or understand the data but want to act as if they, and only they, are going to do something about this terrible problem "for the children" to garner votes. It has been politicized far beyond the facts and the data. If that weren't true then the scientists would all be in agreement.

The rest of your post (and even the bit I quoted) was just deliberately insulting and not worthy of comment.


One correction to my posting that I'd missed until I read yours. I said "Yupik" when I meant "Inupiaq". Inupiaq (or Inupiat) are the people, Yupik is the language.
If you are interested there are entire web sites devoted to actual global warming facts - the first fact being that it is more of a political than a scientific issue.
http://sitewave.net/news/s49p1837.htm
http://sitewave.net/news/s49p1831.htm
http://sitewave.net/news/s49p1828.htm

reply

People people. Relax everyone. There's no need to get into such a huff over something like this. After all what is the worst that's going to happen if global warming is really happening and we choose to regard it as propaganda? It's only going to be our children and gandchildren who's never going to see a live polar bear or walrus or whatever cute animal that they are now being filmed. It's not going to be us who'll be battling severe weather storms. It is only fair too as thanks to our ancestors we will never be able to see a live passenger pigeon or tasmanian wolf. Probably in another forty or fifty years they'll be able to really event spaceships that'll evacuate the people to another planet. They do that a lot in the movies already, why not in real life?

If you don't like the film, you don't need to see it. If you people really think that movies like these are propaganda, you've obviously never known what real propaganda is. To me films like an Inconvenient Truth are just warnings of the tendeancy that the earth is taking. Yes, it is a very controversial issue and I am not saying that global warming is actually real or not. I am just saying that before the real verdict is going to come out, we should keep an open mind and be cautious.

reply

Ok, with reference to the second poster on the first page - I have noticed the term 'douche' being bandied around on various message boards a bit now. I understood it to be a largely American term of 'endearment' so to speak, but now that it's colonising blogs the world over, would someone tell me what a douche actually is?

Just curious - I always prefer to know exactly how I'm insulting someone. ;-)

reply

douche is short for douche bag, douching is the process of cleaning the vagina, so the douche bag contains what is removed from the vagina.


oh and by the way we should all kill ourselves because its the only way to 'save' the planet, you know before the sun increases in temperature to a point that it heats the earth

reply

[deleted]

Walter907 - Hey dude, you sound like a bright guy. Are you a scientist? A climatologist? You make a great argument, and you don't resort to name calling or insulting, even after someone else has called you names. I must admit that reading your posts has provided much food for thought. The global warming issue scares me, and I've never liked cruelty to animals or animal suffering, but I must also admit that your comments have made me see a possible other side to the argument/issue and have lessened my fear somewhat. And I'm not being sarcastic, for anyone who might read this and think I am; read over walter907's posts and you'll see that he states his case in very intelligent, scientific terms and never calls anyone names. Good for you 907!

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

My mother was fond of saying "profanity is a weak mind trying to express itself forcefully". I have to agree with that but I'd also add name-calling to that statement. If we're going to call ourselves civilized then we need to start by first being civil.

reply

Your mother is a stupid *beep*

Believe in Jesus!!!
It's better for your HEALTH

reply

Thanks for the positive feedback.

I try to always keep an open mind, so there are only a few things in my life that I believe absolutely. I've got no fear of honest debate but I just can't stomach people who defend their arguments by: personally attacking anyone who disagrees with them, using bad logic (extremely common online), using unnecessary profanity (even more common online), and the ever popular juvenile name-calling. When I hear someone defend their position by immediately resorting to name-calling to me that means they know better than anyone that their position is indefensible so their only option is to try desperately to change the subject. As far as I'm concerned they have already lost the argument.

We need to put the "civil" back into civilization.

reply

I will have to be among those who step in and congratulate you. Your debate was civil and intelligent.

However, I would say that the only argument you have won really is to say that Democrats use environmental scare tactics to get votes. Let's not throw the term "liberal" around an organization that is into big government and changing the very foundations of the way people live, there is nothing "liberal" about environmental policy changes.

But the question should be what is worse? Scaring people into cutting down on fuel, making the air cleaner, creating less waste, and finding new ways to power our lives? Or using scare tactics to get people revved up for a war?

Here is what you said:

"I'm not saying that we should be wasteful or that we shouldn't conserve energy nor that we shouldn't look for alternatives fuels. I just don't like the scare tactics and deliberately deceptive arguments being used to try to force one group's purely political agenda. But they need some threatening issue to scare the sheep, (sheep who they know won't question anything they say), so they can say they are going to fix it. Manufacture a problem them promise a cure. Otherwise they have nothing to offer, and they know it."

Here is what I could say about the war in Iraq/Afghanistan against:

"I'm not saying that we shouldn't try and oust murderous rulers, help other countries move towards equality, and find ways to ensure we have allies in increasingly unstable parts of the world. I just don't like the scare tactics and deliberately deceptive arguments being used to try to force one group's purely political agenda. But they need some threatening issue to scare the sheep, (sheep who they know won't question anything they say), so they can say they are going to fix it. Manufacture a problem them promise a cure. Otherwise they have nothing to offer, and they know it."

You must admit that if "Global Warming" is a politically charged nebulous term with indefinite scientific proofs/ramifications being used by the Democrats, then "terrorism" is being used the same way by the Republicans.

Which is worse? Scaring people into a cleaner environment or scaring people into a cute little project called Homeland Security that has changed the face of civil liberties and effectively negated the Geneva Conventions?

I'll go with Global Warming.

reply

>I will have to be among those who step in and congratulate you. Your debate was civil and intelligent.
And I thank you for your kind words and an interesting, intelligent response.

>... Let's not throw the term "liberal" around an organization that is into big government and changing the very foundations of the way people live, there is nothing "liberal" about environmental policy changes.
Note: The "Liberal" label came from the subject of the original post and has just tagged along even though the subjects being discussed have changed quite a bit.

>Which is worse? Scaring people into a cleaner environment or scaring people into a cute little project called Homeland Security that has changed the face of civil liberties and effectively negated the Geneva Conventions?

>I'll go with Global Warming.

Well, Iraq is definitely way off topic so this isn't the best forum for that discussion. In general I honestly don't like to argue politics - you're always bound to upset someone. But my first response, (which I hope successfully skirts the political angles), is to simply ask: Which one is most likely to kill you - terrorism or Global Warming.

I'll go with terrorism.

reply

The US government foreign policy has killed millions of innocent people, much more than all the terrorists combined.

Thousands of people die every year from toxic chemicals, which come from the same industries that pollute the environment.

I personally think global warming is being exagerated to instill fear in people, but global warming has many causes, like cutting down trees and not replanting, using lakes or rivers to dump waste,etc...
So even if global warming is exagerated, the environment is being destroyed, and people are still dying, from the same industries that cause global warming.
Regardless of global warming, we should still change to less polluting technologies, to save the environment and prevent people from suffering or dying.

The only reason we don't change to less polluting technologies is only because the large corporations have too much power. They only care about profit, and the current system is very profitable for them. They may argue that people will loose jobs, but we can adapt. For example, if all new cars had to be electric, alot of garages would go out of business, but most of them are corrupt so it would be a good thing. But most garages could still survive by adapting to service electric cars. It would be rough for a few years, but then we wouldn't be so dependant on oil companies. Besides, oil is also used to make hundreds of products, so they wouldn't loose much profit in the long run.

reply

I don't think you have any idea what you're talking about - practially everything you've said is demonstrably false. You're just repeating the talking points of any number of kook websites. That first statement alone puts you in the "dangerously misinformed" category, FYI... and Al-Jazeera just loves its 'useful idiots' - their term, not mine.

If you could offer up any evidence to prove those (stale) accusations, especially the first two and WITHOUT SIMPLY POSTING LINKS, I'll eat my toenails.



Last seen:
The Shop Around the Corner - 10/10

reply

[deleted]