Found this image this morning.
Any comments?
http://www.art.com/products/p13593406-sa-i2716604/rethink-green.htm
Join us on Facebook: (Zeitgeist Movement Australia)
http://www.facebook.com/TZMAU
http://www.facebook.com/TZMAU
About this topic
- Posted by craftymethod 2 years ago. There are 15 posts. The latest reply is from Benoit.
-
-
Oh my god...
Oh my god...
Oh my god...I hate this idea that with anything 'green' or 'going green', you can throw money at it and fix any problem. For example, this whole politicized agenda of man-made global warming...lets look at results from events such as Copenhagen 2009, it is clear that the main way that governments see at fixing our eco environments is to create and endless cycle of raised and new taxes...all in the guise of spending that revenue from this will go into sustainable methods in energy and construction. Perhaps if the multi-billion dollar military budgets were trimmed and funneled into environmentally sustainable practices and laws, we'd see real change.
While I don't believe in the concept of man-made global warming and I don't see CO2 as an evil demon world authorities such as the UN portray it as, it is evident we are destroying the balance on this globe by depleting and plundering our eco systems and not learning from our lists of mistakes.
There does need to be not only a change in our society, but in the way we live to bring this problem in check, but money really shouldn't be the answer focused on..
If any of this makes sense...I just woke upFrom possibility to actuality -
Man-made global warming, as well as naturally occurring climate change, is scientifically validated. Regardless of the fact that it's used politically, that does not invalidate it.
-
I have watched things that support the theory that global warming is man made, and I have seen arguments just as compelling that global warming is a natural planetary phenomenon and not entirely our fault (and I'm not talking about "The Great Global Warming Swindle" which is a joke...). Personally, I don't know enough about the science behind it all to give an opinions one way or the other.
But I do agree that regardless we are doing some horrible things to this planet and squandering our resources. A lot of things need to change, fast.
I definitely don't agree with paying higher taxes to "offset" my CO2 emissions, that is total bs. -
Man-made global warming, as well as naturally occurring climate change, is scientifically validated. Regardless of the fact that it's used politically, that does not invalidate it.
'Man made global warming' is 'scientifically validated' only by political science departments or agencies. It is accepted without a second thought in the general public that we are solely responsible for rising planet temperatures. This 'scientific validation' is a facade, even in recent news in mainstream media such as Fox news are reporting about the climate-change whistle blowers and suppressed reports scientifically proving this 'global warming phenomenon' to be false, or at the very least, overstated and over exaggerated... The planet has been far warmer in previous ages on earth..from what I understand as well, its always much warmer before ice ages or cooler periods.
One could say that the proper definition of man made global warming is that in areas of high density population in cities such as New York where the buildings absorb the heat from the sun and in effect, raise the air temperature of the immediate surroundings. This is currently being counteracted in places such as New York by building 'green rooftops', where vegetation and 'parks' are created.
Man is a factor to global warming, but more precisely 'climate change'. We have interrupted the natural cycle, and we are in a position to influence this in a positive manner should we actually want to...but global governments see this as an opportunity to economize this and to make money. The only thing that was ever truly free before was to breath, and now, they seek to find a way to make us pay for that too... -
that poster is just discusting
reminds me of a person that said:
The zeitgeist movement is just a waste of shopping time
-
Man made global warming' is 'scientifically validated' only by political science departments or agencies. It is accepted without a second thought in the general public that we are solely responsible for rising planet temperatures. This 'scientific validation' is a facade, even in recent news in mainstream media such as Fox news are reporting about the climate-change whistle blowers and suppressed reports scientifically proving this 'global warming phenomenon' to be false, or at the very least, overstated and over exaggerated...
The fact that you quote faux news is enough. Nearly every scientist on Earth accepts the reality of climate change, sorry. And the so called 30,000 scientists who do not? Well, most of them are not even qualified in areas of climatology.The fact that the planets temperatures have changed does not invalidate that human activities can affect it.
global governments see this as an opportunity to economize this and to make money.
They do in many cases, but that still doesn't invalidate it's reality. And the idea that they want to tax breathing - sorry, biiig conspiracy theory and nothing more. -
Nearly every scientist on Earth accepts the reality of climate change, sorry. And the so called 30,000 scientists who do not? Well, most of them are not even qualified in areas of climatology.I never said there was no climate change, if you read what I wrote properly, I explained that i do not believe in the 'man made global warming' bs claiming we are the sole creators of this phenomenon. I also further noted that we are a factor to climate change...I just don't entirely like the term 'global warming'. Also, not all scientists that are involved with the climate change studies need to be qualified in climatology, there are many areas in the scientific realm that are involved in climate change studies.
And the idea that they want to tax breathing - sorry, biiig conspiracy theory and nothing more.
Perhaps in your opinion, but it doesn't change the fact that that is what they are aiming for. Economizing carbon (one of the key gases on planet earth) claiming that 'carbon build up' has been the cause of our severe natural disasters and warmer temperatures (which in most cases have really only seen minimal increases over the past century, far less than in previous eras on Earth)has been the perfect mask for global governments to implement a new wave of taxes to combat this issue. You know trees need carbon to produce oxygen, so perhaps before we race to the treasury departments of our nations to draft up a new piece of legislation to bring in new taxes and environmental trading schemes, we could at least stop culling natural forests at extreme rates, maybe we could directly invest in sustainable energy and practices and educate the public to do more than just throw your bottles in the 'recycling bin' and have 4 minute showers... It's total bs. I do believe the men involved in creating this legislation and these new taxes believe that they are doing us a world of good, but yet, they fail still to address the real issues and real causes... I don't look at this 'government taxing us to breath' as a conspiracy theory, and I've never watched these global warming conspiracy documentaries, I understand and have knowledge of the science through my own realms of research and my views on this governmental control on this topic is based on their action, and not the word of someone on a tv screen..
-
WhiteRabbit wrote:
But I do agree that regardless we are doing some horrible things to this planet and squandering our resources. A lot of things need to change, fast.
I definitely don't agree with paying higher taxes to "offset" my CO2 emissions, that is total bs.
Like Australia's CPRS? -
I never said there was no climate change, if you read what I wrote properly, I explained that i do not believe in the 'man made global warming' bs claiming we are the sole creators of this phenomenon. I also further noted that we are a factor to climate change...I just don't entirely like the term 'global warming'. Also, not all scientists that are involved with the climate change studies need to be qualified in climatology, there are many areas in the scientific realm that are involved in climate change studies.
Well then I don't know what we're disagreeing on. I think that climate change is multi-factored, and a continual phenonmenon, that cannot have one cause pin-pointed. Our historical understandings of climate change would generally attest to that.
I do, however, disagree that 'not all scientists that are involved with the climate change studies need to be qualified in climatology' is entirely applicable. While they do not all need to be qualified in climatology, the majority of them should be - since the field they're contending on is in relation to climate.
I do believe the men involved in creating this legislation and these new taxes believe that they are doing us a world of good, but yet, they fail still to address the real issues and real causes... I don't look at this 'government taxing us to breath' as a conspiracy theory...
I actually agree with you on this too, now that you've explained it. When most people talk about 'governments taxing breathing' they often allude to it being a personal tax (not one on industry).My understanding is that the problem with carbon release is that it builds up in the atmosphere if there's a severe decrease in something to 'hold' that carbon (i.e., trees) - but it's been ages since I've done climate studies so don't hold me down on that.
A major part of the solution is, of course, reclaiming the environment as well as moving towards technologies available that 'treat' the environment in a more sustainable way.
Reply »
You must log in to post.