Debunking Global Warming Myths
Thursday, October 15th, 2009 at
7:21 pm
A brand new film from the Cornwall Alliance for Stewardship of Creation entitled Not Evil Just Wrong takes a critical look at the claims made by global warming fearmongers and attempts to separate the facts from fiction. Which is worse: the (alleged) problem or the proposed solutions? Click the video below to see the trailer.
Hat tip: Chuck Colson
Tagged with: Cornwall Alliance • Global Warming
Filed under: Environment • Global Warming • Movies • Politics • Tom
Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!
Seriously?
Talk about fear-mongering.
“They want us to believe the world is about to end…”
“Ice is the enemy of life…”
“If the factory closes down, this area will die…”
“They want to raise our taxes…
close our factories…”
It’s a little hard to take a “film” seriously that uses fear-mongering to complain about so-called fear-mongering.
Job losses and higher taxes are fear mongering? I don’t think so. I believe those would be very legitimate concerns.
The UN has considered a global tax to deal with global warming. To mention that is now “fear mongering”. Hope the media is aware that they are mongering fear.
And how would the UN implement a global tax? Who would collect it? Who would enforce it?
And concern about job losses and tax levels is not fear-mongering. Saying “THEY WANT TO RAISE OUR TAXES AND CLOSE OUR FACTORIES,” THAT is fear-mongering, by definition.
Merriam Webster: Fearmonger/scaremonger: one inclined to raise or excite alarms especially needlessly.
Concern about real, measurable human impact on the environment (and here, I’m not talking about climate change, specifically, although the possibility is there) and the deadly, toxic affect it may have on real human beings is not fearmongering. It is raising legitimate concerns.
Looking at it from the other way: IF someone were saying, “THEY want to raise the water level and drown poor babies!!” THAT would be fearmongering.
Don’t you think that’s the legitimate difference between expressing concern and fear-mongering?
Which returns me to my point: To use fear-mongering to say “They” are fear-mongering is ironic and a bit goofy/counterproductive to those who have legitimate concerns about a topic.
I’m trying to convince.
You’re arguing.
He’s being nasty.
Three descriptions of what could easily be the same thing, yet much depends on the perspective of the speaker. Sort of like…
I’m raising a legitimate concern.
You’re fear-mongering.
Regarding a global tax, your questions about implementation are just a simple matter of logistics, while the UK, Germany and even the Dominican Republic call for one.
Concern about real, measurable economic impact on people is not fearmongering. It is raising legitimate concerns. Concern about factories closing is legitimate. Just ask Pittsburgh steel workers. It has happened in the past, and if industry is too heavily penalized, it very well may happen.
So they do want to raise taxes and it very well could close our factories. Not in SCARE CAPS!!! but in honest-to-goodness concern.
Unlike some of Gore’s comments.
Concern about real, measurable economic impact on people is not fearmongering. It is raising legitimate concerns. Concern about factories closing is legitimate.
One clue that someone is fearmongering is when they twist words and facts in order to demonize someone else.
“THEY WANT TO CLOSE YOUR FACTORIES.”
This is not a truth. It is a twisting of facts. No one, in fact, wants to close factories. We DO want/expect factories to operate in ways that don’t harm others. So, if they were trying to actually raise concerns, it would like this:
“THEY WANT FACTORIES TO EMIT RESPONSIBLE LEVELS OF POLLUTION SO THAT PEOPLE CAN BREATHE AND THE WATER IS CLEAN, BUT DOING SO MIGHT HURT JOBS AT THE FACTORY.”
THAT is a raising of concern.
“THEY WANT TO CLOSE FACTORIES” is fear-mongering.
When Gore did his climate change shtick, he did not say, “THEY WANT TO DROWN BROWN BABIES WITH THEIR OVER-HEATED SEAS.” He raised legitimate – if not wholly proven – concerns.
Don’t you think there’s a chasm of difference between the two approaches?
I think there is, and I think the average person would agree, and I think the average person would find the actual fear-monger/demonize approach to UNDERMINE any legitimate argument that the person would like to make.
See why it is not in their benefit to do it that way?
Exaggeration is the curse of both Al Gore and these film makers. A rationale consideration of very real concerns is the only way to approach the long term dangers of CO2 concentration and its impact on climate.
For me, I’ll respond to the film rather than the trailer (which is, I agree, rather, fear-mongering).
Y’know, I’ll give you that line, as “THEY WANT FACTORIES TO EMIT RESPONSIBLE LEVELS OF POLLUTION SO THAT PEOPLE CAN BREATHE AND THE WATER IS CLEAN, BUT DOING SO MIGHT HURT JOBS AT THE FACTORY” doesn’t work well in a movie trailer.
So aside from that, then of your initial problem lines you quoted, all but 1 voice valid concerns, even the one about wanting us to believe the world is about to end. Al Gore promoted the fantasy disaster movie “The Day After Tomorrow” about, essentially, the world ending. He even used video from the movie in his presentations.
So yes, “they want to close our factories” is hyperbole. The rest, no so much.
– We should be more concerned about Global Warming and Climate Change because Typhoons are getting much stronger and there are greater incidence of Flooding. take for example the recent Typhoon Ketsana which devastated some countries in South East Asia.