backtop


Print 61 comment(s) - last by rcc.. on Jan 8 at 4:19 PM


The Yes Men: folk heroes, or cyber-terrorists?  (Source: Guerilla Innovation)
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." -- Mark Twain

In the 1990s the theory that the world was warming and humans were causing it -- anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theory -- came into vogue.  Since, researchers have been unable to accurately model the climate trends and the Earth has even experienced cooling, virtually dashing wishful thinking of a global heatwave.

Undeterred by the lack of solid supporting evidence for their novel theories, international governments today stand on the verge of adopting expensive new carbon taxation schemes.  Ironically, these talks -- the Copenhagen summit -- come just weeks after many of the most prominent studies to support the theory were apparently exposed to be faked (see DailyTech's coverage on the CRU scandal).

Deep in the thick of the warming mess is pair of hooligans-cum-AGW theory "advocates", who call themselves "The Yes Men".  Critics call the pair essentially digital terrorists or worse.  They accuse the pair of spreading a long trail of libel, lies, and misinformation that has damaged many legitimate firms.

"The Yes Men" defend their actions, saying they're "Cutting the Corporate" crap.  They're beloved figures in the green and anarchist communities, which hold them up as Robin Hood-esque figures.  That's little comfort to thousands of employees and investors with Exxon, Halliburton, British Petroleum, Dow Chemical and others that have lost their jobs or tidy sums based on the havoc the pair's phony news stories and fraudulent web pages stir up.

Surprisingly, you won't find "The Yes Men" behind bars or sued out of house and home for libel and computer fraud.  Instead, the pair exists quite prosperously in New York City.  Despite their alter-egos' stance of anti-consumerism, the pair leads quite a posh lifestyle in New York City, with Igor Vamos (alias "Mike Bonanno") teaching as an associate professor of media arts at the prestigious Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and Jacque Servin (alias "Andy Bichlbaum") teaching as an assistant professor in subversion at the pricey Parsons The New School for Design in New York City.

Together the flamboyant pair recently committed their biggest hoax to date, this time impersonating a government organization.  The pair faked press releases from the Canadian government, claiming to announce pledges of drastic carbon cuts.

In reality, the Canadian government is likely to proceed with smaller cuts, and they did not appreciate the misinformation.  They contacted the ISP of the sites hosting the hoaxed content and were able to secure its take down.  They also briefly blocked a series of similar domain names to prevent the cyber fakers from changing the site name.  About 4,500 non-affiliated sites were briefly taken down, but have since been restored to working order.

While critics are saying "The Yes Men" are lucky not to be facing criminal and civil charges, the pair instead has cried that they are victims, audaciously declaring that they are being censored.  Emboldened, the pair is cooking up more pseduo-legal stunts for the near future, that will invariably result in more damage to legitimate businesses and government entities.

In the pair's discussions with The Seattle Pi and the blogosphere, they have said that their actions were driven in part by the Alberta Sands oil project, a proposed Canadian oil excavation endeavor.  Some estimates have suggested that the project will locally increase emissions by 165 percent, a figure critics like "The Yes Men" have pounced on.  Critics neglect to note the positive impact this project might have.

Worldwide oil sands -- primarily found in Canada and Venezuela, likely hold two thirds of the world's crude oil.  The Alberta sands, better known as the Athabasca Oil Sands are estimated to hold 170 billion barrels (27×109 m3) of easily extractable crude oil (a mere 10 percent of the total in the sands).  Oil companies have worked with the government to establish plans to minimize carbon and environmental impacts of any extraction projects.

The new projects, on the verge of government approval, could create tens or even hundreds of thousands of new Canadian jobs in an industry that already employs 500,000.  Additionally they could make Canada the world's second largest oil producer -- behind only Saudi Arabia (OPEC).  This would allow the U.S. and other commercial partners to enjoy decades of affordable power from a politically stable source.  Amid these benefits, it's clear that the issue is not as black and white as the critics claim.

Returning to the celebrated cyber phonies and their hoax, the actions of "The Yes Men" do at least raise some interesting questions -- chiefly: in the digital age, is misinformation and hoaxes protected under freedom of speech?  If this is partially true at least, how far should the protections go -- to false statements about individuals, to falsehoods about businesses, or to fraudulent government sites, even?  Conversely, if this kind of speech is illegal, who should be the judge of that in the international community, which shares the internet?

