PDA

View Full Version : People who disagree with global warming.


Joetheeskimo
04-06-2007, 11:53 AM
Discuss! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HL4s5qdvaug)

narfblat
04-06-2007, 09:50 PM
I don't know, I'm scared of those 24 inches. :p

When I heard scary reports of things like Al Gore's, I was wondering if they had exagerated the effect - either ignoring ice's shrinkage or the energy difference between the frozen and liquid states. Glad someone was finally willing to voice an opposing oppinion.(even in the case that the new report is wrong, it's good to rattle the cage once in a while)

MrWally
04-06-2007, 10:31 PM
Al Gore isn't the only person that argues the dangers of Global Warming, though.

We never saw his movie, but we saw several about the horrible consequences of Global Warming in my Biology class. Actual scientists giving their own scientific data... seemed pretty credible to me, but meh, I'm no one to talk.

Alegis
04-07-2007, 07:43 PM
Of course those movies are always exaggerated, (take Fahrenheit 911/Bowling for Columbine blatant inaccuracies and misleading tactics) because the directors have an excellent chance to do so as they're targeting a large audience prone to scare tactics. They won't research it later either to check for those accuracies as most of their information is based on 'anecdotal evidence' anyways. This is not meant degrading, as one just can't try to know everything and the issue probably isn't that important to them.

People scared though might treat the environment better so I don't really care for what Al Gore said. Myself I can't be bothered too much at all with Global Warming.

Acrylic
04-07-2007, 07:55 PM
Global warming is bull****.

It's effin April and it's cold as hell here. January weather, pretty much.

I feel that its gotten COLDER, not WARMER. pft.

Pho3nix
04-07-2007, 08:10 PM
I agree with Alegis.

Personally I'm getting pretty tired of the media bombarding me with global warming. I find it quite amusing that these 'scientists' can predict the weather a 100 years from now but no one can tell me what the weather is going to be tomorrow.

Spider AL
04-07-2007, 11:48 PM
Thread: Gore's 'Truth' particularly inconvenient for those lovable creationists... (http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?t=174579)

The first part of that thread examines the campaigns of the hyper-religious and/or the plain ignorant to prevent showings of Gore's excellent and unusually factually based documentary, and their crass, petty and dishonest attempts to discredit Gore as an environmentalist spokesperson.

The second part of that thread examined the stupid and foolish excuse for a documentary "The Great Global Warming Swindle" by discredited, lying sham artist Martin Durkin, which was not based on good science at all. This is the film I believe is referred to in the NYT article mentioned in the Youtube clip linked to in the OP.

I encourage anyone with any shred of an open mind to visit that thread, and note that many many sources are cited to prove the accuracy of the above statements.

Bottom line: If you want to be sensible and listen to the overwhelming majority of scientists working in the field, you must accept that climate change is a reality and that it is almost definitely caused by human society.

If you want to believe that the consensus on climate change is some sort of elaborate hoax, it's your choice... but you're just being irrational. There are plenty of places to do research on the topic. Google is your friend. Look up "IPCC report" for starters and do some serious reading. Seriously.

I find it quite amusing that these 'scientists' can predict the weather a 100 years from now but no one can tell me what the weather is going to be tomorrow.Actually daily weather reports are often exceptionally accurate these days. But that's not relevant to the point. The point is that we're talking about long term climate change. It's a very different area of research to short-term meteorology.

Besides, if the two were precisely comparable, your stance still doesn't make any sense... If nearly ALL the weather-men popped up on TV and said "We have a large body of evidence suggesting that a hurricane will hit Pho3nix's house tomorrow" Are you seriously suggesting that you'd wander around as normal, operating under the assumption that they're all wrong?

That'd be a silly, risky thing to do. And essentially, it's the same as what yourself, Acrylic, Alegis and many other people are apparently doing now regarding climate change.

When the majority of the world's scientists in the field of climate change tell you that it's a real danger, you'd be wise to act on their expert advice. The worst that could happen is that they ARE all wrong, in which case we would've made some sacrifices... but we would have cleaner air and more renewable energy.

The best that could happen is that they're all right. Which is probable. And we'd be doing something to try to reduce the damage we've caused.

So if you accept their expert advice and try to address the problem of climate change seriously, you win either way. If you stick your head in the sand and ignore their expert advice... you risk losing. Everything. The choice is simple, logical and clear.

Datheus
04-10-2007, 03:34 PM
Acrylic: Global warming doesn't necessarily imply warming around the globe. It's a change of weather patterns as a whole. It may get warmer in some areas, but frigid in others.

Even if the claims of the global warming crowd are exaggerated, what's so wrong about taking steps to help lower our impact on the global ecosystem?

Rogue15
04-10-2007, 03:44 PM
who cares, by the time we'd fix it a ****ing meteor would bash us in anyway.

Spider AL
04-10-2007, 04:18 PM
who cares, by the time we'd fix it a ****ing meteor would bash us in anyway.That's very much like saying: "Oh heck, I may have raging syphilis, but by the time the antibiotics take effect I'll probably have been run over by a truck. So I'm not going to bother taking them."

In other words: It's nuts. :p

Joetheeskimo
04-10-2007, 06:10 PM
My opinion is that whether or not global warming is happening/will happen, air pollution has always been a problem and people are only addressing that problem now that climate change has been attributed to it. Global warming or no, exhaust-spewing factories and vehicles still cause smog and make our air unbreathable.

Rogue15
04-10-2007, 07:43 PM
apparantly pine trees are burning the world too.

Spider AL
04-10-2007, 08:06 PM
Heh heh. With that rather random-sounding snippet, Rogue is (presumably) referring to the just-released report by Dr. Ken Caldeira and co-authors, stating that forests that cover snowy areas in the far north may have more of a warming effect on the climate than just plain snow would. (Snow reflects quite a bit of heat back into space, of course, also such cold climates have less cloud cover)

Therefore planting new trees in snowy areas may not be helpful. The study also notes that TROPICAL forests have a positive cooling effect on the atmosphere. So planting new trees there may be the way to go. In other words, planting a tree in Canada is no substitute for campaigning to stop rampant logging in the Brazillian rainforest.

Scientific American Article (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleid=DCA231BA-E7F2-99DF-3105874539B83ECB&chanId=sa028#)

It sounds like a very interesting report, which makes one wonder why Rogue15 mentioned it in such a mocking tone. :D Perhaps he finds it unbelievable for some reason. Perhaps he will enlighten us.

MrWally
04-10-2007, 08:53 PM
Heh heh. With that rather random-sounding snippet, Rogue is (presumably) referring to the just-released report by Dr. Ken Caldeira and co-authors, stating that forests that cover snowy areas in the far north may have more of a warming effect on the climate than just plain snow would. (Snow reflects quite a bit of heat back into space, of course, also such cold climates have less cloud cover)

Therefore planting new trees in snowy areas may not be helpful. The study also notes that TROPICAL forests have a positive cooling effect on the atmosphere. So planting new trees there may be the way to go. In other words, planting a tree in Canada is no substitute for campaigning to stop rampant logging in the Brazillian rainforest.

Scientific American Article (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleid=DCA231BA-E7F2-99DF-3105874539B83ECB&chanId=sa028#)

It sounds like a very interesting report, which makes one wonder why Rogue15 mentioned it in such a mocking tone. :D Perhaps he finds it unbelievable for some reason. Perhaps he will enlighten us.


Why am I reminded of James Bond in Casino Royale?

Spider AL
04-10-2007, 09:06 PM
Probably something to do with my rugged, muscular handsomeness and deadly fighting skills.

MrWally
04-10-2007, 09:35 PM
Not to mention the overwhelmingly humble and modest attitude you both share :p


In all honesty though, that was a very interesting article. Nice find.

Spider AL
04-11-2007, 12:59 PM
Well it's very kind of you to say so.

HUG TIEM!!!111 :haw:

Jae Onasi
04-11-2007, 01:57 PM
There may be hyperbole on all sides of the global warming debate but there is one point to consider--whether or not burning fossil fuels is a major factor in global warming (and I believe it is), we still have a limited amount of fossil fuels. We need to be looking for more environmentally sound ways to create energy so that we don't run out of energy and we don't pollute our environment so much that we can't live in it.

We get one pool to swim in. If we all pee in it and completely pollute it, it's going to get pretty tough to swim in it after awhile.

MrWally
04-11-2007, 05:01 PM
Ew. That was a disgusting analogy. But I guess it proves the point perfectly well.