So who is right? It seems that every claim or argument can be proved or disproved by scientific experts. “Scientific truth is determined at least as much by the social climate of the times as by the dictates of reason and logic alone,” states the book Paradigms Lost. Michael Fumento sums up the matter of dioxin by saying: “We are all, depending on whom you listen to, either potential victims of poisoning or potential victims of gross disinformation.”

Yet, some well-known scientific disasters cannot be explained away. Science must account for these.

“A Tragedy of Overwhelming Poignancy”

In “A Message to Intellectuals,” released on August 29, 1948, Albert Einstein reflected on the less glamorous moments of science when he stated: “By painful experience we have learnt that rational thinking does not suffice to solve the problems of our social life. Penetrating research and keen scientific work have often had tragic implications for mankind, . . . creating the means for his own mass destruction. This, indeed, is a tragedy of overwhelming poignancy!”

(Jeremiah 10:23) 23 I well know, O Jehovah, that to earthling man his way does not belong. It does not belong to man who is walking even to direct his step.

“You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can’t fool all the people, all of the time.”

Time for a Taco, a beer, and maybe if there is time, a REVOLUTION!!!!!

That Voltaire quote would then be more applicable to hippocrates like Al Gore.

Yes we need pollution standards, but not in a Hegelian response to perceived “global warming” or climate change propaganda.

Secondly yes human beings are polluting the oceans in horrible quantities, but the fossil record has shown mass extinction of marine species. Does the great pacific trash isle exist? Yes. Is it any worse than sea floor vents pumping out genocidal chemicals? We don’t have enough scientific evidence to show one way or the other yet. The greatest tragedy of man kind is our unwillingness to take account fully for our actions both to one another and the environment. You want to attack one of our bad progresses? Try genetically modified plants and animals. Now those figures are scary as to replacing entire species without knowing what greater effects it will have down the road.

but wait.

what is the argument again connecting climate change with human behavior? because what we´re really dealing with here is not the philosophical disposition of mankind but an actual planetary phenomena. we need real science here, in this argument…right?

for most people Global Warming is purely an emotional issue…is that not true? and should we be resolving intellectual controversies from our emotions? whether you think Global Warming is a ¨real issue¨or not; and if so, whether you think climate change is caused by human behavior…these are issues that deserve real intellectual consideration–real science–not gut reactions from armchair ecologists (tying themselves and their brains to the trees) or pro-capitalist Constitutionalists (thinking, somehow, that climate changes are tied to man´s natural rights and private property). Bullshit ideology has absolutely no place here, understand?

Start doing your homework. And if you´re curious what I believe, ask yourself whether it really matters.

How ever……..the Question still remains; Are we ruining the earth? Do I hear a YES?
What Is Man Doing to the Earth, if he is not Warming it up then ,is it time to Party on Dudes?
Can you answer yes to these Observations?

But man is ruining his forest heritage. North American and European forests are dying from pollution. And the demands of industrial nations are decimating tropical forests.nearly half the world’s forests have vanished.

“70 percent of the oxygen added to the atmosphere each year comes from plankton in the sea.” Yet, some scientists warn that phytoplankton could be seriously depleted because of ozone reduction in the atmosphere, which is believed to be caused by man.

Also, man dumps garbage, oil, and even toxic wastes into the ocean. While some countries agree to limit the wastes they allow to be dumped at sea, others refuse. One Western nation even reserves the right to dump nuclear wastes at sea. Famed ocean explorer Jacques Cousteau warns: “We must save the oceans if we want to save mankind.”

Man is ruining even his drinking water! It is estimated that 20 million Europeans drink water from the Rhine, yet this river is so polluted that sludge dredged from its bed is too dangerous to use for landfill!

Alarmingly, man is even ruining his farmland. In the United States alone, 20 percent of the land set aside for irrigation has been damaged, according to Scientific American. Why? Because overirrigation adds too much salt to the soil. Many countries have ruined much valuable land in this way. “As much land is now being taken out of production due to salinization as is being brought into production through new irrigation projects,” states The Earth Report. Another widespread problem is overgrazing, which may be contributing to the spread of deserts.

“Motor vehicles generate more air pollution than any other single human activity.” (New Scientist) “There are currently 500 million registered automobiles on the planet . . . Filling their tanks consumes about one third of the world’s production of oil. . . . The number of automobiles is increasing more quickly than the population.” (Scientific American) “Petrol [gasoline] in all phases of production, use and disposal is a major source of environmental degradation and disease.”—The Ecologist.

Yes, our planet is being abused, ruined. Its seas, drinking water, farmlands, and even its atmosphere are being polluted to an enormous extent. Surely, this alone would suggest that the time is near for God to intervene and “bring to ruin those ruining the earth.” (Revelation 11:18) However, there are other, even worse, ways in which the earth is being ruined. Let us see just what they are.

Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.. Voltaire

If, by an ethical standard we could say that our present human behavior is not conducive to long term benefits based on consumption and waste I would heartily agree.

Idealized ratios of : Energy in and Crap out, are always in need of optimized systems. Some companies , people and groups in general are always seeking this as a goal, either as a quotient of energy, product, yields, money or happiness.

Human behavior unfortunately is a poor scale for balanced objectivity and metrics, and the larger the population, the larger the span for diametric opposition to logic andthe shorter the fuse to become satisfied with anything.

Hence, the resolve to want the truth becomes a need for an answer, which is not the same.

I will firmly agree to argue in defense of many of the environmentalists and ecological conservationists, as they are willing to be ‘conservative’ in usage and application of our
non-renewable resources. This makes great sense in all manner of behavior.

My issues and of distain are those which apply ‘scientific’ facades to promote a concept so that governments or ‘groups’ of persons with ideological goals may manipulate another group. This is of course, the same as any religious group applying an ideological pressure on another group as to motivate their behavior in a certain moral direction.

I am disheartened by the many professional scientists who are willing to submit to such social and government pressures ….. very sad.

The scientific method cannot be implemented while biases of expected results are issued first. I hope Dr. Will Happer will find more respect in the years ahead.

question is how angry will people be once they realize they’ve been tricked ???