| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/10/2004 07:32:47 AM · #26 |
I am conservative in my outlook. I'd rather see the wealthy get poorer than to end up wiped out in a natural disaster of their making. I think the reason you're confused is that conervatives favor "conserving" the balance of power over "conserving" natural resources.
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by mbardeen:
... Personally, I'd rather err on the side of caution. |
But that makes you sound so ... conservative. No, wait, they're the one's who want to burn all the oil ... it gets so confusing. |
|
|
|
|
03/10/2004 08:39:58 AM · #27 |
Think about the difference in ages. How old is modern science and testing of temperature thats reliable vs. the age of the earth?
It's already been said before in this topic. The earth has been around for awhile w/ its own share of heating and cooling way before our technology could show specific temperatures.
And about that petition. They were at some large environmentalist gathering, and they interviewed a spokewoman for one of the larger organizations (sorry, I didn't really pay attention to which one), and she couldn't even describe what global warming was, or what adverse effect it had on the earth.
I'm just leary of anyone that calls themselves an environmentalist. If their agenda was to actually help the earth instead of regulating world trade I might believe them more.
The original founder of Greenpeace quit because he thought its members were being more commercial then environmental.
|
|
|
|
03/10/2004 09:08:38 AM · #28 |
| As an optomist, I can't wait for palm trees and quetzels in Colorado. Bring it on... Van |
|
|
|
03/10/2004 09:15:05 AM · #29 |
Originally posted by jdw91479:
Think about the difference in ages. How old is modern science and testing of temperature thats reliable vs. the age of the earth?
It's already been said before in this topic. The earth has been around for awhile w/ its own share of heating and cooling way before our technology could show specific temperatures.
|
The climate is changing. Am I correct in saying that's not being disputed?
What's being disputing is the causes for the climate change - whether human or planetary?
So what happens when we discover that we caused it by destroying the earth's own climate regulatory systems, and are now locked into a spiraling cycle of ever warming temperatures - destined to end up like Venus, which has surface temperature hot enough to melt lead? Do we say "ooops, our bad, must have been us that caused it."
By the time we know for sure what's causing it, the earth will most likely be uninhabitable. Then it'll be too late to regulate world trade in order to prevent the destruction of the climate regulatory system.
Now, you could take issue with my conclusion that the earth is destined to end up like venus. But even in the case that the earth does cool down eventually, we've still got the short term environmental impact to deal with - i.e. changes in rainfall patterns and crop growth, storm damage, increasing energy costs for heating/cooling our homes and cars. Which is something we'll have to deal with, regardless if global warming is manmade or a natural planetary cycle.
|
|
|
|
03/10/2004 09:34:24 AM · #30 |
It is also entirely possible that it is entirely out of our control.
The earth's magnetic field has flipped many times since it formed into existence.
There was a great program on Nova called Magnetic Storm that talked about it in detail. There have also been numerous articles written about, such as this one.
``Reversals happen every 250,000 years or so, and as there has not been one for almost a million years, we are due one soon.''
``... has discovered Earth's magnetic field seems to be disappearing most alarmingly near the poles, a clear sign that a flip may soon take place. ''
``On Earth, it will heat up the upper atmosphere and send ripples round the world with enormous, unpredictable effects on the climate.''
So this "climatic change" may be entirely "normal". There isn't anything we can do about the earth's magnetic field; it is generated entirely by the molten core far below the earth's surface. But I'm sure there are those who will continue to use this "natural event" to blame whoever... |
|
|
|
03/10/2004 09:52:33 AM · #31 |
As it is entirely possible that it is in our control.
Weekly weather patterns attributed to work cycles.
Stronger Evidence of Human Influences on Climate
I could go on, but I won't. We don't live in a vacuum. Nature is not immune to our effects - it's foolish to think otherwise. The question is to what degree and is there anything that can be done to mitagte those effects if they are detrimental.
Message edited by author 2004-03-10 09:53:22. |
|
|
|
03/10/2004 10:06:08 AM · #32 |
You guys are getting off the original topic of this thread. We've discussed global warming and climate change in other threads. This one is about media and why they aren't talking about issues like this, but want to broadcast waste of time stories, like Martha Stewart, when we need to have public debates of more important issues.
I think the point is that the media in the US is corporate controlled and will not tell you what THEY don't want you to know. |
|
|
|
03/10/2004 10:10:00 AM · #33 |
I wish they would talk more about global warming also. I want to contribute more to it. I hate cold weather.
|
|
|
|
03/10/2004 10:13:42 AM · #34 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
I think the point is that the media in the US is corporate controlled and will not tell you what THEY don't want you to know. |
You could probably say that ( the media in the US is corporate controlled ) about the non-government controlled media in EVERY country, not just the U.S. In the countries where the media IS government controlled, it's worse.
And, in the US, it's probably quite true that the media "will not tell you what THEY don't want you to know". I know that it's true of the NY Times, the Washington Post, etc.
But I think that, as has been pointed out earlier, it's more a matter of "what sells newspapers" is what is the real determining factor. Some of the most profitable media are the supermarket tabloids.
Ron |
|
|
|
03/10/2004 10:17:41 AM · #35 |
I love the Daily Show. the REAL news.. LOL
todays has a great example of the media. Go watch it. a lady talks about how the Daily Show people cut and splice only the stupid parts of what people say, so it makes them look even stupider. Same with the "real" media shows.
|
|
|
|
03/10/2004 10:44:49 AM · #36 |
I agree with the assessment completely, but would like to add that the media giants in this country also don't want to relinguish any of their own power, and, contribute heavily to politicians they know will keep the status quo.
One thing that is desperately needed in this country is campaign finance reform!
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
I think the point is that the media in the US is corporate controlled and will not tell you what THEY don't want you to know. |
You could probably say that ( the media in the US is corporate controlled ) about the non-government controlled media in EVERY country, not just the U.S. In the countries where the media IS government controlled, it's worse.
And, in the US, it's probably quite true that the media "will not tell you what THEY don't want you to know". I know that it's true of the NY Times, the Washington Post, etc.
But I think that, as has been pointed out earlier, it's more a matter of "what sells newspapers" is what is the real determining factor. Some of the most profitable media are the supermarket tabloids.
Ron |
|
|
|
|
03/10/2004 11:50:21 AM · #37 |
Back to the old topic - sorry.
Sure there are a few scientists who deny global warming, or our ability to prevent it. Unsurprisingly Bush found most of them to produce his 'independent report' a few years back.
The overwhelming majority of the scientific community supports the theory though, and supports the view that we should do something.
I'm amazed at how censored the American media is, and how reluctant it is to speak out against the govenment. Possibly it's because they fear being branded as unpatriotic, which would have a negative impact on their advertising revenue. |
|
|
|
03/10/2004 06:22:27 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
One thing that is desperately needed in this country is campaign finance reform!
|
true!
and i dont think canadates should be able to advertise themselves w/ commercials as if there selling some product. i say anhilize there backrounds, layout what there stances are on issues and have them debate publicly in an organized, televised manner and then let the people pick.
skrew all this raising millions of dollars and badmouthing and everything else they do that someone who is running for the top office in the land should do.
|
|
|
|
03/10/2004 06:33:14 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by Russell2566:
Because you falsly assume that CNN, MSNBC, ABC, BBS, Fox News or any other "News Channel" are actualy news providers... When in fact they are nothing but venues to sell ads.
Covering things like, I don't know the truth or global warming doesn't keep viewers glued to their TV sets which in turn would throw advertiser dollars down the toilet... |
Amen to that my friend. Add to it like they only show the bad part of anything because it sells good. Who cares about those small countries lost somewhere in eastern europe or anywhere else? Only show bad stuff about them because only those sell. So I would say you don't wanna see a global warming reportage on such a channel it would only make you feel panic or have suicide thoughts maybe.
P.S. Someone who watched a reportage about my country on such a channel told me these days "I wonder you even have phonelines over there in Romania."
|
|
|
|
03/10/2004 06:45:57 PM · #40 |
Totally agree, Mad...the major media cover them so superficially that candidates are more concerned about their image, then about real substantive issues, which also allows them to flip-flop on those issues. And all that crappy coverage takes away time from other real news stories. So Americans are left in the dark. And the news in the US has been portrayed as entertainment and made light of. When the war broke out in Iraq it was covered like a sports event. Not to mention that most journalists were "embedded" with the military. These journalists and media outlets that went along with this should be ashamed of themselves as they've compromised greatly journalistic integrity. I just gave away my tv because there's absolutely nothing on worth my time.
I wonder just how much real news we aren't getting that's going to kick us in the ass later on.
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
One thing that is desperately needed in this country is campaign finance reform!
|
true!
and i dont think canadates should be able to advertise themselves w/ commercials as if there selling some product. i say anhilize there backrounds, layout what there stances are on issues and have them debate publicly in an organized, televised manner and then let the people pick.
skrew all this raising millions of dollars and badmouthing and everything else they do that someone who is running for the top office in the land should do. |
|
|
|
|
03/11/2004 07:14:20 PM · #41 |
I'm not sure I agree with you about all govt controlled media outlets being worse than in the US. For instance, the people in Great Britain get alot more information from the BBC than we do, and that's a paternalistic system, meaning that the govt has a big say in what gets aired.
Yes, the NYTimes and Wash Post definitely don't tell you everything, but either does Clear Channel, ABC and other for profit news organizations. As far as the non-profit media, such as NPR, well they are more into reporting business and the stock markets than anything else, so alot of news gets omitted.
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
I think the point is that the media in the US is corporate controlled and will not tell you what THEY don't want you to know. |
You could probably say that ( the media in the US is corporate controlled ) about the non-government controlled media in EVERY country, not just the U.S. In the countries where the media IS government controlled, it's worse.
And, in the US, it's probably quite true that the media "will not tell you what THEY don't want you to know". I know that it's true of the NY Times, the Washington Post, etc.
But I think that, as has been pointed out earlier, it's more a matter of "what sells newspapers" is what is the real determining factor. Some of the most profitable media are the supermarket tabloids.
Ron |
|
|
|
|
03/11/2004 07:50:45 PM · #42 |
| Shouldnt this be in the Rant section? :) |
|
|
|
03/11/2004 08:25:51 PM · #43 |
| no it shouldnt, but will prolly get moved anyway. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 11/11/2025 03:27:43 PM EST.