Further, should the legality be impacted by profit based on misinformation?  Current laws clearly provide grounds to prosecute phishers who steal peoples' credit card information.  What about individuals like "The Yes Men" who profit based on media works (books, movies, etc.) or prominent positions resulting from their escapades?  Should this be grounds for criminal or civil punishment?

Indeed "The Yes Men" and their warming farce raise many questions, if perhaps not the ones they intended.  Perhaps the biggest question of them all is whether this is truly the kind of figures that the self-proclaimed "green community" wants to embrace.


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Global Warming is false
By eddieroolz on 1/3/2010 12:55:12 AM , Rating: 4
I still don't quite understand why these governments are basing their extremely expensive commitments on something that has not been scientifically proven, nor rigirously tested.

Global Warming is a sham. It's a lie on a grand scale. Where is the scientific theory proving that earth is indeed experiencing climate change AND it is our fault? There is none. Sure, there are "researches" claiming that our emissions are causing global warming - until you see that in some places we have cooled down, sometimes significantly. Other researches tries to ignore the fact that earth has been warmer and cooler than present day in its 4.6 billion year history. The Carbon Era was marked by significantly warmer climate - we did not see mass extinctions during the warm period. The Glacial Epoch was significantly cooler - and the creatures adapted for the situation lived.

Which brings the question: If earth has experienced significantly different climate during different times in its history, why is the current "warming" trend of 0.1C over a century any significant deviation from what earth has seen? And furthermore, how is it possible to blame the humans after only a decade of research? Why is it that governments are coerced into accepting Climate Change as real fact, when in fact it's nothing more than a bunch of unproved allegations?

As Adolf Hitler once said: "If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed."




RE: Global Warming is false
By Flunk on 1/3/2010 10:20:19 AM , Rating: 2
Can you support this opinion? The universe doesn't pay attention to opinions, only facts.


RE: Global Warming is false
By invidious on 1/5/2010 2:51:38 PM , Rating: 4
It is not our responsibility to convince global warming nuts they are wrong, if they want thing to change they have to prove it is the right thing to do.

If I told you aliens were going to invade tomarrow and that I needed to commandeer your house as a base of opperations, would you go along with it simply because you couldn't prove me wrong?


RE: Global Warming is false
By GaryJohnson on 1/6/2010 10:45:33 AM , Rating: 1
No, but likewise if you told me aliens definately weren't coming toma--err--tomorrow I also wouldn't go along with it and stop sleeping in my aluminum pajamas. Where were we going with this metaphor again?


RE: Global Warming is false
By Ryanman on 1/7/2010 12:48:25 AM , Rating: 3
That the burden of proof falls on the accuser. Things like Cap and Trade that will decimate our GDP by double digit percentages require thorough factual evidence.
Some of these studies, for instance, have been based on the rings of 12 trees from a certain region of Russia. It's a joke.


RE: Global Warming is false
By LeftOfTexas on 1/3/10, Rating: 0
RE: Global Warming is false
By Reclaimer77 on 1/4/2010 9:32:51 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Isn't that the official motto of the Republican party? I'm just thinking about our Non-American Muslim President...


Yeah because "The Republican Party" is the one who came out with stuff like that. I wasn't aware that Beck and Rush were official Republican Party employees or representatives in Congress. But hey, don't let a little thing like freedom of speech get you down..

quote:
I think the point is that this warming trend has become more evident since industrialization.


Yeah except we've been cooling for 10 years and carbon is going up. Which kinda shoots down that theory.

quote:
Not to mention, there is plenty of scientific 'theory' behind this.


I could make a scientific theory that all life came from marshmellows. Problem is, I would then have to prove it. Global warming has not been proven, and we now know for a fact that every computer model and data set that was used to back up the theory was intentionally corrupted to prove the theory. This is NOT science. The minute scientists set out to prove something, instead of simply documenting their observations and forming a theory, they are no longer scientists but religious zealots.

What's worst, is we now know the pier review process was manipulated to silence good scientists with good studies that there was NOT a man made climate event. While simultantiously being used to push through pro-climate change studies that would NEVER have made it past a legitimate pier review process.

I'm sorry guys, this is just the way it is. We were all lied to, now it's time to move on. Some of you KNOW you were lied to, and refuse to admit it. You are the worst type of person on the planet. Please use your brains...


