| An Inconvient Truth | |
|
{JF}Jesse - Student |
Any one else seen Al Gore's documentary? If you haven't I recommend that if you have some free time and you're bored go see it, it really put some things in perspective and cleared some stuff up about global warming. If you have seen it, what did you think? |
| < Recent Comments | Login and add your comment! | Previous Comments > |
| Comments |
|
Buzz - Student 
|
Quote: If you insist. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/04/gray-on-agw/ I suppose technically this doesn’t discredit him, but it does address his major points. Real Climate, the definition of the agenda of the global warming advocates. Quote: Highly, I repeat, highly unlikely when two things have a direct connection to each other like CO2 levels and temperature. And as for a third factor that is influencing both in the same way all throughtout history, again highly unlikely. Oh I think the sun could have quite an impact on it. Quote: I never said the left hasn’t slandered the right, just as the right so often slanders the left.(for further information see “flip-flopper”) However that was not the point. The point is that you shouldn’t be using sources that are as sketchy as Burnett here. It just sucks when someone's own words are used against him. And I don't think I've taken any direct siding with Burnett. I don't trust doomsayers though, and I think they're full of it. Quote: It does change everything. He is voicing his disappointment that the some scientists have to exaggerate to get the media’s attention. It is the idea/belief behind the words that counts. And is that a direct quote or a paraphrase? I might be missing it but I don’t see that on daly’s website or in schneider’s explanation. Changes nothing. He talks of being honest and being effective. And that he hopes to be both, but he doesn't actually say which is more important. But if you're honest and you voice your doubts about the evidence presented then the public won't listen to you. So he talks about what is done beforehand. Scary scenarios, speaking with absolute certainty. "try and be honest but lie if you need to get enough attention." Quote: Actually they are predicting a major disaster. The warming is already happening, that much we are in agreement about. The major disaster they are predicting is that all the ice at the poles will melt. The melting is already occurring. And as some of the ice melts, the water it becomes begins to work its way through the ice to the ground below……making holes like swiss cheese and further destabilizing the ice. Anyways, if the glaciers melt their will be major flooding along the coasts that would displace 100’s of millions of people worldwide. Makes Katrina look like a lil baby. When did the poles begin melting? When did the Glaciers begin melting? Do you know? How can you be certain that they haven't been receding since the last ice age? In fact I'll say they have, since I'm living in a place that was once covered by glaciers. We really need to get a move on reversing the warming of the earth. Quote: Of course you don’t. But you can trust Sterling Burnett, who receives funding from oil companies? After all, you did use him and the ncpa for a source. You seem to trust anybody whose agenda says what you want to be said. Now I’m going to anticipate your response to this. You’ll probably say that I do the same thing (I apologize if this would not have been an argument you would have made.) Well, I’ll admit I’m more inclined to believe someone who supports global warming, but that is because it is very easy to tie many of the major opponents of global warming to Exxon-mobil/oil interests. And Exxon mobil has a history(and a memo) of trying to distort the facts. Not to mention that the oil industry wouldn’t be raking in those record profits if (God forbid) we used a cleaner fuel source, and the fact that private businesses are always looking for ways to get more money. Your distrust is based on the fact that you think climate scientists have an agenda? What if that agenda is that they believe the world may be in danger and they need to do something to prevent it? I know what Burnett believes, probably more than you do actually, since you see him as a schill for ExxonMobil. You know sceptics might actually believe fully that they are right, and aren't just doing it for the money from big oil. You talk about some altruistic motive of the advocates. Here's one for the sceptics. They don't want to see progress of developed nations stifled, of people suffering due to regulations, of companies losing money and laying people off because they might be increasing the temp. That's also the motivation of ExxonMobil. They stand to lose a lot and probably cost employees a lot if there comes massive regulation. And you want a cleaner energy source, then by all means I'm for it. Go ahead and find one that will allow us to maintain the progress we have had in the past 100 years. Currently there isn't one. And I don't know about you, but I don't think we should give up our Air conditioning, like these guys would like. I don't think a time when work productivity is seasonal, and old people dying like in a France August would be a good thing. And the free market and private businesses are the best things out there to fix our problems. They're effective, and try to look for the most effecient ways to do things. That does mean utilizing less energy, and emmitting fewer pollutants when possible. Quote: As for Kyoto, only two major nations, the United States and Australia, have failed to sign it. I don’t blame anybody in particular, if anything I blame the shortsightedness of the American government. But the majority of the larger nations have signed it and their economies have not been severely compromised, though some are still struggling with the details of how to implement it. China and India aren't major nations? That right there is part of the reason not to sign it. You would attempt to cripple the economy of America and then watch as China and India just continue to pollute away as much as they want, and grow their economies. The US would have been severely hurt under the regulations of Kyoto. Hurt so bad that it failed to pass the Senate with all 90 senators present voting against it. That's how much BS Kyoto is. And nations whose economies aren't compromised? Russia signed it because their emmission limits were a lot higher than their current and future outputs are going to be. Other nations are almost always out of compliance with the levels they're supposed to be at. And in fact they might be fudging their numbers on what they are putting out. Their economies aren't compromised because Kyoto is a failure. If I'm right, there's nothing we can do and the earth will correct itself and begin cooling on its own, and humans will need to stop being so arrogant in wanting to be the guilty party all the time in the environment. And when the earth starts to cool we could actually see a lot more flooding, you know a natural disaster. If you're right, nothing again can be done by us. Kyoto has a effect of 1 degree celcius by the year 2050. And I doubt that includes estimates of chinese and indian growth, and I do not see them stopping. The only result you would have is crippling everyone else. Quote: So, what is the harm in reducing emissions? The main argument, and really the only argument, is that the economy will be hurt. Honestly though I don’t really believe this. The main industry that will be hurt is the oil industry. But see, what people leave out is that as the oil industry begins to feel the hurting, other energy providing industries will take it place, that’s where the “lost jobs” will go. A whole new industry will open up, or the oil industry will convert to the new fuel source, and that will bring new jobs to the table Its not just the oil industry. The coal industry, natural gas, auto industry, air travel, polymer industry. Everything would be affected. All of these rely on oil derivatives and electricity in some way. If the alternatives are there to do things better then they will naturally replace the old way on there own. We don't need to cause hardship now just so you can imagine you're helping the environment by defeating those evil corporations.Quote: which by the way the only reason jobs will be lost in these industries in the first place is that the ceo’s and upper management have a hard time parting with their multi-million dollar salaries. Exxon mobil’s old ceo took home close to 70 million dollars in his last year with the company. But I digress. More anti-corporatism. If the CEO's do a good job and the company makes a lot of money then they're going to be rewarded. The profits of the oil industry are driven by demand. And right now there's a new 800 lb gorilla out there called China that has a huge oil demand. You want to see the price of oil and gasoline drop? Pray for another asian market collapse like the mid 90's saw. Quote: And to be honest, losing our reliance on oil for fuel isn’t that bad. It is my belief that our dependence on oil led us into Iraq in the first place, and it is oil that supports the countries with these radical leaders that would bomb us if they didn’t think we’d kick their asses for it. Yeah sure, whatever you want to believe. People like you make me wish I bought stock in tinfoil. As javaguy says, if Iraq was all about the oil we would have gone and kissed Saddam's ass like the french were doing. He'd have kept his country "stable" and we'd get some of that sweet Iraqi crude without spending billions of dollars. _______________ When you are going through Hell, keep going. -Sir Winston Churchill. Those who seek power and control of others, no matter the level, no matter the intentions, should never be given it. |
|
{JF}Jesse - Student |
Quote: http://www.denverpost.com/harsanyi/ci_3899807 Would you like to discredit the main guy in this article too? If you insist. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/04/gray-on-agw/ I suppose technically this doesn’t discredit him, but it does address his major points. Quote: And once again Correlation does not equal causation. It doesn't there is no rule or law of science that includes this. They can be independent of eachother but still reacting to the same outside influence in the same manner. Highly, I repeat, highly unlikely when two things have a direct connection to each other like CO2 levels and temperature. And as for a third factor that is influencing both in the same way all throughtout history, again highly unlikely. Quote: And I already know about the outrage of comparing gore's propoganda to nazi propoganda. One guy, and gee the left never does anything like that does it? I never said the left hasn’t slandered the right, just as the right so often slanders the left.(for further information see “flip-flopper”) However that was not the point. The point is that you shouldn’t be using sources that are as sketchy as Burnett here. Quote: Schneider's full quote changes nothing of the fact that he says "tell everyone we're doomed and you are absolutely sure of it." It does change everything. He is voicing his disappointment that the some scientists have to exaggerate to get the media’s attention. It is the idea/belief behind the words that counts. And is that a direct quote or a paraphrase? I might be missing it but I don’t see that on daly’s website or in schneider’s explanation.Quote: And they're not predicting a major global disaster. They're predicting the weather. You call those guys meteorologists. Tell me do you trust your weatherman 100% all the time? Actually they are predicting a major disaster. The warming is already happening, that much we are in agreement about. The major disaster they are predicting is that all the ice at the poles will melt. The melting is already occurring. And as some of the ice melts, the water it becomes begins to work its way through the ice to the ground below……making holes like swiss cheese and further destabilizing the ice. Anyways, if the glaciers melt their will be major flooding along the coasts that would displace 100’s of millions of people worldwide. Makes Katrina look like a lil baby.Quote: I'll state right now that I don't trust real climate. As I said, everyone has an agenda. And climate scientists don't get funding from the government, which has a very good monopoly on it by saying everything is just hunky-dorry. Of course you don’t. But you can trust Sterling Burnett, who receives funding from oil companies? After all, you did use him and the ncpa for a source. You seem to trust anybody whose agenda says what you want to be said. Now I’m going to anticipate your response to this. You’ll probably say that I do the same thing (I apologize if this would not have been an argument you would have made.) Well, I’ll admit I’m more inclined to believe someone who supports global warming, but that is because it is very easy to tie many of the major opponents of global warming to Exxon-mobil/oil interests. And Exxon mobil has a history(and a memo) of trying to distort the facts. Not to mention that the oil industry wouldn’t be raking in those record profits if (God forbid) we used a cleaner fuel source, and the fact that private businesses are always looking for ways to get more money. Your distrust is based on the fact that you think climate scientists have an agenda? What if that agenda is that they believe the world may be in danger and they need to do something to prevent it? As for the congress thing. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060622/ap_on_sc/global_warming_1 You’ll notice that the panel established by the National Academy of Sciences to study the evidence for congress concluded that the results of Mann’s and the others research (like the hockeystick graph) is likely to be true and that more recent data backs up the original research. As for Kyoto, only two major nations, the United States and Australia, have failed to sign it. I don’t blame anybody in particular, if anything I blame the shortsightedness of the American government. But the majority of the larger nations have signed it and their economies have not been severely compromised, though some are still struggling with the details of how to implement it. Finally I conclude with this. If Buzz is right(which I don’t believe he is) then nothing will go wrong and we will never have to face global warming, or at least there is nothing we can do. But if I’m right, the world could face a major natural disaster as a result of global warming and we can do something to stop it or at least slow it down. Like I said, if the glacier’s melt 100’s of millions of people will be displaced. Makes Katrina look pathetic. So, what is the harm in reducing emissions? The main argument, and really the only argument, is that the economy will be hurt. Honestly though I don’t really believe this. The main industry that will be hurt is the oil industry. But see, what people leave out is that as the oil industry begins to feel the hurting, other energy providing industries will take it place, that’s where the “lost jobs” will go. A whole new industry will open up, or the oil industry will convert to the new fuel source, and that will bring new jobs to the table(which by the way the only reason jobs will be lost in these industries in the first place is that the ceo’s and upper management have a hard time parting with their multi-million dollar salaries. Exxon mobil’s old ceo took home close to 70 million dollars in his last year with the company. But I digress.) And to be honest, losing our reliance on oil for fuel isn’t that bad. It is my belief that our dependence on oil led us into Iraq in the first place, and it is oil that supports the countries with these radical leaders that would bomb us if they didn’t think we’d kick their asses for it. Quote: O you can safely be convinced that global warming is happening. The real issue is whether or not humans are the major cause of it - to which the answer is absolutely not. The answer is absolutely =) .Quote: This thread has kicked up a lot of very interesting info. Just wanted to thank all the contributors so far. And by the way, no, I'm still not convinced.  You stuck a tongue out at me  This comment was edited by {JF}Jesse on Jun 27 2006 04:45am. |
|
Menaxia - Student 
|
O you can safely be convinced that global warming is happening. The real issue is whether or not humans are the major cause of it - to which the answer is absolutely not. _______________ This is not the place to look for me |
|
Bubu - Hubbub 
|
This thread has kicked up a lot of very interesting info. Just wanted to thank all the contributors so far. And by the way, no, I'm still not convinced. _______________ make install -not war |
|
Buzz - Student
|
http://www.denverpost.com/harsanyi/ci_3899807 Would you like to discredit the main guy in this article too? _______________ When you are going through Hell, keep going. -Sir Winston Churchill. Those who seek power and control of others, no matter the level, no matter the intentions, should never be given it. |
|
Buzz - Student 
|
First off, you do not draw a straight line. between two points like that. You have no evidence that the information between those points is on a consistent trend. For all you know the high point could already be on the declining side and there could be an even higher point. And once again Correlation does not equal causation. It doesn't there is no rule or law of science that includes this. They can be independent of eachother but still reacting to the same outside influence in the same manner. Schneider's full quote changes nothing of the fact that he says "tell everyone we're doomed and you are absolutely sure of it." For another example of scientists doing this; Carl Sagan and Nuclear Winter. And I already know about the outrage of comparing gore's propoganda to nazi propoganda. One guy, and gee the left never does anything like that does it? I'll state right now that I don't trust real climate. As I said, everyone has an agenda. And climate scientists don't get funding from the government, which has a very good monopoly on it by saying everything is just hunky-dorry. And I wasn't talking about Carter. He's not on that list anyways from what I saw. And they're not predicting a major global disaster. They're predicting the weather. You call those guys meteorologists. Tell me do you trust your weatherman 100% all the time? And I didn't say biodiesel was bad. I said the emissions on the volkswagen biodiesels weren't going to be able to pass the standards here in America. It was the three scientists behind the "hockeystick." He questioned it. And wanted an investigation, probably due to the claims that you'll achieve the hockeystick with completely random numbers. And again, he was someone questioning it, so they called for the study to put an end to the questioning, and it was called for by a republican. That's an agenda. Who do you blame the failure of Kyoto in America on anyways? _______________ When you are going through Hell, keep going. -Sir Winston Churchill. Those who seek power and control of others, no matter the level, no matter the intentions, should never be given it. |
|
{JF}Jesse - Student |
Quote: I don’t dispute the science behind the obtaining of ice core samples. I point out that they are not including the error for that data. I also didn’t say it was a straight line. I said it was a line graph. There is a difference you know. And the proper way to display the data would be by using an X-Y scatter plot. Sorry, when I was reading it I misread it. As for the scatter plot, if the whole point of the graph is to show the trend of the temperatures usually people would draw an average line through the points, which would give a line graph showing the trend. Quote: Here is the chart I am talking about. As you can see its drawn as a line graph. There are a couple things there to look at as well. The first thing to note is stated right away. Temperature changes PRECEDE changes in CO2 by 800 years. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=13 CO2 lag doesn't really say much. And the lag can actually be explained......read the last paragraph. Quote: As a final note to this I will say the following: Correlation does not equal Causation. This would be true if we were talking about something like increases in fish populations correlating to an increase in the average HR's among players in the MLB. I think I'm safe in saying fish have no direct influence on baseball, unless you want to try and argue indigestion but I digress. However, carbon dioxide traps sunlight, thereby increasing heat, which I don't think any of us are disputing. They do have a direct relationship and it’s very unlikely that when they both go up and down at relatively the same time that there is not a cause and effect going on.Quote: And yes the experts “agree.” Except that they don’t really. That’s agreement about the extent of human activity causing the warmth we have. Warmest its been in the past millenium, I can accept. “Its all our fault, we’ve screwed up the earth” is less so. First off no one is saying its all our fault. They are saying that humans play a big role. CO2 levels in the atmosphere are as you can see by that graph, way above previous levels. CO2 is an amplifier, it requires the sun to have an affect. Secondly the source you are using once again has the taint of exxonmobil on it.http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=55Notice that the funding starts in 1998, the same year the memo I showed was released. I doubt that it’s a coincidence. Sterling Burnett is nothing more than a slanderous pawn. You’ll remember that the memo said they would try to cast doubt on people supporting global warming.http://thinkprogress.org/2006/05/23/gore-movie-g/ Click on the picture to watch it. Anyways, comparing Gore to a Nazi……sounds like doubt casting to me. Oh, and like before, a look at what some other climate scientists are saying http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/05/al-gores-movie/ As for those surveys, Benny Peiser’s survey was not the same survey as Naomi Oreskes. He used different search parameter, but Burnett fails to mention that. And many of the articles of what Peiser claims reject human activity aren’t even scientific articles. http://www.crookedtimber.org/2005/05/05/take-the-global-warming-taste-test/ Not to mention that even with Peiser’s results, 33% addressed human activity and 30% of those agreed with global warming as compared to 3% who didn’t. And with the other study, 55% agreed with it, 30 percent disagreed, and I’m guessing the other 15% is undecided. Quote: And good for you for getting the original UN data. You should do that from the beginning. I had seen both, I chose the wikipedia data because it listed the emissions from high to low, that way you didn't have to search for the main producers. Quote: For your article showing all those evil people exxon-mobil is hiring. There was only one on there that was also in Bubu’s original article. And they must not like listing that he was also a university professor in Canada. Carter? Nobody denied he was a professor, a professor receiving money from Exxon mobil. As for Bubu's article, Tom Harris, the author of the article, has written two articles about global warming. You guys want to talk about media influence, this guy in both articles does not attempt to get any supporters of global warming opinions. He gets Carter, who is blatantly throwing around that slanderous kind of language, another reminder of the memo. And this is for TWO articles. *whispers* Agenda.Quote: And who was there talking about global cooling? Well its some of those experts who now talk about global warming. Let’s take a look at one of them. And after reading the first quote of his, can you say agenda? I’m surprised that after questioning wikipedia that you would use a site like this. John Daly takes that quote out of context to of course cast doubt on global warming supporters. Here is the full quote and Schneider explains that he was conveying his dismay of how the media will distort what he says for a sound bite. http://rpuchalsky.home.att.net/sci_env/sch_quote.html#quote As for Schneider being a global cooling advocate before global warming, perhaps you should have dug deeper before trying to spin him as a popular science trend follower. http://www.discover.com/issues/feb-06/rd/global-cooling/ That 1971 paper he mentions included an analysis of the effects of greenhouse gases, except in 1971 they underestimated the effects of the greenhouse gases. And here’s a little piece of info that addresses the global cooling myths http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/the-global-cooling-myth/ Quote: I will also say that the global warming advocates have themselves setup nicely. If the earth continues to warm they can go “see its our fault we’re not doing enough.” If the climate starts to decrease it will be because they have warned us about the threat and we have kept our greenhouse gases lower than we would have otherwise if it weren’t for them telling us to stop. The simple fact is it’s the truth, no matter how inconvenient it is for your position. Quote: What global warming advocates are doing is what an evolutionist would be doing is if he were to hold up a concept drawing of some weird animal and saying “this is what a duck will look like in 30,000 years.” Its taking the information that the average height of humans has increased and claiming that if this trend continues we will one day all be 20 feet tall and we must begin making buildings to accommodate this change. They are anticipating a major natural disaster as the result of global warming. Humans usually don’t consider the long term consequences of their actions. They do what they want and deal with the consequences when they come. One of these days the consequence will be too great to deal with when it comes and global warming may be that problem. Quote: A note on enviromental standards. Do you know that Volkswagen isn’t going to be able to sell anymore of their biodiesel engines in the US because they won’t meet the new emissions standards here? Here’s some reasons to switch to biodiesel. http://www.epa.gov/oms/consumer/fuels/altfuels/420f00032.pdf As for the environmental record of biodiesel…… http://www.biodiesel.org/resources/faqs/ I’’m left to think that it might be Volkwagen’s fault. Quote: Let's see a Republican calling for this to prove global warming exists. There goes one assertion you've made. The entire point of the study was to put an end to those questioning it. That would be an agenda. That wasn’t the entire point. You’ll notice that it came in response to a republican congressman launching an investigation into three of the scientists behind the global warming theory because he didn’t want to believe it. Did I mention he was from texas, you know that big oil state. Attempting once again to cast doubt I see. |
|
Red Kaiser - Student 
|
Quote:
Quote: I kinda skipped parts here and their so i am sry if this point has been made. Well someone said sheep other cattle and rice (Or bacteria that grows with rice.) makes lots of Methane and that humans should't blame themselves all the time. Well errm who do you thinks growing and looking after all thease plants and animals and encouraging there populations to grow oh yes us  What are you gonna do? Kill all the sheep, eat grass, and freeze in the winter? We have to be realistic here. With the current world population and human nature being what it is, we simply cannot turn back time. We can try to pollute less, sure, but if the "alarmists" are right, we will soon all be toast no matter what. (as for toast as indeed some of the world could cool down we could be popsicles )Well atually killing all the sheep is realistic Their would be "more" food avaliable for us if the entire planet was vegetarian. As I'm no doubt you are aware that energy is lost as it passes down through the food chain. The later you come in the food chain the smaller % of the original energy you get and so by being the primary consumer we would be being more efficiant. I'm not sure where your point is about freezing but lets just pic france as a location in the north were it snows (not mountins mind you.) you could survibe their being naked even through the winter if you were brought up being used to it and its the fact that we are not used it thats the real killer. Where a french person thinks its cold his brother from Canada might think that its not cold at all. The only real limitations mandkind has are 1) Its mind and its abillities to solve problems and 2) Greed. If you can find a way around a problem and if people stop being selfish then NOTHING is unrealistic.  Red Kaiser _______________ All your base are belong to us! This comment was edited by Red Kaiser on Jun 25 2006 11:36am. |
|
Bubu - Hubbub 
|
Quote: I kinda skipped parts here and their so i am sry if this point has been made. Well someone said sheep other cattle and rice (Or bacteria that grows with rice.) makes lots of Methane and that humans should't blame themselves all the time. Well errm who do you thinks growing and looking after all thease plants and animals and encouraging there populations to grow oh yes us Duh. I was merely illustrating that the number of factors affecting our climate is bigger than most people think and that it's out of our control. What are you gonna do? Kill all the sheep, eat grass, and freeze in the winter? We have to be realistic here. With the current world population and human nature being what it is, we simply cannot turn back time. We can try to pollute less, sure, but if the "alarmists" are right, we will soon all be toast no matter what. We are fish in the ocean trying to change the cycle of the tides or the strength of the waves. _______________ make install -not war This comment was edited by Bubu on Jun 25 2006 08:17am. |
|
Buzz - Student
|
Quote:
Quote: now that's where i disagree. You see I've actually spent time speaking face-to-face with the people who carry out this kid of research. They are the ones in the best position to know what their findings are. They are some of the least money-motivated people that exist - BECAUSE THEY GET PAID ALMOST NOTHING to do it. I can tell you that the media in all it's channels radio/newspapers/TV etc are twisting it so far from the truth that it bears no resemblence to what the results of such studies actually mean. The media are there for the SOLE PURPOSE of making money out of frightening you. Speaking of people who actually do the research, they are presenting evidence to Congress on Monday I think. It was in yesterday's paper, I'll have to dig it out of the bin. But anyways, thought it was funny since we were talking bout it. Should tune in if it winds up on tv. Yeah and the study and release of this information was at the request of a republican congresswoman to put an end to those questioning global warming. Let's see a Republican calling for this to prove global warming exists. There goes one assertion you've made. The entire point of the study was to put an end to those questioning it. That would be an agenda. Here's the articlen And its still only for the past 400 years. 2000 maybe, if you believe that accurate hockeystick graph. Oh and just for more information. All these horrible hurricanes we've been having that are blamed on global warming, well they were predicted to happen in 2001 Quote: In the past 40 years, only six major hurricanes have made landfall on the East Coast, compared with 31 major blows in the previous four decades. The findings the oceanographic agency team reported today indicate the latter cycle for the next three or four decades. _______________ When you are going through Hell, keep going. -Sir Winston Churchill. Those who seek power and control of others, no matter the level, no matter the intentions, should never be given it. |
|
Red Kaiser - Student 
|
I kinda skipped parts here and their so i am sry if this point has been made. Well someone said sheep other cattle and rice (Or bacteria that grows with rice.) makes lots of Methane and that humans should't blame themselves all the time. Well errm who do you thinks growing and looking after all thease plants and animals and encouraging there populations to grow oh yes us Face it Mankind is the equivilant of a Virus to this planet. If it dosen't kill us off we will kill it off ^^ (unless we change our ways.) Red Kaiser _______________ All your base are belong to us! |
|
{JF}Jesse - Student |
Quote: now that's where i disagree. You see I've actually spent time speaking face-to-face with the people who carry out this kid of research. They are the ones in the best position to know what their findings are. They are some of the least money-motivated people that exist - BECAUSE THEY GET PAID ALMOST NOTHING to do it. I can tell you that the media in all it's channels radio/newspapers/TV etc are twisting it so far from the truth that it bears no resemblence to what the results of such studies actually mean. The media are there for the SOLE PURPOSE of making money out of frightening you. Speaking of people who actually do the research, they are presenting evidence to Congress on Monday I think. It was in yesterday's paper, I'll have to dig it out of the bin. But anyways, thought it was funny since we were talking bout it. Should tune in if it winds up on tv. |
|
Menaxia - Student
|
now that's where i disagree. You see I've actually spent time speaking face-to-face with the people who carry out this kid of research. They are the ones in the best position to know what their findings are. They are some of the least money-motivated people that exist - BECAUSE THEY GET PAID ALMOST NOTHING to do it. I can tell you that the media in all it's channels radio/newspapers/TV etc are twisting it so far from the truth that it bears no resemblence to what the results of such studies actually mean. The media are there for the SOLE PURPOSE of making money out of frightening you. _______________ This is not the place to look for me |
|
{JF}Jesse - Student |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote: it's important to have your judgement not dictated by the media. True dat. Facts are the way to go. That why I try to prvoide links. The media can sometimes give you good facts, but I'd stick to newspapers and strictly news reports like your 6 o'clock news, and not stuff like Scarborough country and other more opinion based shows like that. As for the government, eh you can usually trust the individual agencies to put good facts up, but don't trust the figureheads/politicians. I think our last presidential election proved that politicians on both sides have a loose grip of the facts. how is a newspaper and the six o'clock news not the media? Without any media you would never be presented with any facts and you would never hear about anything. Therefore you try to pick sources that are somewhat accountable and responsible for what they report. People turn to their six o'clock news and their newspapaer to get facts and not opinions. If these forms of media fail to adhere to this, they lose readers/viewers and that is why they are accountable. And if you say that these forms have a bias you would be correct, though it is usually slight, however, I find that few people allow minor differences in word choice to truly affect their interpretation of the facts presented. This comment was edited by {JF}Jesse on Jun 24 2006 03:22am. |
|
CuZzA - Student 
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote: it's important to have your judgement not dictated by the media. True dat. Facts are the way to go. That why I try to prvoide links. The media can sometimes give you good facts, but I'd stick to newspapers and strictly news reports like your 6 o'clock news, and not stuff like Scarborough country and other more opinion based shows like that. As for the government, eh you can usually trust the individual agencies to put good facts up, but don't trust the figureheads/politicians. I think our last presidential election proved that politicians on both sides have a loose grip of the facts. how is a newspaper and the six o'clock news not the media? Rofl _______________ - Even if Carlsberg made "w*nkers", Christiano Ronaldo would still be the biggest "w*nker" in the world |
|
Menaxia - Student 
|
Quote:
Quote: it's important to have your judgement not dictated by the media. True dat. Facts are the way to go. That why I try to prvoide links. The media can sometimes give you good facts, but I'd stick to newspapers and strictly news reports like your 6 o'clock news, and not stuff like Scarborough country and other more opinion based shows like that. As for the government, eh you can usually trust the individual agencies to put good facts up, but don't trust the figureheads/politicians. I think our last presidential election proved that politicians on both sides have a loose grip of the facts. how is a newspaper and the six o'clock news not the media? _______________ This is not the place to look for me |
|
Rinzler - Student 
|
"Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective, and being honest." if that doesn't tell you hes outright lying, nothing will. _______________ I fite for teh usars!1 |
|
Buzz - Student
|
Quite a bit to say, hope I don’t forget anything I was hoping to say. I don’t dispute the science behind the obtaining of ice core samples. I point out that they are not including the error for that data. I also didn’t say it was a straight line. I said it was a line graph. There is a difference you know. And the proper way to display the data would be by using an X-Y scatter plot. Here is the chart I am talking about. As you can see its drawn as a line graph. There are a couple things there to look at as well. The first thing to note is stated right away. Temperature changes PRECEDE changes in CO2 by 800 years The next is that each data point is for 1000 years. That leaves a bit of a 200 year gap in there that can cause some issues. Another is that they are using a 30 year period as the baseline. Also you’ll notice that there are several points that are higher in temperature than we are now. The earth has been warmer in the past than it has now. As a final note to this I will say the following: Correlation does not equal Causation. For more on error, I will bring up the hockeystick again. Here you can see the graph of it along with the uncertainity of the data from the past. And yes the experts “agree.” Except that they don’t really. That’s agreement about the extent of human activity causing the warmth we have. Warmest its been in the past millenium, I can accept. “Its all our fault, we’ve screwed up the earth” is less so. Appeal to authority. And just because humans haven’t been around for the entire existence of the earth doesn’t mean you get to ignore the things that were happening we arrived. And good for you for getting the original UN data. You should do that from the beginning. For DDT, I’m curious if you read what I had linked. It had adverse environmental effects and harmed the environment because they used it on a large scale instead of using it at a reasonable level to control and prevent increases in malaria. For your article showing all those evil people exxon-mobil is hiring. There was only one on there that was also in Bubu’s original article. And they must not like listing that he was also a university professor in Canada. Also had questions concerning your views on Kyoto. Now as for an agenda. Everyone has an agenda. You want the agenda of people claiming human responsibility for global warming? Its simple: “I have evidence that humans are causing global warming and we must do something to stop it or else we will severely damage the planet. I have been researching this for years and need to conduct even more studies on what can happen and what can be done to stop this. Please give me some grants so I can continue my research into this so that I might save the planet. Welcome to the agenda. Money just as you said. And as for fame and asking people to name 5 major climate experts. Come on really? You go out on the street and ask people to name the last 5 presidents and they’re not going to get that right. However notoriety among their peers, and as the source for media to go to when they want a soundbite about the threat humans are to the earth is another matter. When the issue of global warming actually surfaced was in the 80s. When democrats didn’t have the presidency. Al Gore is an environut, along with all the other nutty things he has and he just jumped out a lot with global warming claims when he was VP. Now why did global warming gain prominence in the 80s? Why not sooner? What was happening with all of the climate scientists before? Oh yes they were talking about Global Cooling. The Ice Age is coming and its all our fault, we’re doomed! And who was there talking about global cooling? Well its some of those experts who now talk about global warming. Let’s take a look at one of them. And after reading the first quote of his, can you say agenda? A note on enviromental standards. Do you know that Volkswagen isn’t going to be able to sell anymore of their biodiesel engines in the US because they won’t meet the new emissions standards here? And we can obtain data from the sun from farther back than 30 years http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mystery_monday_031027.html Also we have this too http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sun_output_030320.html Now as they say here we only have accurate data from the past 30 years? Why do we have accurate data from then on? Because we’re actually taking the measurements. And these guys are saying that we do need to obtain more data and further analysis. Now take that as opposed to what you have been saying. We have only been obtaining actual empirical data on temperatures from about 1600 on. And for a lot of that you needed to rely on a steady and accurate hand to make the marks on a thermometer. Today we’re much more precise in ability. But still from 1600 on, and you want to talk about the entire past millenium. I will also say that the global warming advocates have themselves setup nicely. If the earth continues to warm they can go “see its our fault we’re not doing enough.” If the climate starts to decrease it will be because they have warned us about the threat and we have kept our greenhouse gases lower than we would have otherwise if it weren’t for them telling us to stop. What global warming advocates are doing is what an evolutionist would be doing is if he were to hold up a concept drawing of some weird animal and saying “this is what a duck will look like in 30,000 years.” Its taking the information that the average height of humans has increased and claiming that if this trend continues we will one day all be 20 feet tall and we must begin making buildings to accommodate this change. And I wouldn’t put much faith in government agencies either. The EPA report on the effects of second hand smoke got thrown out of court due to the agency cherrypicking their data to arrive at a predetermined conclusion. What do you call a climate scientist telling you what the earth will be like in 20 years? Hope I remembered most of what I wanted. _______________ When you are going through Hell, keep going. -Sir Winston Churchill. Those who seek power and control of others, no matter the level, no matter the intentions, should never be given it. This comment was edited by Buzz on Jun 23 2006 10:37am. |
|
{JF}Jesse - Student |
Quote: it's important to have your judgement not dictated by the media. True dat. Facts are the way to go. That why I try to prvoide links. The media can sometimes give you good facts, but I'd stick to newspapers and strictly news reports like your 6 o'clock news, and not stuff like Scarborough country and other more opinion based shows like that. As for the government, eh you can usually trust the individual agencies to put good facts up, but don't trust the figureheads/politicians. I think our last presidential election proved that politicians on both sides have a loose grip of the facts. |
|
El Vee For - Student 
|
Quote: it's important to have your judgement not dictated by the media. ...or the government, or a private money grubbing corporation, or a would be "has-been" internet inventing politician, or any politician for that matter. Including politicians that have no office and serve no constituants, an armchair politician, if you will.So who do you trust? Who do you believe? Fortunately for all of us this issue will play out in due time and one side or the other will be proved right and the other wrong. _______________ “Arguing on the internet is like competing in the Special Olympics. Even if you win, you’re still retarded.” |
|
Menaxia - Student
|
it's important to have your judgement not dictated by the media. _______________ This is not the place to look for me |
|
{JF}Jesse - Student |
Quote: You do make some good points, but I remain skeptic. I'll take it!!!   I would like to add though that with Chicago there, there is a correlation between the temperatures in the glaciers and the temperatures in say Chicago or anyplace in the world because of the ocean currents. If you know the temperature in one place you can make a pretty accurate guess at the temperature of other areas. However, once again this boils down to the point.....do you believe the science behind it or not? I do but you have to make your own judgement. |
|
DarthMike - Student 
|
Wow, if Al Gore made this it must be true, he did invent the internet after all. I'm far more worried about Manbearpig attacks than I am global warming. _______________ "You can't get Windows on a Mac because the drivers are not compatible." --- Some dude from the Geek Squad "So if you have quad-core, you have four times the RAM, right?" --- Some guy at Best Buy This comment was edited by DarthMike on Jun 22 2006 10:03am. |
|
Bubu - Hubbub
|
The major point you are missing with those ice cores is that, like Buzz said, there are no ice cores from Chicago! You can only get the readings from certain points, certainly not enough to call it "global". Quote: As for the 4.6 billion years earth has been around, most of that time is irrelevant considering humans have only been around about 3 million years. That's exactly my point. All that time IS relevant. Granted, things might have been a lot different over 3 million years ago and therefore not relevant to today's situation. But my point is earth has been around a lot longer than we can even imagine (Ever try visualising 4.6 billion years?), and went through a lot of crap which doesn't even compare to the minor climate changes nowadays. You do make some good points, but I remain skeptic. _______________ make install -not war |
|
{JF}Jesse - Student |
On the issue of the ice cores I feel we will never agree. I believe the science behind it, you do not. And I saw the charts of the last 400,000 years and it was far from a straight line. However I'm going to put it bluntly: You = not a climate expert Climate Scientists = Climate experts And a majority of the climate scientists believe that even with the percent of error that you think is too high they can still say with certainty that this is the highest temperature period of the last millenium. I'll put my faith in the majority of the experts over your average joe. And on this note: What data are you using to claim that the rise is temperature is a natural occurence? Because see, to make that claim YOU would have to know what the temperatures were in the past. But seeing as how you don't believe the ice cores are accurate enough, you have no way of knowing what the temperatures were. Funny how the most accurate way to collect the data points to a conclusion opposite of yours. As for the 4.6 billion years earth has been around, most of that time is irrelevant considering humans have only been around about 3 million years. Branching out.....: http://millenniumindicators.un.org/unsd/mi/mi_series_results.asp?rowId=751 United Nations site showing the carbon dioxide emissions. And omgash look, the stats are the same as those on wikipedia........I guess that means wikipedia was right. And my original point stands. DDT: Kind of a topic that is a little off topic but I'll address it anyways. http://www.epa.gov/history/topics/ddt/01.htm Had adverse environmental affects and was declining in effectiveness. Bugs adapt like viruses, and thanks to all that heavy usage of DDT we managed to damage the environment and create a DDT resistance in the insects. The insects: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/06/20/tech/main512920.shtml Insects are spreading, especially to higher altitudes which means there is an increased chance for the spread of diseases. As I said, one species does not disprove a whole theory. Al Gore: I noticed you consider Al Gore an idiot. Well in this case the idiot got it right. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/05/al-gores-movie/ Aside from two minor mistakes it appears he did well with the facts. And there is some debate over the ice cores though it seems that the debate is raged over the temperature projections and not on the overall conclusion of the ice core findings. And moving on to the Exxon mobil situation. To give you an idea of the kind of people working at exxon mobil: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0615-04.htm A guy with no environment experience decides to rewrite scientific reports to downplay global warming..........after he is forced to resign guess where he goes,........Exxon Mobil. Now on to my next piece of evidence: http://www.environmentaldefense.org/article.cfm?contentid=3804&CFID=14224499&CFTOKEN=36321311 I'd have to say the memo is pretty condemning. States that they plan on hiring people that are not well known to say global warming isn't a threat. The rest of the site gives a nice little description of how exxon mobil's money has been given to these people. Pretty good sums of money I might add. Memo = hard evidence......as for the rest of it you can connect the dots. There is no denying that the company has been trying to discredit global warming through illegitimate means. As for the question about killimanjaro that I missed: The answer to your question is that I honestly don't remember. You'll have to find out some other way because if it was it didn't stick out in my mind and I don't remember it. And finally I come to the point of this agenda you keep referring to. What agenda do supporters of global warming have? Are they seeking fame? An odd way to go about it I should say. Ask any one on the street to name 5 of the major climate experts that support global warming.......I betcha they can't name them. Yea they are real famous. Other than that I don't see much of a motive. You can try tying it to politics but this issue really surfaced when democrats had the presidency and it has continued through bush's presidency. Since the democrats already held the most powerful position in the US government I doubt they were really trying to scare people into voting for them. It would have been unnecessary. Meanwhile I can think of plenty of reasons for the opponents of global warming to say what they say. Oil, fuel, and many other companies are afraid that if they are required to be environmentally sound that they will lose money. Ah MONEY! Makes you feel good when your pockets are lined with the green dough. Oh and by the way, industries that are refusing to be environmentally sound are suffering in the United States. For example, Asian cars are doing very well on the market whereas American cars are not because we can't sell them in other countries since we don't live up to the environmental standards of other countries(including china). Back to the motive part. Anyways Exxonmobil pays significant sums of money to their so called 'researchers', which by the way as I pointed out Exxon's own memo shows that they intend to use phonies. I betcha 'researchers' love money too. Yummy yummy money. And thirdly, there is the emotional factor. People can't stand it when something is their fault. They look for any other reason as to why something is not their fault, its human nature. They try to blame it on things like say increased solar emissions, which by the way, is only significant if the emmissions have been going on for 100+ years and since we only have 30 years of data, the solar emissions cannot be positively identified as a major contributing source. This is the longest damn thing in the world lol. |
| < Recent Comments | Login and add your comment! | Previous Comments > |