What you fail to address is that yes, the world is slowly warming up, however in the past 20 years the rate at which the world is warming has increased exponentially.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2...Comparison.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:G...redictions.png
Arguing it's a normal occurance, what the bush admin has been trying to say since they took office is a
half truth. It is happening, but on a
much smaller scale naturally.
What we are seeing now is
major shifts in worldwide climate changes. These changes have already wiped out thousand year old glaciers in a matter of months. These changes thawed the North Pole to the point where submarines were able to get to the land below the ice for the first time last week.
These changes, if left unchecked at the current pace, will cause global catastrophes in our lifetime.
As was pointed out in the film, the 'studies' that the bush admin and other right-wing pundits cite, were all commissioned by the oil industry. All independent studies worldwide show the opposite of what bush and his oil cronies have tried to show the world.
There is even a bit about this in the film. Have you seen it? Where they go through oil exec emails that lay out their plan to block those who want to change environmental procedures by saturating the media with false reports based on false conclusions.
As bush now says, he never says it isn't happening, he says
it's a theory. Thats their tactic. It is a theory, the problem is the only way to see if its true is if you let the world environment slide to the point where all life dies,
that is the only way to prove the theory true.
Those arguing against change want to 'wait' to see if the theory is true (readin: wait until there is enough public outcry because of worldwide destruction and catastrophe).
The other thing you have to take into account is this: environmental policies to stop global warming are good. Stopping pollution, using less energy, having a 'green' rated home that uses less energy should not be something the government
fights. How can one argue that lowering your monthly bills is bad? Unless you are the one selling the energy?
How can you argue that taking steps to prevent a
possible global catastrophe is a bad thing? I mean, even if they just believe its
a theory they still have to realise on some level they take the threat seriously.
that means they are actively
not protecting future generations, why? Because of money? Because rich oil execs don't want to lose shares in the market? We are letting the future of the earth be determined by the bank accounts of oil execs.
Businesses already face laws restricting how long they can make their employees work, the types of work, safety measures, etc. They fought tooth and nail to keep those changes from happening as well because that meant cutting into their bottom line.
This is nothing new, except for the fact we have oil executive now integrated into the political machinery of the government.
Every member of bush's team has ties to the oil companies. I mean, bush owned harkan oil, which later became delta oil when he partnered up with bin ladens brother. Cheny was former head of halliburton. Rice was the first black woman to have an exxon oil tanker named after her (both of her parents were also oil execs for exxon).
Even if you only think there is a slim chance that global warming is happening, that still means you believe on some level it is happening. To disregard that threat in todays world and allow the future of the world, and your children, to be place in the hands of oil execs, the same crowd who started an illegal war for oil disregarding the hundreds of thousands of lives that has already caused, well, seems a bit off.
In the end, we are talking about making life for everyone better with these changes. The only people 'fighting' it are factory owners who want to pollute, oil companies, who want to raise their stock prices by selling more, not less oil, and politicians who have millions of dollars on the line with their oil/big business lobbyists who pay them to look the other way.
Why anyone would
want companies to pollute more, and not have businesses try and help the environment is beyond me.
