Regardless of your views on global warming and climate change, Live Earth’s use of school-aged children as political spokesmen was, by anyone’s standards, in poor taste. Bravo’s coverage of the Al Gore-produced musical festival began with several innocent, gapped-tooth children sharing their all-too-adult frustrations and concerns over the environment. One poor girl, clearly shaken by the doomsday philosophy of extreme environmentalism, actually burst into tears (pictured at right).
Unidentified girl: "I’m really afraid of my children growing up and not being able to see like a blue sky or green grass. [Crying] If I don’t do something who will, you know?"
Teaching children stewardship for Mother Earth is one thing, exploiting the fear of a little girl to encourage environmentalism is another.
Comments Policy
Kids
July 9, 2007 - 14:36 ET by the mad poleWhy, when I was a kid, we hid under our desks and were darn proud of it. I'm stiil waiting for the ice age promised.
You can always paint the gras
July 9, 2007 - 14:43 ET by Mean Gene Dr. LoveYou can always paint the grass green (I've seen it done on USAF bases and heard some golf courses do it too) and you could live under a blue sheet to look up at a blue 'sky'.
I'm worried more about my children not growing up enjoying freedom and liberty. I'm also more worried about my children's throats being slit because they don't believe/follow Allah.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." --Thomas Jefferson
I like the mad pole's comme
July 9, 2007 - 16:39 ET by misterbee241I like the mad pole's comment about hiding under desks. We did too in the 50's because the government kept telling us the Russians were going to nuke us and sitting under our desks would save us. We were in elementary school and we really were afraid of getting nuked.
The idea is the same with this global warming nonsense. Keep the kids stirred up and afraid and maybe mommy and daddy will sign the seven point pledge.
Btw - right now as I type this it's 100 degrees here. But it's July in central Virginia - it ALWAYS gets hot as H*** around here this time of year.
This reminds me back in the 8
July 9, 2007 - 14:44 ET by deedledeeThis reminds me back in the 80's with the no-nukes demonstrations. Children were used at rallies talking about their fears, but mental health advocates started saying that children that age should be playing and their parents should be protecting them from such mature subject matter.
An excellent comparison. This
July 9, 2007 - 15:38 ET by the_red_stateAn excellent comparison. This global warming BS is the nuclear freeze movement of the 21st century. Same wackos, different cause. Wonder how much electricity was wasted, how much trash they left behind (I heard Wembley Stadium in London that the place was covered with NON-RECYCLABLE litter) and how much jet fuel the "stars" used in traveling to the venues.
Oh, and by the way, how much money was taken in and where is the money going? Answer me that, please.
"Children losing sleep over global warming"
July 9, 2007 - 14:46 ET by Gary HallReminds me of the Feb 2007 poll showing that Children losing sleep over global warming.
So this sick advertisement has the child saying, "..and not being able to see like a blue sky and not being able to see like a blue sky or green grass.
Look, we're all concerned about pollution and want clean air to breath - and that is a noble cause - one which these fanatics are, in the end, going to loose all credibility over - but for now, I thought that these fanatics have been making the case that all of the additional CO2 in the atmosphere (all of that additional 0.006% Increase) was going to made green things grow healthier. Naturally enough, this would only apply to stinging nettles and to poison ivy - and would apparently kill off the green grass..
I would have had no problem i
July 9, 2007 - 15:17 ET by BeowulfI would have had no problem if the message all along had been about the damage of pollution. But these self-righteous, elitist, hypocrites spouting off about the end of the world, and the total media disregard of contradicting facts have made this into what should be a laughable episode. Unfortunately, far too many people are paying heed to these morons. Take this little girl for example. Her and her parents should be more worried about how they are going to afford to eat and pay their bills when their income becomes virtually worthless, food costs skyrocket, they can no longer afford gas to get to work, etc. If the Goracle and his ilk were to actually get their way, their wealth would increase exponentially while everyone else's lives turned into a version of an apocalyptic sci-fi movie (anyone ever seen Soylent Green?).
The Closed Mind Erects Strong Barriers
Soylent Green is people, list
July 9, 2007 - 16:00 ET by Dan The Man 2Soylent Green is people, listen to me ... listen to me.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark. -- save my gun, shoot a liberal.
My 17 year old son is mainly
July 9, 2007 - 14:53 ET by shannon20My 17 year old son is mainly worried about finishing school with all the crap that goes on there and trying to find a job(taken by the mexicans). I guess his priorities are all screwed up!!!!!!!!
