So how did An Inconvenient Truth become required classroom viewing?

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Just to add some fuel to the fire...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070522/...eenhouse_gases

11 states elect to pose new restrictions on emissions. Also, The Governator calls Bush's directives on the subject "inactions and denials".

And another story on emissions growing, not shrinking.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20070522/ts_csm/afastclip_1

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Good post, Lanny.

Here's what I don't get. Gas prices are at 26 year highs in the U.S. It literally costs thousands of dollars a year to drive an SUV in the city. Heating oil costs are through the roof, natural gas prices are no picnic either, and electricity is far less cheap than it was even seven years ago.

Shouldn't people love the idea of alternative energy sources? Right now the fossil fuel economy is giving it to consumers hard, and the economic impact of that (usually a lagging indicator, as I understand it) will only be felt in months to come. To those that claim that reducing carbon emissions is bound to result in a global economic catastrophe--are you so sure that the same catastrophe won't result from staying the course? I'm no economist, but current conditions sure don't seem sustainable to my untrained eye.

We've had this discussion numerous times on this board--and it does somewhat boggle my mind that there are still people who think that global warming skepticism is as legitimate scientifically as the thousands of scientists who are producing sound research that illustrates our impact on global warming very clearly.

This is one of those areas where people feel entitled to appoint themselves armchair scientists for some reason--personally, I'm going to trust the reputable scientists over a few think-tank bozos and one or two washed up, aging, tenure-system parasites at third rate schools. Maybe that's just me.

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Good post, Lanny.

Here's what I don't get. Gas prices are at 26 year highs in the U.S. It literally costs thousands of dollars a year to drive an SUV in the city. Heating oil costs are through the roof, natural gas prices are no picnic either, and electricity is far less cheap than it was even seven years ago.

Shouldn't people love the idea of alternative energy sources? Right now the fossil fuel economy is giving it to consumers hard, and the economic impact of that (usually a lagging indicator, as I understand it) will only be felt in months to come. To those that claim that reducing carbon emissions is bound to result in a global economic catastrophe--are you so sure that the same catastrophe won't result from staying the course? I'm no economist, but current conditions sure don't seem sustainable to my untrained eye.

We've had this discussion numerous times on this board--and it does somewhat boggle my mind that there are still people who think that global warming skepticism is as legitimate scientifically as the thousands of scientists who are producing sound research that illustrates our impact on global warming very clearly.

This is one of those areas where people feel entitled to appoint themselves armchair scientists for some reason--personally, I'm going to trust the reputable scientists over a few think-tank bozos and one or two washed up, aging, tenure-system parasites at third rate schools. Maybe that's just me.

sound science - think of everything that was believed only 50 years ago...no such thing..science is evolutionary.

trusting science is a dangerous thing...i mean isnt this why we are in this whole mess to begin with?

i am not anti-global warming, nor do i chose to ignore what one side are saying, unlike others.
________
Bong Review

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

sound science - think of everything that was believed only 50 years ago...no such thing..science is evolutionary.

trusting science is a dangerous thing...i mean isnt this why we are in this whole mess to begin with?

i am not anti-global warming, nor do i chose to ignore what one side are saying, unlike others.

What?! This doesn't make any sense. You are saying science was wrong 50 years ago so we shouldn't trust the science now. But then go onto say that science is evolutionary? What science are we suppose to listen to? The science from the future? This is exactly the attitude that is mutteling up the global warming issue. Instead of listening to the science you claim that science isn't prefect (which it doesn't claim to be) and cloud the debate with arguments like that. And now we are blaming science for global warming? You are out of your mind. I don't even know how to respond to that.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Flame On

I find it ridiculous to risk the LIVES of millions if not billions to not take steps based on fears of what very well may not happen to economies.

So you would spend billions, perhaps trillions of dollars(talk about creating a deficit) to fix something we have not even researched properly?

You seem to think that science has PROVEN that by spending such a substantial amount of money, we WILL fix this problem. Which means that global warming IS man made...not a natural cycle that has happened many times through the millions of years Earth has existed.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Good post, Lanny.

Here's what I don't get. Gas prices are at 26 year highs in the U.S. It literally costs thousands of dollars a year to drive an SUV in the city. Heating oil costs are through the roof, natural gas prices are no picnic either, and electricity is far less cheap than it was even seven years ago.

Shouldn't people love the idea of alternative energy sources? Right now the fossil fuel economy is giving it to consumers hard, and the economic impact of that (usually a lagging indicator, as I understand it) will only be felt in months to come. To those that claim that reducing carbon emissions is bound to result in a global economic catastrophe--are you so sure that the same catastrophe won't result from staying the course? I'm no economist, but current conditions sure don't seem sustainable to my untrained eye.

We've had this discussion numerous times on this board--and it does somewhat boggle my mind that there are still people who think that global warming skepticism is as legitimate scientifically as the thousands of scientists who are producing sound research that illustrates our impact on global warming very clearly.

This is one of those areas where people feel entitled to appoint themselves armchair scientists for some reason--personally, I'm going to trust the reputable scientists over a few think-tank bozos and one or two washed up, aging, tenure-system parasites at third rate schools. Maybe that's just me.

I don't think you'll find a single soul on this board who wouldn't jump at alternative energy solutions. Especially with the latest jump in gas prices. And I agree, we most certainly can not continue this way. But, many people feel an alternative such a wind power is viable, and a healthy environmental choice. Will it is...to a point. That point is when the wind stops blowing, which is does throughout the summer, and suddenly those windmills leave a HUGE gap in the energy grid. That is the EXACT reason why no more contracts are being given out to build more windmills in the Pincher Creek area. More windmills...might equal a lessor dependence on fossil fuels....but they also equal a bigger electricity loss in the grid once they all stop turning. I can see around 100 windmills from where I am right now, and NONE of them are turning.

And, I have yet, in ALL the global warming threads combined, seen a single person DENY that global warming exists. Up here in Calgary, and southern Alberta, we only need to look outside during winter, and think back 15 years ago, and how the weather was then, compared to now.

The 'global warming denier' term gets tossed around A LOT on here, and frankly, I'm sick of it. Those of us who are still skeptical about what causes it, are suddenly global warming deniers? WTF?

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Here's what I don't get. Gas prices are at 26 year highs in the U.S. It literally costs thousands of dollars a year to drive an SUV in the city. Heating oil costs are through the roof, natural gas prices are no picnic either, and electricity is far less cheap than it was even seven years ago.

Shouldn't people love the idea of alternative energy sources? Right now the fossil fuel economy is giving it to consumers hard, and the economic impact of that (usually a lagging indicator, as I understand it) will only be felt in months to come. To those that claim that reducing carbon emissions is bound to result in a global economic catastrophe--are you so sure that the same catastrophe won't result from staying the course? I'm no economist, but current conditions sure don't seem sustainable to my untrained eye.

I would be thrilled if there were such available alternative energy sources for a fraction of the cost of fossil fuels. Unfortunately, alternative energy is still outlandishly expensive. Until the cost comes down, people will "choose" fossil fuels every time.

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

We've had this discussion numerous times on this board--and it does somewhat boggle my mind that there are still people who think that global warming skepticism is as legitimate scientifically as the thousands of scientists who are producing sound research that illustrates our impact on global warming very clearly.

Here is the rub, and here is where I have issues with the alarmists. Global warming "projections" are based on flawed computer models that are totally incapable of accurately predicting the long term effects of greenhouse gases on the environment. Climatology is a science that is still in its infancy, and until the methods and models improve; until scientific consensus becomes something that is based on tangible evidence as opposed to computer generated speculation, surely there is always room for legitimate skepticism in the face of excessive alarmism.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Azure

So you would spend billions, perhaps trillions of dollars(talk about creating a deficit) to fix something we have not even researched properly?

You seem to think that science has PROVEN that by spending such a substantial amount of money, we WILL fix this problem. Which means that global warming IS man made...not a natural cycle that has happened many times through the millions of years Earth has existed.

Well, the "natural cycle" argument, one that is mostly put forth by guys like Timothy Ball, as I recall (who USED to say that the whole thing was a hoax. Now he says it's a "natural cycle." Talk about a flip-flopper!) has been pretty thoroughly debunked, as far as I know.

Could science be wrong? Sure. Science makes mistakes from time to time, usually when available instruments and methodologies prove to be flawed over time. What generally occurs then is that someone comes up with better techniques and they serve as a corrective, resulting in a paradigm shift. It's what Mel a bit clumsily called the "evolutionary" nature of science....

But for now, we have to assume that what current methodologies tell us is probably right, especially in the absence of credible evidence to the contrary. Does that mean that we should transition away from a carbon economy to-morrow? Heck no. That WOULD result in a catastrophe. But I simply don't buy that exploring sustainable and clean energy alternatives is going to be anything but a net good over time--both environmentally AND economically.

Look at it this way. If you keep smoking cigarettes, you might get sick. Or we may discover in 2080 that science has been wrong all this time, and cigarettes don't cause cancer after all. It could happen.

But it probably won't. I think the safest bet is to quit smoking, even if it involves a little short term pain. In the long run, you'll be thankful you did it.

[photon]

Originally Posted by the_only_turek_fan

You do understand that CO2 makes up less than 0.04% of the atmosphere. And reducing something that is almost zero is going to do.......nothing.

Um, without CO2 in the atmosphere all plants would die. And our planet would be a lot colder than it is now.

[arsenal]

Originally Posted by Burninator

What?! This doesn't make any sense. You are saying science was wrong 50 years ago so we shouldn't trust the science now. But then go onto say that science is evolutionary? What science are we suppose to listen to? The science from the future? This is exactly the attitude that is mutteling up the global warming issue. Instead of listening to the science you claim that science isn't prefect (which it doesn't claim to be) and cloud the debate with arguments like that. And now we are blaming science for global warming? You are out of your mind. I don't even know how to respond to that.

No, all he is saying is that science has been proven wrong in the past, so take it with a grain of salt.
Fairly well known example:
Columbus goes against all the scientists at the time and claims that the earth is round and not flat. He is pretty much alone, gets funding, goes off and discovers a whole new world, and proves that the earth is infact round.
The well known scientists of the time where wrong. Columbus was right.

What if the majority of the pro-man-causes-global-warming scientist camp are wrong? From what I am getting from alot of the articles posted in this thread, alot in the pro camp are climate change experts. They study the affects of climate change, not the root cause of climate change.

Or if they are right, we could be living in a "Day after tomorrow" world at some point in the future.

(Sorry for the muddled thoughts, long weekend and all..)

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I would be thrilled if there were such available alternative energy sources for a fraction of the cost of fossil fuels. Unfortunately, alternative energy is still outlandishly expensive. Until the cost comes down, people will "choose" fossil fuels every time.

So would I. And there are theoretical models of other sources that may well prove to be very efficient. But it's going to take research, and money spent on infrastructural change. That's just the reality. However, the first step is admitting that alternative sources are necessary so that we can all get behind the project of finding a way to sustain the lifestyle we've become accustomed to.

As for the computer models argument.... you're right that climatology is in its infancy. So is neuroscience. So is modern linguistics. So, for that matter, is academic literary study.

That doesn't make it worthless. We have to back the best horse we have. Personally, I prefer the horse that is far more numerous and has no affiliation to the American Enterprise Institute.

And I don't think it's alarmist to say that current projections show that it would be wise to start looking for other sources of energy. It's probably wise anyway. Sustainable energy is the right thing to do for so many reasons--and saying "well, the science isn't totally airtight" just isn't a compelling argument. When the science is "totally airtight" it will likely be too late.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Azure

So you would spend billions, perhaps trillions of dollars(talk about creating a deficit) to fix something we have not even researched properly?

You mean like the overthrow and nation building experiment in another soverign country?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Well, the "natural cycle" argument, one that is mostly put forth by guys like Timothy Ball, as I recall (who USED to say that the whole thing was a hoax. Now he says it's a "natural cycle." Talk about a flip-flopper!) has been pretty thoroughly debunked, as far as I know.

So if it has been debunked, that means global warming is man-made, right?

Because if this cycle, is NOT a normal event for mother nature to go through, the only thing causing it could be us.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/56456.stm

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by arsenal

Fairly well known example:
Columbus goes against all the scientists at the time and claims that the earth is round and not flat. He is pretty much alone, gets funding, goes off and discovers a whole new world, and proves that the earth is infact round.
The well known scientists of the time where wrong. Columbus was right.

Uh, that's actually just a "well known myth." Everyone knew the earth was round in 1492. There's some interesting reading on the topic here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Columbus

As a matter of fact, Columbus and everyone around him knew the earth was round, but he thought it was smaller than it actually is. The scientists were right, and Columbus was wrong. But he did accidentally discover this little land mass that nobody knew about when he was trying to find the West Indies.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Azure

So if it has been debunked, that means global warming is man-made, right?

Because if this cycle, is NOT a normal event for mother nature to go through, the only thing causing it could be us.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/56456.stm

Well, let's just say I think the odds are pretty good. The sun's pretty hot, but the smart money says that global-warming is largely a man-made problem.

Either way, the consequences of it could be devastating to us. Would you prefer that we do nothing about it? We're the frog in the boiling water, my friend. It's a good thing there are a few of us willing to point out that it's getting kinda hot in here!

[Flame On]

Originally Posted by Azure

So you would spend billions, perhaps trillions of dollars(talk about creating a deficit) to fix something we have not even researched properly?

You seem to think that science has PROVEN that by spending such a substantial amount of money, we WILL fix this problem. Which means that global warming IS man made...not a natural cycle that has happened many times through the millions of years Earth has existed.

Where have I suggested that science has PROVEN that spending money will fix this problem. I'm just in favor of trying to solve a problem. In much the same way as I don't know if I'm going to have a fire in my house, but I still purchase a smoke detector.
We're basically the opposite sides of the coin. You believe there is a problem but don't want to risk the economy to try to hack into that problem.
I believe there's a problem, but I'd rather risk the economy (which I think is an overstated issue, for sure the manufacturers of solar, CFT bulbs etc. aren't scared of economic collapse) than environmental woes, even if we don't know the extent of them.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Well, let's just say I think the odds are pretty good. The sun's pretty hot, but the smart money says that global-warming is largely a man-made problem.

Either way, the consequences of it could be devastating to us. Would you prefer that we do nothing about it? We're the frog in the boiling water, my friend. It's a good thing there are a few of us willing to point out that it's getting kinda hot in here!

Actually I would prefer we do something about it, very much so.

But it is not as simple as putting up thousands of windmills, and think the outcome will ONLY be positive.

I support nuclear energy 100%...and many people around here involved in the production of windmills feel that a nuclear plant would allow many more windmills to be put up. Why? Because in the summer, or during times when the wind isn't blowing, a nuclear plant could keep the grid stable.

[The Unabomber]

They should start showing Bowling For Columbine in classes too, that's an educational film for students and might prevent a death or two.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Flame On

Where have I suggested that science has PROVEN that spending money will fix this problem. I'm just in favor of trying to solve a problem.

So you wouldn't have a problem if I am skeptical about spending billions to 'solve' global warming? Since science has NOT proven that spending that money will solve anything. Right?

In much the same way as I don't know if I'm going to have a fire in my house, but I still purchase a smoke detector.

Strange comparison. A smoke detector is 'proven' to send an alarm if a fire has broken out. Spending so much money to 'solve' global warming....could very well do nothing.

I like what IFF said...if 'anything' we should want alternative energy solution simply because of the gas price. Oil companies are running a monopoly on us...they KNOW that we WILL pay that much for gas, so they gouge us. If we develop alternative solutions, the price can ONLY go down. But that won't happen overnight. Even if we started building a nuclear plant today...it would take a minimum of 15 years to complete.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by The Unabomber

They should start showing Bowling For Columbine in classes too, that's an educational film for students and might prevent a death or two.

Strangely enough, I was shown that movie in my social class.

But my teacher gave us all the viewpoints, from every different direction. We read MANY articles from the NRA, and had debates over what they had to say, versus what some anti-gun people had to say.