Green Daily

Unless they use a cropduster to dust 'organic' matter onto the fields for fertilizer. My cousin is now in the hospital from the TOXIC fumes of the rotted fish and other bacteria's that an Arkansas Organic farmer had him spray on the fields. This is sprayed on the 'organic' crop to make it grow better.

I love that term: "end-product obsession". That is exactly what we too many of us have. We proudly look at the "green" product in our hands and we forget what damages it created while it was being made or that will be created when the useful life of the product is over. Or we get rid of the old to make room for the new (and better?) while forgetting that doing so may create more damage than sticking with the old.

So, while organic may mean same nutritional value, it also means (if really organic) less harmful or energy-intense in its production. For many so called "green" products it means that their manufacturing creates so much damage that it makes more sense to avoid them.

If you want to control how much you impact on this planet, you really have to learn to look at a product from beginning to end, cradle-to-cradle. Where does it come from? How is it made there? How far do the components travel? etc. Often impossible to answer and if you want to get away from it all, consuming less is frequently the best solution.

Karsten
http://www.polluteless.com

Tell me one credible, large, professional organization of scientists that declares that global warming is NOT HAPPENING. You know, one of those organizations that are made up by thousands of members, each some of the best in the world, and the statement being a peer-reviewed compromise (= carefully checked and corrected if needed by other scientists) based on the possibly contradicting findings of individuals.

AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science; 144000 members) said in 2006 clearly that it is happening and that it is human-made. NAS (National Academy of Sciences; 2000something members) agrees.

Those are carefully phrased statements by the best scientists on the planet. They don't want to say something that may turn out wrong. They don't get paid by one source. Bias is getting pretty much eliminated here. Speaking about science, there is nothing more reliable than that.

Even Shell and Exxon don't deny that Global Warming is occurring.

Who are you to say it is a "crock"? You know something the organizations above don't know?

You may not like what is said, but that is an entirely different story. I don't like that it hurts when I fall from the roof, but that does not change that it most likely will happen.

If you are still not convinced that global climate change is happening you need something else than science. This is a debate on a different level.

Karsten
http://www.polluteless.com

Thousands of scientists have come forward to challenge the global warming "theory". Just because you read about something in the mainstream (read: biased - liberal) media doesn't mean it's the gospel truth. Often these scientists are threatened and black balled by the liberal elite in the academic world. They don't get tenure or research dollars because they refuse to worship at the Al Gore alter.

The world will be a much less polluted place when Al Gore finally quits flying his private jet and driving his limousines around "saving the planet".

A scientific "theory" is something that until now counld not be denied with observed evidence, was independently verified over and over, reported in science publications, is peer-reviewed, etc. Good scientists try to find how a hypothesis does not work. If they cannot find ways, it is declared a theory after a long difficult process that involves the whole science community.

Gravity is a "theory". Don't believe in it? Fine. You don't have to be a scientist to challenge this "theory". Jump! There might be an exception, but we have not found one and based on probability you may learn it the hard way. Challenging does not count. What counts is to bring forward evidence that can be observed repeatedly by anyone that proves a theory to be wrong.

In my opinion, the statements of thousands of individual scientist are much less credible than the official agreed upon statement of large professional science organizations whose credibility and influence relies on promoting ONLY what is credible and scientifically true based on currently available facts. Individual scientists have an agenda and bias. It cannot be avoided. They may have an interest to get attention. Just like you wrote, they may want to not loose funding or their job. Professional organizations don't have to deal with these pressures.

Forget the individual Al Gore and liberal conspiracy ideas for a second here, I am still waiting for the name of a large professional organization of scientists that declares Global Climate Change to not be happening and to be independent from human actions. Just one. Reported anywhere.

This may not be a science issue for you though. In that case, I cannot convince you.

Karsten
http://www.polluteless.com