I just saw this commercial and I will be watching for it again. Saw it on TBS.
It shows an old switcher locomotive spewing black smoke barrelling down on some guy whining about how Global Warming is taking its effect. Then he's like its not going to affect me ... steps off the tracks ... and we see a little girl standing in the middle of the tracks in front of the moving train.
10000 feet and no dynamics? Today is going to be a good day ...
Nothing is more fairly distributed than common sense: no one thinks he needs more of it than he already has.
Wow.
You've gotta give them credit for being creative.
As for the message, that's a whole nother story.
Global Warming = A theory, that is not proven....
I could go on about it....but I won't
I grow tired of the whole thing....
I was discussing global warming one day, this person was adamant about it... So, I suggested that Volcanos do alot of damage to the atmosphere, and he stated "Volcanos are natural, they don't do as much damage as man"..... From that point on, it was quite evident I was arguing with a fool....
But, enough.... I am tired of the "greenies" trying to infringe on our freedoms, as if they aren't under attack from a bunch of other directions...
From all I have read on global warming, I have come to the conclusion that no one really knows what is going on..
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
There's very little difference between this ad and the original "shock" ad - aka the Goldwater "Daisy" commercial from 1964. Absolutely no substance, absolutely no factual content, just an attempt to scare the ill-informed using raw baseless emotion.
Typical of the far left.
As for the few and proud in the scientific community who continue to debunk the whole anthropogenic global warming scam despite the attempts to smear them and otherwise repress their studies -
WE ARE ALL PROUD OF YOU!
And the Bush Administration.
Dave
futuremodal wrote: There's very little difference between this ad and the original "shock" ad - aka the Goldwater "Daisy" commercial from 1964. Absolutely no substance, absolutely no factual content, just an attempt to scare the ill-informed using raw baseless emotion. Typical of the far left.
TimChgo9 wrote: I was discussing global warming one day, this person was adamant about it... So, I suggested that Volcanos do alot of damage to the atmosphere, and he stated "Volcanos are natural, they don't do as much damage as man"..... From that point on, it was quite evident I was arguing with a fool....
That person either wasn't born yet or lived in an area not affected by Mount St Helens in 1980.Myself,I was not in an affected area,but am aware of what the affects were for those involved.Wait for the next big eruption of one of the Northwest volcano's and then bring up the subject again and see what they think.
As to the global warming ad.Heaven forbid they show a traffic jam on a major city expressway or someone's oil burning clunker accelerating down a street passed a group of school kids.
Have a good one.
Bill B
I am not too sure that all the ideas to curb 'global warming' are a good idea.
Keep in mind we could throw ourselves back to the dark ages of no electricty and foot powered cars like the Flinstones and one good volcanic eruption would still erase all of our best efforts.
Not only that, no one has proved that global warming exists. If it does, then I have an idea. Right now this is the coldest it has been in October in WI for quite some time. I am almost tempted to go outside are just run my truck wide open for a couple of hours to help speed the greenhouse gases along a little bit.
Might as well make lemonade out of lemons, right?
TimChgo9 wrote:Global Warming = A theory, that is not proven.... I could go on about it....but I won't I grow tired of the whole thing.... I was discussing global warming one day, this person was adamant about it... So, I suggested that Volcanos do alot of damage to the atmosphere, and he stated "Volcanos are natural, they don't do as much damage as man"..... From that point on, it was quite evident I was arguing with a fool.... But, enough.... I am tired of the "greenies" trying to infringe on our freedoms, as if they aren't under attack from a bunch of other directions... From all I have read on global warming, I have come to the conclusion that no one really knows what is going on..
RJ
"Something hidden, Go and find it. Go and look behind the ranges, Something lost behind the ranges. Lost and waiting for you. Go." The Explorers - Rudyard Kipling
http://sweetwater-photography.com/
zugmann wrote:Sigh.You can't look at temperatures for one year. They are AVERAGES. If we didn't have colder years, then we wouldn't have averages. And no one is proposing giving up cars. Stop using scare tactics. But curbing emissions will not kill us. It can only help globally considering all the crap China is tossing into the air as they industrialize.
Considering that we only have 50-100 years of reliable 'average' temperatures by which we can determine global trends in climate change, I certainly don't give credit to those who claim the earth is warmer now than it was 800,000 years ago.
And weren't you the one that claimed in another thread that it would be hard for us to breathe if there is nothing but sulfur in the air or something like that? Talk about scare tactics.......
There isn't wrong with trying to conserve fuel or being frugal with our natural resources - in fact, it should be encouraged. But I don't buy the whole 'we're all going to be dead in 20 years scenario that Al Gore is screaming'.
Just a few thoughts about global warming:
The greatest danger of global warming is that enough people will come to believe in it to enact a call to action in a version of Kyoto. This is because a true call to action to stop global waming requires an awful lot more than just wearing a ribbon and buying energy efficient light bulbs. Many will be surprised by the sacrifice they will be ordered to make.