I think you've pointed out on
July 9, 2007 - 15:14 ET by ForeverOnTheRightI think you've pointed out one problem with illegal immigration, it takes jobs from those who are first entering the worforce as your son is.
I think the parents that have
July 9, 2007 - 15:19 ET by ForeverOnTheRightI think the parents that have scared their child to this point should be arrested for emotional abuse. No child should be this afraid, let them enjoy their youth.
Adds using an abused child like this to sway your emotions like this is manipulation, plain and simple.
You read my mind.Whoever unde
July 9, 2007 - 15:25 ET by danboYou read my mind.
Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of truth and knowledge will be shipwrecked by the laughter of the Gods. Albert Einstein
And I am not even psychic.
July 9, 2007 - 15:47 ET by ForeverOnTheRightAnd I am not even psychic.
I think a case for child abus
July 9, 2007 - 15:21 ET by danboI think a case for child abuse can be made here. Throwing all this BS and guilt on these kids.
Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of truth and knowledge will be shipwrecked by the laughter of the Gods. Albert Einstein
I fear Earth getting hit wi
July 9, 2007 - 15:22 ET by doubledown552I fear Earth getting hit with a meteor more than I do dying because of Global Warming. I'm actually more scared of the predictions about the world ending in 2012 than I am about GW.
Kids should only fear their parents, and when their parents show weakness, the kids become fearful about everything. How can you cry about something that hasn't been proven or hasn't happened yet? This girl seems like a wuss. But that's just my two cents.
Morals....? Who needs those?
Is the Girl crying because of
July 9, 2007 - 15:42 ET by ts88Is the Girl crying because of the price of the tickets or because the music sucks
One day some of those poor ki
July 9, 2007 - 15:26 ET by Atomic CrusaderOne day some of those poor kids are gonna realize that what their parents have been telling them just isn't so.
Like Santa Clause? I still
July 9, 2007 - 15:28 ET by doubledown552Like Santa Clause? I still resent the idea my parents lied to me about that guy.
Morals....? Who needs those?
Maybe the wingnuts could have
July 9, 2007 - 15:42 ET by fenderteleMaybe the wingnuts could have their own anti-global warming music festival. They could have Britney Spears (if you could sober her up long enough to perform), KISS (Gene Simmons is a well known Bush supporter), Charlie Daniels and a whole variety of neo-nazi punk bands. They could call it "Dead Earth". Hold it in Texas...well maybe not in the flooded parts.
Oooooo, d'ya think that one
July 9, 2007 - 15:48 ET by Jack BauerOooooo, d'ya think that one up all on ya lonesome? We're cowed and scared by your intellectual brilliance.
I am I suposed to laugh? Or i
July 9, 2007 - 15:50 ET by ForeverOnTheRightI am I suposed to laugh? Or is that just stupid humor? I think the answer is stupid humor.
Again a good one for this Ein
July 9, 2007 - 15:56 ET by danboAgain a good one for this Einstein quote.
The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits. Albert Einstein
Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of truth and knowledge will be shipwrecked by the laughter of the Gods. Albert Einstein
The flooding almost always h
July 9, 2007 - 16:03 ET by Dan The Man 2The flooding almost always happens when torrential rains come, it comes from building in flood plains and stupid people knowing they are safe. As for the Dead Earth, I believe Cindy Sheehan already did that gig.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark. -- save my gun, shoot a liberal.
We don't need a concert, beca
July 9, 2007 - 16:16 ET by Hero SquadWe don't need a concert, because we're winning.
*****
"I'm sorry, you must have mistaken me for a clown that gives a damn!" - Sticky the Clown
Subliminal Message in the SOS message
July 9, 2007 - 16:36 ET by habbyguyAnyone else out there notice that the clever, "match the beat of the background music" "SOS" that was tunefully included in most of the breaks wasn't really "SOS", but - because of the time gaps between the three dashes, actually "STTTS"? I figured that this was a subliminal message to some people out there - presumably some who are smart enough to have learned Morse code. Suddenly, it hits me, this is Al Gore's subliminal message to climate scientists the world over...
Stop Telling The Truth, Scientists!
HAHAHAHA!Call me cruel, but
July 9, 2007 - 17:03 ET by The PresbyterHAHAHAHA!
Call me cruel, but I think it would be hilarious if, while this girl was sleeping, someone put contacts in her eyes that made everything look gray and killed all the grass outside her house.
