About Interesting Global Warming Documentary
|September 2nd, 2008||#1|
| || |
Interesting Global Warming Documentary info
Obviously I think a lot of it makes sense or else I probably wouldn't have posted it here.
|September 4th, 2008||#2|
| || |
I think it comes down to a question of credibility... In one hand, we have the United Nations and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change with its virtually unlimited resources as well as the vast majority of the world's scientists, on the other hand we have several skeptics (and I suspect politically/financially motivated as well) and their tree/skull evidence from the Maldives as featured in the videos... Hmm, I don't know, this one's a hard choice.
Two required readings before you decide on who's right:
|September 4th, 2008||#3|
| || |
You know I think this argument is one of the most classic examples of not seeing the forest for the trees I have seen.
Does it matter who is right and who is wrong?
If global warming exists and we do nothing we are in deep crap and if it doesn't and we plan for global warming we end up with a vastly reduced reliance on fossil fuels (something that everyone demands we do if only because of the price of oil), a cleaner environment and a much improved lifestyle as a result.
This argument suffers from being politicised it no longer matters whether it is proven or disproven because the right wing wont back it because the left wing does and the ridiculous thing is that of Al Gore turned around and declared global warming a giant hoax tomorrow the sides would simply swap and the argument continue.
We are more often treacherous through weakness than through calculation. ~Francois De La Rochefoucauld
|September 4th, 2008||#4|
| || |
Yes I've read the type of argument on Wiki etc., to death many times before. Heck, I was involved with environmental clubs and movements from middle school through high school.
But the UN, my friend, is a political body and a pretty crappy one as well.
And you may not know how hard it is to have been pro-environment but not really buying into the whole dooms day Global Warming thing.
Beliefs etc., are a fad. Don't believe me? Communism and the like was the IN thing during the 60's and 70's. Today, Global Warming seems to be the in thing.
The folks that don't believe that the data is conclusive isn't necessarily a small fringe. Like they will tell you, and in fact Michael Crichton too has mentioned, was that it is a very difficult thing to argue against the idea that Global Warming is mostly caused by humans. If you publish anything of the sort, they will go after your whole life.
That alone makes me wonder, are the guys who are saying it's inconclusive right? Lately I've been thinking so. So you have the hockey stick charts etc., and those are correct, but these guys who have also been doing hard research are all wrong? I think that's a very arrogant statement to make.
Like I said, it's hard to believe but beliefs and ideologies have their own fad. It's a fashion sometimes. Declaring that your hero is Che Guevara can also be a fad. Declaring that your hero is General Eisenhower is also influenced to a degree by the mood of the times.
If it's not so hard to believe.
None of these guys are saying the world isn't getting warmer. They're saying that what humans are doing to cause it may be a great exaggeration.
Also, they are NOT alarmists. And the logic that only with better current records and studying of the present and past can you really understand the future. Their argument about computer models is also dead on. Heck, if computer models were so accurate, we wouldn't have to have test flights or test pilots now would we? Nor would we have so many of them die.
The earth has been much warmer than it is now many times before. They did alright. As for conflicts that arise... that's life isn't it?
Actually I don't give a crap what Al Gore has to say or whether or not the left wing said this or the right wing said that. I bet a LOT of those guys in the video who are American actually vote Democrat.
And again, even if this is real or not... there are many other reasons as to why we should reduce fossil fuel use and make better, cleaner and more efficient ways of using our resources. I've explained this one to death.
Last edited by A Can of Man; September 4th, 2008 at 08:13..
|September 5th, 2008||#5|
| || |
I thought this would be a great place to post this.
* *Today's Story* <http://www.jokes2go.com/08/9/s4.html>
A freshman at Eagle Rock Junior High won first prize at the
Falls Science Fair, April 26. He was attempting to show how
have become to the alarmists practicing junk science and spreading
everything in our environment. In his project he urged people to
petition demanding strict control or total elimination of the
chemical "dihydrogen monoxide."
And for plenty of good reasons, since it can:
1. cause excessive sweating and vomiting
2. it is a major component in acid rain
3. it can cause severe burns in its gaseous state
4. accidental inhalation can kill you
5. it contributes to erosion
6. it decreases effectiveness of automobile brakes
7. it has been found in tumors of terminal cancer patients
He asked 50 people if they supported a ban of the chemical
monoxide. Forty-three said yes, six were undecided, and only one
that the chemical was...water.
The title of his prize winning project was, "How Gullible Are We?"
The conclusion is obvious.
“War is an ugly thing but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feelings which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse.”
—John Stuart Mill