A new documentary is coming out June 28 (NY and LA only) entitled Who Killed the Electric Car? You want the answer? The oil companies and GM! Can you say "Hummer"? This documentary should be a real eye opener in light of our current zeal for getting off foreign oil. We had a workable chance, but it was squashed. Click on the link for the trailer.
21 Responses
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
More ecopropoganda, like Al Gore’s movie.
Global warming is a clear and present danger, Aaron. Do you work for Exxon?
If only I did. I could be a very good PR person for them and make a lot more money promoting them than my alma mater, but even if I had the choice I would rather promote the values of this place than the values of Exxon. I think "big oil" gets hosed on a daily basis in the press, but they are more concerned with money and greed than I am.
Global warming has been "clear and present danger" for about 30 years and before that global cooling was clear and present danger. I think eco-scientists give us humans way too much credit in our ability to impact the environment. We may be in a warming period, but that does not mean that 1) we caused it or 2) it is going to destroy the world.
1) How do you know?
2) How do you know?
I think "big oil" gets hosed on a daily basis in the press
Yes, my heart breaks for them (sniffle).
1) exactly
2) exactly
We don't know much of anything. All we have are reports of possible trends.
The "hockey stick graph" done by Michael Mann which shows earth temperatures as basically static until 1900 and then they spike dramstically, has been demonstrated to be false at best, a fraud at worst.
As to crying for big oil. I don't shed too many tears for them either. They are making plenty of money to dry their tears, but it does annoy me that the press can dictate which industries it thinks should be regulated, told what to do, how much to charge, etc. We don't cry for the oil industry, but we would cry if the media meme became that our business is charging too much, makes too much money and should be controlled by the government.
I think the free market does a much better job than a government bureaucrat can.
Well, I guess we just have to wait for people to die to make you realize that the Earth is warming. It may already be too late by then. There was an experiment where a frog was dropped into a pot of boiling water. It immediately jumped out. Then the frog was dropped into a pot of room temperature water which was slowly brought to a boil. The frog didn't sense the gradual temperature change and got boiled to death. I don't have any children but you do. If you are wrong, it's they who shall pay for the complacency of people who think as their father does. I know destroying our atmosphere is a risk YOU are willing to take but I don't want gamble with our future. I'll vote for any green candidate that will do something about this pressing issue, for the good of us all!
Cineaste, we disagree on a lot of issues and I accept that, but it is a low blow (and I sure you know this) to include my two sons in this debate, indicating that they will "pay" for my thoughts on global warming.
Honestly, the same heartfelt warning can be (and is) applied to virtually every issue we face politically. I can say the same thing about abortion and the "culture of death" or illegal immigration or federal spending or taxes or affirmative action or gay marraige or….
I don't want to destroy the environment. I happen to like breathing clean air and drinking clean water, but I despise the political demogogary that goes on when it comes to the environment. Just like with Sam on gay marriage, if you're against it you hate gays. With the environment, if you don't sign Kyoto you want our kids to drink dirty water. I don't subscribe to those that.
I would be happy to look at some research or some facts that you have that demonstrate the reality and danger of global warming. But you have to give me moral than the story of the frog and the pot.
I mention your children in the same breath as everyone else's children because we are all in this together. I was trying to reach you in another way with the frog story because I can give you tons of scientific studies proving that carbon based emissions are causing a green house effect but, like Seeker and his stance on evolution, I don't think you will listen or accept the information I can provide you. Sadly, that's why I think the only thing that can change your mind is if thousands of people start to die from undeniable climate change. I mentioned your children because I know you love them and that perhaps for their sakes you will listen to the warnings. When it comes to global warming, we all share the same future. I feel this is the biggest issue humanity faces. My belief in global warming IS NOT a political view. It is an empirical observation. Michael Mann, is in a small minority. The consensus in the scientific community is that global warming is happening now.
I made a mistake with Micheal Mann but you get my point I think.
But what I don't understand is that the consensus now is that global warming has been drastically increasing since the 1900's, why was global cooling warned about in the 1970's?
Carbon based emissions may cause a greenhouse effect, but nature through volcanos and the like produces more carbon emissions than humans ever could.
And much of the problems that we sold to us in the 80's and 90's are getting better despite the gloom and doom predictions. Should I go down the list of all of the consensus scientists giving us only a certain number of years until chaos, then a few more, then a few more? It's like the boy who cried wolf, but every body keeps believing him time after time and no wolf ever comes. (Yes, I understand in the story a real wolf does come.)
We were told the holes in the ozone layer would kill us all, but now they are shrinking. Yet sill global warming is going to kill us all. Even when things get better, global warming is going to kill us all.
And it just strikes me as odd that every way environmentalists give to reduce global warming happens to coincide with liberal public policies.
Funny thing about the frog in the kettle parable – it's a good illustration, but I think it's a myth.
like Seeker and his stance on evolution, I don't think you will listen or accept the information I can provide you.
I listen as much as you do ;) I have already considered much (but not all) of the evidence you provide, and find it wanting. That is not the same as not listening to 'reason'.
And I with both evolution and global warming.
I actually used to believe in global warming and was a big environmentalist, but removing the emotional exploitation done by the left on the issue helped me to change my mind.
I must stress that while I disagree with environmentalism and may seem pro-big oil, I am not a "rape and plunder" the planet type of guy. I don't litter, in fact, our youth group picks up trash along the side of the road at least once, most of the time twice a year as a service project. There is a difference between not wasting and doing "our part" than trying to force me to do what someone else thinks is best for the environment.
I just don't find many of the environmental left's pet ideas like global warming, recycling, etc. to be grounding in as much fact as emotion.
Seeker, there is too much evidence for evolution to find it ALL wanting. You have presented no empirical evidence for creationism in return. Let's not discuss this here though, as I await your next evolution post :) Though I know you will never accept evolution's validity, I will always comment on it in the hope that you won't confuse readers. Aaron, I'll respond to your reply later because I want to give you a complete answer.
I just don't find many of the environmental left's pet ideas like global warming, recycling
Jeez, what do you have against recycling?
There is a difference between not wasting and doing "our part" than trying to force me to do what someone else thinks is best for the environment.
No, do what you think is best for the environment for it's own sake. I can't believe that you would think conserving electricity, gas, etc. or recycling is not part of environmental protection. However, if your idea of green is no governmental regulations on air pollution, water pollution etc. then I think you should move to a third world country where there is little to no concern for the environment by government and you can practice free enterprise in the true sense of the word, exploitation of resources. You, me and all Americans should take responsibility for the environment. The government should legislate environmental laws to protect us and the planet we live on. You know the saying don't sh't where you eat/sleep.
Seeker, there is too much evidence for evolution to find it ALL wanting. You have presented no empirical evidence for creationism in return.
Quite the opposite. You have presented precious little evidence, and less in trying to solve the problems with evolution. You have totally ignored the tens, perhaps hundreds of pages of creationist evidences listes at answersingenesis.org. Sure, some of their articles are faith based, but not all. Their audience is mostly xian, so they include faith-related arguments.
Jeez, what do you have against recycling?
You see, Aaron IS more conservative than me – heck, I've bought the recycling thing hook, line, and aluminum can.
Seeker, give me just three pieces of empirical evidence for creationism. Don't refer me to answersingenesis.org because I went there and it all presupposes Christianity. I found no empirical evidence there and without empirical evidence (here we go again) it's not science.
Okay Aaron,
Here is some evidence of global warming, we can start with frogs and move on to other things like retreating glaciers and average world temperature increases if you deny these studies… http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/arti… http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/01/0… http://www.climatehotmap.org/photos/photoevent20….
Also, here are some of your fellow evangelicals who want to do something about global warming… http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,11…
Cineaste, I will try to read over your links and comment.
As to recycling, it is not a bad thing per say, but it is self-defeating. To accomplish the task of recycling more energy is spent than is saved with most materials. You have increased energy usage in the pick-up, breaking down the materials, etc.
I don't dislike recycling, I think if it accomplished what it purposes to do then it would be a good thing. But if all it does is make people feel better about doing something, then it is pointless.
Aaron, if you think recycling is pointless, I won't argue. Whatever.
No, I said it was pointless if it did not accomplish it's goal of saving energy.
If it takes more energy and resources to break something down and use it again than it does to simply make another one, what good is recycling?