so you remember the global cooling scare of the 1970s...SpIk3y wrote:
I'm 18. And?
Well I have this amazing ability where I can read about things that happened in the past. I'm sorry if I phrased it wrong by saying "remember", I didn't intend it that way.
its not really that amazingSpIk3y wrote:
Well I have this amazing ability where I can read about things that happened in the past.
Yeah, ok. You and the other 15 people in the world who say it ain't happening (so it must not be happening) are really cornering the market on wisdom!usmarine2 wrote:
no you manbearpig fanboi. his words are making him rich off of something that aint happening to begin with. then add the hypocrisy on top of that. bing bongIRONCHEF wrote:
So because he's a bad example (possibly...his home has had considerable "green" upgrades since that old news first broke years ago...), his words are false, his influence meaningless, and his impact worldwide on the environment is futile?
Gore detractors = fail.
Should he not make a career out of being one of the foremost environmental activists? Should I question your earning money for serving in the military and say you were in it for the money and not for the cause or the purpose you really enlisted?
It quite definitely is happening usm. What is still under debate is whether we're anything to do with it.usmarine2 wrote:
no you manbearpig fanboi. his words are making him rich off of something that aint happening to begin with. then add the hypocrisy on top of that. bing bong
If any of you fuckers spent last summer in Europe and for that matter this sodding summer, you'll quickly warm to the notion of climate change.
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
My take on it is this. Yes, there is global warming, but it is part of historical cycles, and we are not the sole cause of it. What I do question is if we are helping to accelerate this cycle, and will we make it worse than it would be had we not been dumping so much man made greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
Nobody said we're the sole cause of it. But because unlike in the many ice ages past, this one can reasonably be assumed to be accelerating because of our contribution of Co2 in the atmosphere...far more than plantlife alone has done in the past. It fits. It makes sense that since we're likely (duh) the only civilization in this earth's history, with such a huge population, and with such a massive Co2 contribution (which is what causes the warming and subsequent ice ages)..then yeah...it's a very likely theory that mankind is contributing.Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
My take on it is this. Yes, there is global warming, but it is part of historical cycles, and we are not the sole cause of it. What I do question is if we are helping to accelerate this cycle, and will we make it worse than it would be had we not been dumping so much man made greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
Just to clarify, this isn't necessarily just because of global warming...but rather a weather phenomenon called el nino which is exacerbated by global warming. In California, el nino causes a couple years of draught and heat, followed by saturating rains and land slides with cooler summers for 2 years or so. 2009 should have hot summers according to this trend. On the east coast, hurricanes are magnified on and off in 2 year cycles because of this.m3thod wrote:
If any of you fuckers spent last summer in Europe and for that matter this sodding summer, you'll quickly warm to the notion of climate change.
Last edited by IRONCHEF (2008-07-23 12:19:06)
i have a theory. my theory is that the earth has moved closer to the sun than in the near past - hence causing warming to occur. in a bunch of years the earth's orbit around the sun will wobble back to where it was before and we will be experiencing a 'cooling' phase. i think it's about as plausible as the global warming CO2 people's theories.
check it out...it's not the fact that i refuse to do things to help the environment. far from it, i'm doing my share with recycling, being responsible by not doing frivolous traveling, etc. But honestly, i see more zealotry than actual science here. especially in the way alternative viewpoints are 'silenced' with a fury from the far left. rather than debate the true science of the issue, it's quite a bit easier to defame these scientists and simply call them knuckledragger fascists in the back pocket of an unpopular president. this is patent BS! party of debate, my ass.
Ever see the movie Cat's Eye by Stephen King? Quitters, Inc is a story where a guy wants to quit smoking so he joins this service that is supposed to help him do that. long story short, they basically bully your family (cut off your wife's finger since you smuggled a smoke) and then (this is where it gets scary) start thinking you have to lose some weight. i can see the same thing happening over time with the environmental zealots - start changing our way of life slowly and then it goes beyond it's original intentions to fit their own agenda of how the world should be. That's what is ridiculous.
I do not trust Gore's true intentions. The global warming thing actually is even immaterial in this argument - i'm looking at it more of as a political ploy.
check it out...it's not the fact that i refuse to do things to help the environment. far from it, i'm doing my share with recycling, being responsible by not doing frivolous traveling, etc. But honestly, i see more zealotry than actual science here. especially in the way alternative viewpoints are 'silenced' with a fury from the far left. rather than debate the true science of the issue, it's quite a bit easier to defame these scientists and simply call them knuckledragger fascists in the back pocket of an unpopular president. this is patent BS! party of debate, my ass.
Ever see the movie Cat's Eye by Stephen King? Quitters, Inc is a story where a guy wants to quit smoking so he joins this service that is supposed to help him do that. long story short, they basically bully your family (cut off your wife's finger since you smuggled a smoke) and then (this is where it gets scary) start thinking you have to lose some weight. i can see the same thing happening over time with the environmental zealots - start changing our way of life slowly and then it goes beyond it's original intentions to fit their own agenda of how the world should be. That's what is ridiculous.
I do not trust Gore's true intentions. The global warming thing actually is even immaterial in this argument - i'm looking at it more of as a political ploy.
I'd regard the Manmade Global Warming things as every bit as much a right wing campaign to reign in emerging powers in Asia and South America that the far left have been duped into supporting. Gore ain't exactly Karl Marx riding around in his SUVs and hopping across oceans in leerjets.CaptainSpaulding71 wrote:
especially in the way alternative viewpoints are 'silenced' with a fury from the far left.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-07-23 12:41:26)
i don't think el gringo affects the UK? I'm too lazy to find out.
Anyway I'm old enought to remember back to my youth when British summer time were quintessential summer. Hot and blistering. It's just not the same anymore and I've been walking around today in a hoodie.........its friggin late July.
Anyway I'm old enought to remember back to my youth when British summer time were quintessential summer. Hot and blistering. It's just not the same anymore and I've been walking around today in a hoodie.........its friggin late July.
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
Actually as the sun grows in size our safe zone gets smaller & smaller, but we have something like 10000 years before the worlds a desert. Al gore had to make money somehow since he didn't get the presidency, he's done well for himself even if he's hippocratic. I personally think the poles are just doing their shifting once again thus changing the climates in certain regions, the cycles of the earth are to immense to cram into our time here. Hopefully the invention of the gas HHO will solve our energy crisis{if it doesn't turn out to be another scam} & environmental concerns in one fell swoop. {crosses fingers that he has indeed found a cheap way to separate the hydrogen} But I digress.
This is a disconnect. He's advocating the use of more environment-friendly vehicles for all the people Right, so then he should fucking well do it himself.sergeriver wrote:
He won't make the difference even riding a bike. He's advocating the use of more environment-friendly vehicles for all the people, not just for him. As long as this kind of vehicle doesn't exist, I can give a flying fuck if he arrives riding a horse, a Suv or a M1 Abrams.lowing wrote:
Well Serge, if Al is going to tell everyone to show up to his lecture on mass transit systems, then maybe Al should AT LEAST not show up to the same event in a posse of SUV's and Lincoln Towncars that sits idling s oAl doesn't have to get into a hot car afterwards.sergeriver wrote:
And how do you want the man to arrive? Riding a horse or something?
Lead by example maybe?
What does it say to everyone who is supposed to digest his message of 'doing our part' or 'every little bit helps' if he won't ?
Come on. Rich guys like him can afford the latest "green vehicles" a lot more readily than the reast of us he preaches to..the least he could do is get on board with it by showing up in some hybrid Lexuses or something.
Not to defend the guy, but it was an invitation on the "ticket" that urged participants to use public transportation or other such green means of conveyance. More importantly, the event is likely attended by people who live nearby who have the choice to drive their own cars or actually take public transit or bicycle. Al Gore probably doesn't have gas guzzling plantations in every town where he's giving his speeches? He is also taking an entourage with him who along with him, probably don't know the transit schedules, can't be late for the speaking engagement, and possibly have complicated travel arrangements? I don't know, I don't give speaking events, but it doesn't seem too hypocritical.
If the majority of participants to that event carpooled, used public transportation, or other means of green conveyance, then there was success. Did everyone come on a bicycle? Probably not. I'm sure plenty did though as hardcore hippies are sure to do. Did he contradict his message by that success? No. Could he have taken public transit? I don't know..again, I don't travel with an entourage and collect huge speaking fees requiring me to have rigid promptness.
If the majority of participants to that event carpooled, used public transportation, or other means of green conveyance, then there was success. Did everyone come on a bicycle? Probably not. I'm sure plenty did though as hardcore hippies are sure to do. Did he contradict his message by that success? No. Could he have taken public transit? I don't know..again, I don't travel with an entourage and collect huge speaking fees requiring me to have rigid promptness.
he could also have simply televised the event and people could watch at home - saving countless emissions. why the road show?IRONCHEF wrote:
Not to defend the guy, but it was an invitation on the "ticket" that urged participants to use public transportation or other such green means of conveyance. More importantly, the event is likely attended by people who live nearby who have the choice to drive their own cars or actually take public transit or bicycle. Al Gore probably doesn't have gas guzzling plantations in every town where he's giving his speeches? He is also taking an entourage with him who along with him, probably don't know the transit schedules, can't be late for the speaking engagement, and possibly have complicated travel arrangements? I don't know, I don't give speaking events, but it doesn't seem too hypocritical.
If the majority of participants to that event carpooled, used public transportation, or other means of green conveyance, then there was success. Did everyone come on a bicycle? Probably not. I'm sure plenty did though as hardcore hippies are sure to do. Did he contradict his message by that success? No. Could he have taken public transit? I don't know..again, I don't travel with an entourage and collect huge speaking fees requiring me to have rigid promptness.
Are you as moved if you watch a football game on TV as you would be on the 50 yard line?
what does that have to do with anything? that is supposed to convince me?m3thod wrote:
If any of you fuckers spent last summer in Europe and for that matter this sodding summer, you'll quickly warm to the notion of climate change.
oh well I am sold. thank you.CameronPoe wrote:
It quite definitely is happening usm. What is still under debate is whether we're anything to do with it.usmarine2 wrote:
no you manbearpig fanboi. his words are making him rich off of something that aint happening to begin with. then add the hypocrisy on top of that. bing bong
i'd rather be at home to be honest. no need to smell dirty hippies or have bong water spilled on you.IRONCHEF wrote:
Are you as moved if you watch a football game on TV as you would be on the 50 yard line?
I love twang and guns
No you're beyond help.usmarine2 wrote:
what does that have to do with anything? that is supposed to convince me?m3thod wrote:
If any of you fuckers spent last summer in Europe and for that matter this sodding summer, you'll quickly warm to the notion of climate change.
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
the problem is that whenever someone offers a view counter to the global warming crowd, you get something akin to the 'Silence!!!! i Keeel you' a'la Achmed the Dead Terrorist.CameronPoe wrote:
It quite definitely is happening usm. What is still under debate is whether we're anything to do with it.usmarine2 wrote:
no you manbearpig fanboi. his words are making him rich off of something that aint happening to begin with. then add the hypocrisy on top of that. bing bong
it's simply NOT true that everyone (the climatologist community) is in agreement that global warming is primarily caused by humans and what is more, the things that we do to resolve the situation - are they guaranteed to actually make an impact and fix the problem or just make ourselves miserable? i think this is what you pointed out, Cam and i agree. My point is that the healthy debate aspect here is being stifled by the elitists that supposedly know more than the climatologists studying the problems.
i'm all for helping the planet and what not but honestly, i have a hard time believing that this is not some sort of political grab by the left.
The National Post is a rather questionable source...lowing wrote:
http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=2489e0b8-3e57-40eb-9748-6c250d63c40d&p=1
Apparently his environmentally-friendly advice only applies to everyone else and not him.
On May 19, 2006, the newspaper ran two pieces alleging that the Iranian parliament had passed a law requiring religious minorities to wear special identifying badges. One piece was a front page news item titled "IRAN EYES BADGES FOR JEWS" accompanied by a 1935 picture of two Jews bearing Nazi-ordered yellow badges. Later on the same day, experts began coming forward to deny the accuracy of the Post story. The story proved to be false, but not before it had been picked up by a variety of other news media and generated comment from world leaders. Comments on the story by the Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper caused Iran to summon Canada's ambassador to Tehran for an explanation.
On May 24, 2006, the editor-in-chief of the newspaper, Doug Kelly, published an apology for the story on Page 2, admitting that it was false and the National Post had not exercised enough caution or checked enough sources.
The controversy surrounding the falsehood of the articles had badly affected the Post's credibility and journalistic integrity. Critics alleged that hasty production of the article without any fact checking is a clear sign of the paper's sensationalism.
Another major criticism of the Post is its unadulturated support of Israel. Because it is one of the few media outlets in Canada that supports its occupation of Palestinian land, some have pointed out that it sees itself as the "lone ranger" in the Israeli cause. It is also criticised by some Canadian pundits of romanticizing and downplaying the plight of the Palestinians in the conflict.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Post
Last edited by Turquoise (2008-07-23 16:35:35)
oh jesus turq.
What? Cross-referencing bothers you?