Notices
Results 1 to 33 of 33

Thread: An Inconvenient Truth...

  1. #1 An Inconvenient Truth... 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Who wants to know?
    Posts
    589
    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.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,805
    hmm - this is not exactly new out, is it ?


    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3 Re: An Inconvenient Truth... 
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,079
    Quote Originally Posted by tritai
    ...the World Trade center will be submerged.
    ??
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Who wants to know?
    Posts
    589
    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?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5 Re: An Inconvenient Truth... 
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by free radical
    Quote 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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,805
    Quote 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 ?
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    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"?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Who wants to know?
    Posts
    589
    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..... :?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Sophomore Tharghana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    157
    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.
    www.periodicvideos.com - A Great Site

    "Well, good chemists shouldn't lick their fingers, anyways." - Martyn Poliakoff

    "You have lived to die, and your running out of life."

    "Once and a while, I go out of my way... to kill you... a little"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,079
    Quote 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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    Quote 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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Sophomore andre's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    172
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    The Edge
    Posts
    189
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,805
    Quote 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
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Sophomore andre's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    172
    Quote 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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,229
    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?
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    63
    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?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,805
    Quote 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

    Quote 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
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    63
    So what is factual about the movie?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,805
    don't know - can't be bothered to go and see it
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    63
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    Quote Originally Posted by mastmec
    Why is anybody worried about it?
    If you don't know you are too lazy to find out.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    63
    Quote Originally Posted by Bunbury
    Quote Originally Posted by mastmec
    Why is anybody worried about it?
    If you don't know you are too lazy to find out.
    wow, brilliant!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,079
    Quote 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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by free radical
    Quote 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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,079
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    Quote 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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    63
    Quote 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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    Quote 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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote 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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,079
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    Quote 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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,079
    Quote Originally Posted by mastmec
    Quote 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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    Quote Originally Posted by free radical
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    Quote 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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •