Global Warming
By livingtwist
@livingtwist (410)
United States
March 23, 2007 5:58pm CST
Well it seems global warming isn't nearly the problem Al Gore would have us beleive. But you can bet the money behind this so called media and movie hype is the real driving force and scare tactic. It seems even the UN says that rasing livestock has more affect on CO and pollution than all the vehicles in the whole world cause. So what is the real story? It seems the real driving force is just another way to divert money and resources to some mismanged government program to enhance entergy. The bottom line is just another way spend funds on a do nothing program while the folks that could really do something are not about to conserve. Gore is just another example of waste and abuse. He lives in a 28 room house and consumes more entergy and power than a small community. His family alone uses more entergy and causes more CO2 pollution in one year than most of us would in ten years.
1 person likes this
2 responses
@Alphasee (389)
• United States
24 Mar 07
Co2 has nothing to do with global warming. 20 years ago there was more co2 than there is now, it's generally just an influx. The reason why the environment, health and safety boards won't do anything to say otherwise is because too many jobs depend on this thing called global warming. Quite the phenomenon.
But seriously, it's a bunch of bull. I'm not some leftist ultimatum, I'm telling you to not believe the crap you hear.
Most the people who support the claim of 'global warming' are lobbyists and representatives, many of which either don't have ANY scientific background, or don't even want to support the cause, but are silenced.
Think about the claim that they make "No other scientists will disagree with this claim" - when have scientists ever collectively agreed on such a controversial subject?
1 person likes this
@livingtwist (410)
• United States
24 Mar 07
While I agtree its a bunch of BS. Our real problem is the politicians sitting in Washington that allicate the tax money for such things as the Gore bunch and few others are promoting. If they get the right folks in key positions convenced we will be looking at more wasted money spent by the government on another useless program to to study or fix something that does not need either. Keep in mind these are the same folks that have spent billions on other wasted programs that never helped anyone. How many more times do we need to see wasted man hours and committe meetings on such things. Congress has had hearings on just such stuff for months now. There are much more pressing issues they could be working on.
@theproperator (2429)
• United States
24 Mar 07
Big business would love nothing more than for everyone to agree with you. Okay, livestock produces more CO2 and methane compared to cars, but what about industry? Most energy is produced by burning coal, that's putting more pollution in the atmosphere than either livestock or cars. Besides, pollution from livestock is technically still a "man-made" problem, since the animals are raised exclusivally for human consumption. There are far more dairy cows now than there ever were buffalo on the great plains; and since we have to consume energy to transport, house, and feed them, they are consuming more energy than your average wild animal.
Yes, the lobbists may get a little extreme about the dire consequences (hey, the crops start dying off in 40 years and we can't feed people in already poor countries, tough luck!) but it is probably because many people flat-out refuse to acknowledge there is any problem at all. Right now, it is a small enough problem that we could still fix, or at least mitigate the results. But if we do nothing until we start to see effects, it will be to late to change course and we will have to just wait it out. Prevention is usually the better option, if you can get people to listen.
1 person likes this
@livingtwist (410)
• United States
11 Apr 07
Recent article about CO2 emmissions causing snow to melt faster from UK research group says trees are causing the snow pack to melt much faster due to trees reflecting more heat on snow. Does this mean we should cut down more trees? All this talk about Global Warming never mentions such things. I'm sure that we should be be concerned about wasteful use of power and entergy but man's impact on global warming does not have near the impact as the nay sayers would have you beleive.
