"An Inconvenient Truth": Al Gore, Environmentalists and the State of the Planet

[Daradon]

I would agree that current evidence is not strong enough to prove that humans are causing 'global warming' or 'climate change' without a shadow of a doubt. The sample sizes are too short, there's too many variables to consider, the earth (and solar bombardment) changes to much on it's own, and there is much we don't know.

The problem is that if we ever have 100% conclusive air tight proof, it will surely be too late.

And I would say that the case as it stands, is very very strong. While much of the evidence may be circumstantial, it is a small and logical leap to agree with the claim, 'humans are causing significant climate change'. And we know that humans have caused lots of other enviromental damage on the planet. The deaths of whole species, constant toxic pollution of air, water, and soil, large scale deforestation, etc. We should know at this point we have to clean up our act, whether we are the case of the current (debated) climate change or not.

Having ordinary citizens, companies, and governments take steps to control waste and energy usage, and try to take better care of ourselves and our planet seems like a good and relatively common sense idea, crisis or no crisis, global warming or no global warming.

If we're wrong about the human - climate change link, and take steps to fix it, there's still no harm done by trying to control and curb greenhouse gas emissions and take better care of our environment. In fact there would be many benefits. But if we're right, and we don't do anything to try and fix it, the results would most certainly be terrible.

Doesn't it make sense to err on the side of caution, and the earth, on this one?

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Daradon

I would agree that current evidence is not strong enough to prove that humans are causing 'global warming' or 'climate change' without a shadow of a doubt. The sample sizes are too short, there's too many variables to consider, the earth (and solar bombardment) changes to much on it's own, and there is much we don't know.

The problem is that if we ever have 100% conclusive air tight proof, it will surely be too late.

And I would say that the case as it stands, is very very strong. While much of the evidence may be circumstantial, it is a small and logical leap to agree with the claim, 'humans are causing significant climate change'. And we know that humans have caused lots of other enviromental damage on the planet. The deaths of whole species, constant toxic pollution of air, water, and soil, large scale deforestation, etc. We should know at this point we have to clean up our act, whether we are the case of the current (debated) climate change or not.

Having ordinary citizens, companies, and governments take steps to control waste and energy usage, and try to take better care of ourselves and our planet seems like a good and relatively common sense idea, crisis or no crisis, global warming or no global warming.

If we're wrong about the human - climate change link, and take steps to fix it, there's still no harm done by trying to control and curb greenhouse gas emissions and take better care of our environment. In fact there would be many benefits. But if we're right, and we don't do anything to try and fix it, the results would most certainly be terrible.

Doesn't it make sense to err on the side of caution, and the earth, on this one?

circumstantial ecidence? shadow of a doubt? this is science, not my cousin vinnie

[Looger]

Originally Posted by Daradon

Doesn't it make sense to err on the side of caution, and the earth, on this one?

ask yourself who is behind all this spin, and why.

http://www.leftgatekeepers.com/chart.htm

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

circumstantial ecidence? shadow of a doubt? this is science, not my cousin vinnie

Well the evidence is based or circumstance. We don't know what would or could happen if humans weren't here or didn't take this current path. We can surmise and make intelligent guesses, but we can't know for sure. It's possible the earth could be heating up or changing onit's own. It's also possible we're saving ourselves from a long overdue ice age.

I tend to agree with current global warming evidence, but obviously many do not. I was trying to say that even if the science or theories can't be proven 100% like other theories or scientific rules and laws, the case for man-made global warming is strong, and there's really no danger in trying to fix it even if for some reason the conclusion is incorrect.

Aside from picking on my vernacular, did you enjoy the post?

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Looger

ask yourself who is behind all this spin, and why.

http://www.leftgatekeepers.com/chart.htm

I have no idea what you are trying to say with this chart.

[Looger]

i'm saying that behind mainline 'left-wing' spin machines, are major globalist ford foundation and council on foreign relations money - ruling class.

the same money and forces behind the 'right wing' incidentally...

this is a big game, we are pawns, be aware and their power disappears immediately.

[Looger]

Originally Posted by Daradon

I tend to agree with current global warming evidence, but obviously many do not. I was trying to say that even if the science or theories can't be proven 100% like other theories or scientific rules and laws, the case for man-made global warming is strong, and there's really no danger in trying to fix it even if for some reason the conclusion is incorrect.

there is MAJOR DANGER in the solutions these globalist robber barons are proposing, a centralized global tax structure that will have us paying for our own enslavement.

this is a bad idea.

if we truly believe in such things as kyoto emissions reductions etc., then we should do it alone, take care of our own backyard, THEN discuss global frameworks - and be very aware of what endgames these control freaks have in mind.

if we put a tax structure in place and give away yet more sovereignty to centralized global power we are one step closer to losing everything.

these guys don't give a crap aboot the environment, it's the same money behind our industrialization in the first place, which could have been done slower and cleaner and better. it's the same money behind all the things we think that 'we' do.

we should be asking some fundamental questions here.

[Daradon]

Well I agree that more taxes wouldn't really be the solution anyway. There needs to be greater responsibility public and private, maybe tougher standards. Legislation could play a part. A small part but a part. I was never big on the taxes or tax credits. Incentives maybe another part, especially on the public front.

[Looger]

well Daradon, the mechanism is the most important aspect here.

glad to hear you're not one of these campus brainwipes.

those people are GONE.

i simply don't want to see whole industries have to shut down when they are feeding a technological and innovative behemoth that holds the hope for de-linking our high living standard with emissions of greenhouse gases.

legislation i'm ok with as long as it's not instantaneous, incentives are good also - but if we try too hard or go aboot this idiotically i think the potential exists to INCREASE our emissions due to a reduction in implemented technology.

we should be careful not panicked, be educated not brainwashed.

[SaskaBushFire]

I haven't seen this movie yet but does it mention the effect forest fires, volcanoe eruptions, ice particles and comets/meteorites have had on atmospheric polution?

Even if Global Warming is true and this is all going down, how do we prevent mother nature from ruining itself?

I am on the fence, a lot of my Profs are very skeptical, I plan to lead my research in this next year when I enter the final year of my degree.

[jolinar of malkshor]

[quote=Lanny_MacDonald;468663]

Originally Posted by lanny_macdonald

I can't believe that anyone has the nads to argue the idea of global warming and environmental change. Anyone who has lived in Calgary for any length of time will tell you that the weather has change. As a kid there was always tons of snow during the winter. Now there is very little.

Oh...what about the ice sheets that covered all the Rockie Mountains and parts of the prairies a mere 11,000 years ago. How do explain the disapearance of those? Obviously it wasn't human involvement.

How do you explain the warming period between 1100 and 1500 AD and then the mini cold period following? Now we are warming back to the same temps as the 1100 to 1500 AD period.

How do you explain those??? The fact is the earth warms and cools without ANY involvment of humans.....but now we get a bunch of lefties that think....since humans are here....and the earth is warming....well....it must be us.

Originally Posted by lanny_macdonald

The color of the air has even changed. 30 years ago it was always clear. Now there's usually an ugly yellow cloud hanging over the city. And that's in Calgary, a relatively small city. I was driving into Phoenix the other day and couldn't see Camelback mountain from 10 miles away. When you can see the air, something is wrong.

Ya....that is the real pollution. That is the pollution we need to stop. That is not CO2. We should worry more about those toxic pollutants rather than a naturally occuring gas that plants need to survive. But no one cares about that...do they.

This is simply an anti global movement. A way to stop large companies, governments and organizations. These lefties have been fighting this for years without success. Now they realize they can use the environment movement to try and achieve their goals. That is all Kyoto is. A money transfer system from wealthy countries to poor countries. That is what they want.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Daradon

Having ordinary citizens, companies, and governments take steps to control waste and energy usage, and try to take better care of ourselves and our planet seems like a good and relatively common sense idea, crisis or no crisis, global warming or no global warming.


Doesn't it make sense to err on the side of caution, and the earth, on this one?

I agree that we all need to consume less and help the environment more. I think almost all people agree with that. What we don't need to do is go all crazy following these domes day sayers and jump on board a flawed agreement like Kyoto.

People are so crazy about this that a co-worker of mine just the other day said that we need to bring in another NEP program to control the amount of oil we sell to the world. WHAT?? This was after he watched Al Gores movie.

People....calm down.....the world is not going to end. We can achieve a green life style over time without destroying our economy.

[Looger]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

This is simply an anti global movement. A way to stop large companies, governments and organizations. These lefties have been fighting this for years without success. Now they realize they can use the environment movement to try and achieve their goals. That is all Kyoto is. A money transfer system from wealthy countries to poor countries. That is what they want.

holy irony batman!

are we really this easy to manipulate?

good god we are in trouble.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Looger

holy irony batman!

are we really this easy to manipulate?

good god we are in trouble.

I am allowed to believe in a few conspiracy theories myself....aren't I?

[Looger]

you can believe what you want, and i can comment on it, which i do maybe 10% as much as you comment on my theories without offering your own... GET OVER IT.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Looger

you can believe what you want, and i can comment on it, which i do maybe 10% as much as you comment on my theories without offering your own... GET OVER IT.

No need to get cranky....

[Looger]

indeed.

[FLAMESBURNOIL]

Goverments should ban smoking...that will help reduce green house gases like water vapour

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Looger

ask yourself who is behind all this spin, and why.

http://www.leftgatekeepers.com/chart.htm

Okay say I believe you here. I believe that Phil Donahue, the CIA, Ms. Magazine and PBS are all in cahoots and they've pulled off the biggest hoax in the history of the world.

What do they get out of it? Please try not to be vague. "Control" and "tracking" are not answers.

[Looger]

RougeUnderoos...

if you're actually serious, you'll investigate these things yourself - i can bring them up in the diuscussion and point a few fingers but i can't convince you of anything here.