login
An Inconvenient Truth (Page 3)
-
No new posts
|
 2006-12-29 12:34 PM in reply to: #634882 |
Master  2808    , Minnesota |  Subject: RE: An Inconvenient Truth |
| 2006-12-29 12:40 PM in reply to: #636506 |
Runner | Subject: RE: An Inconvenient Truth trigods - 2006-12-29 11:52 AM Scout7 - 2006-12-29 10:42 AM run4yrlif - 2006-12-29 11:41 AM trigods - 2006-12-29 11:36 AM I dont know, I got nothing... I must have watch too much CSI Miami on DVR this week... "and there lies the rub" is a popular saying on there I understand the saying, I'm just not sure at what your directing it. As for GW, either you work to not to f*ck things up, or you don't. It's a two-sided issue. As for religion, it's a many-sided issue, and one where you're better off making your decisions for reasons other than for covering your bases. I think you BOTH have Stage III syph, and it's affecting your heads now.....
Actually the Syph is asymtomatic, so we wouldnt know we had it till it was too late Stage 3 is where they generally throw you in a padded room. I learned this from an English prof in college. Long story. |
| 2006-12-30 12:35 AM in reply to: #636387 |
Pro 4311 Texas | Subject: RE: An Inconvenient Truth Birkierunner - 2006-12-29 9:48 AM JBrashear - 2006-12-29 9:24 AM If you're a wildlife biologist, I'd really like you to see the part where Gore talks about the effects on coral reefs & the microbes in the ocean at the base of the food chain. It would be interesting to get your take on that section. Well, since I refuse to put a single penny in Al's pocket I won't be buying the DVD. Although, I did see on DishNetwork last night that it is on pay per view for $3.99. I'm not sure I could hold my nose long enough to watch him though. I don't need his movie to be able to read both sides of the argument. I'm not a marine biologist (I think Joel ( TH3_FRB ) is) but if there has been a response by coral to increases in ocean temperatures in parts of the world, it would make perfect sense to me. Ecoystems are not static. Are you asking me to believe that humans have been solely responsible for the phenomenon you reference, or just saying you'd be interested in my take on it? I said it would be interesting to get your take on it, and that's what I meant. Nowhere in any of my posts have I suggested that humans are solely responsible for global warming. I believe we are contributors and should be more responsible in our efforts to minimize our footprint, but the percentage we're responsible is still TBD from my research. But yea, I like hearing different views on the presentation. My brother-in-law is a chemical engineer working on a fuel cell project up in NY & we have a family friend who is a wildlife biologist/conservationist with 30+ years in the field and I like getting their input on various aspects of environmentalism. In the same vein, I'd want to hear your input as well. I do have an alterior motive in wanting to move to renewable energy. Every Kw we produce from wind, solar, or biomass is one less we're getting from foreign oil. I'd love nothing more than to be able to give a giant middle finger to OPEC one day. That's outside the scope of this discussion, but it bears mentioning. Edited by JBrashear 2006-12-30 12:42 AM |
| 2006-12-30 8:29 AM in reply to: #637085 |
Pro 4675 Wisconsin near the Twin Cities metro | Subject: RE: An Inconvenient Truth JBrashear - 2006-12-30 12:35 AM I'd love nothing more than to be able to give a giant middle finger to OPEC one day. Agreed!! |
| 2007-01-03 8:26 PM in reply to: #634882 |
Pro 4311 Texas | Subject: RE: An Inconvenient Truth http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070103/ap_on_bi_ge/exxonmobil_global_w... ExxonMobil Corp. gave $16 million to 43 ideological groups between 1998 and 2005 in a coordinated effort to mislead the public by discrediting the science behind global warming, the Union of Concerned Scientists asserted Wednesday. The report by the science-based nonprofit advocacy group mirrors similar claims by Britain's leading scientific academy. Last September, The Royal Society wrote the oil company asking it to halt support for groups that "misrepresented the science of climate change." ExxonMobil did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the scientific advocacy group's report. Many scientists say accumulating carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases from tailpipes and smokestacks are warming the atmosphere like a greenhouse, melting Arctic sea ice, alpine glaciers and disturbing the lives of animals and plants. ExxonMobil lists on its Web site nearly $133 million in 2005 contributions globally, including $6.8 million for "public information and policy research" distributed to more than 140 think-tanks, universities, foundations, associations and other groups. Some of those have publicly disputed the link between greenhouse gas emissions and global warming. But in September, the company said in response to the Royal Society that it funded groups which research "significant policy issues and promote informed discussion on issues of direct relevance to the company." It said the groups do not speak for the company. Alden Meyer, the Union of Concerned Scientists' strategy and policy director, said in a teleconference that ExxonMobil based its tactics on those of tobacco companies, spreading uncertainty by misrepresenting peer-reviewed scientific studies or cherry-picking facts. Dr. James McCarthy, a professor at Harvard University, said the company has sought to "create the illusion of a vigorous debate" about global warming. |
| 2007-01-04 8:30 AM in reply to: #636619 |
Buttercup 14334 | Subject: RE: An Inconvenient Truth leapdog - 2006-12-29 1:34 PM Responses to "Al's Truth" can be found here: http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/ BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! Junkscience.com is indeed JUNK science. It's the guy who was once paid to debunk cancer "myths" for the tobacco industry! The guy is a paid political hack.
Imagine that! Big business trying to distort the truth in their favor. Hacks posing as journalists! SHOCKING, I know! There is no scientific "debate" - just a PR industry designed to lie, lie, lie, lie, lie. I don't worry about global warming. I figure, whatever the cause, the Earth is flushing the toilet on the human race. Evolution. Nothing is permanent. Edited by Renee 2007-01-04 8:44 AM |
| 2007-01-04 9:40 AM in reply to: #634882 |
| Veteran 213 | Subject: RE: An Inconvenient Truth 2) Is global warming caused by human activity? The facts are undeniable. All scientists agree on this and that is why the Kyoto accord was created and ratfied by several contries (except the US of course). You can't believe that governments would commit to such an agreement unless the facts were incredibly compelling. First of all, facts like the changes in global temps may be undeniable, however the CAUSES of these changes remains in question and by no means have been agreed upon by all scientists. One key reason for this is the inability to differentiate between correlation and causation. Scientists can find correlations between variables, but when dealing with heating / cooling cycles in the hundreds and thousands of years, it becomes nearly impossible to prove what CAUSES global warming. I would also argue that basing any conclusions on what gov'ts agree to is seriously flawed. Gov'ts have many motivations for passing legislation like the Kyoto protocol which have nothing to do w/ scientific accuracy. Fox example, Gov't support for ethanol is based more on hype and politics than science. Ethanol has serious efficiency problems and causes damage to existing pipelines and underground tanks, as well as engines. Yet it already has substantial gov't subsidy support and will likely get more as the hype grows. IMO, the focus on global warming dilutes the issue b/c people can poke holes in the scientific conclusions and get distracted by the politics. The environmental cause would be better served by reminding people of the micro impacts of pollution - the changes in their local water, soil and air. On a global scale, people can more easily write off the futility of change... but if you focus on the things that impact people every day, you have a better chance of making them recognize what is happening and how they can help. |
| 2007-01-04 10:56 PM in reply to: #634882 |
Regular 87 Squamish,BC | Subject: RE: An Inconvenient Truth Wow. No wonder nothing ever gets done. Everyone is so busy denying everything and seeing conspiracy theories everywhere. I find it hard to believe any criticisms can be made of the movie without seeing it from beginning to end. I have a science background and it happens to be in ecology. I haven't really followed Gore's career and don't really care about him personally. The "facts" that were presented were very thought provoking in a good way. They also pointed to the fact that the US can make the greatest impact because they are by far the greatest contributor per capita in the industrialized world by far. Unfortunately it sounds like many are too busy justifying their lifestyle to care.
|
| 2007-01-04 11:33 PM in reply to: #634882 |
Elite 3650 Laurium, MI | Subject: RE: An Inconvenient Truth being a member of the scientific community studying this problem..... can I not write a 50 page novel and just say that 90% of the current global warming debate is political hype exagerated by competition within the energy industries? |
|
|
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK