Just watched "An Inconvenient Truth"

[AaronB]

Originally posted by: SlitheryDee

Originally posted by: JS80

whoa we kept temperatures 650,000 miles ago?!?!

Well the idea is that we can extrapolate what the temperature was at the time based on the levels of CO2 present in fossilized remains and ice core samples. It may not be the weather channel but it's the best we can do.

So we are saying that temperatures are out of whack by a couple of degrees using data "extrapolated" from secondhand means?


Bwaahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!! *cough* *sniff* *catchs breath*


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

 

[mercanucaribe]

Originally posted by: AaronB

Originally posted by: SlitheryDee

Originally posted by: JS80

whoa we kept temperatures 650,000 miles ago?!?!

Well the idea is that we can extrapolate what the temperature was at the time based on the levels of CO2 present in fossilized remains and ice core samples. It may not be the weather channel but it's the best we can do.

So we are saying that temperatures are out of whack by a couple of degrees using data "extrapolated" from secondhand means?


Bwaahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!! *cough* *sniff* *catchs breath*


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

ACTUAL temperatures are recorded by isotope ratios in ice cores.

 

[IGBT]

Originally posted by: Compton
Vote for me and I will stop global warming!

I will fix the planet!

..goody. do it now and get it overwith.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: bunnyfubbles
While I believe in global warming, Gore is full of crap and pulling scare tactics not unlike the Republicans on terrorism.

The difference is Muslims are killing all over the world & want to kill you, and we are not living underwater.

I say we should emit more and make the world warmer. I would sacrifice a few yards of coastline for warmer weather.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: foghorn67
Even if I thought humans contributed to most of the climate change, I would still hate Gore.
The Kyoto treaty was written by children. Only a bunch of morons could overlook so much.

The point of Kyoto was for poor countries to steal money from rich countries (*ahem* America). And the beloved god of the left Clinton rejected it.

 

[AbsolutDealage]

Originally posted by: Vic
And given that the majority of the substantial Gore family wealth came from oil money (the exact same company that dumped the toxic waste at Love Canal in fact), it's also more than a wee bit hypocritical.

Well, if you knew the facts about Love Canal, I doubt you would be using it as an example of being hypocritical. Hooker (OPC) was the only one who acted responsibly throughout the entire ordeal.

 

[foghorn67]

Originally posted by: AbsolutDealage

Originally posted by: Vic
And given that the majority of the substantial Gore family wealth came from oil money (the exact same company that dumped the toxic waste at Love Canal in fact), it's also more than a wee bit hypocritical.

Well, if you knew the facts about Love Canal, I doubt you would be using it as an example of being hypocritical. Hooker (OPC) was the only one who acted responsibly throughout the entire ordeal.

The same place John Stoseel waltzed on with no containment uniform thingymabob?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: AbsolutDealage

Originally posted by: Vic
And given that the majority of the substantial Gore family wealth came from oil money (the exact same company that dumped the toxic waste at Love Canal in fact), it's also more than a wee bit hypocritical.

Well, if you knew the facts about Love Canal, I doubt you would be using it as an example of being hypocritical. Hooker (OPC) was the only one who acted responsibly throughout the entire ordeal.

Actually, I do know the facts. And how the Niagara School Board was the real guilty party but managed to pass the buck. However, that doesn't change my point, which was that Occidental was the company that dumped the waste there to begin with, and Occidental is how the Gore family got rich. The environment doesn't care who is at fault.

 

[Mermaidman]

I went to Circuit City today to buy the DVD for my wife (requested for X'Mas), but the clerks couldn't find any copies! Is the movie that popular?

 

[Atheus]

Hey! old thread back!

Originally posted by: Vic

You can argue humans aren't causing it, you can argue it doesn't matter, but you can't argue it isn't happening.

When did I ever do that? Oh that's right, I didn't.

No, you just refused to answer my question, if not because you don't believe in warming then why?

You stated that global warming would not be a problem under certain circumstances - this assumes warming is taking place. Do you have an example where warming would not cause a problem?