Michael, Quick question:
July 9, 2007 - 18:23 ET by LeonMichael,
Quick question:
Isn't this the same exact thing that Newsbusters did with that 15 year old girl from Maine?
What's the difference?
Furthermore, how was she exploited? Perhaps she's worried about it. What if that's what she genuinely believes? How do you know she didn't reach that conclusion on her own? What was the selection process for the kids? Was it a contest? Did they volunteer? Were they children of people involved in Live Earth? Or were they ripped off the streets and forced to read lines as the malevolent tone of your article seems to imply?
Your post is nothing but assumptions unless you can answer the above questions.
Leon,Just who the heck do you
July 9, 2007 - 18:33 ET by BlondeLeon,
Just who the heck do you think you are to pose such obnoxious questions and DEMAND an answer?
Your comparison to the "15 year old girl from Maine" is absurd. First of all, her name is Krystin Byrnes, and she's from the Pacific Northwest. Noel found a reference to her science project (anti-warmer, too bad for you) on the internet, corresponded with Krystin & her father, and put a link to her site here. Her website is extremely well-researched, and includes excellently linked refutations of all the baloney that the warmers hold near and dear. Young miss Kristen, in fact joined up as a member of NB, and posts on the silly warmer assertations here occasionally. Exploitation? Hardly.
So, care to try again?
The point, which you so carefully choose to miss, is that these warmers are intentionally scaring children. Just like kids used to be scared during the Cold War.....climb under your desk and cover the back of your neck in the case of a nuke. Only thing is....the nukes were real. Environmental catastrophe from man-made global warming is a political scam of the first order.
I didn't demand an answer. H
July 9, 2007 - 18:43 ET by LeonI didn't demand an answer. He can choose to not answer if he chooses, but that just means his post is based on assumptions. Which is fine, it just doesn't really mean anything if that's the case. How can you prove the child was exploited [his word] if you don't know the circumstances surrounding their involvement.
1) Ah yes, I had forgotten her name and this search function wasn't doing me any favors. I thought she was from Maine. I'm pretty sure she was from Maine. Ok, I just googled it. She;'s definitely from Maine. And her name's KRISTIN. You feigned outrage over my lack of knowledge is hilarious considering you were wrong on both facts you chose to confront me over. Nice. Count it.
2) I seem to remember her appearing in at least a couple of articles on this site. If anyone is adept enough at the NB search function, I'm sure they could locate all of the actual articles
3) So you've gotten to my point exactly. You say Kristin's not exploited because she volunteered to post here. So if that young girl volunteered to be on tv, how could she have been exploited?
4) I believe you should care to try again. Blonde, I've told you before. You should just ignore me after 6 pm.
5) Nobody's scaring children. They inherently care more about the environment than other age groups. When I was a kid, I did, and so did all of my friends. It's definitely something children would be drawn to. Intentionally scaring children? Oh come on. Do you accuse preachers talking about Hell in church of scaring children? How about teachers telling them about the danger of strangers?
Ok that's all I have. Good to see you though. I always seem to hit my stride when you're around.
This sounds pretty bloody dem
July 9, 2007 - 18:50 ET by BlondeThis sounds pretty bloody demanding to me, Leon:
Your post is nothing but assumptions unless you can answer the above questions.
Doing the spelling thing again, Leon? Yawn.
Well, I'm glad you have to raise the level of your insipid debate when I'm around. I hope at least it will cause you to read more carefully. I know you need a lot of help in that area.
Blonde, It's a true statem
July 9, 2007 - 18:55 ET by LeonBlonde,
It's a true statement. An assumption is nothing more than an assumption without facts.
The spelling thing again? It was a person's name. If you're trying to get down on me for not knowing who she is, at least spell her name right. AND know where she's from. You attacked me. Remember. Pacific Northwest? beeeeep. Wrong answer.
It's bad practice to attack someone for being wrong when in fact you're wrong. Again, your desire to 'get' me forced you to rush into an attack without fact-checking. I really think you should just ignore me.
I need to learn how to read? Ha. Ok.
I bid you a good night Blonde. I have a previous engagement to attend.
Well, unlike you, Leon....I r
July 9, 2007 - 19:00 ET by BlondeWell, unlike you, Leon....I remembered her name. It's a conservative thing...you know....thinking and the like. FYI...when I hear "Portland", I think Oregon, not some backwater in New England. Nice try, tho.
"Attack?" Please. Get a grip, if that's all you have to whine about.
