Jump to content

Some inconvenient truths


polksalet
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 129
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The main point of the movie is that, unless we do something very serious, very soon about carbon dioxide emissions, much of Greenland’s 630,000 cubic miles of ice is going to fall into the ocean, raising sea levels over twenty feet by the year 2100.

 

However...

 

According to satellite data published in Science in November 2005, Greenland was losing about 25 cubic miles of ice per year. Dividing that by 630,000 yields the annual percentage of ice loss, which, when multiplied by 100, shows that Greenland was shedding ice at 0.4 percent per century.

 

 

:D you silly communists!

 

"No controlling legal authority"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The National Review has no agenda, so let's believe them instead of scientists.

 

I wonder if we went back in time how factually accurate they were about Iraq's WMDs, the future success of the campaign in Iraq, and the Republican's ability to control spending.

 

It's hard to take a conservative rag seriously when they've been so flagrantly and intentionally wrong for at least 6 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The National Review has no agenda, so let's believe them instead of scientists.

 

I wonder if we went back in time how factually accurate they were about Iraq's WMDs, the future success of the campaign in Iraq, and the Republican's ability to control spending.

 

It's hard to take a conservative rag seriously when they've been so flagrantly and intentionally wrong for at least 6 years.

 

Its odd how you dont hold liberal newspapers/websites to the same standard of scrutiny, no matter how wrong they might have been in the past. And how about Mr Gore himself? You dont seem to verify whether he has any sort of liberal bent the way you might a conservatives work. You are biased in your claims of bias...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its odd how you dont hold liberal newspapers/websites to the same standard of scrutiny, no matter how wrong they might have been in the past. And how about Mr Gore himself? You dont seem to verify whether he has any sort of liberal bent the way you might a conservatives work. You are biased in your claims of bias...

 

 

No, you are biased in yer claims of bias in his claims of bias.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The National Review has no agenda, so let's believe them instead of scientists.

 

 

 

The nation's top climate scientists are giving "An Inconvenient Truth," Al Gore's documentary on global warming, five stars for accuracy. "Excellent," said William Schlesinger, dean of the Nicholas School of Environment and Earth Sciences at Duke University. "He got all the important material and got it right."
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The main point of the movie is that, unless we do something very serious, very soon about carbon dioxide emissions, much of Greenland’s 630,000 cubic miles of ice is going to fall into the ocean, raising sea levels over twenty feet by the year 2100.

 

I live in Minnesota and this bothers me because....

 

 

 

 

 

 

:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its odd how you dont hold liberal newspapers/websites to the same standard of scrutiny, no matter how wrong they might have been in the past. And how about Mr Gore himself? You dont seem to verify whether he has any sort of liberal bent the way you might a conservatives work. You are biased in your claims of bias...

 

 

I hold everyone to the same level of scrutiny, and I haven't seen Gore's movie. I just think that going to an admittedly conservatively biased publication to find reinforcing opinions on global warming is like going to a car dealership and asking the salesman if he thinks it's the right time to buy.

 

Why would you go to a "news" source who's sole purpose is to tell you that what you already believe is correct? You must have pretty low confidence in your opinions to seek out positive, and only positive reinforcement like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...all the people on the coasts are just going to sit there and be flooded. None of them are going to think, "Hmmmm, I'll go and park up on MikesVikes front lawn, he won't mind."

 

 

 

Ursa in the event of the tsunami can my family crash in the bear cave ? Im the only one that sheds and we eat a lot but we are nice people.

Edited by whomper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ursa in the event of the tsunami can my family crash in the bear cave ? Im the only one that sheds and we eat a lot but we are nice people.

 

Sure. I have plenty of room - five bedrooms, hugh basement and only two of us. Well, four if you count the cats, but they'll sleep under the beds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The main point of the movie is that, unless we do something very serious, very soon about carbon dioxide emissions, much of Greenland’s 630,000 cubic miles of ice is going to fall into the ocean, raising sea levels over twenty feet by the year 2100.

 

I live in Minnesota and this bothers me because....

:D

 

 

I'm speaking in generalities here but I'm about ready for most of the Rita refugees left here in Dallas to head on back home.

