Dutch Run on Al Gore

Puffin13 · Post by **Puffin13** » Sat 10th Mar 2007 07:16 am

Planet Prosperity Foundation: Dutch Run on Al Gore

MAASTRICHT, The Netherlands, March 9 /CNW/ - In a phenomenon never seen before in the world, cinemas throughout the Netherlands are letting the public view the film "An Inconvenient Truth" for free.
Showing the film for free in cinemas is the first initiative of a young
new foundation called the Planet Prosperity Foundation.
Six weeks ago the foundation made itself known and publicly set itself a
goal to show the film for free in 20 cities in the Netherlands. Not only for
one day, but for four weeks in a row, starting March 8th.
Indeed yesterday the project started in 17 major cities, including cities
like Rotterdam and The Hague. It immediately led to a run on the 50,000 free tickets that are available in the coming weeks.
The last few weeks the foundation already gained the public support of
respected politicians and businesses while the media in the Netherlands gave it constant attention. By showing the film for free the Planet Prosperity Foundation hopes to create more awareness among the general public about what is causing global warming and what the consequences of this process will be for people, nature and business alike in the near future if action is delayed.
Since the film is perceived by the public as an easy and understandable
way to get informed on the subject of global warming, the foundation hopes that its initiative will be followed in other countries. By creating more awareness, the Planet Prosperity Foundation wishes to achieve that people will see that the inconvenient truth of global warming may
prove to be a convenient opportunity to transform and successfully innovate our society.

For further information: website www.planetprosperity.org, or email
info@planetprosperity.org, or contact Roger Cox, the founder of the Planet
Prosperity Foundation, on telephone number +31-6-524-11-661

Source: http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/arch ... c8784.html

cattales1960 · Post by **cattales1960** » Sat 10th Mar 2007 02:49 pm

good for them. We all need to start pulling our part in this.

mover2100 · Post by **mover2100** » Sun 11th Mar 2007 02:30 am

It's amazing that people still jump on the disinformation campaign run by co.'s like Exxon & dump all over the issue of global warming.

I mean, it's like they got a space ship all ready to go when things get really bad.

Then again, I guess it's the same scientists who were working for Big Tobacco about how smoking ain't addictive & don't cause cancer.

cattales1960 · Post by **cattales1960** » Sun 11th Mar 2007 03:37 am

mover, I think you need to get your facts straight, or maybe I am misunderstanding what your trying to say

user54321 · Post by **user54321** » Sun 11th Mar 2007 05:03 am

There's quite a bit of speculation just now as to wether or not climate change is actually happening through our own doing or wether it's just part of the earth's natural warming and cooling periods... the 17th century did after all see a mini ice age with the river Thames being frozen enough for there to be regular fairs held on the ice... the warmest periods have happened well before humans started to produce large amounts of carbon dioxide. If you look at recent climate change it reveals that the temperature rose prior to 1940 but then dropped in the post-war economic boom, when carbon dioxide emissions rose dramatically.

The whole thing reminds me of the cold war when I was a kid. The human race seems to have an inbuilt need to be constantly teetering on the edge of the abyss one way or another. And the smug gits like Monbiot and Chris Martin always sing the same song 'why can't everyone be more like ME'.

If global warming is man made, all the shitty wee regressive taxes on planes, cars etc. will make fuck all difference. There will need to be a fundamental change in human value systems (markets won't work, forget all the dumb ideas about carbon trading). And as long as fossil fuels are there, someone will be using them. Still, taxing the poor seems to keep the modern liberal cognesceti very happy indeed.

You only had to read the weekend reports on shipping CO2 emissions for how ridiculous this whole argument has become.

It's no my prediction, but I agree that by the middle of this century there'll be a series of global wars over scarce resources (you don't have to be clever to work that out) and maybe post that there'll be some kind of systematic change.

If greenhouse warming were happening, then scientists predict that the troposphere should be heating up faster than the surface of the planet, but data collected from satellites and weather balloons doesn't seem to support this. It may or may not be due to certain scientific agencies or bodies that require funding to carry on their research, funding that would not be provided if it were the case that global warming was proven to be a natural phenomenon and not, as is widely suggested, down to man's ignorance of the elements. It's all a bit conspiracy theory for my liking, I don't dig conspiracy theories at all, even though I'm not stupid enough to believe that the conspiracies themselves do not exist.

