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

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Hakan

I don't know why I bother sometimes.

If you aren't going to do due dilligence and actually read up on this stuff then I'm not going to treat you with any more respect than you deserve.

Your conclusion that we can't assess what historical climate trends were like because we weren't there is simply idiotic. Idiotic. You have no claim to make any factual assertions about climate change if that is the case and are merely trolling a thread spewing your own insolent ignorant garbage.

Do a rudimentary search to find out the myriad of different scientific methods at uncovering historical climate trends.

Fool.

Nice...real nice.....way to bring the debate into the realm of name calling. I didn't dispute the fact that scientists can provide a glimps of the past.....that is it....a GLIMPS. They cannot determine that 150,000 years ago....in a 20 year period....the temp went up by 5 degrees.

Get a grip.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Nice...real nice.....way to bring the debate into the realm of name calling. I didn't dispute the fact that scientists can provide a glimps of the past.....that is it....a GLIMPS. They cannot determine that 150,000 years ago....in a 20 year period....the temp went up by 5 degrees.

Get a grip.

yes, they can, and you're an idiot.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

yes, they can, and you're an idiot.

Grow up....

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Grow up....

What's that? someone isn't willing to just let your fabricated trolling go unanswered for what it is?

I'll tell you, I'm completely SHOCKED that you made no effort to defend your position. I mean, if you're so right, why not readily defend yourself?

Do you know anything about ice core drilling in antartica and greenland...at all? Did you even know it existed?

Maybe before you wade so deeply into a discussion, you might want to have the slightest idea of what you're talking about? You know, just to avoid future embarassment?

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Nice...real nice.....way to bring the debate into the realm of name calling. I didn't dispute the fact that scientists can provide a glimps of the past.....that is it....a GLIMPS. They cannot determine that 150,000 years ago....in a 20 year period....the temp went up by 5 degrees.

Get a grip.

Are you kidding me? THEY CAN!

This reminds me of talking to smokers who tell you that cancer from cigarettes is a government conspiracy. Its rediculous, and its denail. If things go to hell because of global warming it will be because of people like you.

[FLAMESBURNOIL]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

So correct me if I'm wrong, but your logic is basically--sometimes scientists are wrong, therefore my own unscientific opinion is just as valid as the opinion of scientists? Forgive me for finding that a little, well.... weird.

Furthermore to say, as you do that it has been "proven many many times" that the popular consensus in science is not always correct is a very broad statement. Would you care to provide us with an example or two? And it should be recent--since "science" in its current form didn't exist until at least the enlightenment. In that sense, it's accurate to say that no "scientist" has EVER thought the earth was flat.

I never gave my scientific opionion on anything. I have said that the issue here is that there is group A that believe humans are the biggest factor in the warming of the climate we are seeing, the other group says humans arent the biggest factor. There is no concensus - just about every report from either side can be debunked - no concensus.

A modern day example of how the science community works is the Clovis Theory. This theory pertains to evidence found in north america during an archeological dig. The Clovis theory has been the concensus theory amongst most scientists - and basically states that there is a certain level one can dig before they stop finding historical artifacts. Past that level, you find nothing - even though a small miniority of sceintists decided to continue digging and continued to find artifacts - this basically debunked the theory that native north americans have been here longer than the standard 10,000 years - these scientists where shunned, rediculed and discredited - because they started to prove the majority wrong. Further to this the theory that the first north americans came over from Asia was also proven to be false, and that the first north americans actually came from Northern Europe and not by the land bridge but by crossing the Atlantic Ocean during the last ice age. There are artificats that are only found on the eastern seaboard of north america, that are also only found on the western seaboard of Europe, there is DNA evidence that shows the relationship between some native american tribes and some tribes in france

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by FLAMESBURNOIL

I never gave my scientific opionion on anything. I have said that the issue here is that there is group A that believe humans are the biggest factor in the warming of the climate we are seeing, the other group says humans arent the biggest factor.

That is where you are wrong. There is no other group. Every scientest and scientific body discussing this thing belongs in group A.

The only debate is on how much of a minority role solar fluctuations play. Its straight concensus that humans are the majority cause.

[FLAMESBURNOIL]

Originally Posted by hulkrogan

That is where you are wrong. There is no other group. Every scientest and scientific body discussing this thing belongs in group A.

The only debate is on how much of a minority role solar fluctuations play. Its straight concensus that humans are the majority cause.

ya i dont think chief, there is plenty of debate about the main cause and the science used, both ways.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by FLAMESBURNOIL

ya i dont think chief, there is plenty of debate about the main cause and the science used, both ways.

No there isn't. Have a look around. The only debate is in the media, not in published scientific findings.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by FLAMESBURNOIL

ya i dont think chief, there is plenty of debate about the main cause and the science used, both ways.

This is simply false.

[Hakan]

I bet you teach monkeys to use the internet.

[Mike F]

Originally Posted by FLAMESBURNOIL

I never gave my scientific opionion on anything. I have said that the issue here is that there is group A that believe humans are the biggest factor in the warming of the climate we are seeing, the other group says humans arent the biggest factor. There is no concensus - just about every report from either side can be debunked - no concensus.

A modern day example of how the science community works is the Clovis Theory. This theory pertains to evidence found in north america during an archeological dig. The Clovis theory has been the concensus theory amongst most scientists - and basically states that there is a certain level one can dig before they stop finding historical artifacts. Past that level, you find nothing - even though a small miniority of sceintists decided to continue digging and continued to find artifacts - this basically debunked the theory that native north americans have been here longer than the standard 10,000 years - these scientists where shunned, rediculed and discredited - because they started to prove the majority wrong. Further to this the theory that the first north americans came over from Asia was also proven to be false, and that the first north americans actually came from Northern Europe and not by the land bridge but by crossing the Atlantic Ocean during the last ice age. There are artificats that are only found on the eastern seaboard of north america, that are also only found on the western seaboard of Europe, there is DNA evidence that shows the relationship between some native american tribes and some tribes in france

Sorry, but what you're talking about here is nothing like overturning the current view on global warming.

The long accepted consensus on the peopling of the Americas is that pre-historic Asians came from Siberia, down through Alaska and BC, and from there spread all through North and South America. It is further believed that these were the first humans to arrive on the continent. The belief that this migration happened is based on positive evidence, while the belief that they were the firts humans is based on a lack of evidence of any earlier humans. The Clovis theory doesn't dispute that this migration occurs, but argues that there is, in fact, evidence of small groups of humans having come from Europe prior to the arrival of Asians.

The current consensus belief that the globe is warming, and that human activities are contributing the this in a way that will cause the warming to go well beyond the historic cyclic warming with unprecidented, catastrophic results isn't based on a lack of evidence to the contrary, but on a mountain of positive evidence.

Overturning the current consensus on global warming would be like the Clovis Theory arguing that there were humans here before the Asian migration, but would be like arguing that mankind actually arose first in North America and migrated from there to Europe, Asia, and finally Africa contrary to all of the evidence to the contrary.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

What's that? someone isn't willing to just let your fabricated trolling go unanswered for what it is?

I'll tell you, I'm completely SHOCKED that you made no effort to defend your position. I mean, if you're so right, why not readily defend yourself?

Do you know anything about ice core drilling in antartica and greenland...at all? Did you even know it existed?

Maybe before you wade so deeply into a discussion, you might want to have the slightest idea of what you're talking about? You know, just to avoid future embarassment?

You are calling me a troll? You might want to look in the mirror first buddy. Lets see what you have contributed so far this thread shall we.

After Daradon post a good long post….your remark was….what? Oh ya…

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

Then after I had discussed my opinions with a few other people…..you fly in and say:

yes, they can, and you're an idiot.

Nice contribution Flash…..Then you go on and throw your little tantrum.

As far as that is concerned….(and this will be the second time I am writing this. That is one of the reasons why my posts are short. My work computer only posts what I write half of the time. Half the time I click post and it does nothing…goes to what appears to be a page and does nothing, therefore I lose everything.)

Any how….I made my comment when Hakan stated that basically at no other time in history we have seen sharp increases like what are happening now. I said, how does he know. Core samples do give us an accurate glimpse of the recent past. The further into the past scientists go, the more the error rate becomes. Instead of being able to see what the yearly temps were within a 150 years, they have to expand the average over several hundred year periods when they get into the distant past. Basically they cannot tell you what the temp increase was between 150,015 BC and 150,000 BC. That is to narrow, it has to be over a longer period of time. Therefore, my argument is correct when I say that we don’t know if there has been sharp increases in temp during short periods of time, say 10-50 years in the distant past.

But you go ahead and call people trolls. That is fine with me….but the only person that looks like a troll….is you. So again….GROW UP.

EDIT: Another Flash Walken contribution

This is simply false.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by hulkrogan

Are you kidding me? THEY CAN!

This reminds me of talking to smokers who tell you that cancer from cigarettes is a government conspiracy. Its rediculous, and its denail. If things go to hell because of global warming it will be because of people like you.

See above post.

If everything goes to hell It will be because of people like me? Ok...then. Since I try and recycle as much of my waste as possible, I bought a small pickup because I didn't need a 3/4 tonne to pull my camper, a 4 cylinder car because I don't need to have 175 hp to drive around the city, I use low wattage florecent bulbs where I can.......and the list goes on.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

See above post.

If everything goes to hell It will be because of people like me? Ok...then. Since I try and recycle as much of my waste as possible, I bought a small pickup because I didn't need a 3/4 tonne to pull my camper, a 4 cylinder car because I don't need to have 175 hp to drive around the city, I use low wattage florecent bulbs where I can.......and the list goes on.

Fair enough. If world leaders and industry leaders are people like you, we are screwed.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by hulkrogan

Fair enough. If world leaders and industry leaders are people like you, we are screwed.

Right...and it is people like you that are going to sink our economy.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Right...and it is people like you that are going to sink our economy.

YOu know, by the sounds of it, you aren't a big part of the problem. I mean I know pretty much all NA'ers are part of the problem, but you said yourself that you do what you can to reduce the pollution you put out there, and that's a lot more than most.

If everyone took your "use less" approach, would our economy be sunk? I don't think so. Really I don't know, but I doubt it. I'm not a big Kyoto supporter, but the idea that we can get back to 1990 emission levels doesn't seem all that troublesome. We were all there and it wasn't like we were huddling in the dark, knitting sweaters and growing mushrooms with our own waste as fertilizer.

Bla bla bla, I'm just yammering on, but the most severe restrictions we have before us (Kyoto) don't look all that tough. Certainly not "economy sinking".

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

YOu know, by the sounds of it, you aren't a big part of the problem. I mean I know pretty much all NA'ers are part of the problem, but you said yourself that you do what you can to reduce the pollution you put out there, and that's a lot more than most.

If everyone took your "use less" approach, would our economy be sunk? I don't think so. Really I don't know, but I doubt it. I'm not a big Kyoto supporter, but the idea that we can get back to 1990 emission levels doesn't seem all that troublesome. We were all there and it wasn't like we were huddling in the dark, knitting sweaters and growing mushrooms with our own waste as fertilizer.

Bla bla bla, I'm just yammering on, but the most severe restrictions we have before us (Kyoto) don't look all that tough. Certainly not "economy sinking".

I think everyone should take the use less approach. We all consume to much including myself. Canada needs to do its part and be inovative and encourage new technologies. My problem with Kyoto is it is not a genuine solution. The 3 largest contributors are not involved....Canada only contributes 2% of the worlds CO2 emissions.....countries can achieve their targets by buying credits from other countries???? (how does that reduce any CO2 emissions). We need a gradual approach to this....not a deadline of 2012 (is that the year?) I mean we need to reduce CO2 emissions under 1990 levels at a time when Canada is experiencing growth of huge proportions.

I just don;t know how we could possible meet those targets without crippling our economy.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

I think everyone should take the use less approach. We all consume to much including myself. Canada needs to do its part and be inovative and encourage new technologies. My problem with Kyoto is it is not a genuine solution. The 3 largest contributors are not involved....Canada only contributes 2% of the worlds CO2 emissions.....countries can achieve their targets by buying credits from other countries???? (how does that reduce any CO2 emissions). We need a gradual approach to this....not a deadline of 2012 (is that the year?) I mean we need to reduce CO2 emissions under 1990 levels at a time when Canada is experiencing growth of huge proportions.

I just don;t know how we could possible meet those targets without crippling our economy.

Thanks for your props just slightly up the page.

I think we can significantly reduce without crippling the economy though. New technology and sectors will take the place of old. The economy will roll along fine. At the worst it may shut down the oil sands, but with general progression, even that will still last us many many years. Alberta will need to diversify anyway. It may be in our best interest to start moving from the oil patch for the long run.

But you are right and this is what I've always practiced and preached. Use less. And it starts at the bottom. Consumer supply. Use less people. If we consume or buy less, companies will follow. If we make green choices, companies will follow. Obviously we need help from private sectors and government, but the big responsibility is us.

I think the problem is everyone sits around going, 'what can I do?' or 'isn't it someone else's problem?'. It's not. It's your responsibility.

I spend 28 bucks a month on electricity. There are definitely ways to use less.

And I also agree that the original Kyoto agreement could be flawed. I realy don't like the idea of taxes and tax credits. Spend to pollute more? Not really helping is it?

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by hulkrogan

That is where you are wrong. There is no other group. Every scientest and scientific body discussing this thing belongs in group A.

The only debate is on how much of a minority role solar fluctuations play. Its straight concensus that humans are the majority cause.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.../11/warm11.xml

While I don't agree with all of it, this just shows that there is NOT concensus on the issue:

Man-made climate change may be happening at a far slower rate than has been claimed, according to controversial new research.

Scientists say that cosmic rays from outer space play a far greater role in changing the Earth's climate than global warming experts previously thought.

In a book, to be published this week, they claim that fluctuations in the number of cosmic rays hitting the atmosphere directly alter the amount of cloud covering the planet.

Research is on-going:

A team of more than 60 scientists from around the world are preparing to conduct a large-scale experiment using a particle accelerator in Geneva, Switzerland, to replicate the effect of cosmic rays hitting the atmosphere.

They hope this will prove whether this deep space radiation is responsible for changing cloud cover. If so, it could force climate scientists to re-evaluate their ideas about how global warming occurs.

Now.. this isn't entirely supported by all:

Some climate change experts have dismissed the claims as "tenuous".

Giles Harrison, a cloud specialist at Reading University said that he had carried out research on cosmic rays and their effect on clouds, but believed the impact on climate is much smaller than Mr Svensmark claims.

Mr Harrison said: "I have been looking at cloud data going back 50 years over the UK and found there was a small relationship with cosmic rays. It looks like it creates some additional variability in a natural climate system but this is small."

But there is a growing number of scientists who believe that the effect may be genuine.

but it shows that there isn't a concensus.