![Crying or Very sad :cry:](./images/smilies/icon_cry.gif)
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/07/ ... index.html
Moderators: Tunnelcat, Jeff250
Some people do. But more importantly, a lot of people only know and think what their government tells them to know and think. I firmly belive there is a reason that critical thought isn't taught in public schools.Testiculese wrote:It's as if they LIKE being raped ever day.
"A primary purpose of the educational system is to train school children in good citizenship, patriotism and loyalty to the state and the nation as a means of protecting the public welfare," the judge wrote, quoting from a 1961 case on a similar issue.Dedman wrote:Some people do. But more importantly, a lot of people only know and think what their government tells them to know and think. I firmly belive there is a reason that critical thought isn't taught in public schools.Testiculese wrote:It's as if they LIKE being raped ever day.
Global warming remains something that I haven't looked into in any detail, but I've talked with my Dad on the subject, and he knows more about it than I do. He says that there are more creditable scientists against than for the notion that global warming is the immediate threat that we hear it is today. My opinion on the subject is, since when did it take a politician to advance a scientifically accurate/obvious position? I think it's mostly a political agenda, and one that's not limited only to Gore. I've heard Mr. Gore say, on a news interview, that people on the other side of the issue should be ignored by the media, comparing them with people who think the world is flat. I've heard that a volcanic eruption has seemingly devastating environmental effects, and yet the planet always recovers.roid wrote:As much as you hate Al Gore (just coz your party tells you to), he really has moved his pet issue (global warming) forward into public consciousness with a huge HUGE momentum.
I'm always sceptical of people who claim that global warming (and to a partial extent, depletion of the ozone layer) is an immediate threat. Because that's what the majority of professionals on the matter are saying it isn't.Sergeant Thorne wrote:He says that there are more creditable scientists against than for the notion that global warming is the immediate threat that we hear it is today.
Ever since 99% of people stopped being professional ecoscientists? Really, I can't think of any time ecoscientists themselves have been able to advance a scientifically accurate/obvious position to the mob on their own. People just don't listen to people that aren't important or aren't on advertisements.Sergeant Thorne wrote:My opinion on the subject is, since when did it take a politician to advance a scientifically accurate/obvious position?
Actually, they aren't, if bodies like the NAS and AAAS agree that the issue of global warming requires immediate action.TIGERassault wrote:I'm always sceptical of people who claim that global warming (and to a partial extent, depletion of the ozone layer) is an immediate threat. Because that's what the majority of professionals on the matter are saying it isn't.Sergeant Thorne wrote:He says that there are more creditable scientists against than for the notion that global warming is the immediate threat that we hear it is today.
i didn't mean you personally, and didn't notice you posted before me.Sergeant Thorne wrote:Global warming remains something that I haven't looked into in any detail, but I've talked with my Dad on the subjectroid wrote:As much as you hate Al Gore (just coz your party tells you to)