Thread: An Inconvenient Truth...

Our world is heading towards incredible destruction. Glaciers and ice floes are rapidly melting, causing conspicuous erase marks on Earth's original natural attributes. From Mt. Kilimanjaro to the glaciers of Greenland, from Hurricane Katrina to the disappearing Arctic.....it is all a part of global warming. The entire southern tip of Florida will ultimately be submerged along with Shanghai's vicinty and Calcutta's. Manhattan and the World Trade center will be submerged.

Is there still anyone who has the gall to oppose this inevitable conclusion?

Here's the trailer for Al Gore's movie on global warming.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...44470709189270


Nothing is scarier than the truth.

hmm - this is not exactly new out, is it ?

Originally Posted by tritai

...the World Trade center will be submerged.

??

hmm - this is not exactly new out, is it ?

I admit it's a well-known idea by now, but after reading another post by someone named Edward, I began to feel a little alarmed. Those doubting Thomases cannot be allowed to continue to act so blindly!

tritai wrote:
...the World Trade center will be submerged.


??

Sorry, did u not understand something?

Originally Posted by free radical

Originally Posted by tritai

...the World Trade center will be submerged.

??

He's referring to the part in the video which suggest Lower Manhattan will be flooded as sea levels rise in response to global warming. The problem with Gore's film is while what is says is probably true, even the worse case models don't flood that much for 50-100 years--that's quite a ways off. Gore's film over shoots the message and looses credibility as a result.

Lower Manhattan is already vulnerable to Atlantic Hurricane storm surges. Storm Surges on top of rising sea level are far more dangerous to populations around the world.

Originally Posted by tritai

tritai wrote:
...the World Trade center will be submerged.


??

Sorry, did u not understand something?

would that be the same World Trade Center of 9/11 fame ?

The World Trade Center will be flooded just as the Low Countries were. :wink:

And the Arctic is not "disappearing". It's reappearing!

What is "Earth's original natural attributes"?

would that be the same World Trade Center of 9/11 fame ?

-sigh- Yes, yes it would.

What is "Earth's original natural attributes"?

I mean the way Earth looked before there was the problem of global warming. (i.e. size of glaciers, amount of snow on Mt. K, etc.)

He's referring to the part in the video which suggest Lower Manhattan will be flooded as sea levels rise in response to global warming. The problem with Gore's film is while what is says is probably true, even the worse case models don't flood that much for 50-100 years--that's quite a ways off. Gore's film over shoots the message and looses credibility as a result.

Perhaps Gore is taking into account the booming amounts of pollution and such, and in order to show people the ultimate damage, he's bringing these "worst-case models" into the limelight.

....I feel nervous now.....maybe I should erase this whole post..... :?

Super Cereal guys??

I saw once on an Episode of Bullshit, that Al Gore owns the site for the Carbon things you can buy for you impact on the environment and that his House hold uses a lot of energy.

Originally Posted by tritai

would that be the same World Trade Center of 9/11 fame ?

-sigh- Yes, yes it would.

Then it might be hard to submerge it, as it is no longer there.

Don't feel nervous about posting, it's an important topic and all that. Doubtful you'll convince anyone as most have made their minds up one way or the other long ago.

Originally Posted by free radical

Doubtful you'll convince anyone as most have made their minds up one way or the other long ago.

Tritai, you've bundled several arguments together. Most folks are open to discuss the pace and causes of climate change. Few doubting Thomas in that. However I don't see Earth's natural state as museum-like. Disruptive change is a normal state.

Basically, your argument has one good leg.

Here is the antidote to "an inconvenient truth".

Trailer of "Not evil but wrong"

Moreover there is no more evidence available to support global warming.

I saw Gore's movie and was convinced. Then I saw the anti-Gore movie (it's all caused by Solar cycles) - and was convinced. So I know I don't know anything.

A meta-analysis of of previous "global disaster" scenarios, the population bomb, the 70's ice-age scenario, the 80's "Oil Crisis", the Millennium Bug, etc, leads one to think, it's just another Thing.


But deep down... I had always had this theory.... well.... Venus was no accident.

Originally Posted by Vexer

I saw Gore's movie and was convinced. Then I saw the anti-Gore movie (it's all caused by Solar cycles) - and was convinced. So I know I don't know anything.

goes to show : movies (or TV programs, for that matter) are not to be trusted as reference material in any argument - they're too full of emotion that displaces reason

Originally Posted by Vexer

...., leads one to think, it's just another Thing.

That's the key: leading to think, that's groupthink

But deep down... I had always had this theory.... well.... Venus was no accident.

If there is CO2 and it is warm, is it true that CO2 cxaused the heat or that the heat caused the CO2? Or that both were caused by yet something else?

If you do the math it would appear that Venus is about 6-7 times more sentative to doubling CO2 than earth and that makes no sense.

If you do the math it would appear that Venus is about 6-7 times more sentative to doubling CO2 than earth and that makes no sense.

Math using what data?

I fail to see where the big problem with co2 is, in that movie, co2 was the villian and going to kill us all. And why does the media keep harping on co2 and how we need to decrease our .003% that we contribute to the total of 3% in our atmosphere?
And whats with the whole "carbon foot print" idea? Isn't everything made out of carbon?
And what about the hole in the ozone? Isn't that hole shrinking again?

