German Band SILENT GREEN – Hurt so good (John Mellencamp)

Live -Mitschnitt vom Konzert im “Comicaze” in Cottbus am 20. November 2009.

You can download the score from the video: Hurts So Good (George M. Green)

Hurt so Good G-mac

Hurt so Good.

What does it hurt to side on beleiving there is a man made connection to climate change? Really, all this fighting when even if they are wrong and its not a man made issue, what does it hurt to not pump more pollution in the air?I have no reason to give thumbs up or down as I will respect anyones answer and I have no conclusive predetermined answer to this.So from what I am reading I am understanding this to be an economic over environmental issue ?

You can download the score from the video: Hurts So Good (George M. Green)

It is a man-made issue. We’ve polluted our environment, and depleted our ozone layer. A depleted ozone layer means there’s more exposure to the sun, which ultimately factors into climate change. If we pump more pollution into the air, then we’re just worsening the issue. But I don’t know how we can expect to change the course of our future if morons like you ignore global warming.

Well I will put it as simple as possible in order.Double your taxes in less than 5 yearsCost your job because they can make it in China instead maybe. 130 jobs in just the company I worked for on this one.Double the rest of your cost of living on almost everything else you use to exist.The con is designed to raise costs to consumers and profits to the companies and organizations engaged in the con,

About the only thing it hurts is everyone pocketbook, which is the basis of the lie in the first place. The redistribution of wealth across the planet.

YES. Our “Starship” Earth does need care and attention. Once we screw up our “air conditioning” system it will be beyond our power to make corrections as well go.

your question is kind of confusing, but i think people are just ignorant and ready to push the blame onto something else because nothing could EVER be wrong with humans right?the stupidity dumbfounds me. of course it is man’s fault.

If the objective is to reduce dependence on foreign oil and to stop polluting the air, then perhaps it’s best to omit the “man-made climate change” argument entirely because it’s too controversial in the USA. We can fight global warming using more widely accepted arguments, such as the fact that we buy nearly all our oil from countries that hate us.

The issue isn’t the environment and never has been. It’s all about power and control. People like Al Gore are using junk-science or deliberately manipulated data (just Google “climategate”) to put pressure on governments to control more aspects of the lives of its private citizens. They want to spend trillions of dollars to combat a phantom menace that (1) has a mountain of scientific evidence to prove it doesn’t exist, and (2) has no evidence that reducing carbon emissions will do any good at all. This is why people need to wake up — you have “scientists” that are telling you that global warming is happening when it isn’t, then they say you’re an idiot if you don’t believe it and try to discredit you if you’re a reputable scientist questioning this phenomenon, and then they have the unmitigated gall to tell private citizens (in so many words) that they’re too stupid to understand the science. BOTTOM LINE: You have some very dangerous people out there that are saying “We’re smarter than you; you’re too dumb to take care of yourselves; give us lots of money and power and everything will be hunky-dory.” The sad part is there are so many sheeple out there who are only too eager to bury their heads in the sands and blindly follow.and they’re supposed to be more open-minded and more enlightened than their conservative counterparts!

I feel sure you are right. We should all be doing our small part–whatever that is to help keep things pollution free.

You are free to believe whatever you want. You have a freedom of religion. If you pretend to have science on your side, you need to provide scientific evidence, and I am not talking about pretending to have a concensus.

Rick,It is not about the environment but more power and control for the elite. Policies made in summits like this always hurt the poor, and tax the middle class into submission, while allowing the rich to feel better about their exploits. If like you say, what good science shows, that it’s (climate change) not man made, well the point to use that to discredit it is b/c the powers that be are out of control. They believe they can manipulate through lies. There are a lot of scholarly papers and books written on this subject. I read one 10 yrs ago back when we were fighting to make the BWCA under co management by locals partnered w/fed gov’t. Blessings and Merry Christmas,Anyamanee

It could hurt, actually.But firstly, CO2 is not a pollutant. If the climate change debate were about pollution via toxic chemicals, I would be all for it. However, that would mean the big corporations would have to make changes, and they are not going to let that happen.CO2 is a greenhouse gas. The greenhouse effect allows us to live on this planet. The question then is what is a healthy level. After spending $50 billion, no one has produced any concrete evidence that human beings are having an distinct and harmful impact on the level of CO2 in the atmosphere. (refer to first link: Professor Bob Carter, giving a balanced view.)Now, without knowing what it is we might be doing, deciding on taking action could be harmful. We have all heard of lot of information (some of it provably false or manipulated) saying that the planet is warming and we are responsible. However, the planet has been cooling for the last decade, and cooling could lead to a mini ice age, which is far more dangerous to living things on this planet than global warming. (again, refer to Professor Bob Carter).If we go into a mini ice age, then food production will become a major problem, we will experience famine. More CO2 in the atmosphere however is very likely to increase food production yield, and reduce a lot of the wild weather (hurricanes, etc) that we have been having. (refer to the second link below where there is a lot of debunk of the “Facts” presented by the GW lobbyists.Now we come to the economic issue. ETS is a tax, pure and simple. And the people who are going to profit from it set up the lies and the fear campaign in the first place. Even if global warming were a real threat, the money isn’t going to go to that arena. Think about it, the big companies with the big pockets just have to purchase enough credits such that they can continue to do business as usual. Many small businesse however will probably go out of business.And looking at CO2 emissions, something that we humans produce every time we exhale! does not address any of the toxic chemicals we produce, like carbon monoxide which is a problem.”What does it hurt?” is a very danger position to take, potentially on any issue.