It's also worth noting that carbon dioxide is produced in far larger quantities by many natural means: human emissions are miniscule in comparison. Volcanic emissions and carbon dioxide from animals, bacteria, decaying vegetation and the ocean outweigh our own production several times over.

I don't really know what to think tbh, I certainly do believe that we cannot be helping the planet, but there's some scary truths in what's being said by some...

cattales1960 · Post by **cattales1960** » Sun 11th Mar 2007 01:33 pm

well said Neldo, I totally agree with you.

pan4gold49 · Post by **pan4gold49** » Sun 11th Mar 2007 05:16 pm

Here in the west they do some thing they call clear cutting. Once a forrest now its gone they cut down every thing all the trees are gone. Anyway our forrests are disapering I see it every season. I know that I should talk like this as I dig for gold, platium, fossils and gems. I have some very strict rules to follow and they tougher every year. Something is happening tree lines are higher and glaciers are melting. I have been wandering for almost 50 years and have seen quite a change.

user54321 · Post by **user54321** » Sun 11th Mar 2007 10:35 pm

Food for thought: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

If this is to be believed... and carbon dioxide is not causing global warming then surely carbon taxes are illegal? If it were to go the same way as unfair bank charges (in the UK) then it could result in billions of pounds of reimbursement - surely a nice incentive for an enterprising legal team?

As I say, you never really know who to believe these days...

711 · Post by **711** » Mon 12th Mar 2007 12:00 am

Neldo wrote:As I say, you never really know who to believe these days...

Really. Obviously at least half of the people involved in the debate on global warming are lying, so unles you have a doctorate in teh subject, there's no point in debating it, a common person couldn't possibly discern the truth out of this whole mess.

user54321 · Post by **user54321** » Mon 12th Mar 2007 12:25 am

711 wrote:
Neldo wrote:As I say, you never really know who to believe these days...
Really. Obviously at least half of the people involved in the debate on global warming are lying, so unles you have a doctorate in teh subject, there's no point in debating it, a common person couldn't possibly discern the truth out of this whole mess.

Very well put!

mover2100 · Post by **mover2100** » Mon 12th Mar 2007 02:08 am

I'm no expert but I feel very comfortable standing w/ real scientific consensus as represented by the

National Academy of Sciences
http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf

or the

American Association for the Advancement of Science
http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2007/ ... ment.shtml

There are questions in any real scientific debate, but this "controversy" over global warming seems to be a creation of Big Oil to spread disinformation.

Not unlike the religious nuts who insist there's some "controversy" over the theory of evolution -- there's no controversy in science, it's an accepted principle. But lay people take the use of the term "theory" out of its scientific context to create a political issue, claiming "theory" means it's not proven.

Y'all should be careful where you take your skeptical ideas from, IMHO

http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=14377
'Manufacturing doubt'
The pattern of big energy and tobacco firms helping to fund studies that debunk the recently-established human climate change consensus has been well documented, not least by British writer George Monbiot's book Heat published last September.

The link with tobacco , Mr Monbiot explains, comes after Philip Morris and PR firm APCO in 1993 pioneered a tactic of paying think-tanks and NGOs to debunk the then emerging scientific consensus on the dangers of passive smoking, with the same lobbyists and slogans - such as "junk science" - later cropping up in the climate campaign.

"It is fair to say that the professional denial industry has delayed effective global action on climate change by years, just as it helped to delay action against the tobacco companies," Mr Monbiot's book states.

In January, the US-based Union of Concerned Scientists published a study saying Exxon Mobil has channelled $16 million to 43 advocacy organisations between 1998 and 2005 in order to "manufacture uncertainty about the human causes of global warming."

The network of Exxon-funded climate change sceptics include major NGOs such as the Cato Institute and the Heritage Foundation, as well as grass roots or academic-sounding organs such as The Centre for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change.