Originally Posted by mastmec

And whats with the whole "carbon foot print" idea? Isn't everything made out of carbon?

no - most non-carbonate rock doesn't contain any carbon

Originally Posted by mastmec

And what about the hole in the ozone? Isn't that hole shrinking again?

different thing altogether - while it is true that CFCs are also a greenhouse gas, that has no bearing on their interaction with the ozone layer

So what is factual about the movie?

don't know - can't be bothered to go and see it

So where is global warming? Why is anybody worried about it? The only reason I can come up with is to create worry and people allow the government to have more power to run our lives so that we will not "destroy" our planet.

Originally Posted by mastmec

Why is anybody worried about it?

If you don't know you are too lazy to find out.

Originally Posted by Bunbury

Originally Posted by mastmec

Why is anybody worried about it?

If you don't know you are too lazy to find out.

wow, brilliant!

Originally Posted by mastmec

The only reason I can come up with is to create worry and people allow the government to have more power to run our lives so that we will not "destroy" our planet.

No mate, if that were the case they would have stuck with global cooling as the rage de jour in the 1970s.

In fact global warming overtook global cooling as a cause for concern because the planet is actually warming.

Originally Posted by free radical

Originally Posted by mastmec

The only reason I can come up with is to create worry and people allow the government to have more power to run our lives so that we will not "destroy" our planet.

No mate, if that were the case they would have stuck with global cooling as the rage de jour in the 1970s.

Actually that's mostly media generated hype and a myth perpetrated by the warming skeptics to cast dispersions on the current science. By the 1970's most of the scientific papers of the day were predicting warming or were neutral. No scientific agency was predicting rapid cooling. There was a concerted effort by the scientist to point out to policy makers such as Congress, that climate had changed in the past, sometimes rapidly, and it was worth the effort (and money) to expand climate sciences.

Ah but it directly undercuts mastmec's notion that warming is nothing more than mind-control hype, because there was some small momentum towards the notion of cooling, which was the result of a multidecadal cycle such as the PDO shifting from cool towards warm circa 1970 - 1975.

Pacific Decadal Oscillation:



Of course this does not negate global warming, only partially obscures it for certain periods, allowing some skeptics to argue that there is no warming, but of course the larger pattern is warming.



THose may not be the best datasets, but the general point should be clear.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

global cooling as the rage de jour in the 1970s.

By the early 80's cooling was commonly understood. Predictions of nuclear winter, a new dinosaur extinction theory, and city smog you just don't see anymore - all these reinforced the cooling doomsday scenario. "Greenhouse effect" was the counter argument, less convincing.

Originally Posted by free radical

Ah but it directly undercuts mastmec's notion that warming is nothing more than mind-control hype, because there was some small momentum towards the notion of cooling, which was the result of a multidecadal cycle such as the PDO shifting from cool towards warm circa 1970 - 1975.

My point with the warming is that it has been happening (getting warmer then getting cooler) from as far back as we know. Now are trend is getting cooler again. What is hype is "man made global warming" that's the point.
As your charts are concerned, Russia took a bunch of them off line around 2000, in the coldest regions, oddly enough socialism still doesn't work, but anyway, so all temp averages will be high.

Originally Posted by Pong

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

global cooling as the rage de jour in the 1970s.

By the early 80's cooling was commonly understood. Predictions of nuclear winter, a new dinosaur extinction theory, and city smog you just don't see anymore - all these reinforced the cooling doomsday scenario. "Greenhouse effect" was the counter argument, less convincing.

I didn't say that...argg.

Originally Posted by Pong

By the early 80's cooling was commonly understood. Predictions of nuclear winter, a new dinosaur extinction theory, and city smog you just don't see anymore - .

All those are still viable and active areas of research. Unfortunately, what's published in the scientific journals and what the media sensationalizes to the public are oftentimes quite apart from one another.

It's also important to distinguish doomsday scenarios that seem rather improbable (e.g. large asteroid hit, global nuke toss, etc) from predictions based on far more likely scenario (e.g. we burn every drop of liquid fossil fuel).

The 70's claims by the media didn't make this distinction and were damn poor journalism.

Originally Posted by Pong

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

global cooling as the rage de jour in the 1970s.

By the early 80's cooling was commonly understood. Predictions of nuclear winter, a new dinosaur extinction theory, and city smog you just don't see anymore - all these reinforced the cooling doomsday scenario. "Greenhouse effect" was the counter argument, less convincing.

Hmm, nothing to do with the PDO? Cooling was due entirely to man made factors? You may want to think about that for a bit.

Originally Posted by mastmec

Originally Posted by free radical

Ah but it directly undercuts mastmec's notion that warming is nothing more than mind-control hype, because there was some small momentum towards the notion of cooling, which was the result of a multidecadal cycle such as the PDO shifting from cool towards warm circa 1970 - 1975.

My point with the warming is that it has been happening (getting warmer then getting cooler) from as far back as we know. Now are trend is getting cooler again. What is hype is "man made global warming" that's the point.

Brilliant. Indeed, we are entering a cooling period now, termed "winter."

Amazingly, climatologists have had the bright idea of taking these cyclical processes (seasonal, yearly, decadal, and so on) into consideration. As it happens, the overall trend is warming.

Originally Posted by free radical

Originally Posted by Pong

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

global cooling as the rage de jour in the 1970s.

By the early 80's cooling was commonly understood. Predictions of nuclear winter, a new dinosaur extinction theory, and city smog you just don't see anymore - all these reinforced the cooling doomsday scenario. "Greenhouse effect" was the counter argument, less convincing.

Hmm, nothing to do with the PDO? Cooling was due entirely to man made factors? You may want to think about that for a bit.

I'm just explaining "the rage de jour": pollution driven cooling was on everybody's minds then. You know when a new way of seeing comes along we try that lens on everything. Scientists are not exceptional.