RE: Global Warming is false
By SoCalBoomer on 1/4/2010 11:31:47 AM , Rating: 5
It's the official motto of BOTH political parties.


RE: Global Warming is false
By Screwballl on 1/5/10, Rating: 0
RE: Global Warming is false
By cochy on 1/6/2010 4:06:46 PM , Rating: 2
The Glaciers on Greenland and Antarctica are resting on land not floating on water. So yes if those glaciers melt away they will increase global sea levels.


RE: Global Warming is false
By Regected on 1/3/2010 10:54:00 AM , Rating: 5
I could not have said it better myself. While I agree with you that human caused global warming has not been proven, not all things come about from the movement have been bad. More and more people in my community are becoming more self sufficient when it comes to food production and less dependent on big oil. More research is being done into alternative energies.

These douche bags need to be locked up for impersonating everyone that they have. The things they are doing are wrong and immoral.


RE: Global Warming is false
By Sandok on 1/5/2010 7:29:32 AM , Rating: 1
Again another person who is misled by the name...

So the recent blizzards in China, Europe and the US are proof that the world is cooling right, not warming up? If you believe that, I advise you to open up some books and maybe study a little.

Global Warming indicates that the overall global temperatures are rising. But this doesn't mean that every place in the world will get warmer, far from it. Some places have cooled down quite significantly, but others have warmed up extremely significantly. The "average" is going up and this leads to extreme weather.

For example, the 21st century has seen 7 out of the 10 highest temperatures in recorded history in Western Europe (records started before America was a country...). Most of the wettest and coldest days have also been in the 21st century (which by the way, is JUST starting...).

If you truly believe that 7 billion humans aren't have an effect on the planet in any shape or form, then you are delusional. People like you didn't believe that refrigerators and aerosol cans could cause a hole in the ozone layer. Guess what, it did.

We have the power to easily destroy our planet, so I don't see why you find it so hard to imagine that polluting and destroying our environment might lead to bad consequences? Or you're probably just a zealot with nothing more to do than pick a bone with anything an authority figure says.


RE: Global Warming is false
By Oralen on 1/5/10, Rating: -1
RE: Global Warming is false
By eddieroolz on 1/7/2010 6:13:42 AM , Rating: 1
Hey buddy, stop automatically assuming that everyone here is from the USA, would you? I'm not American, and I'm not paid by oil executives to write my own opinon.


RE: Global Warming is false
By cochy on 1/6/2010 4:10:48 PM , Rating: 2
We don't have the power to "destroy the planet". We do have the power to change our standard of living. That's what people are afraid of, changes to the way the live their lives. Well news flash, even if we do our best not to mess with our environment, soon Mother Nature will change it drastically for us and there won't be anything you can do about...What then? Who will we blame.

My opinion? Start adapting to the way the Earth is changing now and not try are darnedest to keep the status quo because it won't last.


RE: Global Warming is false
By JediJeb on 1/8/2010 2:56:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If you truly believe that 7 billion humans aren't have an effect on the planet in any shape or form, then you are delusional. People like you didn't believe that refrigerators and aerosol cans could cause a hole in the ozone layer. Guess what, it did.


Even with 7 billion humans, we don't take up much room on the Earth. In fact if you gave every single person on earth a space of 20 square meters to stand in, the entire population of the Earth could fit in England easily. So really we are not that big of an effect on the planet, let's not be arrogant and think so much of our power.


RE: Global Warming is false
By jdietz on 1/5/2010 12:01:48 PM , Rating: 2
It's a fact that carbon dioxide gas absorbs more light in the infrared range than oxygen gas or nitrogen gas. This has been conclusively proven by scientific experiment. This property of carbon dioxide gas makes it a "warming" gas.

What isn't clear is the magnitude of impact a 150 ppm increase in CO2 has on infrared absorption, or the impact further increases will have.

It's clear though, that carbon dioxide pollution is causing ocean acidification. It's also clear that marine life depends on a basic (low pH) ocean and will be adversely affected by the change. Warming is a myth; acidifcation is not.


RE: Global Warming is false
By ianweck on 1/5/2010 12:32:43 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
marine life depends on a basic (low pH) ocean


You almost sounded like you knew what you were talking about...


By Mojo the Monkey on 1/7/2010 4:01:27 PM , Rating: 2
but...

more carbon --> more acidification --> less fish --> less food --> population starvation --> less demand for production --> less carbon --> decreased acidification.