I've proved countless times you're reading deficient. And a whiny brat to boot.
BTW, enjoy your evening. I certainly shall, without you here to annoy people.
Blonde, 1) You remembered
July 9, 2007 - 22:10 ET by LeonBlonde,
1) You remembered her name. Spelled it wrong. Not once, but twice...in the same post.
2) Ok so your excuse for thinking she was from the pacific northwest was b/c you heard Portland? Well that's strange, because in Noel's original article (which you referenced earlier in the thread) his opening line states, "the fabulous fifteen-year-old from Maine"
You don't find Portland until the second paragraph. How'd you 'hear' the Portland, but not the Maine? (This is an example of what I like about you. You will never admit you were wrong. You have an excuse for everything. "Some backwater in New England" - What'd Maine ever do to you?)
Nice try, tho? What did I try. You couldn't spell her name and you claimed that she was from the Pacific Northwest, NOT MAINE. This is reality. What have I 'tried' exactly? I've merely pointed out your own words and their profound inaccuracy (and smugness).
I haven't whined at all. I simply described your post. Can you think of a better word? Would you prefer challenge? Either way, use whatever word you want, whatever it was, it was DEAD WRONG...which is so awesome considering the dripping hubris with which you presented the information.
Thank you again Blonde. I have enjoyed my evening. I'm starting to look forward to our fireside chats.
PS if that kind of thinking is a 'conservative thing', then I'll pass.
Utterly boring, Leon.Whine on
July 9, 2007 - 22:15 ET by BlondeUtterly boring, Leon.
Whine on.
Trolling, trolling, trolling, keep the silly posts rolling, Leon.
You're absurd, ad infinitum.
Blonde, Ok. So I'm: 1)
July 9, 2007 - 22:17 ET by LeonBlonde,
Ok. So I'm:
1) boring
2) whiney
3) troll-esque
4) absurd
That's a fairly comprehensive list. Mayhaps I am those things, but there is one thing I am not in this discussion: WRONG.
Leon the self-described "
July 9, 2007 - 22:20 ET by botgLeon the self-described "backpeddler" and "journeyman spinmeister" rather denier and liar
wha-chu admittin
"The more I study science, the more I believe in God." Einstein
Uh Oh bot...You are gonna be
July 9, 2007 - 23:00 ET by bigtimerUh Oh bot...
You are gonna be in trouble with Shawn with the wha-chu stuff.........heheheee
Gad your right!!"The mor
July 9, 2007 - 23:05 ET by botgGad your right!!
"The more I study science, the more I believe in God." Einstein
Leon,You are certainly wrong.
July 9, 2007 - 22:20 ET by BlondeLeon,
You are certainly WRONG.....and besides, you forgot:
(5) Blonde is DONE with you!
Deal with it.
Blonde, I've heard that be
July 9, 2007 - 22:23 ET by LeonBlonde,
I've heard that before. From you. Multiple times.
I'm willing to bet that we'll talk again soon.
You mean you'll be back?Pleas
July 9, 2007 - 22:32 ET by bretzysdudeYou mean you'll be back?
Please. You offer nothing intelligent to this forum.
What gives?Whose editing the
July 10, 2007 - 09:44 ET by LeonWhat gives?
Whose editing the threads and removing posts? What happened to Blonde's attack on Bretzy?
That seems a bit shady.
Leon
July 9, 2007 - 22:51 ET by Free StinkerLeon,
Is that reply of yours Simple & Plain ?
}}----> Comprehensive list?
July 9, 2007 - 22:27 ET by Cool ArrowNeither comprehensive nor exhaustive, though exhausting.
Leon. Could you do us a favor and find some of your more astute allies to come to this site and debate on facts rather than platitudes. Doubtless there are some of you out there who can connect thoughts into coherent sentences, and we'd appreciate good debate.
Honestly, you and com-n-sense aren't tweaking the argument sensibly.
Cool,That is a scavenger hunt
July 9, 2007 - 22:30 ET by SemperrightCool,
That is a scavenger hunt they may never return from. What a quest, beg the wizard for a brain,boys.
No Soup For You
Cool Arrow, I disagree.
July 9, 2007 - 22:35 ET by LeonCool Arrow,
I disagree.
My arguments in this thread are sensible, rational, and most importantly, simple.
There have been two arguments:
1) How do you know that these children were exploited?
2) Don't talk trash if you're wrong. Why is this such a difficult concept.
How exactly is this not 'tweaking the argument sensibly' ? Could you point out a couple of those 'platitudes' ?
