Al gores movie....continued

Ok guys i really want to talk about this, latewood didnt agree with my comments and some others didnt agree with gk. but non the less i still belive that the only reason Al gore put this movie together was to gain votes. Which makes his points pretty unstable.

Now, we all know that the world is in some way warming, but it has been for the past millions of years, we had an ice age whats to stop an heat age, Really? There has been no factual evidence that global warming is here. However i do belive in a better non poluted world. China has the worst pulution atleast the us demands filters on all factoy stacks.

we could be contributing to globalwarming, i will never say that it is not possible, but we would have some evidence if it were true. think of how many people do research on this and find nothing, or something close to nothing. CFC's have been further outlawed along with many A/c mechanics.

If some one told me hey this is why global warming is true,(hard evidence) i would say global warming is an issue. We need to get our heads out of our asses stop thinking about how to prove GW, and work to find better environmental standards.

I also dont belive it should be a political issue, its an environmental issue, leave it to the government and were sure to see some one fuck it up.

I do not think you understood the movie. If you did you would not have wrote the above statement.

Heat age????? Show me anywhere in the earths Geological record where there was ever ONE heat age in the earths 4 billion year existance.
It's only a coincidance that all the green house gasses are making the planet get warmer.
Give me a break.
When i was a kid(of 14) i used to play in snow up to my ass, now i am 39 and have snow up to my big toe. Warming? I would say so.
90% or better of the earths climatologist now say that global warming is real, I will beilieve them and not a GOVERNMENTS official line because they have big oil intrests at heart.
When your in Wal-mart looking for the SPF 500 so you wont get cooked while out joy riding to get baked, dont say i didnt warn ya.

That things about Al Gore putting the movie together only for votes? If you knew anything at all about Al Gore, you'd know that he's been an environmentalist and teacher for decades. He put the presentation that became the move together because it's the sort of thing he's always done. And if anything, he's very well aware that there was a distinct possibility that, had he helped produce the movie during a political race (which he didn't, by the way), he'd have stood to lose votes rather than win them.

Time to educate yourself a bit more JackdaW. What Gatekeeper said above is very true. You don't have to listen to politicians. Listen to the concrete facts from climatologists and environmental scientists. The ones who measure temperatures and core ice samples on the polar caps. The ones who monitor the greenhouse gasses, the ever-growing holes in our ozone layer, global temperature trends, and, yes, polar bear habitats. The ones who convened around the world at the behest of the UN within this last six months and made their report public within the last six weeks. There's no longer any argument on the topic of global warming or, if you prefer the term, climate change. Even the most in-denial fossil-fuel-connected politicians now see this, too. The facts do exist. And that most recent UN report, sadly, said that even by acting now and enacting tough legislation and stringent environmental standards around the world, we're not really going to be able to undo the destructive environmental cycle that's already in motion. We may be able to make some improvements and keep the future of this century from being so bleak. But we're already too late to stop it entirely or reverse the current damage.

If it's an environmental issue, by the way, that means it's automatically a political issue, too. Environmentalists and scientists can make the recommendations for more stringent environmental standards. But someone has to put them into action. That's where legislators/politicians come in.

What I find ODD is most of the world accepts this as fact,except for a few 1 month ago there was a story on cnn about an ice sheet the size of rhode island that broke off the ice shelf. it got about 45 seconds of air time. About 3 months ago the scientists said that if polar ice keeps dissapearing at the rate it is today there will be NO MORE polar bears in 50 years. They will be extinct. It got 30 seconds of air time. HOW SAD. Anna Nicole Smith has a bastard child and no one knows who the cum donor is and its national news for 4 days. Its no wonder we americans are misinformed. The government rules the media.
We may have freedomm of speach and freedom of press this is true. but the government (FCC) hold alot of broadcast licences. "talk more about this and less about that or else !"
We are talking about something that has the potential to erase ALL life on earth in less then 100 years. i think it should be looked at it objectively and NOT with a government stance. Unless you think that weed is a dangerous drug.

Jake you are wrong..i doubt you watched the movie. i used to believe in that theory to. it was explained in the movie yes we have had cycles during our time on the planet, but not like we are having today. i know we have had several small ice ages in our time on the planet but what we are facing is nothing like we have ever seen and sadly unless about 50 million people die overnight we are all doomed. i will be heading inland. Denver should be a wonderful island Paradise

In the 2004 eco-disaster film The Day After Tomorrow, Europe and North America are gripped by a deep freeze after global warming halts the circulation of a North Atlantic ocean current. The film is pure Hollywood hyperbole.

But some scientists say the current is vulnerable to rising temperatures.

Acting like a conveyor belt, the current transports warm, surface waters toward the Poles and cold, deep waters toward the Equator.

In the Atlantic Ocean, these warm surface waters push northward, releasing heat into the atmosphere and becoming cooler and denser. As they do, the waters sink and flow southward in the deep ocean.

"The Atlantic circulation moves heat toward the Arctic, and this helps moderate wintertime temperatures in the high-latitude Northern Hemisphere," said Ruth Curry, a physical oceanography research specialist at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution on Cape Cod, Massachusetts.
Global Warming May Alter Atlantic Currents, Study Says

I watched a special regarding this. They said that due to the fresh water being dumped into the Atlantic Ocean the effects would actually drive us into another ice age.

I would imagine that they all have their own theories.

Have a good one!:jointsmile:

which STILL could put an end to mankind especially if the planet became one big snowball from pole to pole.
Its happened before too ,but long before man.

Maybe man was around then and suffered an identical fate. Evolution, rinse and repeat with the bacteria frozen at the bottom of the ice. Natures way of reformatting the hard drive.

Just how much of the "Greenhouse Effect" is caused by human activity?

It is about 0.28%, if water vapor is taken into account-- about 5.53%, if not.

This point is so crucial to the debate over global warming that how water vapor is or isn't factored into an analysis of Earth's greenhouse gases makes the difference between describing a significant human contribution to the greenhouse effect, or a negligible one.

Water vapor constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect (4). Interestingly, many "facts and figures' regarding global warming completely ignore the powerful effects of water vapor in the greenhouse system, carelessly (perhaps, deliberately) overstating human impacts as much as 20-fold.

Water vapor is 99.999% of natural origin. Other atmospheric greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and miscellaneous other gases (CFC's, etc.), are also mostly of natural origin (except for the latter, which is mostly anthropogenic).

Human activites contribute slightly to greenhouse gas concentrations through farming, manufacturing, power generation, and transportation. However, these emissions are so dwarfed in comparison to emissions from natural sources we can do nothing about, that even the most costly efforts to limit human emissions would have a very small-- perhaps undetectable-- effect on global climate.
Global Warming: A closer look at the numbers

I belive in a cleaner world, people can continue to make evironmental standards better an i would back them. around the world they could be much better if not equal to ours, we dont have the best, but compared to some its very good. There are so many things we can do we dont. As for global warming, it takes more to convince me, And its just as cold here as it is every year, not as much snow but just as cold. It is something that we have to concider, i cant say its false, but time will tell, if we cant put a label on the cuase we have no actions. Watching a movie from ones perspective can be warping, I cant just take in one side of the argument when others hold other valid points.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JackdaWack

As for global warming, it takes more to convince me, And its just as cold here as it is every year, not as much snow but just as cold.

---

Drought areas cycle, temps cycle........we're not getting the snow we used to here either but right now there are people in New York buried under 10 ft. of snow.

Let a super volcano blow and we'd be in an ice age over night.

I'd worry more about lung cancer from emissions than global warming but I guess it's always good to have watch dogs.

Have a good one!:jointsmile:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gatekeeper777

What I find ODD is most of the world accepts this as fact....
We are talking about something that has the potential to erase ALL life on earth in less then 100 years. i think it should be looked at it objectively and NOT with a government stance....

