Enviromental "Scare" Tactics

Discussion in 'Environment' started by Samson, Oct 12, 2011.

  1. Samson
    Offline

    Samson Póg Mo Thóin Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2009
    Messages:
    27,357
    Thanks Received:
    3,742
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Location:
    A Higher Plain
    Ratings:
    +4,210
    I base the thread on a response to AF I gave that was buried under some babbling idiot's posts that I ignore.

    Scaring anyone isn't necessarily their purpose.

    The "red-scare" increased military funding after WWII. Korea and Vietnam kept the fire burning. Even afterward, we had the "Cold War."

    Since the demise of the Soviet Union, we've had to "scare" the public into believing that increased military funding remains a priority because 9/11 could repeat itself, and the best way to prevent Islamist Extremism is to destroy Extreme Islamists. Frankly, I see no way anyone can argue with this point.

    However, the "War on Carbon" cannot be fought without similar "scare" tactics, and MUCH MORE IMPORTANTLY, the ensueing funding from DOE to reduce CO2 emissions: Thus there is an "Army, Navy, Ariforce, and Marines".....a plethora of industries that have sprung-up depending on government grants to "fight the war against global warming."

    The code for this is converting everything to "sustainability." Industries are "sustainable" because they operate independently of carbon emmitting fossil fuels, which are presumed "unsustainable," and very dependently on DOE grants.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,628
    Thanks Received:
    5,430
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,421
    So, what are you stating? That AGW is backed by 'Commies'? Or that it is a worldwide conspiracy to get more money for a handfull of corperations?

    That it is not real? Or that it is real, but a money making scam for a few businesses?

    Pretty ambigous post.
     
  3. gslack
    Offline

    gslack Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2010
    Messages:
    4,527
    Thanks Received:
    346
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +346
    Looks to me like he's trying to be diplomatic and not necessarily call it a scam outright. Personally I like a more direct approach.
     
  4. Samson
    Offline

    Samson Póg Mo Thóin Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2009
    Messages:
    27,357
    Thanks Received:
    3,742
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Location:
    A Higher Plain
    Ratings:
    +4,210
    Scamming the public isn't anything new, and certainly isn't monopolised by the GW crowd.
     
  5. gslack
    Offline

    gslack Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2010
    Messages:
    4,527
    Thanks Received:
    346
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +346
    Oh I agree, but new or not and no matter who does it, its still a scam. I don't agree with the concept of "the ends justify the means" in all situations. I think the means must justify ends as well otherwise the ends lose their merit.
     
  6. Samson
    Offline

    Samson Póg Mo Thóin Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2009
    Messages:
    27,357
    Thanks Received:
    3,742
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Location:
    A Higher Plain
    Ratings:
    +4,210
    my point is that its disingenuous to complain about GW "scare tactics" on the one hand, and on the other be perfectly accepting of military "scare tactics."
     
  7. gslack
    Offline

    gslack Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2010
    Messages:
    4,527
    Thanks Received:
    346
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +346
    Well I do not accept scare tactics period, no matter the reason its dishonest and in todays world with information so available to the average person, it will usually end in nothing but first division and then dissension in the people. As we see right now.

    I don't believe in sugar coating either for these very same reasons.

    I believe you may be operating under the assumption I (or people here in general) am arguing against climate change from some political bias such as right-wing, conservative, republican or what ever. I for one am not. I argue against anything that has to lie, or twist data, or exaggerate findings and especially anything that claims science but shows so little of it.
     
  8. Samson
    Offline

    Samson Póg Mo Thóin Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2009
    Messages:
    27,357
    Thanks Received:
    3,742
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Location:
    A Higher Plain
    Ratings:
    +4,210
    Indeed?

    I guess I've missed all your threads attacking the size of a DOD budget based on the ludicrous need for another aircraft carrier, stealth fighter, or better tank, to defend the Land of The Brave from an Invasion of Camel Jockys from Iran.
     
  9. gslack
    Offline

    gslack Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2010
    Messages:
    4,527
    Thanks Received:
    346
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +346
    I don't make those threads because I see no point for me to do so.. Politics as usual threads or "its the republicans or Democrats fault" threads are a dime a dozen here, and I rarely bother with them. Unless they bring something new or of value beyond simple party politics, I don't even look.

    I have on occasion posted for or against something from either party, and I have found the concept of true politically independent thought escapes most people in the politics threads. For instance if I stand against Obama's healthcare reform, I must be a Conservative, right-wing, republican or something along those lines. If I oppose less restrictions on wall street, I must be a bleeding heart, socialism loving, liberal democrat or again something along those lines.

    I grew weary of this and after continually being called a Rush Limbaugh fan and a George Monbiot follower often in the same thread, I figured most people are too indoctrinated into party politics or the general political PR machines to understand any argument I made.

    Matter of fact last time I posted in a politics thread, I had a poster lose his mind and edit my quotes all in the attempt to make it appear I was some kind of liberal socialist... Pretty pathetic...

    So I generally avoid topics I know won't lead to anything but more party bashing, or excuse making..
     

Share This Page