THE CIRCLE OF LIIIIIIIIIIIIIFE


RE: Global Warming is false
By JediJeb on 1/8/2010 2:40:09 PM , Rating: 2
Ummm, low pH is Acidic not Basic, pH=1 Acid--pH=7 Neutral--pH=14 Base(Akaline)


Wishful thinking
By Kim Leo on 1/4/10, Rating: 0
RE: Wishful thinking
By tastyratz on 1/4/2010 8:48:35 AM , Rating: 2
youtube can be a stretch for a credible source.

There is plenty of supporting evidence on both sides. The fact of the matter is that humans are way to elitist to think anything that could happen which is not directly related to their actions. Surely it couldn't be happening naturally?

The earth has had warming and cooling for millions and millions of years before we were even here and will continue to do so long after we are gone.


RE: Wishful thinking
By Sandok on 1/5/2010 7:32:25 AM , Rating: 1
Plenty of evidence on both sides? Please, the evidence against Global Warming is as promising as all those doctors in the 1950s saying that smoking isn't bad for you at all and actually healthy! In other words, a load of bull.


RE: Wishful thinking
By blaster5k on 1/5/2010 11:59:15 AM , Rating: 4
Are you actually familiar with what the evidence is that supports global warming? Based on your posts, it doesn't seem like it.

Correlation and causation are two different things. The fact that temperatures have gone up or down doesn't mean anything in and of itself. To prove causation, you have to prove that man's contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere is directly responsible. The only "evidence" for that lies in climate models.

CO2 may be a greenhouse gas, but the effect of the added CO2 in the atmosphere is negligible in and of itself. This is agreed on by global warming proponents. The predictions of catastrophic warming rely on "feedbacks" -- these are predicted events that occur in response to increased CO2.

Changes in one thing will cause changes in other things. The problem is, it's difficult to figure out the relationship between variables. Clouds in particular are poorly understood and modeled, yet play a big part in the climate system.

All I can say is, I used to think global warming was real until I researched it more -- now I'm skeptical. That's not to say it isn't possible, but I do not trust that a computer model can accurately predict temperatures 100 years from now. Not for something as complex as the earth's climate.

I'm also unconvinced that spending trillions of dollars to "stop" global warming is better than adapting to any changes that may occur. Increased energy costs will indirectly kill people too -- mainly the poor.


RE: Wishful thinking
By mindless1 on 1/6/2010 5:25:29 AM , Rating: 2
Just ignore Sandok and others who pretend knowledge of "facts" without even a basic grasp of the scientific method.

They aren't worth the time and will never have a clue because they skipping the stage in life where one becomes a rational thinker.


CO2 Sequestering
By JonB on 1/3/2010 8:06:30 AM , Rating: 2
I got fed up with the Green side (notably Greenpeace) when they totally blocked and drove out of business a small, forward thinking company that was trying to sequester carbon in the biggest and easiest location - the oceans. They (Planktos) were going to spread small amounts of dirt (dirt with a high concentration of iron, that is) in the ocean. It would cause a brief algae and plankton bloom that would remove TONS of CO2 (as calcium carbonate) from the ocean, then peacefully die and sink to the bottom of the ocean for millenia. It would potentially have dropped CO2 levels plus reduced the acidity problems that may be damaging the coral reefs. Iron blooms already occur naturally but Greenpeace didn't want to hear any theories but their own. bah!




RE: CO2 Sequestering
By rtrski on 1/3/2010 10:31:09 AM , Rating: 2
...except someone actually tried a small-scale experiment. Algae bloom followed by shrimp population bloom feeding on the algae, hence all the 'sequestered carbon' never sank to storage depths. Just a local perturbation of that whole circle-of-life-thingy that real ecosystems are actually based upon.

Not defending Greenpeace, by the way. They've gone full moonbat combatting anything and everything with 'environmental impact' which amounts to, well, anything and everything.


RE: CO2 Sequestering
By ianweck on 1/5/2010 12:36:05 PM , Rating: 2
Dead algae or fish poop, it still sinks right?


RE: CO2 Sequestering
By rtrski on 1/5/2010 4:00:20 PM , Rating: 2
"Fish poop" is not exactly a way of holding it sequestered until it sinks to significant depth vs. mostly redissolving into solution or (as the shrimp are predated) keeping it in the food chain for 'exhalation' as CO2.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16842-hungry...


