Johnkaz Posted June 24, 2007 Report Share Posted June 24, 2007 Please do not turn this post into a political slanging match, it is apolitical. I have just watched Al Gores DVD. Those of you that have not seen it, the content is regarding the very real threat to our continued existence on this planet. We really have badly screwed things up and need to alter our ways. Allow me to recommend, if you have not seen it watch it, if you think global warming is rubbish then please watch and evaluate it's content. We live in a wonderful world lets keep it that way. Cheers Johnkaz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b16a2 Posted June 24, 2007 Report Share Posted June 24, 2007 In reply to that, global warming is a very real thing, however, politicians are twisting things as usual to create change. It is a term that is used completely in the wrong context, there is no evidence that emissions are causing global warming, it is down to fluctuations in the earths temperature caused by solar rays. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gran Posted June 24, 2007 Report Share Posted June 24, 2007 Please do not turn this post into a political slanging match, it is apolitical. I have just watched Al Gores DVD. Those of you that have not seen it, the content is regarding the very real threat to our continued existence on this planet. We really have badly screwed things up and need to alter our ways. Allow me to recommend, if you have not seen it watch it, if you think global warming is rubbish then please watch and evaluate it's content. We live in a wonderful world lets keep it that way. Cheers Johnkaz Since I am not an US citizen I will not state that Gore should have won the election in FLORIDA back then..you know but even so I am not absolutely sure the world would have been in better shape by now than under the present reign of baby BUSH That being said there is no doubt that we have to take better care of this world than we do at present...Bioenergy might be one way of doing it...handing out free condoms might be another...but for sure we have to somehow reduce or energyconsumption and use of space on this wonderful planet Norwegian fjord as it looks at the present Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amplitude Posted June 24, 2007 Report Share Posted June 24, 2007 Now watch the counterpoint: The Great Global Warming Swindle http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3028847519933351566 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Usil Posted June 24, 2007 Report Share Posted June 24, 2007 Gore's movie was a docu-drama and not a documentary. If it were a true documentary it would have had the other side of these arguments rather than trying to get us to believe that no one seriously diasagrees wtth his position. Climate changes all the time and will continue to do so driven by the varrying energy of our local sun. It is funny that he does not even mention the biggest green house gas is WATER VAPOR. But since we can not do anythign about that they do not discuss it choosing to discuss a tiny part of the total green house gasses in our atmosphere. Do some homework before jumping into this camp with both feet. Usil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cool-arrow Posted June 24, 2007 Report Share Posted June 24, 2007 I dont know what to believe because everyone lies so much that is in power. I remember when the Y2K scare was rampent. I was in college and my major was computer science. With the limited knowlege that I had learned at the time I knew Y2K was BS and was enginered to make money. There were alot of people in my class taking advantage of the scare and running a BS program that would check if your computer was Y2k compliant. They would charge $300 a pop for 15 mnutes of work that they said would make your computer Y2K safe. There were hundreds of software developers that were releasing software selling it for $400 for a floppy disk that didnt do [censored]. I was also an intern for the city at the time in the IT department and I know the city spent thousands of dollars on BS software to check if there computers were compliant. I couldnt convince anyone that Y2K was fake media hype. My own parents didnt belive me and made me go buy 10 5gallon jugs of purified water. I saw all of the stores taking full advantage of the Y2K scare by advertising batteries lanterns and camping supplies. That is when I knew that we are doomed in the world becuase the majority of us are not educated and down right ignorant. This could easily be a repeat factor to make money. My science teacher in High School told us about global warming and how it was manufactured, and this was like 10 years ago. He said that people hated him for saying that. He was a professor and lost his job at ASU becuase he went against the norm of global warming and poked holes in it for years. I still think CO2 is bad becuase the air in California sux, compared to the air quality in the natonal parks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
longshot Posted June 24, 2007 Report Share Posted June 24, 2007 funny how the skeptics expect every single one of the thousands of climatologists around the world to be in 100% agreement on every aspect of an incredible complex system. and use the fact they they are all not as their argument. of course that is not how science works. but they accept without question the shoddy work of a half dozen paid shills funded by the american petroleum institute example from wikipedia; "In April 2006, a group describing itself as "sixty scientists" signed an Open Letter to the Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper to ask that he revisit the science of global warming and "Open Kyoto to debate." As with the earlier statements, critics pointed out that many of the signatories were non-scientists or lacked relevant scientific backgrounds.For example, the group included David Wojick, a journalist, and Benny Peiser, a social anthropologist. More than half the signatories cited past or emeritus positions as their main appointments. Only two (Richard Lindzen and Roy Spencer) indicated current appointments in a university department or a recognized research institute in climate science. . One of the signatories has since publicly recanted, stating that his signature was obtained by deception regarding the content of the letter. In response shortly afterward another open letter to Prime Minister Harper endorsing the IPCC report and calling for action on climate change was prepared by Gordon McBean and signed by 90 Canadian climate scientists initially, plus 30 more who endorsed it after its release" y. My science teacher in High School told us about global warming and how it was manufactured, and this was like 10 years ago. He said that people hated him for saying that. He was a professor and lost his job at ASU becuase he went against the norm of global warming and poked holes in it for years. I still think CO2 is bad becuase the air in California sux, compared to the air quality in the natonal parks. or maybe he was fired for telling students, as a high school science teacher, that global warming was settled science when it was not (it is still not)? personally i would value the opinion of thousands of climatologists with phd's who are working in their field every day and publishing peer reviewed result over a high school science teacher with probably a ba... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cool-arrow Posted June 24, 2007 Report Share Posted June 24, 2007 or maybe he was fired for telling students, as a high school science teacher, that global warming was settled science when it was not (it is still not)? personally i would value the opinion of thousands of climatologists with phd's who are working in their field every day and publishing peer reviewed result over a high school science teacher with probably a ba... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sssurfer Posted June 24, 2007 Report Share Posted June 24, 2007 Not a great issue IMHO. If global warming is man's responsibility, and the man will not take measures to correct it (and I think he won't) he will just end up as an(other) Nature's failed experiment and he will simply pass the olympic flame to some other species (mice and beetles the best candidates). If global warming is not man's responsibility, but the man will not take measures to correct it (and I think he won't) he will just end up as an(other) Nature's failed experiment and he will simply pass the olympic flame to some other species (mice and beetles the best candidates). C'mon, it's not the end of the world! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TwoTone Posted June 25, 2007 Report Share Posted June 25, 2007 I think we owe it to ourselves and our children to take the best possible care of this planet that we can. I DO NOT believe the glaciers melting is man's fault, and the dire predictions of planetary chaos are science fiction at best. But I do look around and see massive pollution and that has to stop. We can all do a part to fix that obviously human-caused problem. @B Agreed... The Rain Forest are a prime example of "Human-Caused Problems"... TT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Everythingape Posted June 25, 2007 Report Share Posted June 25, 2007 Norwegian fjord as it looks at the present Ah yes.. N Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Everythingape Posted June 25, 2007 Report Share Posted June 25, 2007 Oh I know there are many who sell them.. but the particular scam artist I'm talking about did so on ebay! I believe he was a german/danish man. The norwegian government is heavily investing in China too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Febus Posted June 27, 2007 Report Share Posted June 27, 2007 There's no doubting that human being abuse and exploit the planet. However remember how in the seventies 'they' said there was going to be a new ice age? Now it's global warming (which peversely might also trigger a new ice age) that's the threat. My own feeling is that global warming may very well be a threat to our continued existence on this planet but that the aim of politicians in promoting that theory is to use it as yet another method of social control. That's why I say 'don't believe the hype'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goofy Posted June 27, 2007 Report Share Posted June 27, 2007 Maybe the best way to reduce greenhouse gasses is to use stop hot air producers like Al Gore by keeping them from a microphone. I can Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pugwash Posted June 27, 2007 Report Share Posted June 27, 2007 Roger that, it's all politics. This is perhaps the one thing that most convinced me that global heat energy is directly related to solar activity: "Facts! You can prove anything with facts!" - Homer J Simpson. I don't understand your graph. It looks cherry-picked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pugwash Posted June 27, 2007 Report Share Posted June 27, 2007 "Facts! You can prove anything with facts!" - Homer J Simpson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pugwash Posted June 27, 2007 Report Share Posted June 27, 2007 AVAST! T'is naught but politics! Keel-haul the scalawags! "Scientific American took a sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pugwash Posted June 27, 2007 Report Share Posted June 27, 2007 Actually, the source for the graph was listed in the References section of the paper: -Jones, P. D. et. al. (1986) J. Clim. Appl. Meterol. 25, 161-179. -Grovesman, B. S. and Landsberg, H. E. (1979) Geophys. Res. Let. 6, 767-769. -Baliunas, S. and Soon, W. (1995) Astrophysical Journal 450, 896-901; Christensen, E. and Lassen, K. (1991) Science 254, 698-700; [sbaliunas, wsoon@cfa.harvard.edu]. Baliunas and Soon were two of the writers of the Oregon Petition. It is their version you see in the document. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pugwash Posted June 27, 2007 Report Share Posted June 27, 2007 Alright then we'll agree to concede that mankind caused global warming, past and present. Strawman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Everythingape Posted June 27, 2007 Report Share Posted June 27, 2007 When you take the average growth of norwegians in terms of height the last 100 years, and extrapolate backwards to the great battle of Stiklestad in 1030 AD, where our noble king Olav Haraldsson died, you'll find the people on the battlefield that day were about the size of a present day 4 year old boy.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnkaz Posted July 1, 2007 Author Report Share Posted July 1, 2007 Lets look at this another way, If the whole global warming thing turns out to be caused by mankind as the vast majority of unbiased scientists think. If we carry on poluting and cause extremes of weather and rising sea levels, mass famine and basically destroy the world as we know it, then we are fools. On the other hand if the whole situation is hype and we have no control , but we go ahead and take measures to reduce Co2 and replant mighty forests and all the other ways we can stop global warming, then we have lost nothing at all and may all end up living in a better world. Which scenario do you prefer?? When I started this post I did say try to leave politics out of this, this is obviously impossible for some of you particularly in the USA. But how about this for a statistic you produce 33% of the worlds greenhouse gasses. But you only account for 5% of the worlds population. It may be time to start thinking outside of the box. Cheers Johnkaz. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b16a2 Posted July 1, 2007 Report Share Posted July 1, 2007 I take it that statstic is that USA produces 33% of the greenhouse gases emitted by humans, and not 33% of all gases in total? There is only 0.04% of C02 in the air, so break that down to what humans contribute, then 33% of that figure is minimal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pugwash Posted July 3, 2007 Report Share Posted July 3, 2007 I take it that statstic is that USA produces 33% of the greenhouse gases emitted by humans, and not 33% of all gases in total? There is only 0.04% of C02 in the air, so break that down to what humans contribute, then 33% of that figure is minimal. What about the butterfly effect? A minimal change in an otherwise stable model is all that's needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ratchpot Posted July 3, 2007 Report Share Posted July 3, 2007 Maybe Al Gore can clear up all this confusion by making "An Inconvenient Truth: Part II".... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b16a2 Posted July 3, 2007 Report Share Posted July 3, 2007 What about the butterfly effect? A minimal change in an otherwise stable model is all that's needed. Yes but the fact that the main change is caused by events byond our control, being more green will not do alot to change the global temperature I do agree we should be more green, we should be more healthy etc.... but for different reasons, not this 'political scam' thet Al Gore is selling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now