research for yourselves guys Al Gore's documentary just doesnt add up. Dont believe me but I implore you to do the research on your own. I did and I found so much stuff from that film that just didnt make a hell of sense' Sorta like when he said he invented the internet.
I agree with you. People SHOULD most emphatically research for themselves. In this case, you could have saved face by not saying that Al Gore said he invented the internet. He didn't say that, what he said was a bit different, and factually correct.
If you do have anything from the film that doesn't make sense to you please post it and we will discuss it. I will try to approach anything you say with an open mind and treat it fairly and objectively. I ask that you do the same.
research for yourselves guys Al Gore's documentary just doesnt add up. Dont believe me but I implore you to do the research on your own. I did and I found so much stuff from that film that just didnt make a hell of sense' Sorta like when he said he invented the internet.
In this case, you could have saved face by not saying that Al Gore said he invented the internet. He didn't say that, what he said was a bit different, and factually correct.
BLITZER: I want to get to some of the substance of domestic and international issues in a minute, but let's just wrap up a little bit of the politics right now.
Why should Democrats, looking at the Democratic nomination process, support you instead of Bill Bradley, a friend of yours, a former colleague in the Senate? What do you have to bring to this that he doesn't necessarily bring to this process?
GORE: Well, I will be offering -- I'll be offering my vision when my campaign begins. And it will be comprehensive and sweeping. And I hope that it will be compelling enough to draw people toward it. I feel that it will be.
But it will emerge from my dialogue with the American people. I've traveled to every part of this country during the last six years. During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system.
If you do have anything from the film that doesn't make sense to you please post it and we will discuss it. I will try to approach anything you say with an open mind and treat it fairly and objectively. I ask that you do the same.
S. Fred Singer, an atmospheric physicist, is Research Fellow at the Independent Institute, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia, and former founding Director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service. He is author of Hot Talk, Cold Science: Global Warming’s Unfinished Debate (The Independent Institute, 1997).
There is a very easy to understand and short explanation in the Great Global Warming Swindle video that explains very clearly how Gore intentionally or mistakenly (whichever you prefer) misreads basic graphical data in order to support his point. Please watch it and make your own judegement.
The rest of the links should get you started on a balanced point of view. If your still convinced carbon drives our climate after reading them.... show me what convinced you. Because I read very widely and I havnt seen anything that convinces me.
+-+-+-+-+-+ "MMOs, for people that like think chatting is like a skill or something, rotflol" http://purepwnage.com -+-+-+-+-+-+ "Far away across the field, the tolling of the iron bell, calls the faithful to their knees. To hear the softly spoken magic spell" Pink Floyd-Dark Side of the Moon
The earth is a excellent "invention" that is able to balance everything it does in a amazing way. We know temperature has gone up and down over the history of this planet. So far it has always managed to recover, to restart. Volcanoes, cows, the oceans, the ice caps and the sun. Their all a part of this cycle, this system.
But what we add on top of that isn't. Our emission of various gases and our massive use of fossil fuels. All this adds onto the "natural" problems this system is battling. One day it won't be able to recover. And we are not talking about a massive margin here, this system is bloody fragile.
And please don't use Al Gore as the front figure for Global Warming. He is a politician who has made a political movie.
I'm watching a thing on global warming on the history channel right now and they had Al Gore spewing out worthless dribble. It really makes me mad because he was talking about how theres no debate to human cause of it, when in actuallity humans ARE NOT the cause...
Humans are the cause of global warming and there is no longer any debate about this in scientific circles. Denialits stick strictly to press releases and mediums where they don’t actuly have to back their positions with evidence. They avoid publishing papers like they are the plague, most likely because they don’t know the difference between degrees and radians.
Denialists? Now were a cult?
Did you know that the current global warming scare was actually started by Margaret Thatcher back in the 1970's and there have been no less than FOUR climate change "oh no we're all going to die" scares in the last century?
We also should really start thinking of cutting our emmisions on the planet mars...it has been getting hotter lately too, perhaps a more environmentally friendly mars rover?
Denailists are pretty close to being a cult. The form of the arguments they use are nearly exactly the same as the ones the 9/11 is a hoax, moon landing is a hoax people use. The fact is that the last 25 years have had the most rapid warming since the end of the last ice age and the last 10 have been warmer then any decade in the last 2000 years. There are no comparable changes this millennia let alone this century.
