Climate change - a moral issue

[ReduceGHGs]

Yes, addressing climate change is a moral issue. We have the ability to deprive future generations of a healthy habitat but that would be immoral. It would be depriving them of the very foundation of their civilizations. Yes, indeed it is a moral issue.

There's no credible doubt about it. Humans are warming the planet and deteriorating its habitability.

Join the fight!

WeCanSolveIt(dot)org

[randyguitarman13]

Yes, addressing climate myrmidons is a moral issue. We have the ability to economically deprive future generations of energy sources that will prolong and better their lives, that would be immoral. It would be depriving them of the very foundation of their civilizations. Yes, indeed it is a moral issue.

There's no credible doubt about it. Humans are NOT warming the planet, NOR deteriorating its habitability.

Join the fight!

climatechangefraud(DOT)com

[ReduceGHGs]

Here's a new and informative article.

Google--> Global Warming 101: Politics, Economics, Culture, Action

It's a matter of self-preservation.

WeCanSolveIt(dot)org

join the fight!

[randyguitarman13]

Here's an informative article.

Google--> The inconvenient lies of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

It's a matter of self-preservation.

globalwarming(dot)org

join the fight!

[JonThm]

The wordl is NOT warming: Only academic computer models are - and they are just fiction, designed to get research grants.

[JonThm]

Nuclear power kills, using their phantom science of 'global warming', and now 'climate cahnge': As teh world is so not warming!

[JonThm]

Water in turbulent flow does nuclear fusion - power with no CO2 or toxic death!

[JonThm]

Nuclear power kills, CO2 supports life on Earth!

[Backpackr3]

It appears that Australian Demrats are just as big of morons as American Demrats. I'm shocked!

[ReduceGHGs]

Good video, and congrats on the election!

It seems that the American neocons and other unreasonable conservatives are ignorant no matter where they are.  Good thing here in the US we voted many OUT in 2006 and hopefully will do more of the same in 2008.

Check out the recent Australian elections. The global warming issue played a major role. Howard was BEATEN! A victory for the world'd habitat.

UCSUSA(dot)org

[Backpackr3]

What is unreasonable is to embark on costly, economy-ruining "fixes" based on an unproven hypothesis. That is the height of unreasonableness in my mind.

[ReduceGHGs]

Costly? Do you know what the percentage of GNP cost is for the fixes? Probably not. And do you have any idea of what costs might be incurred to battle the problems if we do nothing? Probably not. How about a general conception of either? Probably not. The height of unreasonableness/arrogance/ign­orance is to form baseless uninformed opinions.

[ReduceGHGs]

Cost-vs-benefits.

Potential costs less than 1/2 % of GNP. Consider the economic benefits as new green industries are created, many of them local, which could help the movement to localization. Consider the benefits of reduced dependence on foreign oil which increases security; and mostly the benefits of better habitability for future generations.

The corporate talking point of too much expense is unfounded. Alternating energy sources and use is VERY beneficial.

[randyguitarman13]

HAHAHAHA! You are helpless! What a sad person you are! You REALLY need to read those books I listed...if you could even understand them...they do use some

perty big words for your type! HAHAHAHA!

[ReduceGHGs]

I recommend not choosing apathy in the face of the overwhelming evidence. This unreasonable approach to ignoring science is what the Republicons have been doing for the last 7 years. It didn't matter what EPA or other scientific institutions said, the w/cheney admin were going to cater to their corporate/energy sponsors. So what they did was edit EPA global warming warnings to deceive the public. Sounds just like what happened prior to the Iraq occupation.

[Backpackr3]

Perhaps you would like to google this:

U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007

[ReduceGHGs]

Been there, done that.

Consider the MINORITY report's source. Senator inhofe and Limbaugh's "Man In Washington" trying to make a dent. About HALF of inhofe's campaign finance comes from the oil industry. CEI is on their "list" too (corporate propaganda).

I'll stick with what ALL the scientific institutions are telling us. Consider why you feel the NEED to gravitate to such a minority opinion on the science. Preconceived notions and biased research ya think?

[Backpackr3]

ReduceGHGs...well I kinda figureed you'd say something like that. After all, thats what you modern day chicken little's always fall back on isn't it? "So and so gets paid by big oil"...yata yata yata. No attack on the science...just on the funding....and I dont even believe you on that anyway. You act as if the GW alarmists aren't funded by a third source. What are their motives? I'm surprised you didn't say all 400 scientists were in big oils pocket.

[ReduceGHGs]

I've come to realize that most naysayers dig for these tidbits of information to support their preconceived notions. There is an overwhelming scientific consensus but that just doesn't matter does it?

No surprise you didn't address the FACT that ALL credible scientific institutions (that studied climate change) have concluded that humanity is contributing to global warming and the consequences may be dire. Find ONE that says otherwise. You can't. Consider why.

[Backpackr3]

ReduceGHGs...there is no "overwhelming scientific consensus"...to insist this makes you either a liar or a buffoon or both. Even if there were a consensus, since when is science determined by consensus? Ever heard of the scientific method? Its here where your whole notion breaks down. Your hypotheis has not been proven. Not even the goofy IPCC says it has. So they try to cover up that fact by assigning a probability which they have no reasonable basis to allow them to determine.

[ReduceGHGs]

It doesn't sound like you've studied this much. ALL credible scientific insititutions basically are basically in agreement. This is evidence of an overwhelming consensus. The institutions are many in number and the IPCC is NOT the source of most of the science.

Google... Undeniable Global Warming

Google... Statements on Climate Change - Global Warming Art

Try some reading.

[Backpackr3]

ReduceGHGs...I've done plenty of reading...which is how I come to the conclusion that this is all nonsense put forth to facilitate a power grab by the leftists of the world.

[JonThm]

See JonThm for climate truth!

[iiopen]

Don't bother.

[JonThm]

Also look on how to do nuclear fusion - idiot! What are you, a nuclear stoge or what? THey invented the phantom science!

[iiopen]

Calling me an "idiot" does not make you any more correct. Quite the contrary.

[JonThm]

See JonThm on how to do nuclear fusion. Whic htotally fixes the phantom PR for teh nuclear industry - 'Global WArming'

[JonThm]

Same fiction! Get s brain guys!

[Pennyohohoh]

this video is too long but has an important message. a shorter video with more exciting cutaways would help.