The environment thread

[YASNY]

I understand, what I was commenting on was I wish I shared your optimism that we will adapt to the changes. First people have to accept the environment is changing. Then they have to accept the cause, until then, it is all hat and no cattle.

 

I'm not saying it will be easy. We may all have to migrate equatoral areas (wouldn't that be ironic). It may cause catastophic problems in the long run. When I say "we will adapt" I'm refering to mankind, as in some will survive and adapt. Our civilization may not survive, but mankind will.

[YASNY]

Here's an article from LiveScience that presents both sides.

[NorthSideSox72]

Here's an article from LiveScience that presents both sides.

Thanks for all the links YAS, I have some reading now. I'm looking forward to it.

 

[BigSqwert]

Here's an article from LiveScience that presents both sides.

With regards to Mars this is a quote from the link embedded in that section:

 

NASA's Mars Odyssey orbiter has been surveying the planet for nearly a full Martian year now, and it has spotted seasonal changes like the advance and retreat of polar ice. It's also gathering data of a possible longer trend.

 

So based on a full one year of research on Mars this Russian scientist is dismissing man made causes for global warming on Earth? Not very convincing to me.

 

[Cknolls]

The majority of climate scientists and astrophysicists have a political agenda across the world? What would that be?

 

Research grants?

[Jenksismyhero]

This was on Friday night and I thought it was an interesting piece. Especially the IPCC stuff. Political agenda? Me thinks yes.

 

 

http://youtube.com/watch?v=_FI0U5JOtoo

 

 

 

 

I've said my opinions on global warming a ton, but seeing as I was called out earlier I want to reaffirm my position:

 

1. Global warming exists. Problems associated with the warming could pose a danger and change the world as we know it.

 

2. Key difference: the question of the human element is still up for question. Most important, is it significant? I don't think anyone knows for a fact - thus the debate is not "over."

 

3. Al Gore is a douche - if you complain that the Bush admn are a bunch of "fear mongers" then Al Gore is equally evil. It makes me sick that he's been made into a saint for this crap.

[Texsox]

3. Al Gore is a douche - if you complain that the Bush admn are a bunch of "fear mongers" then Al Gore is equally evil. It makes me sick that he's been made into a saint for this crap.

 

I can't help but think if Al Gore was a Rep, his fan base would be so much different.

[Jenksismyhero]

I can't help but think if Al Gore was a Rep, his fan base would be so much different.

 

Isn't it funny though that a guy who uses faulty information, generalizes, oversimplifies, and downright misleads people into thinking that Katrina part 2 will be at their doorstep if they don't change their lightbulb or start riding a bike tomorrow can be given an Oscar, a Nobel Peace Prize, and sainthood in the eyes of the liberals across the world, but someone who tried to "sell" people on the war is on par with Hitler? Both are douche-bags for not doing their homework and trying to trick people into believing something. I'll grant you that. But the disparity in the treatment of the two is just downright laughable at this point.

[Texsox]

Isn't it funny though that a guy who uses faulty information, generalizes, oversimplifies, and downright misleads people into thinking that Katrina part 2 will be at their doorstep if they don't change their lightbulb or start riding a bike tomorrow can be given an Oscar, a Nobel Peace Prize, and sainthood in the eyes of the liberals across the world, but someone who tried to "sell" people on the war is on par with Hitler? Both are douche-bags for not doing their homework and trying to trick people into believing something. I'll grant you that. But the disparity in the treatment of the two is just downright laughable at this point.

 

 

How many have died because of Gore? Bush? How can you even compare the two.

[BigSqwert]

Research grants?

Wouldn't it be easier to "sell" your research ideas based on ideas not in line with man made global warming? Business like "Big Oil" are much more powerful than anything on the contrary.

[Jenksismyhero]

 

How many have died because of Gore? Bush? How can you even compare the two.

 

Fair enough. The tactics are the same though, and its the fear mongering tactics that BushCo is mostly cited for.

[BigSqwert]

Isn't it funny though that a guy who uses faulty information, generalizes, oversimplifies, and downright misleads people into thinking that Katrina part 2 will be at their doorstep if they don't change their lightbulb or start riding a bike tomorrow...

Once again, an overwhelming majority of scientists across the world agree that global warming is occurring. There is some debate on what the outcomes will be because of the climate change. You make it seem as if he just made all of this up off the top of his head.

[BigSqwert]

This is what Al wrote 18 years ago.

[Jenksismyhero]

Reading most of this thread, its become clear that you cannot distinguish between those that believe global warming is a farce and those that believe global warming exists but the extent of human involvment is unknown and therefore question whether the "debate" is truly settled.

 

Watch the Stossel piece I've linked. Don't think of it as some scientific research piece proving one sides point that we aren't causing any of it. Instead try to be open-minded and understand his entire point is - what happened to the debate? Why don't we have a choice anymore on what to believe? Should we ever get to a point where side A can completely shut out side B because the majority of the scientific world thinks one way (which btw I don't believe is true. The majority of science tells us that we are in a warming period, I'm not sure a vast majority agrees humans are to blame, or at least agree by how much humans are to blame - another oversimplification of the debate).