 

:D

 

So we've got yet another right wing rag denying global warming despite virtually unanimous world-wide acceptance of the theory by virtually everyone who knows anything about climate? Hope that woprks out better for us than Iraq.

 

Let's not worry about the envoronment we are leaving for our kids and grandkids if it might be a pain in the a$$ for the economy. That's quality stewardship there. Let's just stay dependant on oil that funds terrorists and will eventually melt the planet so that Exxon can jack the price of unleaded up a dollar a gallon while people are trying to flee from oncoming hurricanes.

 

F*ck my daughter's planet have you seen my 401(k)? :tup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really don't know how I feel about the Global Warming thing. In all honesty, if it is in the best interest of the planet to change some behavioral habits. I'm willing to do that. I get along just fine without aerosol. The airconditioning works just fine without freon. I am willing do just about anything within reason.

 

 

I would like to have the opportunity to ask one question. Is it reasonable for someone to question the accuracy of the "experts" when the same people cant tell us what the weather will be next Tuesday? I mean it doesnt mean they are wrong. Im just saying...shouldn't we as a matter of principal question the experts?

 

 

Afterall it was the experts who said the Moon and Sun revolved around the Earth...

 

which was flat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really don't know how I feel about the Global Warming thing. In all honesty, if it is in the best interest of the planet to change some behavioral habits. I'm willing to do that. I get along just fine without aerosol. The airconditioning works just fine without freon. I am willing do just about anything within reason.

 

 

I agree with this.

 

At the very least, we know that we are putting increasing amounts of unnatural chemicals into the air we breathe, the atmosphere which protects us from the sun's radiation, and the water we drink. To claim that the pollutants we create have no effect is simply covering our eyes.

 

Technological advancement is inevitable, and it would be cool if legislation could be used to motivate companies to develop cleaner technologies as part of that advancement, because it is not necessarily in their business interests to do so without incentives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I would like to have the opportunity to ask one question. Is it reasonable for someone to question the accuracy of the "experts" when the same people cant tell us what the weather will be next Tuesday? I mean it doesnt mean they are wrong. Im just saying...shouldn't we as a matter of principal question the experts?

Afterall it was the experts who said the Moon and Sun revolved around the Earth...

 

which was flat.

 

Absolutely. One point though, let's clear up the difference between weather and climate. Climate is very long term (tens of thousands of years and more), weather is current (next week at the most). Climatologists study climate and climate change, meteorologists study weather. They are NOT the same people in the same way that engineers and chemists are not the same people, though both are involved with science.

 

Also, continuing to question when the consensus reaches a totally overwhelming amount is really just denial. We are at that point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Absolutely. One point though, let's clear up the difference between weather and climate. Climate is very long term (tens of thousands of years and more), weather is current (next week at the most). Climatologists study climate and climate change, meteorologists study weather. They are NOT the same people in the same way that engineers and chemists are not the same people, though both are involved with science.

 

Also, continuing to question when the consensus reaches a totally overwhelming amount is really just denial. We are at that point.

 

 

 

Honestly I cant argue that...but that was the point I was making before. It was UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED that the Earth was flat....that the Sun and Moon revolved around the Earth. And while I agree that weather and climate are seperate. There are certainly similarities...I remember during the gas crisis in the 70's we were going to freeze....

 

Ursa, I am not really trying to take a side, but I think a number of great things in this world have occurred due to NOT FOLLOWING consensus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly I cant argue that...but that was the point I was making before. It was UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED that the Earth was flat....that the Sun and Moon revolved around the Earth. And while I agree that weather and climate are seperate. There are certainly similarities...I remember during the gas crisis in the 70's we were going to freeze....

 

Ursa, I am not really trying to take a side, but I think a number of great things in this world have occurred due to NOT FOLLOWING consensus.

 

I'd argue that the belief that the Sun revolved around the Earth owed more to religion than science, plus the incentives that religion provided to keep people believing that in the form of the rack and being burned alive went some way to stifling the opposing belief.

 

400 years ago when Copernicus and Galileo were brave enough to argue against the Earth-centric church, the scientific tools were extremely limited, as were numbers of scientists. In 2007, there is no such excuse - zillions of dollars in technology and tens of thousands of scientists from all over the entire world are pointing in the same direction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information