Reptile & Amphibian Forums

Just wanted to let people know that 20/20 will be having a show on "lies, myths, and stupidity" tomorrow night (Friday at 10PM pacific time).

The last show they had on global warming was amazing and a must see in my opinion. Wish they would re-run it once a month. They interviewed environmental scientists about global warming and guess what? About 90% of environmental scientists don't believe there is any evidence that global warming is happening, and if it is, there is also no evidence that we are in any way causing it. Many of them said that even if there was global warming, it is a good thing! Increased temps mean longer growing seasons, mean increased food, reduced energy for heating, more rain, etc. Going into an ice age would be bad!

And how about air quality having consistently improved every year for the last 35 years in a row? You won't hear that from the Sierra Club! You won't hear that from all the Clean Air Act supporters (nuts) either. Our air has been getting better and better, long before this act was ever passed.

I hope this show turns out to be a good as the last one. It's nice to hear and see facts instead of environmental hysteria!

Rodney

It would be nice to hear facts instead of propaganda. Personally I tend to take the news with a grain of salt and look out my window. The climate here is changing (becoming more arid)and no one seems to want to agree on why. I will be watching Friday.

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

i liked the part where Al Gore gave a speech on global warming on the day they broke the NY record for cold...
-----
A. Fox

Haven't been on here for a while. Both my parents broke a leg over the holidays. (Mom on Christmas Eve and Dad on New Year's Day). Been busy trying to taking care of them and all the animals. It's been hectic. Mom is doing great, Dad not so good. All the drugs and shock and so forth have brought on a lot of Alzheimer's symptoms. He was a lot better today though. Keeping my fingers crossed.

I think you need more than just a grain of salt when you watch the news!- More like a metric ton of the stuff!

I know what you mean. Virtually every story I have seen on the news or in news papers, that I was very familiar with, they got wrong.

But I do tend to believe shows that have a liberal bias, like 20/20, (in my opinion) when they agree with what conservative biased show have been saying for years.

When 2 opposite sides agree on something, it is probably, but not necessarily, true.

Rodney

Or just enough to dust my pretzel? (lol) When all politicians and newspeople agree I start to look to see if Chicken little has started to run....(a truly strange event).

Sorry to hear about your folks (All six fingers crossed here). I can appreciate the situation only in our case I was lucky. My lady only broke one leg (two years running). This was our first Xmas together with both her legs sound.

Well let's see what they say .........

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

Your a funny guy rodney,

You decry the "liberal media" as totally worthless until they happen to come up with something you agree with, then you promote the hell out of them. Such a shame. If you actually had some understanding of these things you wouldn't just sway in the wind, spewing whatever non-sense you happen to stumble upon.

Your suggestion that global warming would somehow be a good thing is just remarkably short sighted and self serving. Another poster pointed out that the Gore speech was given on a very cold day in New York - also exhibiting a very shallow understanding of the issues.

There may be some intelligent way to discuss global warming, but you've demonstrated here your inability to do so.

Why is it that if a both sides agree on something, I am pandering to the liberal media (all of the sudden) in your opinion?

If two sides disagree on something, the truth is usually in the middle somewhere.

If they agree on something, then it probably is the truth, or close to it.

Is that so hard to understand? (Glad you are not a judge sitting on the bench!)

I don't care if liberals change to agree with conservatives, or if conservatives change to agree with liberals, either way, it is probably the truth if they agree with each other.

I've never considered global warming to be a political issue. The facts are what they are. It is the liberals that won't look at this issue or discuss it logically that bothers me. How can the liberals, who get huge amounts of funding from environmental groups, ignore the fact that the vast majority of scientists don't believe global warming is even happening? There are petitions that prove this ratio, yet 90% of these opinions are ignored while 10% are repeated over and over and over in the media. How can these people ignore the fact that they were, just a couple of decades ago, saying we were entering an ice age? How can they ignore the fact, that what man does, is a tiny fraction of what mother nature does every day? Look at how much CO2, for instance, is produced by every living thing/volcanoes/fires, etc. compared to the tiny amount we produce from cars/factories. They are the ones making this a political issue by ignoring the facts, not me. (Interestingly, they are also the same ones making fires worse by not allowing thinning of forests, blocking the building of nuclear plants (making air pollution far worse), etc., and forcing the creation of even more CO2--which they hate!--hypocrites!)