Political scientists know that socialism can only expand by hiding its intent to acquire power and control. It either has to pretend that it is something that it is not or it must come on so slowly that nobody notices; a mode referred to as creeping socialism. Saving the planet from global warming is the latest mask being used to hide the advancement of world socialism, which is intended to transfer wealth from the richest nations to all other nations. In the deepest terms, it is accurate to say that global warming has nothing to do with climate. Saving the planet is just the sales pitch for the bitter medicine that hides behind the mask.
The doctrine that is intended to promulgate this principle is the Kyoto Treaty on climate change. Basically, it divides up the right to emit carbon dioxide and other pollutants equally among all nations, thus permitting the United States no more of this right than a country the size of Cuba for example. The treaty allows these basic assigned pollution credits to be sold to, or purchased by all countries as if they were a trading currency. The United States, being a large manufacturing country, produces the greatest amount of pollutants, so it will need to purchase pollution credits from smaller countries that will naturally have an excess of such credits.
In this way, the wealth of the United States will be transferred to all of the third world countries. It amounts to a world wide carbon tax administered by the U.N. The result will be a leveling of the playing field in terms of world wealth. The mechanics of the Kyoto Treaty require the United States to cut its energy consumption by 30% within ten years. Aside from the wealth transfer, the economic result of this energy cutback alone is too staggering to imagine. If the American people were somehow made aware of it, they would not support the Kyoto Treaty on that basis alone, even if they did not see the sinister agenda that lurks behind it.
If global warming exists - a point on which the non-political scientific jury is still out - how much of it is caused by the hot air developed by the technologically challenged media pundits pushing the idea?
When the "global warming" crowd starts going after slash-and-burn agriculture and the destruction of the South American rain forests, I may climb onto the rear platform of their bandwagon. As long as the "less developed" nations keep getting a free pass, I don't see any reason to buy a ticket.
Chuck
dsktc wrote: And the Bush Administration. Dave
And AlGore, the man who invented the Internet.
Sigh.
As a guy living within sight of a dike that will not be high enough if global warming turns out to be true after Al Gore's 20 years I could write volumes about it. But it seems I would waste my time and energy trying to convince you clowns. Oh well, we'll see and if necessary we Dutch will come to your country and claim a sizable piece of it, all 17 million of us. We will be preceded by a few hapless souls from those coconut palm islands from the Pacific on the last of their coconut palms used as floats.
In the mean time I'll read up in the Bible about that Noah guy. I do have a balcony large enough to build a boat on and I may get it right before then, even with my lack of woodworking skills. I have time to build some muscle too to get it in the water which will be lapping about 1 meter below the floor level of my apartment here in Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Until then, greetings,
Marc Immeker
PS Yes I am aware that mother nature can outdo us anytime she chooses to. But why should we behave stupid when it is not necessary? Live and let live including those not living in one's own country.
tomikawaTT wrote: If global warming exists - a point on which the non-political scientific jury is still out - how much of it is caused by the hot air developed by the technologically challenged media pundits pushing the idea?
Surely a typo? The scientific jury has long accepted Climate Change as a fact. the only scientists who disagree are those who are paid by big oil etc to argue black is white, few, if any, are meteorologists or climatologists. So it is only the non-scientific political jury that is out........
Angus
(a meteorologist)
PS England has just had its warmest extended summer since continuous instrumental records began in 1659.
See:- http://www.metoffice.com/corporate/pressoffice/2006/pr20061016.html
AngusDe wrote: tomikawaTT wrote: If global warming exists - a point on which the non-political scientific jury is still out - how much of it is caused by the hot air developed by the technologically challenged media pundits pushing the idea? Surely a typo? The scientific jury has long accepted Climate Change as a fact. the only scientists who disagree are those who are paid by big oil etc to argue black is white, few, if any, are meteorologists or climatologists. So it is only the non-scientific political jury that is out........ Angus (a meteorologist) PS England has just had its warmest extended summer since continuous instrumental records began in 1659. See:- http://www.metoffice.com/corporate/pressoffice/2006/pr20061016.html
Wow. That *proves* that you're heading for a catastrophic warming period!
We in the US just had one of the coolest Septembers on record. Using your anecdotal logic, I guess that means we're heading for another Ice Age.
Speaking of non-scientific political juries, I suppose you - you know, being a *real* scientist and all - are in favor of the Nuremburg-style trials for all those evil global warming skeptics...
http://epw.senate.gov/fact.cfm?party=rep&id=264568
Wow! It's a good thing you folks in the *scientific* community are avoiding anything political and non-scientific regarding your response to critisisms!