I appreciate the effort you've put into hurting my feelings and it's been more creative than most, but you'll have to get a bit more specific for me.
Three bags full!
July 9, 2007 - 22:41 ET by Free StinkerThree bags full!
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Fred Thompson and Ann Coulter walk into a bar. The bar is instantly destroyed because that much awesome cannot be contained in one building.
A girl is crying that the blu
July 9, 2007 - 22:41 ET by botgA girl is crying that the blue sky and green grass might not be around and you ask how is she exploited? Leon please
"The more I study science, the more I believe in God." Einstein
Goodbye blue sky
July 9, 2007 - 22:48 ET by Cool ArrowThe very next day the sky turned gray and it rained.
The grass got greener because the water and increased Carbon Dioxide were just the ingredients the grass seemed to thrive on.
The little girl smiled so Al Gore sent her away for reeducation.
Hello mudda, hello fadda, her
July 9, 2007 - 23:23 ET by botgHello mudda, hello fadda, here i am at Camp Granadda
"The more I study science, the more I believe in God." Einstein
LOLbot......ahhh memories...N
July 9, 2007 - 23:26 ET by bigtimerLOLbot...
...ahhh memories...
Now I will be singing that in my mind for the rest of the evening.
Muddah Faddah
July 9, 2007 - 23:29 ET by Cool ArrowDon't leave me out in the forest where I might get eaten by a bear.
Gore and crew would probably
July 9, 2007 - 23:35 ET by bigtimerGore and crew would probably provide you with one of those tamper bear proof sticks with a bell on the end that you jingle when walking in the woods...
....that'll do the trick every-time Cool....
Trust 'em...
lol....
Bear Sticks
July 9, 2007 - 23:46 ET by Cool ArrowYou know that brings up one of my favorite hypocrisy's about the left.
Visit Jellystone Park and Mr. Ranger would be the first to tell you "Don't feed the bears" And any Liberal will tell you exactly why you shouldn't feed the bears.
But these same touchy feely Darwinist Liberals will jump at the chance to hook poor people on Welfare.
Liberals claim basic laws of nature don't apply to humans, but they do. B.F. Skinner was their guru.
Perfect analogy CA...perfect
July 9, 2007 - 23:50 ET by bigtimerPerfect analogy CA...perfect.
<------------{{{{{ i've fo
July 9, 2007 - 23:51 ET by botg<------------{{{{{ i've found that using the word 'enabling' sometimes gets their attention
Manbearpig would get ya "
July 9, 2007 - 23:37 ET by SemperrightManbearpig would get ya
"Your best is an idiot," Bender
Muddah Faddah kindly disregar
July 9, 2007 - 23:38 ET by botgMuddah Faddah kindly disregard this letter
Their inexperienced emotion
July 9, 2007 - 22:51 ET by Mean Gene Dr. LoveTheir inexperienced emotions were certainly exploited. What normal American teenagers do you know that fret about anything beyond not missing the next text message/phone call, talking to the person they have a crush on, playing video games, trying to cover their pimples, or maybe--maybe making sure their homework is done to a high degree of quality?
Kids often times believe everything they are told because they usually haven't been properly trained (or well enough practiced) in critical thought. I remember right before senior prom our Drama Club got two wrecked cars out on the football field and staged a car accident to "scare" everyone into not drinking and driving. The paramedics came in, the firefighters used the jaws of life, etc. Many of the kids (17 and 18 years old) were brought to tears...some were even hysterical because they couldn't separate reality from the acting. They exploited the emotions of the kids to spread their message. That is exactly what the Global Warmingists are doing to kids today. They are scaring them with "worst case scenarios" and doomsday prophesies into caring.
I really don't think that kids (of all ages) intuitively care about the environment at all. Many of them care because they are told they are bad people if they don't care about trying to reverse global warming.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." --Thomas Jefferson
Gene, Are you really tryin
July 9, 2007 - 23:03 ET by LeonGene,
Are you really trying to claim that teenagers don't think and pine about world issues? Please. I went to highschool in the late 90s. I saw plenty of people spending an awful lot of time worrying about things like global warming. And it was their choice.
I'm not sure how old you are, but kids these days are pretty desensitized. 17 & 18 year olds being traumatized by a couple of wrecked cars? Dubious these days. They see stuff much worse than that every day. By choice.
Finally, your whole exploitation argument is based on your false belief that global warming isn't real. IF global warming is proven to be real then will teaching children about global warming still be considered exploitation? If it's the truth, is it exploitation to teach?
And on that, I'm out. Reply with a message if you want to, or I'll check this thread sometime tomorrow. Have a good night.
Leon, Your comments are a b
July 9, 2007 - 23:14 ET by hydrodynDMLeon,
Your comments are a bit confusing. You say that it's a "false belief that global warming isn't real" but then you say "IF global warming is proven to be real ..."
Which is it?
And by the way, scientific models are not "proven" true (or "real", using your terminology). Keep up, dude.
Maybe I should develop a stereotype about liberals about how they like to talk about things they don't really understand.
Leon,I'm about 10 years old
July 9, 2007 - 23:44 ET by Mean Gene Dr. LoveLeon,
I'm about 10 years older than you and believe me, kids haven't changed much at all. The toys, music, slang, and fashions have changed, but not much else. I don't think that kids think and "pine" as much about world issues as you think they do. Kids are pretty self-centered and focused on immediate gratification. Not many think about their future children with any seriousness.
How many kids know who Kim Il-Jong is and what he does to his people? How about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his stated goal of annihilating Israel? Do they know what Hammas and Hezbollah do for a living? Do they understand how significant it is that France elected Nicolas Sarkozy to office rather than the Socialist Ségolène Royal?
Global warming is easy...the kids repeat what they're told, they don't have to think about it, they do the "little things" that they are told will make a difference (recycling, turning off lights), they don't have to make moral judgements or sacrifices, and they don't have to worry about being wrong because if they slip up they can make up their deficiencies by using "offsets".
The desensitization you refer to isn't quite as numbing when one is confronted with something happening right in front of them (whether real or not). It is easy to be desensitized when you are watching something on a screen. The television/movie screen is a convenient and conscious boundary between the kids living in reality and the fiction they watch on the screen. Put the kids on the scene of a gruesome car accident and they will panic, cry, go into shock, and otherwise lose it.
"your whole exploitation argument is based on your false belief that global warming isn't real. IF global warming is proven to be real"
How can you say that my belief that global warming isn't real is false and then in the next sentence admit that global warming has yet to be proven?
If you want to call a 1 degree Celcius increase in average temperatures over the course of a century "Global Warming" then so be it. The main contention of most posters here is that "Global Warming" is not caused by man and any effects that man may have in contributing to any warming are negligible. And anything that man does to try to reverse global warming will be negligible as well.
There is a difference between informing by teaching with facts while encouraging rational and critical thought and indoctrinating kids with conjecture twisted into an emotional issue that is immoral to question. It's not a fine line between the two, it is a gaping chasm.
You've got a lot to learn. I just hope that you aren't a school teacher or aspiring to be one.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." --Thomas Jefferson
Great Post Mean Gene,I agree
July 10, 2007 - 08:26 ET by LeonGreat Post Mean Gene,
I agree with much of what you are saying, I just think you're not giving kids (esp. teenagers of high school age) enough credit.
As for my saying GW is real and then saying if it's proven real, I was trying to frame the question in a way so that I would get an answer. I believe it's real, as does most of the scientific community. I said, if it's PROVEN real, with the hope that this would make it easier for people to answer my question. You know, hypothetically speaking.
Again, if GW is real than teaching children about it is ACTUALLY informing with facts while encouraging rational and critical thought. The only reason you call it indoctrination is because you don't think it's real. One of us is right and I suppose only time will tell. The way you view GW supporters teaching their children is the same way I view Christians. The only difference is that GW actually has empirical data. Do you see the Christian connection? I don't hear anyone claiming Christians are exploiting their children despite their obvious indoctrination.
Back to the kids, I guess you and I just grew up in very different areas. I spent my teenage years in a wealthy suburb of Philadelphia where the kids at my middle school and High School were constantly debating global politics, volunteering for social awareness programs, etc. Heck, we used to have student-run, student-organized Amnesty International-sponsored concerts in the courtyard of my public school. We even had a queer student (their word, not mine) support group that was student-founded, and student-run (keep in mind the suburbs around Philadelphia are quite conservative). These students took their own initiative.
So perhaps in your experience, kids didn't pine about world issues, but in mine they did. It makes me think that perhaps we're both right. Some kids do ACTUALLY care and worry, while others don't. So which type of kid is the crying girl?
This leads back to my original question. How can this girl have been exploited if she genuinely believes that GW is real? How can she have been exploited if she really cares this much (or if she volunteered)?
The main thrust of my original argument is that we have no idea the circumstances of her involvement, so it's not fair to say she was exploited.
I don't think I have anything to learn, I just think you're coming from a different experience.
"Again, if GW is real th
July 10, 2007 - 14:36 ET by Mean Gene Dr. Love"Again, if GW is real than teaching children about it is ACTUALLY informing with facts while encouraging rational and critical thought."
Al Gore is the most outspoken person on global warming. Gore told congress: "there is no longer any serious debate over the basic points that make up the consensus on global warming."
Al Gore has also called global warming skeptics "deniers" along the lines of Holocaust Deniers and Grist Magazine's David Roberts has even proposed to have Nuremburg-style hearings for skeptics (whom Roberts calls "bastards"). Other outlets have parroted that the debate is over or otherwise attempt to demonize skeptics:
Rolling Stone
Mother Jones
The Tyee
Boston Globe
Al Gores' words and the sentiments held by David Roberts and other global warmingists discourage debate and rational and critical thought. They are telling us what and how we should think, they give us a wonderful emotional argument, but they don't give us facts and unmanipulated evidence to help us come to their conclusions on our own.
The debate is far from over and almost weekly (or more) we hear of new studies and evidence or another scientist coming forward that debunks global warming claims or articles that honestly discuss the merits of the GW claims:
Washington Post
Senator James Inhofe
Spiked
Financial Post
ESR
Free Stinker's Compilation
Joseph D'Aleo
I do not wish to get into a religious debate/argument, but your assumptions of Christians teaching their children are off the mark and the proper teaching of Christianity is not on par with the the way GW is taught. The basis for teaching Christianity is "By pureness, by knowledge, by longsuffering, by kindness, by the Holy Ghost, by love unfeigned, By the word of truth, by the power of God" 2 Corinthians 6:6-7. And Christians can also know the truth of what they are taught (althought they can't prove it to someone else): "But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me." John 15:26 and "But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you." John 14:26 and "And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you." John 14:16-17. I teach my children about my beliefs through invitation and example and it is their choice whether to adopt those beliefs or not...I encourage my children to ask questions and then to search out the answers for themselves.
Global warming is taught in a much different way. The claims of the GW crowd are based on flawed models, conjecture, and intimidation/shame. It's presented in a thinly veiled fascist manner--basically, if you're not with the program you are essentially labeled a criminal and treated like an enemy. The intellectual dishonesty used in trying to cow people into accepting the GW position is nothing short of fleecing the people that are too lazy or untrained to critically think. Opponents of GW are presented as unenlightened, stupid, ignorant, criminals, and fascists. This is an attempt to coerce even more people to get on board with GW because nobody wants to be thought of as stupid or a criminal. GW is built upon a foundation of exploitation: exploitation of emotions, people's ignorance/laziness (or both), exploitation of arbitrary "facts" and figures, and exploitation of natural occurrences that fit GW criterion.
Did all or even most (> 50%) of the kids at your school "constantly debate politics, volunteer for social awareness programs, etc."? I highly doubt it.
The fact that the concerts were sponsored by Amnesty International means nothing...kids will go to concerts because a band they like is playing or because their friends are going or because it is 'cool'.
The queer student program isn't a surprise, the gay community is a very active and out-spoken albeit very small minority.
Your examples do not address the everyday concerns of most teenagers and do not typify teen activities. I go back to my earlier posit: do kids really care about world issues? Do they know or care about the actions Hugo Chavez has taken in recent months? Do they understand the direction Putin is going and what the implications are? Do they recognize the danger to freedom that Islamofascism poses to the Western World? Do they know why Islamofascists don't mess with China? Kids generally don't care about much beyond their circle of friends and the latest music, videos, fads, and fashions. They are too involved with themselves to give much care to world events.
I give credit where credit is due, as for typical teenagers, they haven't achieved anything to deserve any significant credit or recognition. While there are some extraordinary teenagers that have impressive achievements, they are an exception to the rule. The greatest achievement most teenagers accomplish by the age of 18 is graduating high school. Seeing that most teens accomplish that underwhelming feat with little difficulty (some do it with little to no effort), of what additional credit are they worthy?
You're right, we don't know the circumstances of why the girl cares about global warming as passionately as she does, but from what I've seen and know, her actual knowledge and associated emotion on the subject of GW is highly suspect.
You do have a lot to learn, and so do I. The pursuit of knowledge should be a life-long endeavor. One who thinks their learning is complete is a fool.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." --Thomas Jefferson
Oh and Gene,One major factor
July 10, 2007 - 08:28 ET by LeonOh and Gene,
One major factor you forget that makes the kids you know being 10 years older than me a lot different than you think:
THE INTERNET.
So the big difference then is
July 10, 2007 - 09:52 ET by Mean Gene Dr. LoveSo the big difference then is that the kids are getting more of their entertainment from the confines of their own (or friends' home). When I was young we went to movies, arcades, skateboarded, and cruisin'. How many of today's kids use the internet for anything more than entertainment (excepting for school papers and the like)? Probably less than 10%. Still, not much difference. The kids that use the internet today for news, and other research and info are the types of kids (in my day) that regularly read the newspaper and spent at least some of their free time at the library educating themselves (both of which I did). The majority of kids today only use the internet of their own volition for entertainment (games, music, videos, and sadly, porn). The internet has not changed kids, it has only made their means of being exposed to information and entertainment (most of which is not worthwhile) much, much easier.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." --Thomas Jefferson
Leon, "An assumption i
July 9, 2007 - 19:03 ET by hydrodynDMLeon,
"An assumption is nothing more than an assumption without facts."
I thought you couldn't use the word you are defining in its definition.
Ha. You are correct. That s
July 9, 2007 - 22:12 ET by LeonHa. You are correct. That sentence doesn't make any sense.
Buuuut, you knew what I meant, right?
Leon, Not really. Most assu
July 9, 2007 - 22:17 ET by hydrodynDMLeon,
Not really. Most assumptions are (I think) based on some facts. Just not enough to get you to the conclusion you want.
But then, most everything we take as true is based on assumptions.
An assumption doesn't have to
July 9, 2007 - 22:19 ET by LeonAn assumption doesn't have to be based on any facts. I can assume anything I want. I hear people do it all the time.
It can be based on generalizations. But not facts, b/c if it was fact it wouldn't be an assumption. It would be reality.
try a course in logic Leon be
July 9, 2007 - 22:24 ET by botgtry a course in logic Leon because this is way off (and not reality) let me give an example:
fact it is a bright sunny day
fact there is a guy walking by in shorts
i assume it is warm out
(An assumption based on facts and actually i was wrong because it was January at URI and that guy wore shorts all year round)
"The more I study science, the more I believe in God." Einstein
Leon, I said "most&quo
July 9, 2007 - 22:25 ET by hydrodynDMLeon,
I said "most", not all. In practice, most assumptions are rooted in some idea or ideas that the agent takes as "fact".
And in practice, since it's just about impossible to establish the absolute truth of just about anything, most everything is based on some form of assumption.
But I think we digress ...
Refer to hdM's most excellent
July 9, 2007 - 22:27 ET by BlondeRefer to hdM's most excellent forum post.
Ha. Nice.
July 9, 2007 - 22:29 ET by LeonHa. Nice.
??????"The more I study
July 9, 2007 - 22:34 ET by botg??????
"The more I study science, the more I believe in God." Einstein
botg, I was thinking that L
July 9, 2007 - 22:39 ET by hydrodynDMbotg,
I was thinking that Leon didn't get what Blonde was referring to.
No I was laughing b/c normall
July 9, 2007 - 22:41 ET by LeonNo I was laughing b/c normally after Blonde and I have an evening discussion, she starts searching for allies.
It's been a pattern.
Leon Blonde has friends here
July 9, 2007 - 22:44 ET by botgLeon
Blonde has friends here so when she tires of your pre-pubescent nonsense she will generally talk to her friends
it really isn't all about Leon
"The more I study science, the more I believe in God." Einstein
Blonde, I think I should pa
July 9, 2007 - 22:34 ET by hydrodynDMBlonde,
I think I should pay you a commission for plugging that :-)
hdM,Certainly.But, hey...it w
July 9, 2007 - 22:37 ET by BlondehdM,
Certainly.
But, hey...it was a really good forum topic....and the comments were fine, too.
Sometimes the forums have a run of good ideas, with great replies. And lately, they've been, well, just kind of lame. Go figure.
Blonde, Thanks. But I think
July 9, 2007 - 22:45 ET by hydrodynDMBlonde,
Thanks. But I think I cheesed off mattm.
I'm wondering if we have that thing going where if we show up on the same topic we have to pretend to ignore each other.
Doubt it, hdM....I'll have to
July 9, 2007 - 22:49 ET by