Global warming

[FightTheFuture]

Quote from man:

utterly stupid line of argument. sorry, i would like him
to reach as many people as possible. by influencing
others he reduces the amount of pollution by a much
higher amount than if he used other means of
transport and influence no one. this story is just a
plain attempt to discredit him.

Stupid line of argument? I never said anything. AlGore's actions did.

What's wrong with setting an example? Can't AlGore do at least a little bit?

There's no excuse for the dump on his farm and the environmental violations from the zinc mining operation on his land and what about him favoring his career at the expense of his state's environment? He has PO'd a lot of environmentalists in his state.

I no longer think he's an environmentalist.

AlGore's got money. Why doesn't he build an eco-efficient house?

Why do we have to do what he says while he lives the good life in excess?

 

[nitro]

Quote from ElCubano:

...
i go camping every year and lug everything i brought in back out including my God damn shit and i still cant talk...

Do use a leaf to wipe your ass, or do you bring toilet paper?

nitro

 

[BloodTrader]

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

Correction: Any more than the Vikings could when global COOLING ensued.

Greenland was once covered in forests and was prime farming land. The "little ice age" turned it into what it is today.

No, as usual, you pick up your talking points from the right wing no-nothings and don't do your own research. Greenland was marginally more farmable when the Vikings arrived. "Prime farmland"...no.

 

[BloodTrader]

Quote from man:

seems there are arguments on both sides. a real debate.
in any case from surfin around i'd say that it is not only
oil-payed scientists who disagree. which came as surprise
to me.

This is the perception you get from the media, because they feel they have to present 'both sides' of an issue. So the general public thinks...gee, I guess it's about 50/50, because they hear both sides represented fairly evenly in the media.

If you look at the scientific community, it is more like 95% agree global warming is occurring and a majority think human activities contribute.

 

[man]

Quote from FightTheFuture:

Why do we have to do what he says while he lives the good life in excess?

i think that sums it up. let me respond: we don't do
anything because "he" says so, but if what he says
is right, we have no choice. no matter if he goes by
foot, lives in a cage or whatsoever. what another
strange line of argument ...

 

[man]

Quote from BloodTrader:

This is the perception you get from the media, because they feel they have to present 'both sides' of an issue. So the general public thinks...gee, I guess it's about 50/50, because they hear both sides represented fairly evenly in the media.

If you look at the scientific community, it is more like 95% agree global warming is occurring and a majority think human activities contribute.

i am not in that community, so i can't judge. thnx for
your perspective.

 

[FightTheFuture]

Quote from man:

i think that sums it up. let me respond: we don't do
anything because "he" says so, but if what he says
is right, we have no choice. no matter if he goes by
foot, lives in a cage or whatsoever. what another
strange line of argument ...

The hypocrisy of AlGore's personal environmental record and telling the peasants not to pollute is sort of like a drunkaholic telling everyone not to drink.

Toxic waste products from zinc mining on his land that flow into a river resulted in a notice of violation from the state with no cleanup accomplished.

Gore has protected polluters in his state just to get a few votes. Playing politics with the environment...How is anyone supposed to respect that?

Apparently, AlGore gets extremely angry and evasive when confronted on his disrespect for the environment.

You can influence more people by setting at least some sort of example.

 

[nitro]

Quote from FightTheFuture:

The hypocrisy of AlGore's personal environmental record and telling the peasants not to pollute is sort of like a drunkaholic telling everyone not to drink.

...

I would think the hypocrisy would lye not with the one that drinks and tells others the dangers of drinking, but the one that isn't an alchoholic telling alcoholics the dangers of drinking. But even that is a bogus argument, since that is exactly what therapists do. It is a childish argument born of an uninformed mind.

Like a typical ET exchange, what is being debated here is not science, but bickering about that is tantamount to gossip.

Either some part of GW is caused by human beings or it isn't. Whether that statement is advertised to the general public by Al Gore in a movie, or Payton Manning in a commercial is irrelevant. What is relevant, or should be, is the hypotheses and the science that is being done to prove or disprove the hypotheses.

Only crackpots are left believing that in the modern era, that GW is not caused in part, and probably in large part, by human beings.

Global warming is probably 80+% human induced and 20%- natural weather cycles. Before the industrial revolution it was probably 95% natural weather cycles and 5% induced by human beings. The confidence level of that statement is in the 95%.

nitro

 

[Jayford]

Only crackpots are left believing that in the modern era, that GW is not caused in part, and probably in large part, by human beings.

Global warming is probably 80+% human induced and 20%- natural weather cycles. Before the industrial revolution it was probably 95% natural weather cycles and 5% induced by human beings. The confidence level of that statement is in the 95%.

nitro [/B]

Try again.

First, a disclaimer, I am for the Kyoto protocols, or similar, but only to curb pollution in general. Reforestation would be good too.

95% of scientists do indeed believe the earth is warming. They also believe it goes through cycles, always has. It has warmed a full degree in the past three decades. By recent standards this is dramatic, by geological standards not even noteworthy. The earth has at times, cooled and heated much faster. Not really important to this debate however.

Virtually all scientists believe there are more greenhouse gases now, and this is due to human activity. The problem arises in that how much does this actually add to warming (scientists are WIDELY split on this one), and does it do anything at all? There is loose correlation between higher gas concentrations and heating, but by no means does this prove one causes the other. Statistically speaking, the correlation is a joke. Al Gore sorta leaves out data that invalidates his argument, not to mention the pathetic timeline involved. We are now no hotter than the 30's, when there was WAY less CO2 around, and why is methane decreasing? No one knows. Why is Iceland cooling? No one knows. (Three of the top ten hottest ave temps were during the dust bowl years).

It is so non PC to argue vs the "greenhouse thing" that many scientists won't publish alternative views fearing backlash, or even their jobs. This whole thing is similar to the arrogant belief that we can "destroy" the earth with nukes. Yeah right! We can end human life, and that of most mammals, but life would go on. Bacteria in the soil, if not cockroaches, would evolve to something else in the next billion years. Point being, nature, sun activity, elliptical orbits, etc, are far more powerful than we will ever be.

Point of this is that there are many "non crackpots" who think that human activity may not have that much influence. I personally am quite an environmentalist, so regardless of motives, I enjoy the direction this is going. I think the pure science is seriously flawed however.

Lets concentrate on:

1) population control
2)reforestation
3) and yes, everything we can feasibly do to reduce consumption and pollution without crashing the World economy (which would be far worse than warming).

Jay

 

[nitro]

Oh geesys. You know what? The important thing is that those that can affect change in the release of green house gases are convinced.

All that is being debated here is whether the world is flat or not. Go at it...

"...A few scientists disagree, most commonly asserting that although warming is occurring its cause is either natural or unknown. Outside the scientific community the consensus is disputed by some corporations, advocacy groups, politicians, and individuals (see global warming skeptics). However, among the governments of developed countries, there is little debate about attribution of global warming to human activities....There is little debate on the existence of anthropogenic global warming among climate scientists. In contrast, there is an ongoing debate about global-warming theories in the popular media and on a policy level..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy

Debate it all you want. The people that need convincing have been convinced...

nitro