Global Warming and all that stuff.
- Thread starter EGarrett
- Start date
-
- Tags
- al gore global warming
Let me get this straight: on what is an important issue (whether pro or anti), you are not prepared to look up any info yourself, but you want people to tell you what to think? And you'll take the random responses on a bulletin board to tell you what to think?
Rather you than me.
Rather you than me.It annoys me when people are so eager to criticize that they ignore what the person actually said.
I said I don't feel like watching another propaganda film. As in Al Gore's movie.
An excellent way to gather information is to have people with different opinions on a topic argue it in an unedited form. Discussion boards are great for that.
I said I don't feel like watching another propaganda film. As in Al Gore's movie.
An excellent way to gather information is to have people with different opinions on a topic argue it in an unedited form. Discussion boards are great for that.
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
How do you know it is a propaganda film?
Because it presupposes a conclusion. Gore was an Environmentalist when he started shooting the movie and still is one.
I'm interested in an examination that shows both sides, not someone who believes in one side giving his version of the issue.
I'm interested in an examination that shows both sides, not someone who believes in one side giving his version of the issue.
so give us a one sentence "topic", not so extreme as to rule out interesting discussion????
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
Sure, but he is referring to scientific evidence.
Not. (but this question is too extreme to produce much interesting debate)
there is wide scientific consensus (not unanimity) from the data that unusual warming in the relatively recent past.
although state-of-the-art model projections of the future may offer little reliable detail, they support basic physical insight and conclusions based on simpler models: there is a real possibility of significant impacts over the coming decades.
that is more than establish that "Global Warming is not BS."
corplinx
JREF Kid
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2002
- Messages
- 8,952
That the climate is warming is scientific consensus. Projections of how much, what the effects will be, and how much of the cause is due to humans are areas of scientific inquiry.
People get caught up in all-or-nothing arguments where all of global warming or none of it must be human caused. They get caught up on how much warming is happening versus whether or not any at all is occurring.
People get caught up in all-or-nothing arguments where all of global warming or none of it must be human caused. They get caught up on how much warming is happening versus whether or not any at all is occurring.
Last edited:
Bloody few posts on a bulletin board don't presuppose a conclusion. Can't see most arguments on a bulletin board being more worthy than one single deep analysis. You COULD make the effort of looking up the scientific papers on which Gore based his analysis, or natch......
......
you can go for an unscientific battle on a bulletin board, with no peer review, no hard statistics, no exact precision of results and models, and hey, then once you've picked the posts you like best, you can go home with The Truth.
eerrrrrrghhhh.
Gosh.
Well, you know, if I want a film about physics, I will get a physicist to make the film. If I want a film about the enviroment, I might as well get an enviromentalist. And I can always check the sources and science myself.
:headbang:
Seems like you've already got your own presuppositions in place anyway.
Last edited:
When you presuppose your conclusion, it's easy to bend references to scientific evidence. See: Moore, Michael
Is it a major problem? Is it something we should all be afraid of?
I'm not asking for a single post. I'm asking for a discussion. When people read and discuss/argue with each other, they test each other's logic and facts.
If "An Inconvenient Truth" was packaged with a counter-documentary from someone against Gore, then I would pay it much more attention. Likewise, if this message board was one long post from one person putting forth only one side of the story...I wouldn't pay it much attention.
Actually, you're showing that you don't know much about how to learn about the world.
An unedited debate between two knowledgeable and prepared people on the issue would be the MOST effective way to learn about it.
Lacking that, a message board discussion is fine for learning a little more. It's also more enjoyable. Which fit what I'm looking to do.
Wrong. An environmentalist usually refers to someone who already believes in saving the environment. Not an objective scientist.
Seems like you need to learn how to discuss something without going off-topic and attacking someone...then you need to learn not to trust everything you see.
Texastwister
Scholar
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2006
- Messages
- 95
Its the same as the Y2K....unfortunately it wont go away after one year
Schneibster
Unregistered
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2005
- Messages
- 3,966
It appears that the US Department of the Interior is sufficiently uncertain of their ability to win in court on the assertion that global warming is fake that they have now listed the polar bear as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. This apparently occurred under threat of a lawsuit by the NRDC, the Center For Biological Diversity, and Greenpeace.
Little baby steps, but no question where they wind up. Never was, actually. It's not a theory, it's not an opinion, and it's not political. It's a fact. It's happening now. The predictions are scary, but the really scary part is what's already happened and what that means for the immediate future.
Little baby steps, but no question where they wind up. Never was, actually. It's not a theory, it's not an opinion, and it's not political. It's a fact. It's happening now. The predictions are scary, but the really scary part is what's already happened and what that means for the immediate future.
Schneibster
Unregistered
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2005
- Messages
- 3,966
So, do I understand from this that it's your contention that scores of climate scientists are using models that fail to take the Sun's radiation into account? You can't possibly be serious.
Not the Scientist at all - the pop reports that are the current sky is falling- disaster du jour cause clelebre. The ones that model on the basis of the last 30 years, and think that your Yugo is going to cause the Koala bears to get skin cancer.
I have no doubt that we are in a warming trend, I have a serious doubt that man has anything to do with it.
SImilar to the thought that Erosion may be a terrible thing - until you see the Grand Canyon
Schneibster
Unregistered
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2005
- Messages
- 3,966
Here we go again.
1. The temperature has been rising since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.
2. The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has been rising since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.
3. Industrial activities make CO2.
4. CO2 traps heat.
It's just really that simple. Do me a favor: before we get into all of this again, please, please go pull up the five most recent threads on this board on GW and READ them. This is getting incredibly boring.
AFA the Grand Canyon, you ever hear of the Dust Bowl?
1. The temperature has been rising since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.
2. The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has been rising since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.
3. Industrial activities make CO2.
4. CO2 traps heat.
It's just really that simple. Do me a favor: before we get into all of this again, please, please go pull up the five most recent threads on this board on GW and READ them. This is getting incredibly boring.
AFA the Grand Canyon, you ever hear of the Dust Bowl?
Does your doubt have any scientific basis?