LOL
By AnimeRomeo on 12/31/2009 6:41:17 PM , Rating: 5
C-3PO should have kept his mask on.




RE: LOL
By TheEinstein on 1/2/2010 12:49:51 PM , Rating: 2
+1 epic, needs his 6!!!!


By SerafinaEva on 1/4/2010 10:04:46 PM , Rating: 1
They are too lazy to do their part to help the environment, instead they would rather sit down and argue, so they won't have to get up and pick up a piece of trash.




By ianweck on 1/5/2010 12:40:37 PM , Rating: 3
How long did it take you to craft such a witty post?


By mindless1 on 1/6/2010 5:27:14 AM , Rating: 2
Less time than it took you, since you first had to read that post before composing your own.


Hmm
By geddarkstorm on 1/2/2010 1:14:11 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
The Yes Men: folk heroes, or cyber-terrorists?


I can't say, but I can confirm that the guy on the right is a fashion-terrorist.




Godwin's Law?
By Yawgm0th on 1/4/2010 4:42:31 PM , Rating: 1
Are terrorists the new Nazis?

I mean, I don't necessarily disagree with many of Michael's opinions or conclusions here -- at least I do when they are presented clearly and logically without so much flair, hyperbole, and rhetoric. You can disagree with these guys without calling them terrorists in the process.

These guys are basically media pranksters. They aren't inducing fear or causing severe physical damage to property or people. They're white-collar criminals at worst for engaging in fraud. There's a such thing as ecoterrorism and even digital terrorism, but it's more than a stretch to say these guys are any kind of terrorists.

On a side note, am I the only one still wondering why Michael changed his last name?




RE: Godwin's Law?
By Keeir on 1/6/2010 3:16:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
These guys are basically media pranksters.


No... not really.

Pranksters fundamental wish to entertain themselves or others.

The YES Men want to force an organization/set of organizations to perform certain actions.

Since a government or company do not have a direct corporal existence, its really hard to threaten them with voilence (as the traditional defination of terrorism/terrorist requires).

Consider a similar situation to the DOW chemical. Say you owned some property that had gotten overgrown. The next door nieghbors really think you ought to clean it up... and really you should, but right now you just don't have the time or the money to do it properly. The next door nieghbors decide to put up a sign that says "I am the owner, I am going to clean this up". They aren't directly harming you, but its clear they are intending to intimendate you (or worse yet, use other people to intemindate you) into doing what they want... even when its not required by law, and they are essentially breaking the law to the intemindating... pretty close to terrorism, maybe we should call them Mediarrists? Although I prefer a simple jackasses.


Yes Men vs Dow
By dubldwn on 12/31/2009 5:37:10 PM , Rating: 2
Not sure how many have seen their stuff but my green friend is a huge enthusiast. I’d encourage anyone to search out the one with Dow and BBC.

Basically they impersonated a Dow official, got an interview on the BBC, and made all kinds of commitments to clean up a former Dow industrial site. Right or wrong it was super fun to watch. I’d link it but I’m at work and they block it.




How are they profiting?
By truk007 on 12/31/2009 5:40:06 PM , Rating: 2
I would like to know how they are profiting, i.e. who is paying them and why?




greenies == anarchists
By Scabies on 1/1/2010 12:41:58 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
They're beloved figures in the green and anarchist communities, which hold them up as Robin Hood-esque figures

I see what you did there...




paid information assassins
By spepper on 1/4/2010 8:15:18 AM , Rating: 2
The Yes Men are nothing more than paid "information assassins"-- when something comes along to cause significant damage to a "religion" such as AGW, resulting from the Climategate scandal, and therefore threaten the "indulgence payment system" to the high priests such as George Soros and Algore (carbon credits), why they just simply send out a goon squad such as the Yes Men to conduct "media terrorist" operations against those who have realized the deception and attempt to correct the government mandated regulations and taxes which have been based on a huge fraud--




Robin Hood analogy is spot on
By corduroygt on 1/4/2010 1:58:24 PM , Rating: 2
All this "green" stuff is all about "green (as in greenback)" redistribution.




Let's take a step back
By excalibur3 on 1/5/2010 11:15:48 AM , Rating: 2
I think that its important to always evaluate the neutrality of things that you hear in various places. As I scan through these comments a similar theme that I see in many of them is that they are just regurgitating things that they heard on Fox News without actually stopping to really digest the claims being made. (Many are scientifically wrong.) This makes it difficult to have a conversation to really get at the truth at something because this train of thought isn't conducive to new view points.

With that being said as a chemist who has taken a bunch of courses on the subject (but not actively researching it) lets see if I can help clear some things up:

1) While no one is perfect, I would say that science as a whole is about as impartial as groups come. The idea of evaluating an idea on its merits is demonstrated brutally during the peer review process. Since it is anonymous, it is pretty routine for papers to completely ripped to shreds and rejected for anything but the most iron clad publications.

2) The argument of a whole field being in cahoots to fabricate a story is absurd because all it takes is one thoughtfully written paper to make it all come crashing down. Look at Einstein, in writing his theory of relativity he completely shattered a fundamental view that was held by physics. Now he is immortalized as the token smart guy.

3) Turning back to global warming, there have been no scientific papers that have been published with refute that it is happening as a whole. There are reports here and there that suggest that there is cooling here for short periods of time or that it isn't as bad as this one model says, but this is all debating about small fluctuations on a much larger background that is large and unequivocal.

4) It is not fair to say that since we have a little bit of cooling some years that global warming isn't happening. If you look at global temperature trends ( http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn1... ) it is clear that the temperature is rising as a whole even though you have diurnal fluctuations and other things that complicate the picture. This temperature rise is faster than any change we have ever seen in the past 100 million years which brings me to my final point. (This speed makes things worse because we don't give the earth enough time to sequester CO2 from the air into the deep ocean.)

5) Due to the non linear nature of our climate and it has been pushed out of equilibrium due to a sudden burst of CO2 levels in the past 100 years we don't know for certain what is going to happen precisely. Its true that the models are bad but the models are still pointing in the same direction suggesting that things are going to get toasty over the next several hundred years. We hope they don't, but if they do it is certain that it will cause warming of ice sheets and other problems that you have already heard about before. The most unequivocal statement is that we are most certainly perturbing our climate system and who the hell knows what will happen but since we are pretty adapted to the world that we have now, why would we want to go and change that?




Asher's Back!
By adiposity on 1/5/2010 5:18:34 PM , Rating: 2
A S H E R !
A S H E R !
A S H E R !
A S H E R !
A S H E R !




By FITCamaro on 1/7/2010 7:02:22 PM , Rating: 2
Here in America. The stuff I've read said that here in North America we have the largest amount of oil shale. Unless you are referring to something a little different.




Global warming
By thebrown13 on 1/5/2010 7:12:11 PM , Rating: 1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Warming

This article is a load of crap. What's with the cognitive dissonance on global warming lately?




Money
By bildan on 1/2/10, Rating: -1
RE: Money
By Fierce Guppy on 1/2/2010 8:37:48 PM , Rating: 3
Really? Your "climate researcher" friends are actually ~terrorfied~ for the future, bildan? Being under such harrowing mental stress, I just wonder how these friends of yours cope with the activities normal people engage in each day? Do they have apocalyptic nightmares? You know... of being engulfed in 50ft waves, of civilization being torn apart by hurricanes, tornadoes, and half tonne polar bears falling from the sky, of a depleted ozone layer letting through massive amounts of the sun's most harmful rays? Hey! BTW, just where did all the ozone hole hysteria go?

I guess it must be getting a little warm under the collar these days for many a green socialist when ever more people are seeing the environmentalist movement as less based in science than religious faith.

Message to fellow "deniers": Did you get your check from Big Oil(tm) this Christmas? Where the hell's mine! Damn indecent of Big Oil(tm), I say. Somebody snitched, right? Told them I was working for Big Coal(tm), too?

Tony.


RE: Money
By eddieroolz on 1/3/2010 12:58:43 AM , Rating: 3
I wonder if the "Climate researchers" refuse to drive cars, use plastic, operate computers or even buy imported food. Because you know, all those create the "terrifying" CO2 that they a fearful of.


RE: Money
By Fierce Guppy on 1/3/2010 4:30:41 AM , Rating: 3
No. I would not expect bildan's "climate researcher" friends to lead by example the small, meek, and thoroughly joyless carbon neutral existence they demand of humanity.

Tony.


RE: Money
By Reclaimer77 on 1/4/2010 9:39:18 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
I wonder if the "Climate researchers" refuse to drive cars, use plastic, operate computers or even buy imported food. Because you know, all those create the "terrifying" CO2 that they a fearful of.


They don't because they are hypocrites, of course.

A few days ago this woman on a local radio show was going on and on, lamenting these "dead spots" in the ocean where marine life doesn't live. Denouncing commercial fishing and accusing them of killing the oceans, and then she says, I shit you not, she says...

"I love eating fish"


RE: Money
By UncleRufus on 1/4/2010 11:49:23 AM , Rating: 2
I know that I should eat right and exercise more.

Although I say that everyone should eat right and exercise more, I don't do it myself.

I am a hypocrit.

Doesn't change the fact that people should eat right and exercise more.

My hypocrisy doesn't change the facts.

Also...isn't there some sustainable form of fishing? Surely this lady can enjoy the taste of fish without 'killing the oceans'.


RE: Money
By Reclaimer77 on 1/4/2010 1:30:34 PM , Rating: 2
whoa man.. over your head. Way over your head.


RE: Money
By Sandok on 1/5/2010 7:35:55 AM , Rating: 2
... I bet you most of the "climate researchers" are FAR more ecological than you.

No need to stop using cars or plastics and such when there are a BILLION other ways to save energy.

And what's more important, the message or these people's lifestyle? I'm sure you don't live a life which is a 100% in accord with your beliefs. Nobody does.


RE: Money
By AEvangel on 1/5/2010 11:11:17 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
No need to stop using cars or plastics and such when there are a BILLION other ways to save energy.


I agree, and there are BILLION ways to get people to live a more Green lifestyle with out trying to force them by using fear and propaganda like Messiah Al Gore does in his trumped up documentaries.


RE: Money
By eddieroolz on 1/7/2010 6:17:14 AM , Rating: 2
There is a quote: "If you assume, you make an ass out of you and me."

Please do not assume. I'm a university student taking public transit every day. My parents walk to work, because smart urban planning in Vancouver achieved suburbs and short commutes simultaneously.

I recycle all paper and bins that come into my house. I use a push mower to cut grass, because I don't have to refill it with gas, and my yard is not overwhelmingly big. I turn off my gaming PC when it's not in use.

You can believe you're the greenest person in the world; but believing itself will not make you the greenest person in the world.


RE: Money
By Flunk on 1/3/2010 10:18:14 AM , Rating: 2
I think that if you did a bit of research that you would find that there is a lot of controversy in the Scientific community in this regard. No one has been able to prove the link between carbon emissions and global warming, nor has it even been conclusively proven* that mean global temperatures have risen recently.

I'm not saying that it's not happening, just that it hasn't really been proven either way. The overall view that's displayed by the media is quite inaccurate in claiming that science has proven that anthropogenic global warming is a serious threat. There are a lot of peer-reviewed papers on the subject if you're interested in learning more.

*because of inconsistencies in measurement of temperature and insufficient data (100 years is at least an order of magnitude too little time to measure climate change).


RE: Money
By excalibur3 on 1/5/2010 11:18:13 AM , Rating: 2
I would like to see the sources that you have for this statement because I am pretty sure that you are mistaken. If you read recent IPCC climate summary papers they say with pretty high confidence that CO2/greenhouse emissions are tied to warming. There just isn't anything else that could account for the rise in temperature.


RE: Money
By mindless1 on 1/6/2010 5:30:02 AM , Rating: 2
FALSE! The temperature fluctuates regardless, always has and always will.

You claim a summary that was crafted to support the goal of suggesting there is climate change, while dissenting views are being censored.

Clearly you haven't been following this charade very closely. One after another scientists have disagreed and even had funding pulled.


RE: Money
By Reclaimer77 on 1/4/2010 9:23:35 AM , Rating: 4
Big money ?

I think you need to look a little closer at who really stands to make insane profits from carbon reduction legislation. If you want to accuse Big Oil of profitering, fine, but don't pretend like it's a one sided thing. You are either biased or ignorant.

The real goal of carbon reduction is money, NOT "saving the planet."


RE: Money
By rcc on 1/8/2010 4:19:38 PM , Rating: 1
Oh, of course. I get it now, thanks for clearing everything up for us.


"If you mod me down, I will become more insightful than you can possibly imagine." -- Slashdot

















botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki