iscmatt
|
| posted on 4/4/09 at 11:19 PM |
|
|
So who watched it? An Inconvenient Truth
There was much discussion on it here before the program, what ae they thoughts after the programe??
LINK to their website
|
|
|
|
|
Simon
|
| posted on 4/4/09 at 11:27 PM |
|
|
Didn't watch it.
Politician, propaganda and bandwagon all spring to mind.
If they don't want us to do it, ban it; don't tax it.
ATB
Simon
|
|
|
iscmatt
|
| posted on 4/4/09 at 11:56 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Simon
Didn't watch it.
Politician, propaganda and bandwagon all spring to mind.
If they don't want us to do it, ban it; don't tax it.
ATB
Simon
Yup, and watching the program kinda confirmed the amount of psycology there is in it all, the guy presenting it was very convincing in his
argument.
My car IS green, what more do they want
<--- 
|
|
|
MikeRJ
|
| posted on 5/4/09 at 12:46 AM |
|
|
Even the name of the film is a lie, should be called "A potentially inconvenient hypothesis"
|
|
|
t.j.
|
| posted on 5/4/09 at 05:56 AM |
|
|
So why only looking at cars.....which taking only a small amount in the pollution..
Indeed they are taxable.... And all the people will pay....
And yes if we all drive electric they will charge us for using atomic-electric...
It's just a new religion "CO2-believers.."
some thoughts about non-believe
Please feel free to correct my bad English, i'm still learning. Your Dutch is awfull! :-)
|
|
|
zilspeed
|
| posted on 5/4/09 at 07:37 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by t.j.
So why only looking at cars.....which taking only a small amount in the pollution..
Indeed they are taxable.... And all the people will pay....
And yes if we all drive electric they will charge us for using atomic-electric...
It's just a new religion "CO2-believers.."
some thoughts about non-believe
Now go and read some of the other pieces by the writer in the link above and tell me that he is completely apolitical.
I don't particularly believe that he sought out the Obama box when voting in the recvent election.
He's clearly a clever individual, but not in any way shape or form a neutral and unbiased commentator.
|
|
|
mediabloke
|
| posted on 5/4/09 at 08:36 AM |
|
|
Sorry. As far as I'm concerned, no matter how good or how accurate the case that's made, I'm as likely to accept it from its source
as I am to accept human-rights advice from a military dictatorship...
I'm not sure this "walks the talk", in political parlance:
Maybe the presenter should have another go when their own house is in order, eh? In the meantime, I'll use my common sense...
|
|
|
NeilP
|
| posted on 5/4/09 at 10:32 AM |
|
|
IMHO mother nature will just carry on with her business whilst we argue about who's right or wrong or who's neutral or biased. I'm
with those that are sure that the planet will cope in ways we can't imagine with what we throw at it but that we might not like what we get in
return...
Linky
If you pay peanuts...
Mentale, yar? Yar, mentale!
Drive it like you stole it!
|
|
|
woodster
|
| posted on 6/4/09 at 09:49 AM |
|
|
didn't watch it the time it was on wasn't convenient
|
|
|
trogdor
|
| posted on 6/4/09 at 10:29 AM |
|
|
I showed my wife MikeRJ's comment last night and she found it very amusing.
The whole thing is very one sided, his basic argument was fine but some of the things he was saying were about dodgy.
Like the implication that if greenlands ice sheets melt then the sea levels will rise 20 feet meaning 100 million people will lose there homes. Which
is fine. But he did not point out that for this ice to melt it would take thousands of years to happen. He was quite alarmist in the way he said it,
plus all the political stuff in it was annoying
Also the bit about polar bears drowning was wrong, even my wife could see that. (I have done a masters in oceanography so this stuff does irritate
me). Don't start me on the film that was on before as well............
|
|
|
