motherjones.com — A survey released yesterday shows just 34 percent of the public is worried a "great deal" about the environment, down from 40 percent the year before. A second poll reveals Americans are less troubled about pollution, global warming, deforestation, and animal and plant extinction than at any point in the past 20 years.
Mar 16, 2010 View in Crawl 4
dankbuddzMar 17, 2010
Also known as laziness and willful ignorance.
ismhmrMar 17, 2010
Of maybe you should do a little research from publications that are not under the influence of Hearst Publishing or any other part of the mainstream media, because many scientist never heard from on a wide scale, they only have on those who will push their agenda.As far as conspiracy theorist fodder and not listening to authoritative figures. For many years those same people claimed that asbestos was safe, and the government and construction industry tried to keep the dirty facts on that covered up.J Edgar Hoover once said that La Covanosta (forgive my italian) doesn't existand that it is a conspiracy theory. In those days if you told someone that there was an Italian organization running around killing people, controlling the police, and infiltrating politics, they would have probably said the exact same thing you just did, but of course the messenger should have worn a tin foil hat too right? You know, because originally it would have been something that you didn't know anything about.The amazing thing about that is it only took one person coming forward (who was later whacked.) to blow the whole cover up on that. But these days it seems that anyone who has anything to say against it (including scientist) are ignored or just labelled a quack. Although it really includes the majority (of climate scientist.) Wikipedia has a short list, but there are others with at least a thousand names and statements.<a class="user" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_op ...</a>Now, I can go into the whole Monsanto thing, but hopefully I have set you on track to engage in some critical thinking, and perhaps who can do some non-mainstream publication research. For my argument against fluoride, see my post above.
Closed AccountMar 17, 2010
People's perception of things does not always equal reality. What is the point you are even trying to argue here? People get tired of cold weather in winter, therefore there is no climate change?
korvan504521Mar 17, 2010
Green jobs are leach jobs, like government jobs. I'm not saying its bad, but it doesn't create ANYTHING unless we're selling it overseas.
ismhmrMar 18, 2010
I actually use fluoride free toothpaste, which does not have the if swallowed call poison control label on it.. Why? Because there is no fluoride. Not only that, sodium fluoride is a catch all for over 150 different chemicals that they put in our tap water. I would think everyone on here knows not to drink tap water anyhow right?But I dugg you for sourcing .gov sites. but check out these"In summary, we hold that fluoridation is an unreasonable risk." - US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY HEADQUARTERS' UNION, 2001.“Over the past ten years a large body of peer-reviewed science has raised concerns that fluoride may present unreasonable health risks, particularly among children, at levels routinely added to tap water in American cities.” - ENVIRONMENTAL WORKING GROUP, July 2005"I am quite convinced that water fluoridation, in a not-too-distant future, will be consigned to medical history." - Dr. ARVID CARLSSON, Winner, Nobel Prize for Medicine (2000)<a class="user" href="http://www.fluoridealert.org/fluoridation.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.fluoridealert.org/fluoridation.htm</a><a class="user" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ys9q1cvKGk" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ys9q1cvKGk</a>I think that that Nobel Prize guy knows a little bit. What do you think? Do you still think that fluoride is good for you?
marx2kMar 18, 2010
I love how "showing concern for the environment" somehow equates to "run around 24x7 wailing and gnashing our teeth about the environment".
Closed AccountMar 18, 2010
we're also not much for things being forced on us.saying "I'd like to help the environment" and "I'd like more laws telling me what I can and can't buy" aren't the same thing. but somehow they have become that way.
compdude32Mar 18, 2010
A simple google search will come up with tons of proof. They changed the way they were measuring half way through the study.
vikingcoderMar 19, 2010
"Climate change" became the terminology of choice under the Bush administration after the Republican consultant Frank Luntz determined that people were less likely to be stirred to action with the terminology "climate change" as opposed to "global warming." <a class="user" href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2003/mar/04/usnews.climatechange" rel="nofollow">http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2003/mar/04/ ...</a> <a class="user" href="http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2008/04/08/why-those-sneaky-enviros-changed-from-quot-global-warming-quot-to-quot-climate-change-quot.aspx" rel="nofollow">http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/ ...</a> Luntz wrote: "'Climate change' is less frightening than 'global warming.' ... While global warming has catastrophic connotations attached to it, climate change suggests a more controllable and less emotional challenge"Both terms, "climate change" and "global warming", are accurate. It is called "global warming" because the averaged temperature is rising. It is called "climate change" because the increased energy (i.e. temperature) won't affect all locales equally. "Climate change" isn't a new term; it's the IPCC, not IPGW & the first assessment report was released in 1990. It has been called "climate change" since 1975. <a class="user" href="http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12181" rel="nofollow">http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12181</a> <a class="user" href="http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/189/4201/460" rel="nofollow">http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/189 ...</a>
vikingcoderMar 19, 2010
Sliced and diced quotes taken out of context do prove anything other than your gullibility.
uberchaoslordMar 19, 2010
For saying "the last known wolverine just died" without putting it into the "in Michigan" context. Leaving one off changes the meaning entirely. I know I was being a dick, but someone will read that, get their nose out of joint, and then quote it later incorrectly when supporting removing freedoms in the name of green.