I won't ignore facts just to be politically correct, like you can, nor will I take a political side on an issue, just because I usually agree with that party. There is plenty I disagree with regarding the republican party today. (primarily excess spending). But, I will resist liberal "brain washing" as much as I can, and try to help other to do so also, and to help them see that it is happening to them. I don't see this indoctrination being committed by conservatives on near the scale as it is being done by liberals. Don't believe me? Just ask some school kids if our water or air quality is getting better or worse? See if any can come up with the right answer, that the facts/data support, instead of just repeating what environmental groups/their liberal teachers say.

How many average people, in American society today, think the air/water is constantly being more polluted everyday?-- when the truth is, air/water quality have been improving consistently for many, many years, and before govt. regulations were even forcing this? If you believe these things, that are opposite to the facts, you are indeed brainwashed already. True, things aren't perfect everywhere (and they never will be) but we are moving in the right direction.

What credible evidence do you have that global warming exists? There are millions of variables involved. Then this is simplified to "man is evil" and "man makes greenhouse gasses" so we are the cause, all while ignoring the fact that nature's effects are huge compared to what we do. Ignoring the possibility that warming might be good for the Earth. Ignoring the fact that Earth has gone through many ice ages and then heating cycles long before we were even here? (Guess all those changes before man was around must have been created by the "evil" dinosaurs, huh? But then what caused heating and cooling of the earth before them? I know, it was those "evil" prehistoric rocks!)-LOL.

As one of my favorite scientist talk show hosts often says, if you think man could even have an effect on a system as large as global warming (if it even exists), go pee in the Mississippi River and see if you can change it's direction!

Here's an interesting fact. Did you know that the total weight of ants on Earth is 12 times more than the total weight of humans? Maybe they are causing global warming? Yeah, that's it, ant farts! They would have 12 times the effect on methane production as humans farts would! Oh, and what about termites. Get the point. We are insignificant compared to nature, and to think we could cause all these bad things by our presence is drastically overstating our effect, and our importance in these matters.

A single volcano erupting, or a single earthquake, releases many thousands of times more energy than the largest nuclear bomb ever crated--our most powerful invention--just to put things into perspective.

Global warming?--Nothing buy more environmental hype!

Rodney

Rodney said: "How can the liberals, who get huge amounts of funding from environmental groups, ignore the fact that the vast majority of scientists don't believe global warming is even happening? "

I say: Prove it. Show me that the vast majority of scientists don't believe global warming is even happening.

And then - show me what candidates recieve what amounts of money from what environmental groups. Describe for us how that compares to other camapign donations from businesses, unions, etc.

Go for it rodney.

The petition at this URL was started after 1,700 scientists "claimed" we are causing global warming and that global warming is happening. I understand that the idea for this "opposition" position started at Lawrence Livermore Labs (primarily because Lawrence was disputing that we were going into an ice age in the 1970s, and they personally know that these are the exact same scientists that claimed "ice age" that are now making this claim), but was technically started by the scientists at the National Academy of Sciences because they were so outraged at the "pro global warming" 1,700 scientist list when they dispute it so vehemently. It went through the scientific community like wild fire. So yes, that is about a 90% ratio of scientist that don't agree there is any evidence that global warming is occurring.

Again, compared to all the "natural" environmental influences on green house gasses, we are less than a drop in the bucket. So to conclude that we are causing it, or that we can effectively change it, is nonsense. If we lowered all our emissions to zero, the environment would still have all of it's influence--unless you think we should somehow change it's influence as well.

http://pushback.com/environment/fraudulent-environment.html

As for liberals being connected to environmentalists. Just do a quick search on the internet using liberal or conservative and environmentalists--you will find thousands of articles that can say it in many ways, and better than I.

Rodney

Hi rodney,

Let me ask again. You claimed their was "huge" financial support for "liberal" political candidates. I'm just asking that you back that assertion up with some evidence, ok?

Can you tell us how the environmentalists contributions stack up against other organizations like unions and corporate interests? I mean, if its "huge", it must be so relative to something else, no? So what does it amount to?

You throw around a lot of stuff here - back some of it up, OK?
I sure hope your not just spewing right wing talk radio nonsense!

PS: I'll ask for a separate clarification about global warming in a minute

Let me ask again. You claimed their was "huge" financial support for "liberal" political candidates. I'm just asking that you back that assertion up with some evidence, ok?

Well, I consider the 3 million each by two seperate environmental groups I found to be a huge donation. Seems like a lot to me, but I see no reason to debate what the definition of huge is. Evidence in post above (link to an adobe acrobat file)

Can you tell us how the environmentalists contributions stack up against other organizations like unions and corporate interests? I mean, if its "huge", it must be so relative to something else, no? So what does it amount to?