 

Rehashing old arguments - science has been proven wrong before. Pesticides were supposed to kill us all 10 years ago. Y2k was going to ruin the world. I'm not saying we should use this to prove science is dumb and we can't learn anything. But we can use that argument to say look, nothing is 100% until it happens, so why allows douches like Gore to continue to spout nonsense about the debate being over. We should be concerned about the earth getting warmer. It probably will have an effect on radiation levels and sea levels - we'll probably have to change and adapt regardless of who is right or wrong. But it's another thing to argue that we need to throw billions and billions into a problem we may or may not be able to help anyway or that we need to change how we live just because someone tells us we are the cause of it all.

Edited October 22, 2007 by Jenksismybitch

[Texsox]

Fair enough. The tactics are the same though, and its the fear mongering tactics that BushCo is mostly cited for.

 

I believe the Gore / Bush analogy is as erroneous as the Bush / Hitler.

 

If by tactics you mean thousands of scientists and hundreds and hundreds of studies, I do not believe it is the same. Gore is relying heavily on mainstream knowledge from the majority of scientists. Bush relied on dismissing the inspectors and a smaller knowledge base.

 

And look at worst case scenarios.

 

If Gore is wrong, we'll have cleaned up the planet, reduced pollution, etc.

If Bush is/was wrong, thousands of people will die and we will not find WMD and Iraq might night have been the threat we thought.

[kapkomet]

Reading most of this thread, its become clear that you cannot distinguish between those that believe global warming is a farce and those that believe global warming exists but the extent of human involvment is unknown and therefore question whether the "debate" is truly settled.

 

Watch the Stossel piece I've linked. Don't think of it as some scientific research piece proving one sides point that we aren't causing any of it. Instead try to be open-minded and understand his entire point is - what happened to the debate? Why don't we have a choice anymore on what to believe? Should we ever get to a point where side A can completely shut out side B because the majority of the scientific world thinks one way (which btw I don't believe is true. The majority of science tells us that we are in a warming period, I'm not sure a vast majority agrees humans are to blame, or at least agree by how much humans are to blame - another oversimplification of the debate).

 

Rehashing old arguments - science has been proven wrong before. Pesticides were supposed to kill us all 10 years ago. Y2k was going to ruin the world. I'm not saying we should use this to prove science is dumb and we can't learn anything. But we can use that argument to say look, nothing is 100% until it happens, so why allows douches like Gore to continue to spout nonsense about the debate being over. We should be concerned about the earth getting warmer. It probably will have an effect on radiation levels and sea levels - we'll probably have to change and adapt regardless of who is right or wrong. But it's another thing to argue that we need to throw billions and billions into a problem we may or may not be able to help anyway or that we need to change how we live just because someone tells us we are the cause of it all.

Well put, IMO.

 

[BigSqwert]

So what are the negatives if we heed Gore's warnings and his message turns out to be false? Cleaner air and water? Fuel efficient technologies? More expansive forests? Seems like a win-win.

 

If we ignore his warnings and he is right about his message then we all lose.

Edited October 22, 2007 by BigSqwert

[southsider2k5]

So what are the negatives if we heed Gore's warnings and his message turns out to be false? Cleaner air and water? Fuel efficient technologies? More expansive forests? Seems like a win-win.

 

If we ignore his warnings and he is right about his message then we all lose.

 

So I take it you are a religious man?

[BigSqwert]

So I take it you are a religious man?

Not the least bit.

[southsider2k5]

Not the least bit.

 

At least superstitious right? throwing salt over your shoulder, not stepping on cracks, avoiding the number 13 etc... Because after all, if the warnings are right, think of the consequences!

[BigSqwert]

At least superstitious right? throwing salt over your shoulder, not stepping on cracks, avoiding the number 13 etc... Because after all, if the warnings are right, think of the consequences!

 

Never mind. I'll go start a few tire fires and break a few mercury thermometers over Lake Michigan this weekend. What difference does it make?

 

Perhaps you can also link abortion and immigration to this debate while you're at it.

[Gregory Pratt]

"The planet has a fever. If your baby has a fever, you go to the doctor. If the doctor says you need to intervene here, you don’t say, well I read a science fiction novel that tells me it’s not a problem. If the crib’s on fire, you don’t speculate that the baby is flame-retardant. You take action. The planet has a fever."

[YASNY]

"The planet has a fever. If your baby has a fever, you go to the doctor. If the doctor says you need to intervene here, you don’t say, well I read a science fiction novel that tells me it’s not a problem. If the crib’s on fire, you don’t speculate that the baby is flame-retardant. You take action. The planet has a fever."

 

The quote in you sig that is attributed to Schuerholz was originally uttered by Branch Rickey. Maybe not word for word, but it came from him first.

[Gregory Pratt]

The quote in you sig that is attributed to Schuerholz was originally uttered by Branch Rickey. Maybe not word for word, but it came from him first.

 

He says it in his book without attribution; I will likely keep it as such, and I don't think there's anything wrong with that.

 

PS: that has nothing to do with the environment.

[YASNY]

He says it in his book without attribution; I will likely keep it as such, and I don't think there's anything wrong with that.

 

PS: that has nothing to do with the environment.

 

Nothing wrong with it at all. Just trying to spread a little info.

 

PS: So?