Stop Talking About the Environment! (George Marshall)

[Antithropocentric]

Yes, one must usually appeal to selfish anthropocentric motives to get action out of the dumb masses.

There is also irony in this speaker's name. See the "George C. Marshall Institute" (a denial think-tank)

[ihavestage4coolness]

So, there's global warming by man. Is the issue about scale, and relationship to a government ability to assure its public that a unobstructed market is a safe practice? Maybe not. But there is wihtout any doubt global warming by man.

[ihavestage4coolness]

yeah blur the issue when it's obviously the acidic sulfur and carbon dioxide clouds... stupid bastard, are you in america? if not come to chicago and get beat down like a dumb bitch.

[ssjL3g3nd]

@ihavestage4coolness you that stupid to think there is global warming by man? come to compton, ill put you in the ground if you love in so much

[ihavestage4coolness]

@ssjL3g3nd I actually can't agree with that. See there is a slowing of the earth from me when I convert gravitational energy time and misdirection. It's slight, and the scale might not be observed by Nikoli Tesla, even, but the conservation of matter, and the laws descibed hundreds of years ago in fact make a global impact by man, not unordinary.

[ihavestage4coolness]

@ssjL3g3nd My point is this: Global warming has existed since man farted. The scientific value of yes or no doesn't apply. What is gaining concern is the response by huge governments with vested interests in ruining the planet.. or not because money says having an earth which supports life is important to the pursuit of profit. Now is it irrelevant? OR do your brain cells tell you to discredit intelligence then pursue science for personal points?

[ssjL3g3nd]

@ihavestage4coolness What I'm saying is no it hasn't, Climate change has been around way before man, and will be going on until the world is no more. How is pursuing a scientific reason discrediting intelligence; there is no intelligence in the global warming theory. I will admit that many massive companies and governments don't care about what actually does harm environment around them, but nature will always come back, if it can recover from an H-bomb in 50 years, CO2 isn't going to do it wors

[ihavestage4coolness]

@ssjL3g3nd I do see your point. The actual system of this planet is large compared to even the most destructive bombs. But I see another development. One which would in fact permit man to not just a globe less effected by carbon dioxide, but a development which can make man's needs sustainable in environments that really are fantastic. Men living under the ocean. or Even in a giant gravitational disk in space eventually. Focus, even forced focus, to say the least could get extremely neat-o.

[ihavestage4coolness]

@ihavestage4coolness I won't just leave that standing alone. Because of good training from the people at IO theater. I have to show you what I mean. There is in the works something which could not scrub a little carbon over many weeks. But something that has a steady flow of fermentation carbon dioxide in the intake, and through anarobic process clean oxygen out of the exhaust. This array I believe is worth any amount of so called misinformation. ie venus never looked so good. (from mars)

[ihavestage4coolness]

@ihavestage4coolness yes I believe human kind can do what the good guy on my shirt says I shouldn't utter. "To whom the world is not enough a grave shall suffice" I must be mad enough to suggest one of my machines propely set up on the face of venus could reverse the runaway green house effect, and the same device could permit earthly life on mars.

[ssjL3g3nd]

@ihavestage4coolness Ah, so you are saying that although it won't really hurt the Earth in our current environment, it is good training for when people decide to pursue life expansion into more delicate and unstable ecosystems which we are not naturally involved in. I can see how you would make that argument, it's valid. My only reservation to that would be that even in the age where we can live underwater, the majority of people won't and will choose our original habitat as to the extremes.

[ihavestage4coolness]

@ssjL3g3nd Aye, I do think the earth is quite unstable. This is the reason to adventure beyond. It could, and likely would be a problem of which we did not focus. I think it's proper to protect yourself globally. I understand the point that it does not help the world economy. It doesn't. The solutions to global warming today at this cold day make me fear any solution. I understand you better, I think toward competition, and maybe less about the price at the pump.

[ssjL3g3nd]

@ihavestage4coolness I guess we just disagree on the Earth's stability. Which is fine, I suppose we can always agree to disagree.

[ihavestage4coolness]

i want to kick your english ass,  come tell me how stupid I am, so i can beat you up. Stupid thinks he's smart english jerk-off.

[fagin78]

Linking neurons. Climate change -> the "environment" DIRECTLY AFFECTS YOU - political, social, economical, humanitarian. It is sad that something so obvious will need major educational campaigning to show that these links exist.

[cabaretampere]

LOL  LMFAOWTF

[inglefud]

I agree AND Disagree with George. If we, humans, were not so out of wack with where we really fit into the world then a mention of an environmental issue would automatically be seen as an economic, social, cultural, potical, etc. issue. As it inherently is. But our collective delusion that we, and all of the systems we create(d), are not affected by the environment makes it a lost cause to drum up any support if presented as an isolated system (which it never was)

[tdavies456]

exactly

[MPidge]

This is excellent. It's fantastic to see this view expressed without resorting to the loaded "holistic" word.

[CityzenJane]

EXCELLENT POINT.

[SmartPlanetdotcom]

George, you're spot-on about the presentation & marketing of climate change as an issue.

It's clearly a society and economic issue as much as it as an 'environmental' one.