1 - The earth is warming
2 - This melts the ice
3 - This raises the sea levels
4 - This is a problem

In what circumstances would this not be a problem? It's very simple to answer.

Fearmongerers are such sh!theads.

What are you, 12 years old? Why don't you just answer the question instead of shooting down 'fearmongers', as if anyone but you mentioned fear. I am talking about facts. You seem to have only insults.

 

[djplayx714]

Global warming is very bad mmmmkay?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Atheus
Hey! old thread back!

Originally posted by: Vic

You can argue humans aren't causing it, you can argue it doesn't matter, but you can't argue it isn't happening.

When did I ever do that? Oh that's right, I didn't.

No, you just refused to answer my question, if not because you don't believe in warming then why?

You stated that global warming would not be a problem under certain circumstances - this assumes warming is taking place. Do you have an example where warming would not cause a problem?

1 - The earth is warming
2 - This melts the ice
3 - This raises the sea levels
4 - This is a problem

In what circumstances would this not be a problem? It's very simple to answer.

Fearmongerers are such sh!theads.

What are you, 12 years old? Why don't you just answer the question instead of shooting down 'fearmongers', as if anyone but you mentioned fear. I am talking about facts. You seem to have only insults.

Get over yourself. I did answer the question. I said it was preferable to global cooling. Or do you want the next ice age?
And yes, fearmongerers are. Change is normal. It's going to happen. You can't stop it. Wanting to stop change is irrational. Get over it.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Vic

Get over yourself. I did answer the question. I said it was preferable to global cooling. Or do you want the next ice age?
And yes, fearmongerers are. Change is normal. It's going to happen. You can't stop it. Wanting to stop change is irrational. Get over it.

what if the warming causes the cooling by disrupting the ocean flows that bring warmth to further parts of the hemispheres?

 

[Atheus]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Atheus
Hey! old thread back!

Originally posted by: Vic

You can argue humans aren't causing it, you can argue it doesn't matter, but you can't argue it isn't happening.

When did I ever do that? Oh that's right, I didn't.

No, you just refused to answer my question, if not because you don't believe in warming then why?

You stated that global warming would not be a problem under certain circumstances - this assumes warming is taking place. Do you have an example where warming would not cause a problem?

1 - The earth is warming
2 - This melts the ice
3 - This raises the sea levels
4 - This is a problem

In what circumstances would this not be a problem? It's very simple to answer.

Fearmongerers are such sh!theads.

What are you, 12 years old? Why don't you just answer the question instead of shooting down 'fearmongers', as if anyone but you mentioned fear. I am talking about facts. You seem to have only insults.

Get over yourself. I did answer the question. I said it was preferable to global cooling. Or do you want the next ice age?

No... that's the answer to the question 'which is preferable, cooling or warming?'... my question was 'in what circumstances would warming not be a problem?'...

And yes, fearmongerers are. Change is normal. It's going to happen. You can't stop it. Wanting to stop change is irrational. Get over it.

So do you deny that some change can be classified as 'good' and some can be classified as 'bad'? Or do you suggest that there is no point trying to avoid 'bad' things?

 

[Vic]

I suggest you not be irrationally afraid of that which you don't understand and can't control. And yes, I am saying that the idea that the earth's temperature should always stay the same, when it never has before, is irrational. Think of a city built in a flood plain that freaks out when a flood occurs. Is that rational? Now they build levees to hold back the floods, is that natural?

 

[Genx87]

Earth has had warm and cold periods long before Humans and will have them long after we are gone.

btw what happened to the worst storm season on record that was supposed to happen in 06?

Oh yeah, more alarmist BS to scare us.

 

[Atheus]

Originally posted by: Vic
I suggest you not be irrationally afraid of that which you don't understand and can't control. And yes, I am saying that the idea that the earth's temperature should always stay the same, when it never has before, is irrational.

It's a huge idea, but not irrational.

Think of a city built in a flood plain that freaks out when a flood occurs. Is that rational?

Yes, they are all about to die... you wouldn't freak out?

Now they build levees to hold back the floods, is that natural?

It doesn't have to be natural, it just has to save lives. What's wrong with using technology to control our environment? I mean, that's almost the essence of humanity, the very definition of who we are. If you believe that's wrong then we might as well all be living as hunter gatherers because it's the only alternative.

 

[Atheus]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Earth has had warm and cold periods long before Humans and will have them long after we are gone.

When humans weren't around those warm/cold periods didn't affect us did they, because we weren't around... I don't see how it's relevant.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: Genx87
Earth has had warm and cold periods long before Humans and will have them long after we are gone.

When humans weren't around those warm/cold periods didn't affect us did they, because we weren't around... I don't see how it's relevant.

It is relevant because people who are alarmists are trying to curtail our freedoms and consumption to fit their ideals and using global warming as the boogeyman.
When the simply fact is this has happened before, will happen again, and there is little we can do to stop it.

It is like panicking about an incoming hurricane and expecting to do something about it. Do you think you can stop a hurricane, a force of nature? If not, why do you think you can stop the natural ups and downs of our climate? If so, what do you think you can do to stop it?

 

[Atheus]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: Genx87
Earth has had warm and cold periods long before Humans and will have them long after we are gone.

When humans weren't around those warm/cold periods didn't affect us did they, because we weren't around... I don't see how it's relevant.

It is relevant because people who are alarmists are trying to curtail our freedoms and consumption to fit their ideals and using global warming as the boogeyman.

Why would anyone want to curtail your consumption if they thought it would have no consequences? You really think large numbers of people believe in a kind of spartan minimalism in consumption and want to spread it round the world like a religion? No offense but that's a bit 'tinfoil hat' for me...

When the simply fact is this has happened before, will happen again, and there is little we can do to stop it.

It is like panicking about an incoming hurricane and expecting to do something about it. Do you think you can stop a hurricane, a force of nature?

You can build strong buildings, bring all the people and livestock inside, save lives.

If not, why do you think you can stop the natural ups and downs of our climate? If so, what do you think you can do to stop it?

Alter the composition of the atmosphere so that more energy is reflected into space and less is absorbed into the earth. The easiest way of doing this is to slow or halt emissions, and slow or halt deforestation.

 

[Genx87]

Why would anyone want to curtail your consumption if they thought it would have no consequences? You really think large numbers of people believe in a kind of spartan minimalism in consumption and want to spread it round the world like a religion? No offense but that's a bit 'tinfoil hat' for me...

Because people dont like the decadence of the west and its values. If you notice in Kyoto who got hit the hardest and who got off the hook? The west would take it in the cheeks while the last biggest bastion of socialism was allowed to burn away and India was spared as well.

I think people are naive when they think a lot of these environutz are all about saving the world instead of enacting legislation to force their ideals on the rest of the world.

You can build strong buildings, bring all the people and livestock inside, save lives.

Either you didnt understand the question or are intentionally dodging it. The question didnt have to do with surviving the storm but actually stopping it.

Alter the composition of the atmosphere so that more energy is reflected into space and less is absorbed into the earth. The easiest way of doing this is to slow or halt emissions, and slow or halt deforestation.

Did it work in the past when the earth's climate went up and down? Do you know what the consequences of trying to alter a natural cycle will do to the Earth?

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: SlitheryDee

Originally posted by: JS80

whoa we kept temperatures 650,000 miles ago?!?!

Well the idea is that we can extrapolate what the temperature was at the time based on the levels of CO2 present in fossilized remains and ice core samples. It may not be the weather channel but it's the best we can do.

The problem is CO2 isnt the only thing that controls global temperature.

The sun also gives off radiation in cycles, water vapor controls the temperature an order of magnitude greater than CO2 and cant be measured using ice cores for obvious reasons.

I dont argue that the earth isnt getting warmer, i argue that:
1. We dont know what the effects are going to be.
2. Our data we are working from sucks pretty bad.

 

[Atheus]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Why would anyone want to curtail your consumption if they thought it would have no consequences? You really think large numbers of people believe in a kind of spartan minimalism in consumption and want to spread it round the world like a religion? No offense but that's a bit 'tinfoil hat' for me...

Because people dont like the decadence of the west and its values. If you notice in Kyoto who got hit the hardest and who got off the hook? The west would take it in the cheeks while the last biggest bastion of socialism was allowed to burn away and India was spared as well.

I think people are naive when they think a lot of these environutz are all about saving the world instead of enacting legislation to force their ideals on the rest of the world.

I just don't see it. What do you believe their motivations and reasons are for these beliefs/ideals? I mean, it's easy to see why some people want you to consume more and more regardless of the cost - they make money off it, duh. There are plenty of people who will tell you anything to make a buck, even an outright lie, why would you believe them?

Conversely, why would anyone want you to consume less if they didn't think it was important? They don't gain any money from it. Why would they tell you a lie to get you to consume less if they didn't think your consumption was actually affecting them in some way?

You can build strong buildings, bring all the people and livestock inside, save lives.

Either you didn't understand the question or are intentionally dodging it. The question didn't have to do with surviving the storm but actually stopping it.

Then the storm is a strawman - I cannot control the weather, so therefore my argument about global warming is flawed? Please...

I will explain my answer:

Consider the sun - something much more unstoppable than a weak terrestrial event like a storm. Most people agree that the sun's fluctuations are one cause of current warming. Now obviously we can't stop the sun's natural cycle, just as we can't stop a storm, but we _can_ mitigate it's effects, just as we can those of a storm.

We can mitigate the effects of the sun's cycle, and other possible causes of warming, by altering the composition of the atmosphere. We could also take a more futuristic approach like erecting a shield between us and the sun to block a percentage of its light, although this would probably cost more than something 'down to earth' like stopping deforestation.

Alter the composition of the atmosphere so that more energy is reflected into space and less is absorbed into the earth. The easiest way of doing this is to slow or halt emissions, and slow or halt deforestation.

Did it work in the past when the earth's climate went up and down?

Not sure what you mean by this...

Were humans able to stop the last warming cycle?... clearly not... we were very primitive at the time and I don't see what this has to do with the issue.

Has the composition of the atmosphere affected temperature in the past? Of course!

Do you know what the consequences of trying to alter a natural cycle will do to the Earth?

Do to the Earth? So _now_ you are concerned with the environment? Just as long as you don't have to give anything up, eh?

The Earth is very old and very tough and will be fine. People on the other hand are very small and very fragile and will all die very rapidly if the temperature is not kept within a range.

Besides - we are already altering it. We are putting gasses into the atmosphere which magnify all the other warming effects. How can you claim this is all fine and good, but another alteration, which will actually put the earth back the way it was before we altered it the first time, is somehow wrong?

 

[Atheus]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: SlitheryDee

Originally posted by: JS80

whoa we kept temperatures 650,000 miles ago?!?!

Well the idea is that we can extrapolate what the temperature was at the time based on the levels of CO2 present in fossilized remains and ice core samples. It may not be the weather channel but it's the best we can do.

The problem is CO2 isnt the only thing that controls global temperature.

Yea but it does partly right?

And since we can't control the other causes of warming, shouldn't we do what we can about this one?

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: SlitheryDee

Originally posted by: JS80

whoa we kept temperatures 650,000 miles ago?!?!

Well the idea is that we can extrapolate what the temperature was at the time based on the levels of CO2 present in fossilized remains and ice core samples. It may not be the weather channel but it's the best we can do.

The problem is CO2 isnt the only thing that controls global temperature.

Yea but it does partly right?

And since we can't control the other causes of warming, shouldn't we do what we can about this one?

If someone comes up with a fair plan, i could see it being feasible.

Kyoto was voted down in the senate 96-0 for a reason.