"I think the science world has done its very best to document global warming and communicate the issue, but we are up against financially far more powerful interest groups using professional PR tactics," Stefan Rahmstorf, ocean physicist at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, told EUobserver.

philly-Rich · Post by **philly-Rich** » Mon 12th Mar 2007 02:31 am

I fing this interesting "Mars melt hints at solar,not human,cause for warming"scientist says.http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... rming.htmland we all know that National Geographic is a tool of "big oil".Science is about debate,so threatening people seems a little extreme.I find it funny that religion was raised,there seem to be alot of people worshipping "St. Al"http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... een211.xmlI might be more concerned by some of the computer models used for forcasting the weather coming in the next 20,30, however many years, if they could correctly predict the weather for next week.I'm willing to admit that I could be wrong,I'm willing to listen to other peoples views.I don't think that can be said for all in this debate.

user54321 · Post by **user54321** » Mon 12th Mar 2007 03:27 am

Mover - I should point out, I'm on the fence on this one, so saying be careful where you draw your skeptical opions comes naturally.

It doesn't matter how many Royal societies a person can list - if you look at the connection between royalty (and other obscenely rich and pro-fascist groups) and the environmental movement then the reason may become more clear:

http://www.ecofascism.com/article3.html

And this is a good article on the manipulation behind the IPCC:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/02/ ... ience.html

Now, it would be fair to say that the only major scientific agency who don't agree with the vast majority of scientists are The American Association of Petroleum Geologists. That should pretty much have most people sold... but you must remember that its almost suicidal in a career sense for scientists who don't believe, to come out and say what they think.

Here's another interesting thing: http://www.climatescience.org.nz/

But once again, you can draw on the fact that New Zealand has it's own economic reasons for denying it, also the NASA funding

But there are certain things that cannot be argued with, like the percentage of human carbon emissions in the grand scale of it all. It's a miniscule amount.

Aside from all the 'save our grandchildren vs let our minds be manipulated vs we're all doomed anyway so why bother' debates? Cutting carbon can benefit everyone, and a lot of the benefits are immediate.

Using less energy saves us money.
Switching to renewables creates new jobs that can be targeted at people who need them most.
Reducing private car use encourages us to be fitter and healthier and is a lot more socially-inclusive.

I don't even know if half of what I've said here is coherant, it's late

This was aired on Channel 4 in the UK a couple nights ago

The Great Global Warming Swindle: http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?doc ... ng+swindle

I haven't watched it myself yet but I'm told it's a good watch.

Enjoy

user54321 · Post by **user54321** » Mon 12th Mar 2007 03:38 am

Actually, you have to laugh ... here's what The Guardian's environmental editor had to say about that program I just linked to.

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/dav ... rocon.html

He refused to watch it!! hahahaha!!!

Excellent stuff, bury your head in the sand! Why not eh?

mover2100 · Post by **mover2100** » Mon 12th Mar 2007 05:28 am

I think y'all are confusing things if you think forecasting the weather for the next week is comparable to what real scientists do in measuring CO2 & determining its effects.

But it really does appear the "debate" is on the level of the "debate" Big Tobacco funded thru its so-called "scientists" to muddy the waters on nicotine/tobacco/addiction/cancer links. Create a controversy over something real scientists seem to have a consensus about, because it affects your bottom line.

If the overwhelming majority of real scientists have this consensus, I'd have to see something pretty convincing to say they're wrong. & pointing to Mars or to Exxon funded studies (that do not go to any peer reviewed journals, just go thru PR firms) don't cut it w/ me

The right wing sites you throw around are getting their info from this type of Exxon funded PR campaign. They'r not interested in thje environment, tehy're only interested in protecting business interests. THat's what conservatives do.

And "debating" whether Exxon is running a disinformation campaign on the issue is a nonstarter. They admit what they're doing. you might as well debate whether or not the sun shines in daytime.

http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,1985715,00.html

http://money.cnn.com/2007/02/02/news/co ... /index.htm

http://www.thestar.com/News/article/175673

http://www.exxposeexxon.com/newsroom/pa ... D=30375328

I'm not interested in doing any tit-for-tat internet argument thing -- I'm really not well read on the subject. I would say that this:

Neldo wrote:Here's another interesting thing: http://www.climatescience.org.nz/

is not reflective of New Zealand, it's a small group of scientists & non-scientists who don't believe global warming is real or that Kyoto would do anything. You should check them out further on the web if you think they're objective. That came up pretty quick on my google search.

In my experience, it's always good advice to watch your wallet around guys that smell like this