I was sent an interesting movie today and I would have posted it earlier but had to view it first. Just had to make sure that I was watching what thought I was watching. Now to get this attached to the end of Al Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth”.
It may be also a good study on how choices and “truth” is driven by money and politics. And presents a better scientific process than that currently given by Global Warming camp. A good school
The discussion at the end about the Global Warming Conference in Kenya and what first world countries are trying to force on third world countries really ticks me off.
[kml_flashembed movie="http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docid=4340135300469846467" width="400" height="326" wmode="transparent" /]
So the moral question then would be:
Can you say that your (or my) product reduces CO2 emissions so that you can get money for the product or project?
Are you feeding off of fears, misconceptions and political pressure to push a product that will not “save the planet” from greenhouse gasses? But it is conveyed as doing that by promoting CO2. In other words, would we even mention if a product produced less CO2 if no one had any concern about it? Using the false assumptions (that we know are false) to promote a product….