See the last part of your post for what I said about how similar denailist logic is to the moon landing hoax whacko’s? Just like those people, the denialists are more then willing to disregard direct satellite measurements showing that the sun is not heating up because some vague irrelevant factoid they say proves their case. Mars is reasonably well understood as other planets go, and it goes through cyclical warming/cooling due to it’s inclination and the eccentricity of it’s orbit. What do either of these have to do with the climate on earth?
research for yourselves guys Al Gore's documentary just doesnt add up. Dont believe me but I implore you to do the research on your own. I did and I found so much stuff from that film that just didnt make a hell of sense' Sorta like when he said he invented the internet.
In this case, you could have saved face by not saying that Al Gore said he invented the internet. He didn't say that, what he said was a bit different, and factually correct.
BLITZER: I want to get to some of the substance of domestic and international issues in a minute, but let's just wrap up a little bit of the politics right now.
Why should Democrats, looking at the Democratic nomination process, support you instead of Bill Bradley, a friend of yours, a former colleague in the Senate? What do you have to bring to this that he doesn't necessarily bring to this process?
GORE: Well, I will be offering -- I'll be offering my vision when my campaign begins. And it will be comprehensive and sweeping. And I hope that it will be compelling enough to draw people toward it. I feel that it will be.
But it will emerge from my dialogue with the American people. I've traveled to every part of this country during the last six years. During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system.
Gore played a major role in enabling the current internet backbone. In 1991 Gore kicked off the initiative to create the “information superhighway” with the high performance computing act of 1991.
Before this the internet primarily consisted of telephone lines connecting educational institutions. Typically these were T1 connections maxing out at 1.4Mb/sec, which means the entire backbone of the internet was much slower then most home internet connections today. There was also no such thing as a web browser, the internet consisted of FTP, telnet and text search engines like ARCHIE and GOPHER. Among other things, Gore’s bill created the National Centre for Supercomputing Applications which invented the web browser.
So, while he may have misspoke a little it is utterly foolish to claim Gore didn’t have a huge impact on the Internet as it exists today. His legislation transformed the internet from a small somewhat useful tool into what it is today.
I'm watching a thing on global warming on the history channel right now and they had Al Gore spewing out worthless dribble. It really makes me mad because he was talking about how theres no debate to human cause of it, when in actuallity humans ARE NOT the cause...
So what? Dismiss the fact that we as humans can do something to help slow the global warming process down, wtf is that!?! At least he is trying to do something about it instead of our bullshit ass president who sits on his ass for 2 terms and then comes up with a half ass plan right before he gets out of office. I dont see how it can piss people off that there is a man out there that is trying to enlighten people so that we can have a few more years on this earth.
While people whine about global warming and blame it on humans (talk about an inflated sense of self), 5 different animal species, and many more plants, have become extinct (since 2000, about when the global warming thing started to take off):
Pyrenean Ibex - Jan. 6, 2000
Miss Waldron's Red Colobus Monkey - 2000-2001
Po'o-uli - Nov. 28, 2004
West African Black Rhino - Jun. 8, 2006
Yangtze River Dolphin - Dec. 13, 2006
EDIT: These animals died out because of humans destroying their habitat, or because of poaching. My point was that while humans contribute very, very little to global warming, we are harming the planet in much more direct ways that nobody seems to care about.
I'll agree with Pyrite here, if only would say that on TV. We DO need to get our shit together. And we DO need to make cars that run on Chinese People...wait....Scratch that last part. The point is this is going to be problem sometime or another, however, as people have mentioned our planet has a system. If we start messing with that system by say lowering CO2 emissions, I don't think we'll be able to get our hands back out of that system, ever. It's our right as humans to do whatever we want to this loving lump of rock floating in space, but it's also our human right to not kill every other human here. This is not just a right, it's a responsibilty. Oh Ben Riley, where are you when we need words that even Spider-Man can hold true?
I'm watching a thing on global warming on the history channel right now and they had Al Gore spewing out worthless dribble. It really makes me mad because he was talking about how theres no debate to human cause of it, when in actuallity humans ARE NOT the cause...
Humans are the cause of global warming and there is no longer any debate about this in scientific circles. Denialits stick strictly to press releases and mediums where they don’t actuly have to back their positions with evidence. They avoid publishing papers like they are the plague, most likely because they don’t know the difference between degrees and radians.
