|
An Inconvenient Truth (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Frequency Mike |
| quote: | Originally posted by Miss Bliss
hehe Ayn Rand objectivist.. I read an article about some guy who just opened a lounge/cafe based on his being a Rand objectivist... he wants to turn it into a bar at night but said that there will be no alcohol served "because when people drink they tend to get less objective." LOL |
thats pretty funny.. i wanna go there haha
yeah it probably holds true with that "special lady" you might meet out as well haha
the reason alchol is "unobjective" is becuase it alters your ability to reason and think ...
i for one reason i will go have drink after work!
i suggest reading "objectivism, the philosophy of ayn rand" to understand the whole philosophy or "the virtue of selfishness" cuz its a short read... "atlas shrugged" is a classic too but it long and if u dont understand the concepts of objectivisim you may miss the point of the book |
|
|
| fr0st |
My thoughts.
1) There is no availible long term research on global warming. For all we know it could be a natual phenomenon only slightly enhanced by humans. Did anyone know over the last 100 years the earths magnetic field has weakened? And can you imagine what kind of damage that will do to our planet?
2) There are more problems in the world than global warm(what happens when fossil fuels run out in the next 30 years?)
3) How will we able to support the planets energy needs and food needs in the next 30 years with the population expected to double?
4) if you find alternitive energy fuel/energy methods. You will already put a dent in global warming problem.
Global warming is just the hot catch phrase of the momment that everyone wants to use as a scape goat. |
|
|
| Choobak |
| quote: | Originally posted by fr0st
My thoughts.
1) There is no availible long term research on global warming. For all we know it could be a natual phenomenon only slightly enhanced by humans. Did anyone know over the last 100 years the earths magnetic field has weakened? And can you imagine what kind of damage that will do to our planet?
|
1) True, I remember reading something in scientific american about how we are just in a short warming cycle in what is actually a secular cooling trend that'll end in the next ice age. Basically, the earth has gone through plenty of cooling and warming cycles and while the data we have from the last 120 years would indicate that we are having an effect on the earth's temperature, it could be that we are simply accelerating what is already an ongoing trend. It was an interesting read.
I remember seeing something about the magnetic fields too. Supposedly they will continue to weaken and eventually reverse as they have done many times previously. Unfortunately, we'll be bombarded with cosmic radiation when that happens... |
|
|
| Konijn |
from yesterday's times, an op-ed from a one-time skeptic. the consensus in the scientific community is near unanimous; the "intelligent designers" who continue to deny are presumably of the mind that god simply turned up the heat to sweat off a few pounds.
keep reading ayn rand though lol - real 'literature' there...
==============
Op-Ed Contributor
Finally Feeling the Heat
By GREGG EASTERBROOK
Published: May 24, 2006
Washington
TODAY "An Inconvenient Truth," Al Gore's movie about the greenhouse effect, opens in New York and California. Many who already believe global warming is a menace will flock to the film; many who scoff at the notion will opt for Tom Cruise or Tom Hanks. But has anything happened in recent years that should cause a reasonable person to switch sides in the global-warming debate?
Yes: the science has changed from ambiguous to near-unanimous. As an environmental commentator, I have a long record of opposing alarmism. But based on the data I'm now switching sides regarding global warming, from skeptic to convert.
Once global-warming science was too uncertain to form the basis of policy decisions — and this was hardly just the contention of oil executives. "There is no evidence yet" of dangerous climate change, a National Academy of Sciences report said in 1991. A 1992 survey of the American Geophysical Union and the American Meteorological Society found that only 17 percent of members believed there was sufficient grounds to declare an artificial greenhouse effect in progress. In 1993 Thomas Karl, director of the National Climatic Data Center, said there existed "a great range of uncertainty" regarding whether the world is warming. Clearly, the question called for more research.
That research is now in, and it shows a strong scientific consensus that an artificially warming world is a real phenomenon posing real danger:
The American Geophysical Union and American Meteorological Society in 2003 both declared that signs of global warming had become compelling.
In 2004 the American Association for the Advancement of Science said that there was no longer any "substantive disagreement in the scientific community" that artificial global warming is happening.
In 2005, the National Academy of Sciences joined the science academies of Britain, China, Germany, Japan and other nations in a joint statement saying, "There is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring."
This year Mr. Karl of the climatic data center said research now supports "a substantial human impact on global temperature increases."
And this month the Climate Change Science Program, the Bush administration's coordinating agency for global-warming research, declared it had found "clear evidence of human influences on the climate system."
Case closed. Earth's surface, atmosphere and seas are warming; ocean currents are slowing; ice shelves are melting faster than projected; spring is coming ever sooner; rainfall patterns are changing; North American migratory birds are ranging father north; the ability of the earth to self-regulate to resist warming appears to be waning. While natural variation may play roles in climatic trends, overwhelming evidence points to the accumulation of greenhouse gases, mainly from the burning of fossil fuels, as the key.
Many greenhouse uncertainties remain, including whether rising temperatures would necessarily be bad. A warming world might moderate global energy demand: the rise in temperature so far has mostly expressed itself as milder winters, not hotter summers. Warming might open vast areas of Alaska, Canada and Russia to development. My hometown of Buffalo might become a vacation paradise. (Buffalo lakefront real estate is cheap. Here's a tip: buy some now.)
But it seems likely any global-warming benefits will be offset by unwanted trends. The National Academy of Sciences estimates that in the coming century, sea levels may rise by as much as three feet. Tropical storms may continue to increase in number and fury. Diseases now confined to equatorial regions may spread father north and south.
The greatest worry is that climate change will harm the agricultural system on which civilization is based. Suppose climate change shifted precipitation away from breadbasket regions, sending rain clouds instead to the world's deserts. Over generations, society would adjust — but years of global food shortages might occur during the adjustment, likely causing chaos in poor countries and armies of desperate refugees at the borders of wealthy nations.
Scientific substantiation of a warming world is not necessarily reason for gloom. Greenhouse gases are an air pollution problem, and all air pollution problems of the past have cost significantly less to fix than critics projected, and the solutions have worked faster than expected.
During the 1960's, smog in America was increasing at a worrisome rate; predictions were that smog controls would render cars exorbitantly expensive. Congress imposed smog regulations, and an outpouring of technical advances followed. Smog emissions in the United States have declined by almost half since 1970, and the technology that accomplishes this costs perhaps $100 per car.
Similarly, two decades ago a "new Silent Spring" was said to loom from acid rain. In 1991, Congress created a profit incentive to reduce acid rain: a system of tradable credits that rewards companies that make the fastest reductions. Since 1991 acid rain emissions have declined 36 percent, and the cost has been only 10 percent of what industry originally forecast.
Today no one can make money by reducing greenhouse gases, so emissions rise unchecked. But a system of tradable greenhouse permits, similar to those for acid rain, would create a profit incentive. Engineers and entrepreneurs would turn to the problem. Someone might even invent something cheap that would spread to the poorer countries, preventing reductions here from being swamped elsewhere. Unlikely? Right now reformulated gasoline and the low-cost catalytic converter, invented here to contain smog, are becoming common in developing nations.
President Bush was right to withdraw the United States from the cumbersome Kyoto greenhouse treaty, which even most signatories are ignoring. But Mr. Bush should speak to history by proposing a binding greenhouse-credit trading system within the United States. Waiting for science no longer justifies delay, as results are now in.
Gregg Easterbrook, a fellow at the Brookings Institution, is the author of "The Progress Paradox: How Life Gets Better While People Feel Worse |
|
|
| LuNaSeA |
regardless if you do or don't believe in global warming, there is no excuse for not being proactive about taking care of earth.
you don't where you eat. |
|
|
| Konijn |
| proactive is the worst neologism to hit the country in the last fifteen years :) |
|
|
| SiLveR_NrGy_985 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Frequency Mike
maybe the media is the reason people believe global warming exists |
are u doubting global warming......?? lets face it its been scientifically proven before this whole movie even came out, which is why some countries in europe now have already started to use solar power in their own homes and yes this is no left or right wing issue its something everyone is going to have to deal with, if people become careless how do you think thats going to impact your children,grandchildren's future? |
|
|
| fr0st |
| quote: | Originally posted by SiLveR_NrGy_985
are u doubting global warming......?? lets face it its been scientifically proven before this whole movie even came out, which is why some countries in europe now have already started to use solar power in their own homes and yes this is no left or right wing issue its something everyone is going to have to deal with, if people become careless how do you think thats going to impact your children,grandchildren's future? |
actually your completely wrong there is no scientific "proof" only theories and deductions based uppon observations made in recent times. Noone was doing research during the thawing of the last iceage. Like i said there is no doubt humans have effect global weather. Now if they have affected it significanly . That is all speculation and theory. |
|
|
| LuNaSeA |
| quote: | Originally posted by Konijn
proactive is the worst neologism to hit the country in the last fifteen years :) |
ok, great, thanx. can we please not get all "well this terminology is associated with this, etc etc" ?
all i meant is that we should all do our respective parts to keep this place clean. oy. |
|
|
| SiLveR_NrGy_985 |
| quote: | Originally posted by fr0st
actually your completely wrong there is no scientific "proof" only theories and deductions based uppon observations made in recent times. Noone was doing research during the thawing of the last iceage. Like i said there is no doubt humans have effect global weather. Now if they have affected it significanly . That is all speculation and theory. |
ok so there isnt any proofs, but yea that still doesnt give people the right to just sit there and do nothing about this thinkin that global warming isnt effecting us, the whole climate change thing, its been happening all over and we are the only ones that can prevent it from gettin any worse. |
|
|
| DJ Eco |
| quote: | Originally posted by fr0st
For all we know it could be a natual phenomenon only slightly enhanced by humans. |
if you saw the movie youd know that Al Gore straight up says "the skeptics will say... we are just in a normal heat cycle, like our world gets into and out of throughout its history"... he then goes on to say "WRONG"... he shows the heating cycles and temperature graphs and CO2 graphs (which basically run parallel with each other til the past 50 years where CO2 takes a tenfold rise to TOTALLY unprecedented levels weve never had or been CLOSE TO having before, just an almost vertical rise, i you not, and it really freaks u out when u see it...).... just go see the movie, disagree with him if u still think hes full of crap AFTER seeing it but not one of you can on him without having seen it because its filled with so much information and insight and SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE that this threat is REAL. |
|
|
| fr0st |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ Eco
if you saw the movie youd know that Al Gore straight up says "the skeptics will say... we are just in a normal heat cycle, like our world gets into and out of throughout its history"... he then goes on to say "WRONG"... he shows the heating cycles and temperature graphs and CO2 graphs (which basically run parallel with each other til the past 50 years where CO2 takes a tenfold rise to TOTALLY unprecedented levels weve never had or been CLOSE TO having before, just an almost vertical rise, i you not, and it really freaks u out when u see it...).... just go see the movie, disagree with him if u still think hes full of crap AFTER seeing it but not one of you can on him without having seen it because its filled with so much information and insight and SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE that this threat is REAL. |
Yeah your right i should have paid better attention Al Gore knows a lot more about atmospheric science that anyone else. And the evidence is right there, the proof is there. They know all the weather paterns over the past million years. God im a idiot....
Global warming!!!! Hide your wives and children its gonna get us!!! |
|
|
|
|