Well, considering that most corporations are using donations as a way to compete for contracts with other corporations, I don't see what that really has to do with it. But, considering how much money large corporations have, and how much environmental groups have, you could easily argue that it is a substantially larger sum than the corporations contribute, relative to each's net worth.

You throw around a lot of stuff here - back some of it up, OK?
I sure hope your not just spewing right wing talk radio nonsense!

Nope, it's all stuff I found while investigating some stuff I have heard in the past and wanted to verify--instead of assuming like I see so many environmental supporters do!

All I could do whats sit there and ask myself, "Is This guy for real?" Sounded like a show aimed at promoting his book. Some of what he said was factual but most of it struck me as an attempt to gloss over and/or rationalize certain points.

I particularly loved the part where he said the East River was 99% less poluted than it was 30 years ago. My question is 99% less polluted than what?

Some of it was silly. Money can't buy you happiness? Give me a break. used correctly money can free you from the stress of Bills. That would make me very happy. And where I am from, the average wage is low enough that; Unlike my father, who could support a wife and four kids on his $90.00 a week we need two incomes to cover the extra required bills and increased insurance costs (many forms of insurance were not mandatory back in the 50's). Now my required household and car insurances medical runs about $3,000 anually.

You can't catch a cold from getting cold? Technically yes. but the stress on your system does make you a beter candidate.

The DDT issue from a human viewpoint had some merit. But being in Florida where DDT did a lot more damage to wildlife than just Bald eagles, I did not buy the safe bit. Goverment films that showed people eating and playing in the gas spray was pure propaganda. I remember the trucks and I never saw anyone stay outside. We all went in and rapidly closed the doors and windows. Far from being odor free-it stunk! Kind of reminds me of the heavy encouragement we got when I was in the Navy to smoke.

The gist of this thing seemed to say "We should all be happy because we are richer, happier...etc. Seemed a bit Pollyanna.

The one area he did hit accurately on was Gun Control. He was right; crooks will get weapons and they do prefer unarmed victims.

Anyhow, that was my take on this show. Would have liked to see something more hard hitting (and Factual). Shoot! It even made me miss Baba Wawwa!

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

( how I wish I could figure out how to incorporate your post so i could see it to respond ). I would let other countries do what they want to with DDT. But it seems that we had a real problem with mexico still using it and i guess it was wildlife. If I read it right the parts per whatever that the Gov. looked at was in produce and some windblown effect across our borders ? Gee....all of my relatives lived ( and some still in thier 80ties and early 90ties )with these parts per whatever standards in the BOOM years of using DDT.
You have related the elevated cost of somethings of almost having to have a 2 or even more income coming in to survive these days but let me add a few more:
insurance and property taxes ( heck, just taxes alone ).
any medical insurance these days.
utilities cost are going through the roof.
groceries prices ( it has been a fact that a box of say corn flakes cost at about 35 to 50 cents ( in my very early years when i stocked groceries it was at 5 cents to produce a box of corn flakes ) to produce but when it goes through the hands of manafactoring, processing, boxing, printed advertisments of ingrediants/color/glue/etc. we come up with a price of $2.00 to over $3.00 when it hits the grocery shelves ).
I had wished that good old John would of picked a river to take that plunge in and say the same about being safe. One comes to mind that I am associated with and that one is the Rio Grande. LOL !

Chambo

The show he did about 2 years ago was quite a bit better. I really liked all his interviews with the environmental science professors from many major universities contradicting global warming, or that it was even a bad thing if it was occurring. I was hoping that this one would focus more on the environment and environmental frauds than it did.

It is kind of amazing how no one ever considers all the natural pesticides that are in plants, but all the man-made ones are bad---regardless of levels. Something I have been complaining about for some time.

One thing though Frank, about the money/happiness issue. It did state that there was a $30K break off point. I tend to agree, that at some level, extra cash doesn't make your life any easier.- though it does depend a lot on where you live. For instance, I read that $30K in California will get you the exact same goods/services that you can get in Kansas for about $13K. But, the more you make, the more you spend.--better cars, clothes, larger house, etc. don't really make you any happier just because you obtain what you want. You do get used to your surroundings, even if they are nicer. Does a new Jaguar make someone who is rich any happier than a new Mustang makes someone who is poor happy? I've met plenty of nice/happy people that are struggling financially and some not so nice/happy rich folks. You only think money will make you happier when you don't have it! Just like the saying that "the grass is always greener..."

Most people don't realize how much larger houses are now a days either. I saw a house my family (family of 6) used to live in and it is tiny. Less than 1/2 the size of my Dad's current house with only 3 people living in it, and there doesn't seem to be enough room for the three of them now! (because of all the conveniences/goods). When I was growing up, there were 2 kids per room in most households-far less common today. Our standard of living is so high that our poverty level is far better than many countries "rich". I've heard that the government considers a family of 4 in a 4 bedroom house(owned), with air-conditioning, 2 cars(owned), cable TV, 3 color televisions, stereo equip, etc...(basically every convenience available) and only one person working 13 hours a week to be at the poverty level and in need of govt. assistance! (Sure wish I could work 13 hours a week and have all that--and get govt. assistance on top of it!)

Nice to see him put Sharpton in his place though! What an idiot. The top 1% of the rich pay less than 5% of taxes? Where'd you get that one Al? I get so tired of that "rich don't pay their fair share" nonsense. I am not rich, (and I pay very little in taxes) but I can see the rich pay way more than their fair share. 95% of the population only pays about 35% of the taxes, and they need a lower tax rate! (while 5% of the population pays 65% and they don't pay enough for the exact same govt. services-- that most will never even use anyway? Yeah, right. (The main reason I could never be a democrat.)

Nice to see him sock it to the republicans also... for pork spending. Wish elected republicans would get back to their root values.

I also found it interesting about the landfill issue. I had no idea that there was so much room available for this. I've heard all the hype on the news about running out in the next few years to decades, but not that there was plenty of room for many thousands of years.

Hope his next show is better than that one,
Rodney

Hey Rodney,
Actualy what he said was there was "more and more land being used for landfills". Sometimes you really had to listen to how the guy was saying these things, as well as what he was saying. Both MA and I sat there and shook our heads at that one because of just that. He did not say that more land was avilable.

Also, we live just over 3 miles from the Pompano landfill and the radius of pollution from it is amazing. When the wind is wrong the air gets "perfumed". Not to mention the water.

For us in S. Florida at least 50k works for bare minimum. It aint cheap here.

Our total take on it was he was presenting his opinion and glossing over the opposing viewpoints. Once again, it was not what he said, it's the way that he said it.

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

Well, what I heard was, land fills are being used. The land is not simply ruined for all eternity. They are being covered over and used as golf corses, housing complexes, etc. They are also being created at a faster rate than they can be filled, causing competition for fill--totally different from what you hear on the local news.

While I agree a lot was his opinion, and the opinions of others, it's still nice to see an opposing opinion instead of just having one opinion rammed down your throat by the media with no opposing views. His show was supposed to show opposing opinions that the news never shows--not to show both sides. The other side has had far more press exposure already. In my opinion, the news should show both sides/opinions, and let the viewer decide. His show was a little more of an editorial/opposing view, backed up with some facts. I don't think he should have showed both sides in this case, as he was simply arguing for a side you never/rarely get to hear.

This is the exact opposite of what should be happening in reality, in my opinion. (the news should have to show both sides, and editorial shows shouldn't have to).

But, in an ideal world, I would like to see both sides of an issue represented in ALL shows--news and editorial.

Rodney

I agree, I would have liked to see that issue more authoratatively covered. We've been dealing with "Mt. Trashmore as it's called for well over 20 years. The lakes around it are polluted. We have an even older one near Davie and it's the same story there. Eventually the fills will degrade down to safe levels but while they are active...it's a different story. People here are warned not to eat the freswater fish in many localities.

This talk about safe chemicals reminds me of a stretch of road in Davie that used to be a "Hot Spot" for kings. Two canals bordered it and on an average day you could catch a King every 100ft or so. In 1984 the canals were sprayed for pest plants. I was there the next weekend (I hunted it weekly). For the first time I found Nothing! Signs eventually were put up warning of chemical pollution. The healthy canals(lots of green aquatic plants...loads of fish and turtles) had changed to a smelly brown drainage ditch. Erosion (due to the plants on the bank being killed off) made it worse.

20 years have passed and a few days ago I was out on that stretch again. I had checked it periodically through the years. In that time the canal did clear a little (the signs are there still)and I found one tumor infested garter snake. That was it.

This is why I am so sceptical of so called safe chemicals and Government issue "Everything is getting better statements". Wish you had been here to see the before and after.

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."