Comments (22)

1. Disney Princess…was she serious? That article almost seems like something I would have written in high school as a joke.

   It’s wonderful to care about the environment, re-use stuff, save money…but having to twist Disney stories to fit into your extreme, and undoubtedly obnoxious, green life is pathetic.

   posted by graham on 2-3-2010 at 10:24 am

2. Thank you for linking the Vancouver Experiment story. Hard to read, but goes along way to show that EVERYONE needs sanctuary–a safe place.

   posted by Helenann on 2-3-2010 at 10:25 am

3. Graham-

   That article is just a spot of fun, some light-hearted amusement… I don’t see any twisting going on. Calling a green life extreme and obnoxious though? *That’s* twisted.

   posted by Anonymous on 2-3-2010 at 10:48 am

4. @Anonymous
   I agree with Graham, the green movement has become sort of indicator of the gullible nature of the american public. There has never been more of a blown-out-of-proportion, media whore exsisting in my lifetime.
   The article is also an example of piss poor journalism. Essentially using a subject that she KNOWS will ellicit a dedicated following regardless of how badly the article was written.
   Please, for those of you who would defend the “green” lifestyle till your dying breath. Stop using Al Gore as your information library and do your research. Even the people who coined the term “global warming” disagree with the way it’s been exploited.

   posted by Dan on 2-3-2010 at 11:40 am

5. Dan-

   First off, I’m pretty sure that the author of the Disney article was not meaning it to be taken all that seriously; I think that it was meant to bring a smile to one’s face, and that’s about it.

   And I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you’re not trolling regarding climate change- I can not quite tell for certain from your comment, but it appears that you’re not so big on believing in humanity’s impact on our environment (seemingly denouncing a green lifestyle). Here’s some research:

   “…no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change.”

   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

   “The majority of climate scientists agree that global warming is primarily caused by human activities such as fossil fuel burning and deforestation. The conclusion that global warming is mainly caused by human activity and will continue if greenhouse gas emissions are not reduced has been endorsed by more than 75 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Meteorological Society, the International Union for Quaternary Research, and the Joint Science Academies of the major industrialized and developing nations explicitly use the word ‘consensus’ when referring to this conclusion.”

   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_consensus

   posted by Anonymous on 2-3-2010 at 12:07 pm

6. Jasmine lived in a lavish palace, and had a tiger as a pet, instead of letting it life naturally in the wild.

   Belle’s father was an inventor – and inventions lead to industrial revolutions that can only lead to pollution, right?

   Snow White’s guard killed an innocent animal instead in order to bring the queen a heart. PETA would be mad.

   I could go on…anyone can make anything into what they want, especially with Disney princess films. Just take it with a grain of salt, it’s not like it’s in the Times or something.

   posted by Tracie on 2-3-2010 at 12:31 pm

7. I’m pretty sure the greenest Disney Princess would be Pocahontas!

   posted by Meg on 2-3-2010 at 1:01 pm

8. HAHA Nice one Meg. I’ll agree with you there! Nothing like wearing animal skins and running barefoot through the forest. :)

   posted by Kate on 2-3-2010 at 1:30 pm

9. Anonymous,

   “…no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change.”

   I find that to be arrogant and entirely wrong. Much like the way that President Obama spoke to the rupiblicans during his State of The Union address.

   If this science is plainly evident, why does the chairman of the IPCC have to conceal false data of glacier disappearance? Why do e-mails have to be deleted to conceal real numbers of warming and cooling? Why are world leaders still flying jets everywhere they go?

   The scientist, and general public, who are questioning boldly the claims of man made “climate change”, are considered outcasts by your “international scientific bodies”…who aparently do not consider peer review a valuable tool when publishing their own “findings”.

   There is nothing wrong with living a “green lifestyle”, it is economical, it is clean, it is the right thing to do…

   (Did you know that paper made from virgin wood fiber has a smaller carbon footprint than recycled paper. As we all know, the EPA declared Carbon Dioxide a pollutant, so shouldn’t the United States federal and state governments stop using recycled paper and only use paper made from virgin fiber…just a thought.)

   I’ll keep asking the same question to everyone who believes that man is causing this “climate change”…if people like President Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Al Gore and every other “climate changer” in the world truely believe we are responsible, then why are they still flying in their carbon emitting jets?

   Please…I really would like to know.

   posted by graham on 2-3-2010 at 2:10 pm

10. Graham-

    Arrogance? Hardly, ’tis fact. I linked the source above, and your assertion of scientists and the public questioning climate change as evidence to the contrary is unsound in logic. Everything that is theory considered sound science, by definition, is tested and retested, and always being questioned. It is how we seperate fact from fiction. This particular theory has ample evidence supporting it; it’s not as if there is a secret cabal pushing forward hidden agendas onto these scientific bodies- all findings rather conclusively points towards humanity affecting climate change. There will be dissenters against this overwhelming evidence, yes- but there will also be people who will always believe that the world is flat.

    Furthermore, I rather doubt your unfounded presumption that the work done by these scientific bodies is not peer-reviewed. A group cannot just make something up out of the blue and expect others to believe it as fact, and that is most assuredly what these groups did not do. And why would they, as scientific institutions? It boggles the mind. And what would the public opinion be without the informed opinions of experts? Bunk.

    The emails, you’re talking about “Climategate”, right? Check it out: “A review by the Associated Press of all the e-mails found that they did not support claims of faking of science, but did show disdain for sceptical critics. Scientists had discussed avoiding sharing information with critics, but the documents showed no evidence that any data was destroyed. Researchers also discussed in e-mails how information they had released on request was used by critics to make personal attacks on researchers.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climategate#Content_of_the_documents

    And please, let us not bring politics into this- it is truly irrelevant to the scientific aspects, and tends to lead to a blame cycle. Jets are used by politicians by necessity, regarding security and (to a lesser extent) time constraints- I hope that answers your question.

    Oh, one last thing- “The United States Environmental Protection Agency‎ (EPA) has found that recycling causes 35% less water pollution and 74% less air pollution than making virgin paper.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recycled_paper#Water_and_air_pollution

    posted by Anonymous on 2-3-2010 at 3:28 pm

11. Hahaha wow let’s fight over global warming and use Wikipedia as our only source…ok?
    I agree with meg about Pocahontas, she’s def the greenest.
    I love the one about the internet being honest. It def made me laugh! The one with the fake FML post, SO true!

    posted by tess on 2-3-2010 at 3:55 pm

12. Tess-

    Wikipedia is, on the whole, actually surprisingly accurate- and it fully references where the site itself received its information towards the bottom of each entry. Anyway, I always love internet debates: http://xkcd.com/386/ . Heh… it seems a bit futile at times, yeah, but I’ve always been a big believer in a good spread of worthwhile information.

    Also, FWIW, I’ve always been partial to Mulan. :D

    posted by Anonymous on 2-3-2010 at 4:08 pm

13. Climate Change (of the late 20th/early 21st century) = Eugenics (of the early 20th century)

    Peer review works “great” when you find a way to ensure your peer group has the same axiomatic views in a field.

    posted by Also Anon on 2-3-2010 at 4:11 pm

14. Anonymous,

    That is the whole point, man made climate change is not theory, it is hypothesis!

    Any yes, you are arrogant, ’tis fact.

    Unfounded presumption…

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/02/climate-change-pachauri-un-glaciers

    “‘In another email, sent in March 2003, the leading US climate scientist Prof Michael Mann suggested ostracising a journal for publishing a paper that attacked his work.

    “I think we have to stop considering Climate Research as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues … to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal.” Mann denies any attempt to “stifle legitimate sceptical views”.’”

    Here are some more unfounded presumptions:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/02/hacked-climate-emails-flaws-peer-review

    This is how you people will rewrite history.

    (Also, what you don’t know about making paper; the water used gets recycled back into the environment cleaner than when it was taken out. The air polution fact given is also misleading; since it doesnt take into effect the pollution created from transporting waste from all around the country to a specialized mill. It is easier, cheaper and better for the environment to use virgin fiber…also cutting down trees in the properly managed forrest and making paper is better for the envirnment than leaving them alone. You are actually sequestering more carbon in the paper making process than you would be if you were to abandon it all together.)

    Considering the jets…I’ll yield security reasons and time constraints to the president, but not to Al Gore or Nancy Pelosi. They are total hypocrits.

    posted by graham on 2-3-2010 at 4:51 pm

15. AA-

    Comparing global warming to eugenics seems a bit hyperbolic, don’t you think? Anyway, what you’re saying is backwards- there is a scientific consensus due to sufficient findings that global warming exists; these findings are not falsehoods manufactured to suit a desired theory.

    posted by Anonymous on 2-3-2010 at 5:16 pm

16. There is not a consensus…I wholly agree with AA.

    posted by graham on 2-3-2010 at 5:27 pm

17. Graham-

    The emails- Phil Jones said it best (see “Climategate” link): “Some of the emails probably had poorly chosen words and were sent in the heat of the moment, when I was frustrated. I do regret sending some of them…” I stand by what I have said earlier. From the second link from the Guardian you’ve provided: “(The scientists) say they were engaged not in suppressing dissent but in upholding scientific standards by keeping bad science out of peer-reviewed journals.”

    Regarding the paper issue, I’m still going to trust the EPA on this one. I’m unable to find any data that supports what you’ve said, and much that supports them.

    (Neither here nor there: I find the personal attack unwarranted.)

    posted by Anonymous on 2-3-2010 at 5:39 pm

18. Sorry, but they were caught and they are lying…

    There is no denying what their e-mails were about, covering up the truth.

    You can’t just keep out stuff you don’t like because it doesn’t jive with your findings, or beliefs, or your political motives.

    Have I even mentioned their “fudge factor” yet?

    posted by graham on 2-3-2010 at 5:54 pm

19. Also, what personal attack?

    Are you referring to when you called me stupid enough to think that the world is flat?

    posted by graham on 2-3-2010 at 5:56 pm

20. See? The Morning Cup never gets a lot of comments unless I link something about climate change or global warming. But let’s not have any personal attacks or name calling, please.

    posted by Miss Cellania on 2-3-2010 at 5:59 pm

21. Miss,

    I have yet to decide whether or not I love you for that…

    Anyway, this is educational and fun!

    posted by graham on 2-3-2010 at 7:53 pm

22. Wait, is everyone in the comments passionately arguing over the Disney Princess article? Not health care or government sponsored heroin distribution?

    Why?

    posted by Lynnie on 2-3-2010 at 9:22 pm

Comment