Denialists? Now were a cult?
Did you know that the current global warming scare was actually started by Margaret Thatcher back in the 1970's and there have been no less than FOUR climate change "oh no we're all going to die" scares in the last century?
We also should really start thinking of cutting our emmisions on the planet mars...it has been getting hotter lately too, perhaps a more environmentally friendly mars rover?
Denailists are pretty close to being a cult. The form of the arguments they use are nearly exactly the same as the ones the 9/11 is a hoax, moon landing is a hoax people use. The fact is that the last 25 years have had the most rapid warming since the end of the last ice age and the last 10 have been warmer then any decade in the last 2000 years. There are no comparable changes this millennia let alone this century.
See the last part of your post for what I said about how similar denailist logic is to the moon landing hoax whacko’s? Just like those people, the denialists are more then willing to disregard direct satellite measurements showing that the sun is not heating up because some vague irrelevant factoid they say proves their case. Mars is reasonably well understood as other planets go, and it goes through cyclical warming/cooling due to it’s inclination and the eccentricity of it’s orbit. What do either of these have to do with the climate on earth?
You're comparing people who deny that global warming is man made to the people who think that 9/11 was a hoax? Jeez dude.....
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Okay so the thing I don't understand is why there is this debate at all? If humans are contributing to it then just take steps to fix the problem. Then even if you are wrong at least you have a cleaner environment, if you are right you save the world. On the other hand if we choose not to believe it and do nothing, if we are wrong lots of people die and future generations have a hard life not to mention mass extinction, if you are right good job but, you still have a more and more poluted environment. The answer is simple, don't be biased, use logic so you will be prepared whether you are right or wrong.
Your mind is like a parachute, it's only useful when it's open. Don't forget, you can use the block function on trolls.
Okay so the thing I don't understand is why there is this debate at all? If humans are contributing to it then just take steps to fix the problem. Then even if you are wrong at least you have a cleaner environment, if you are right you save the world. On the other hand if we choose not to believe it and do nothing, if we are wrong lots of people die and future generations have a hard life not to mention mass extinction, if you are right good job but, you still have a more and more poluted environment. The answer is simple, don't be biased, use logic so you will be prepared whether you are right or wrong.
$$$$$$
That's why
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Denailists are pretty close to being a cult. The form of the arguments they use are nearly exactly the same as the ones the 9/11 is a hoax, moon landing is a hoax people use.
You want to talk about hoaxes, you need look no further than the IPCC report. It has beeen described by the former head and co-founder of Greenpeace as nothing more than a political document.
Yours is such a weak position in the face of the quality information others have posted. Im frankly surprised you have the hide to even post it.
Shame....
An Enterie you are displaying the same confusion as many people on this topic. This thread and Al Gore's movie are about whether or not Co2 drives our climate.
The issues of acid rain, excess wastage, depleting the ozone layer, industrial polution, degradation of natural habitats, etc etc etc are not in debate here. No one disagrees that a cleaner environment is a positive thing. Thats not what this topic is about. I really wish people would exercise the simple common sense, logic and honesty to understand the difference when contributing to these threads.
+-+-+-+-+-+ "MMOs, for people that like think chatting is like a skill or something, rotflol" http://purepwnage.com -+-+-+-+-+-+ "Far away across the field, the tolling of the iron bell, calls the faithful to their knees. To hear the softly spoken magic spell" Pink Floyd-Dark Side of the Moon
You want to talk about hoaxes, you need look no further than the IPCC report. It has beeen described by the former head and co-founder of Greenpeace as nothing more than a political document.
Yours is such a weak position in the face of the quality information others have posted. Im frankly surprised you have the hide to even post it.
Shame....
Right, thats why it cites more then 600 published peer reviewed papers
How many published peer reviewed papers can the denialists point to? Can they point to any at all? Go find even 1 paper that supports your opinion for every 100 that opposes it. Bet you cant do it.
I would suggest to you all to go swimming in more rivers near food plants and electrical plants.
I would also suggest you go to China and see how all the lovely mercury filled fish taste. (Which kills quite a lot of them each year)
I would also suggest you sit in some volcanic smoke and ash then go sit in some of the coal factories smoke and ash.
Just to be safe, I would say you all really have no clue whats going on but what right wing or left wing tells you. The simple fact is when your breath in the crap we are pumping in the air you can die.
I will say this, when tons of scientist who are not paid off get together and tell everyone that global warming is a threat and humans have had an effect on it, believe them.
People who ignore global warming and ignore the earth are lazy and morons. When you shit where you eat and then roll in said shit, your a filthy moron or else your a fat pig of a human being.
We as human beings have polluted waters so bad that sea food all over the world has mercury in it. We have cut down tons of the worlds trees and killed off mass amounts of animals. We have polluted rivers, lakes, and streams so much so that now they are fenced off cause its hazardous to swim in them or drink them. We have made it where the very air you breath in the city is nasty and disgusting compared to the air in the country.
If that crap we are pumping in the air is not doing anything but partially speeding things up, might wanna take a look at how everything causes cancer.
I don't a hell what anyone says, global warming is real and its here and we need to try and fix it. If you think it is not real do what you were gonna do even if it was not here, do only things you want and say to hell with everyone else.
It really does not matter what any of the people who don't believe in global warming do. They were not really gonna do anything anyways. All the scientist who say man kind is at fault are scientist known for not being paid off or scam artist. All the scientist that say global warming is not caused by humans are car scoundrels that have been paid off because they like money more than human life.
Be cool to people, and try and stay cool that way you never have to regret making someone feel bad. Don't take what ya got granted because some people never get to feel happy. We get to play these great MMOs and surf a good site. Be thankful for what ya got and next time ya feel down imagine a fat sea otter waddling with a pillow and a night cap. Bam! smiles!
This guy easily owns any of my reasoning. I yield. Seriously. I'm humbled.
Did everyone watch that?
I agree with Madace, I am humbled by this man and I consider myself pretty damn brigth.
Notice that this man never asks or even argue about wether or not we are responsible.
Thats because it does not have much to do about the issue, the only thing the answer to that question can tell us is wether or not it will be easy or hard to come about a change, or impossible.
One thing to take note about here I think is this.
If we are not responsible but GCC is indeed real in every aspect of the word, would not the access and ability to burn of as much fossile fuel as we can to counter a natural cause help us accomplish that?
Or say we are partially responsible and part of the solution is to stop fossile fuels entriely, but by doing so we make it almost impossible to accomplish the goal.
Tough questions but as I see it, regardless, some serious science needs to go into the question "What can we do?"
"Who did it?" Is realtively small and inconsequantial question, and would be answered in "What can we do?" in any case.
Less time in trying to put blame and more time in working on the issue is my advice.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Originally posted by Jerek_
I wonder if you honestly even believe what you type, or if you live in a made up world of facts. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay so the thing I don't understand is why there is this debate at all? If humans are contributing to it then just take steps to fix the problem. Then even if you are wrong at least you have a cleaner environment, if you are right you save the world. On the other hand if we choose not to believe it and do nothing, if we are wrong lots of people die and future generations have a hard life not to mention mass extinction, if you are right good job but, you still have a more and more poluted environment. The answer is simple, don't be biased, use logic so you will be prepared whether you are right or wrong.
You want to talk about hoaxes, you need look no further than the IPCC report. It has beeen described by the former head and co-founder of Greenpeace as nothing more than a political document. http://www.jbs.org/node/602 Yours is such a weak position in the face of the quality information others have posted. Im frankly surprised you have the hide to even post it. Shame....
Right, that’s why it cites more then 600 published peer reviewed papers…
How many published peer reviewed papers can the denialists point to? Can they point to any at all? Go find even 1 paper that supports your opinion for every 100 that opposes it. Bet you can’t do it.
Show me one paper that cites observational data and not climate modeling. In the 70's there were hundreds of climate experts with peer reviewd papers saying we were entering a new ice age. It didnt happen.
In the 1800's there were peer reviwed papers saying Communism was the ultimate form of government or that man would never walk on the moon.
The difference with the eminent group of climate experts you call "the denialists" is that they base thier findings on observational evidence as opposed to emotional predictions of global catastrophe. I can not belive you have even bothered to research your own opinions because your arguments have the characteristic thinness of the underinformed.
You are confused of the difference between science and pseudo science my friend.
But just to afford you a level of courtesy by researching the answer to your question, a level of courtesy you have afforded neither me nor yourself. Here is a short list of well respected sceintists who strongly dispute the unsubstantiated notion of Co2 driving our climate. Please do me and your credibility the courtesy of coming back with something more substantial than personal insults regarding cults of 911 and the moon landings.
Professor Philip Scott, Dept of Biogeography, University of London
Dr Piers Corben Climate Forcaster, Weather Action (Nobel Prize Nominate)
Professor Ian Clark Dept of Earth Sciences, University of Ottowa
Professor Nir Shaviv, Institute of Physiscs, University of Jerusalem
Professor Tim Ball, Dept of Climatology, University of Winnipeg
Patrick Moore, Co Founder, Greenpeace
Professor John Cristy Lead Author IPCC (thats the knockout punch right there, he had his name removd from the final IPCC report because it was so fanciful, they chose him and he didnt agree with the fiction) And I quote him :
"Ive often heard it said that there is a concensus of thousands of scientists on the global warming issue, that humans are causing a catastrophic change in the climate system. Well I am one scientist and there are many, who simply say that, that is not true"
Take this simple premise and think about it.
Im assuming you agree the world has been through several ice ages ?
If you do then ask yourself how those ice ages ended ?
Was it prehistoric deisel vehicles and stone age factories that warmed the climate ?
As for the clip.... droughts... floods.... hurricanes... desertisation... Damn thats never happened before... we must be causing it.... rofl
AND STOP TALKING ABOUT MECURY IN RIVERS.... DAMN GUYS THIS IS ABOUT Co2 AND THE WEATHER MAKE ANOTHER THREAD INSTEAD OF HIJACKING THIS ONE!!
+-+-+-+-+-+ "MMOs, for people that like think chatting is like a skill or something, rotflol" http://purepwnage.com -+-+-+-+-+-+ "Far away across the field, the tolling of the iron bell, calls the faithful to their knees. To hear the softly spoken magic spell" Pink Floyd-Dark Side of the Moon
This guy easily owns any of my reasoning. I yield. Seriously. I'm humbled.
Did everyone watch that?
I agree with Madace, I am humbled by this man and I consider myself pretty damn brigth.
Notice that this man never asks or even argue about wether or not we are responsible.
Thats because it does not have much to do about the issue, the only thing the answer to that question can tell us is wether or not it will be easy or hard to come about a change, or impossible.
One thing to take note about here I think is this.
If we are not responsible but GCC is indeed real in every aspect of the word, would not the access and ability to burn of as much fossile fuel as we can to counter a natural cause help us accomplish that?
Or say we are partially responsible and part of the solution is to stop fossile fuels entriely, but by doing so we make it almost impossible to accomplish the goal.
Tough questions but as I see it, regardless, some serious science needs to go into the question "What can we do?"
"Who did it?" Is realtively small and inconsequantial question, and would be answered in "What can we do?" in any case.
Less time in trying to put blame and more time in working on the issue is my advice.
It was a well presented, decent argument. The only thing I would point out is that if we are having little effect on global warming, and that there's nothing we can do to stop it, then his bottom left hand box should read the same as the bottom right in terms of global disaster. This would mean that the worst case scenarios of A and B are exactly the same, and the B option starts to become the more attractive, because A is all bad. At least with B there's a chance of a smiley face.
Oke. It's really simple. I'm using absolute scanario's here. So the bad scanrio's are the worst case scenario's.
Either we do nothing. And there's no global warming. Perfect.
Either we do something. And there's notglobal warming. Result:We lost billions and billions and billions of euro's switching to safer, healthier, more independent and cleaner economies. The world will hit a huge economical crisis and recession.
Either we do something and there is global warming. Perfect.
Or we do nothing and there is global warming. The world hits a worse economical kick in the balls than the 30's depression and the fall of the roman empire combined. Disaster after disaster will hit every country in the world. Millions will die in a very short timespan, damaging entire economies. Hundreds of millions of people will be displaced. Wars will break out ovr scarce resources and services like water, electricity and medical care will be in danger or even non-existent, even in developed countries. Extremist regimes will rise up everywhere. Small scale nuclear wars will be no exception. Countries will break up, revolutions will spread and civil disobidience will ravage democratically elected governments. Then there are the horrible ecological catastrophes. Species will die out, destroying the already weak balance of species that provide us humans. Sea levels will rise, flooding entire nations. It will take us hundreds of years to recover. Let's say your pensions will be highly insecure...
Comments
I agree with you. People SHOULD most emphatically research for themselves. In this case, you could have saved face by not saying that Al Gore said he invented the internet. He didn't say that, what he said was a bit different, and factually correct.
If you do have anything from the film that doesn't make sense to you please post it and we will discuss it. I will try to approach anything you say with an open mind and treat it fairly and objectively. I ask that you do the same.
Sounds pretty clear cut to me
People who have to create conspiracy and hate threads to further a cause lacks in intellectual comprehension of diversity.
http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/index.html
http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1945
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=d0235a70-33f1-45b3-803b-829b1b3542ef
http://blog.nam.org/archives/2006/05/an_inconvenient.php
http://mediamatters.org/items/200606080005
http://reddit.com/info/7sxd/comments
And
S. Fred Singer, an atmospheric physicist, is Research Fellow at the Independent Institute, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia, and former founding Director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service. He is author of Hot Talk, Cold Science: Global Warming’s Unfinished Debate (The Independent Institute, 1997).
There is a very easy to understand and short explanation in the Great Global Warming Swindle video that explains very clearly how Gore intentionally or mistakenly (whichever you prefer) misreads basic graphical data in order to support his point. Please watch it and make your own judegement.
The rest of the links should get you started on a balanced point of view. If your still convinced carbon drives our climate after reading them.... show me what convinced you. Because I read very widely and I havnt seen anything that convinces me.
+-+-+-+-+-+
"MMOs, for people that like think chatting is like a skill or something, rotflol"
http://purepwnage.com
-+-+-+-+-+-+
"Far away across the field, the tolling of the iron bell, calls the faithful to their knees. To hear the softly spoken magic spell" Pink Floyd-Dark Side of the Moon
But what we add on top of that isn't. Our emission of various gases and our massive use of fossil fuels. All this adds onto the "natural" problems this system is battling. One day it won't be able to recover. And we are not talking about a massive margin here, this system is bloody fragile.
And please don't use Al Gore as the front figure for Global Warming. He is a politician who has made a political movie.
No matter what we do and what environmental changes take place some form of life will survive and adapt. We may well cause our own extinction.
The most important part of reading is reading between the lines.
Denialists? Now were a cult?
Did you know that the current global warming scare was actually started by Margaret Thatcher back in the 1970's and there have been no less than FOUR climate change "oh no we're all going to die" scares in the last century?
We also should really start thinking of cutting our emmisions on the planet mars...it has been getting hotter lately too, perhaps a more environmentally friendly mars rover?
Sounds pretty clear cut to me
CLICK HERE TO GET A LIST OF FREE MMO LISTS!!!
Pyrenean Ibex - Jan. 6, 2000
Miss Waldron's Red Colobus Monkey - 2000-2001
Po'o-uli - Nov. 28, 2004
West African Black Rhino - Jun. 8, 2006
Yangtze River Dolphin - Dec. 13, 2006
EDIT: These animals died out because of humans destroying their habitat, or because of poaching. My point was that while humans contribute very, very little to global warming, we are harming the planet in much more direct ways that nobody seems to care about.
"Kaneda! What...do you see?"
Thats of course you believe in the liberal agenda of Global Warming.
I dont believe it at all. So, Im not too worried about it.
People who have to create conspiracy and hate threads to further a cause lacks in intellectual comprehension of diversity.
Denialists? Now were a cult?
Did you know that the current global warming scare was actually started by Margaret Thatcher back in the 1970's and there have been no less than FOUR climate change "oh no we're all going to die" scares in the last century?
We also should really start thinking of cutting our emmisions on the planet mars...it has been getting hotter lately too, perhaps a more environmentally friendly mars rover?
You're comparing people who deny that global warming is man made to the people who think that 9/11 was a hoax? Jeez dude.....
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Your mind is like a parachute, it's only useful when it's open.
Don't forget, you can use the block function on trolls.
$$$$$$
That's why
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
You want to talk about hoaxes, you need look no further than the IPCC report. It has beeen described by the former head and co-founder of Greenpeace as nothing more than a political document.
http://www.jbs.org/node/602
Yours is such a weak position in the face of the quality information others have posted. Im frankly surprised you have the hide to even post it.
Shame....
An Enterie you are displaying the same confusion as many people on this topic. This thread and Al Gore's movie are about whether or not Co2 drives our climate.
The issues of acid rain, excess wastage, depleting the ozone layer, industrial polution, degradation of natural habitats, etc etc etc are not in debate here. No one disagrees that a cleaner environment is a positive thing. Thats not what this topic is about. I really wish people would exercise the simple common sense, logic and honesty to understand the difference when contributing to these threads.
+-+-+-+-+-+
"MMOs, for people that like think chatting is like a skill or something, rotflol"
http://purepwnage.com
-+-+-+-+-+-+
"Far away across the field, the tolling of the iron bell, calls the faithful to their knees. To hear the softly spoken magic spell" Pink Floyd-Dark Side of the Moon
Right, thats why it cites more then 600 published peer reviewed papers
How many published peer reviewed papers can the denialists point to? Can they point to any at all? Go find even 1 paper that supports your opinion for every 100 that opposes it. Bet you cant do it.
I would also suggest you go to China and see how all the lovely mercury filled fish taste. (Which kills quite a lot of them each year)
I would also suggest you sit in some volcanic smoke and ash then go sit in some of the coal factories smoke and ash.
Just to be safe, I would say you all really have no clue whats going on but what right wing or left wing tells you. The simple fact is when your breath in the crap we are pumping in the air you can die.
I will say this, when tons of scientist who are not paid off get together and tell everyone that global warming is a threat and humans have had an effect on it, believe them.
People who ignore global warming and ignore the earth are lazy and morons. When you shit where you eat and then roll in said shit, your a filthy moron or else your a fat pig of a human being.
We as human beings have polluted waters so bad that sea food all over the world has mercury in it. We have cut down tons of the worlds trees and killed off mass amounts of animals. We have polluted rivers, lakes, and streams so much so that now they are fenced off cause its hazardous to swim in them or drink them. We have made it where the very air you breath in the city is nasty and disgusting compared to the air in the country.
If that crap we are pumping in the air is not doing anything but partially speeding things up, might wanna take a look at how everything causes cancer.
I don't a hell what anyone says, global warming is real and its here and we need to try and fix it. If you think it is not real do what you were gonna do even if it was not here, do only things you want and say to hell with everyone else.
It really does not matter what any of the people who don't believe in global warming do. They were not really gonna do anything anyways. All the scientist who say man kind is at fault are scientist known for not being paid off or scam artist. All the scientist that say global warming is not caused by humans are car scoundrels that have been paid off because they like money more than human life.
Be cool to people, and try and stay cool that way you never have to regret making someone feel bad. Don't take what ya got granted because some people never get to feel happy. We get to play these great MMOs and surf a good site. Be thankful for what ya got and next time ya feel down imagine a fat sea otter waddling with a pillow and a night cap. Bam! smiles!
Did everyone watch that?
I agree with Madace, I am humbled by this man and I consider myself pretty damn brigth.
Notice that this man never asks or even argue about wether or not we are responsible.
Thats because it does not have much to do about the issue, the only thing the answer to that question can tell us is wether or not it will be easy or hard to come about a change, or impossible.
One thing to take note about here I think is this.
If we are not responsible but GCC is indeed real in every aspect of the word, would not the access and ability to burn of as much fossile fuel as we can to counter a natural cause help us accomplish that?
Or say we are partially responsible and part of the solution is to stop fossile fuels entriely, but by doing so we make it almost impossible to accomplish the goal.
Tough questions but as I see it, regardless, some serious science needs to go into the question "What can we do?"
"Who did it?" Is realtively small and inconsequantial question, and would be answered in "What can we do?" in any case.
Less time in trying to put blame and more time in working on the issue is my advice.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Jerek_
I wonder if you honestly even believe what you type, or if you live in a made up world of facts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$$$$$$
That's why
Did you watch the video clip Madace posted?Right, that’s why it cites more then 600 published peer reviewed papers…
How many published peer reviewed papers can the denialists point to? Can they point to any at all? Go find even 1 paper that supports your opinion for every 100 that opposes it. Bet you can’t do it.
Show me one paper that cites observational data and not climate modeling. In the 70's there were hundreds of climate experts with peer reviewd papers saying we were entering a new ice age. It didnt happen.
In the 1800's there were peer reviwed papers saying Communism was the ultimate form of government or that man would never walk on the moon.
The difference with the eminent group of climate experts you call "the denialists" is that they base thier findings on observational evidence as opposed to emotional predictions of global catastrophe. I can not belive you have even bothered to research your own opinions because your arguments have the characteristic thinness of the underinformed.
You are confused of the difference between science and pseudo science my friend.
But just to afford you a level of courtesy by researching the answer to your question, a level of courtesy you have afforded neither me nor yourself. Here is a short list of well respected sceintists who strongly dispute the unsubstantiated notion of Co2 driving our climate. Please do me and your credibility the courtesy of coming back with something more substantial than personal insults regarding cults of 911 and the moon landings.
Dr Roy Spencer, Weather Satelite Team Leader, NASA
Professor Patrick Michaels, Dept. of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia
Professor Richard Lindzen MIT (IPCC Co Author who also had his name removed from the final report for the sake of his credibility)
Professor Paul Reiter IPCC Author and Pastuer Institute Member, Paris
Professor Philip Scott, Dept of Biogeography, University of London
Dr Piers Corben Climate Forcaster, Weather Action (Nobel Prize Nominate)
Professor Ian Clark Dept of Earth Sciences, University of Ottowa
Professor Nir Shaviv, Institute of Physiscs, University of Jerusalem
Professor Tim Ball, Dept of Climatology, University of Winnipeg
Patrick Moore, Co Founder, Greenpeace
Professor John Cristy Lead Author IPCC (thats the knockout punch right there, he had his name removd from the final IPCC report because it was so fanciful, they chose him and he didnt agree with the fiction) And I quote him :
"Ive often heard it said that there is a concensus of thousands of scientists on the global warming issue, that humans are causing a catastrophic change in the climate system. Well I am one scientist and there are many, who simply say that, that is not true"
Take this simple premise and think about it.
Im assuming you agree the world has been through several ice ages ?
If you do then ask yourself how those ice ages ended ?
Was it prehistoric deisel vehicles and stone age factories that warmed the climate ?
Take a moment to think about it.
Then click this link : http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001AGUFMPP21C..12V See how much of that you can understand.
As for the clip.... droughts... floods.... hurricanes... desertisation... Damn thats never happened before... we must be causing it.... rofl
AND STOP TALKING ABOUT MECURY IN RIVERS.... DAMN GUYS THIS IS ABOUT Co2 AND THE WEATHER MAKE ANOTHER THREAD INSTEAD OF HIJACKING THIS ONE!!
+-+-+-+-+-+
"MMOs, for people that like think chatting is like a skill or something, rotflol"
http://purepwnage.com
-+-+-+-+-+-+
"Far away across the field, the tolling of the iron bell, calls the faithful to their knees. To hear the softly spoken magic spell" Pink Floyd-Dark Side of the Moon
Did everyone watch that?
I agree with Madace, I am humbled by this man and I consider myself pretty damn brigth.
Notice that this man never asks or even argue about wether or not we are responsible.
Thats because it does not have much to do about the issue, the only thing the answer to that question can tell us is wether or not it will be easy or hard to come about a change, or impossible.
One thing to take note about here I think is this.
If we are not responsible but GCC is indeed real in every aspect of the word, would not the access and ability to burn of as much fossile fuel as we can to counter a natural cause help us accomplish that?
Or say we are partially responsible and part of the solution is to stop fossile fuels entriely, but by doing so we make it almost impossible to accomplish the goal.
Tough questions but as I see it, regardless, some serious science needs to go into the question "What can we do?"
"Who did it?" Is realtively small and inconsequantial question, and would be answered in "What can we do?" in any case.
Less time in trying to put blame and more time in working on the issue is my advice.
It was a well presented, decent argument. The only thing I would point out is that if we are having little effect on global warming, and that there's nothing we can do to stop it, then his bottom left hand box should read the same as the bottom right in terms of global disaster. This would mean that the worst case scenarios of A and B are exactly the same, and the B option starts to become the more attractive, because A is all bad. At least with B there's a chance of a smiley face.Global warming is an issue whether or not anyone believes that humans are the source of the problem.
Personally, I'd rather do what I can to help slow down global warming because it's messing with the flora and fauna.
Seems clear to me what the cheapest option is...
CLICK HERE TO GET A LIST OF FREE MMO LISTS!!!