And of course, only *real* scientists know that all the global warming skeptics are being paid off by "Big Oil". Me? I just got my six figure check from BP in the mail. I think I'll go out and buy a Hummer to add to my collection.
BTW - Is the term "meteorologist" code for "gullible wank" on the Continent?
wallyworld wrote:The statement that the non-political jury is still out on global warming is inaccurate. Even the National Academies of Science states the global warming is not an opinion but a fact. Where the confusion lies is the source of the warming whether this is a natural cycle or it is artificially induced by our activities. The scientists who have concluded that this warming is linked earth's natural ecology are now in a small minority which is quite a short term reversal of opinion as science goes. Bear in mind that the scientific community are an extremely conservative lot. As late as the 1800's they still held the consensus that meteorites that fall from the sky were akin to a sighting of Bigfoot. I don't believe in a Chicken Little approach of "Omigod, the sky's falling!"or sticking my head in the sand either. Hey there are some benefits seldom remarked upon associated with greenhouse gases The increase in these levels equates to better growth cycles for plants. The question is not one of earth dying. It will still be here and so will we. What will that world look like, is what science is now grappling with.
The term "global warming" as bandied about today is accepted as being of the anthropogenic (e.g. man caused) variety. So when folks state that "global warming is debatable" etc., it is usually accepted that they are refering to the man-caused variety. And contrary to the Nuremburg-trials-for-global-warming-skeptics crowd, there is more than enough contrary evidence to suggest that anthropogenic global warming is a fraudulent scam.
marcimmeker wrote:Sigh. As a guy living within sight of a dike that will not be high enough if global warming turns out to be true after Al Gore's 20 years I could write volumes about it. But it seems I would waste my time and energy trying to convince you clowns. Oh well, we'll see and if necessary we Dutch will come to your country and claim a sizable piece of it, all 17 million of us. We will be preceded by a few hapless souls from those coconut palm islands from the Pacific on the last of their coconut palms used as floats. In the mean time I'll read up in the Bible about that Noah guy. I do have a balcony large enough to build a boat on and I may get it right before then, even with my lack of woodworking skills. I have time to build some muscle too to get it in the water which will be lapping about 1 meter below the floor level of my apartment here in Rotterdam, the Netherlands. Until then, greetings, Marc Immeker PS Yes I am aware that mother nature can outdo us anytime she chooses to. But why should we behave stupid when it is not necessary? Live and let live including those not living in one's own country.
Man it's cold out here this morning!!!!!!
I think I am going to go light a few puddles of oil on fire and see if I can't move this process along somehow. Maybe I'll build a mini coal-fired power plant but I WON'T PUT IN THE SCRUBBERS!
Seriously,
For all of you who think that global warming is a locked-tight fact think of it this way - Global warming is a theory, not a fact. Kind of like evolution. It is a theory, something that CANNOT be replicated in a laboratory. Can global warming be proven? Can it be replicated on a small scale?
Blind faith in science is blind faith that man knows what he is doing. All scientists used to claim that the world was flat, and that was considered a locked-tight fact. They look pretty stupid now, don't they?
I still don't see how we as human beings can claim that based on maybe 100 years of accurate temps we know that we are amplifying the natural process of the earth that has been going on for millions of years (IF you subscribe to the unproven THEORY of evolution). That is supposed to be science? To my friend in the Netherlands - when is the ocean supposed to rise 1 meter? Because I have heard from the global warming apologists figures ranging from a couple of inches in 100 years (most semi-rationale global warming advocates) to 400 feet in 5 years (mental home patients and Al Gore). It's kind a like trying to eat all the food that scientists claim is healthy for you: bacon, then no bacon, coffee, then no coffee, red meat, than no red meat, then red meat in small quantities, no eggs, then eggs, oh wait, no eggs, but now you can have eggs but not the yolks, blah blah blah blah. Finally you start to realize that these people don't really know anything and that they are just shooting from the hip. I intend to live a full life and die knowing that I enjoyed it. I intend to encourage my children to do the same.
marcimmeker wrote: Oh well, we'll see and if necessary we Dutch will come to your country and claim a sizable piece of it, all 17 million of us. We will be preceded by a few hapless souls from those coconut palm islands from the Pacific on the last of their coconut palms used as floats.
tomikawaTT wrote: When the "global warming" crowd starts going after slash-and-burn agriculture and the destruction of the South American rain forests, I may climb onto the rear platform of their bandwagon. As long as the "less developed" nations keep getting a free pass, I don't see any reason to buy a ticket. Chuck
Under Kyoto, not only do the underdeveloped nations get a free pass on pollution, but they also will get a fabulous monetary reward as they collect the financial penalties imposed on the advanced countries as payment for the advanced countries' right to create greenhouse gases. And to add a little more salt to the wound, consider the fact that the underdeveloped countries, with their free pass on pollution, pollute far more per capita than the advanced nations.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.