---

i suppose it all depends on who you listen to.
sure there are many who believe we are baking ourselves out of existence, but i think you will find that it is not the overwhelming majority you have been led to believe. there are many who believe that this is just a cyclic weather change, influenced only slightly by mankind. there are, as well, many who think we still don't have enough data to go running around screaming "the sky is falling!", i believe you will find this is the actual majority. i also believe you will find that only the most rabid doomsdayers would give you that 100 year deadline.

as for who to believe....

all of the parties involved seem to have their own agendas and i think it's important to look at who the player really are.
you have:

• non- and semi-industrialized countries trying to gain an economic toehold through scare tactics.
• over-industrialized countries, frightened by the massive amounts of waste they generate, trying to hold back the clock.
• countries near the arctic circle, fearful that shifting ice packs will damage their infrastructure and franticly trying to find someone to blame.

not to mention a thousand other groups, from tree huggers to run of the mill anarchists. all of them jumping on the band wagon in hopes of getting reparations or maybe just their 15 minutes.

within the us it's not just the bushites and big business that are paying scientists to help out their point of view. the scientific community if rife with greed and bias and many are more than willing to turn theory into fact in return for grants, cushy positions in academia or just to forward their own personal views. common sense is no more common among those who live in ivory towers than it it is amongst the plebes and the rush to be in the forefront of any new scientific wave can become all consuming for those who spend their years in such lofty circles.

i also think it is important to remember that man is a part of nature too. though we should be mindful of the needs of the planet over which we seem to have taken stewardship, we should not rush to dampen the advances we need to survive and flourish at the first hint of danger. we should, instead, nudge those technologies into more ecologically friendly areas and not just stamp them out entirely. that would be cutting off our nose to spite our face and we are ugly enough as it is.

Quote:

---

i also think it is important to remember that man is a part of nature too.

---

What happens in nature to deer when they over populate an area? Sickness, disease, starvation. Solution is to hunt them and control there numbers. In todays world we have vaccines, antibiotics and, genetically grown foods. All this stuff I'm sure nature never intended on us to have. We for the most part broke almost every safeguard this planet had in terms of natural population control. Now we worry about bird flu mutating to the point were human to human transfer could take place.

If scientists can make a timetable with the ice of our climate history. Ice thats been through several ice ages in its past, is now rapidly melting, should be a sign something isn't right. I agree with these people on global warming because its better to act late on the issue then not act at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zimzum

....I agree with these people on global warming because its better to act late on the issue then not act at all.

---

action is not always required or advisable. man's actions in the interest of the rest of nature are usually short sighted and produce undesirable side effects. better to shift resources into the proper avenues of change than to make the abrupt immediate changes that so many seem to espouse.

Just would like to add my two cents...The time frames all of these scientists are working with -- estimations of ages of ice, estimations in future climate trends, etc...who's to say any of these figures are accurate. Generally these figures have been quoted as being multiple lifespans of time, and though a project can be continued for such extended periods of time the transfers of data, and turnover of data collectors, as well as shifts in measurement systems -- not saying that it has happened recently, though who is ever to say -- who can really say what is accurate and speculative?

Global warming seems to exist everywhere except in the minds of those who would rather it didn't.

Funny that

The film title says it all IMHO

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Delta9 UK

Global warming seems to exist everywhere except in the minds of those who would rather it didn't.

Funny that

The film title says it all IMHO

---

Isn't it best to keep an open mind to all research regarding that?

Have a good one!:jointsmile:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Delta9 UK

Global warming seems to exist everywhere except in the minds of those who would rather it didn't.

Funny that

The film title says it all IMHO

---

I think this is a very ignorant comment, kinda like jump on the band wagon. Just becuase people "think" it exist's doesnt mean would should all just drop to the dicoverer, If we took theory and applied stratagy we would be sorry ass MFer's. If you really want to prove global warming exists, well lets get some facts, and dont just look into what one person says becuase thats not the argument, i would suggest looking at the other side before comming to a conclusion. The Ice caps of the world could be melting from a number of diferent reasons and no scientist can say This Is why there is global warming, so dont bullshit around and say it doesnt exist only in the minds who feel that way, becuase i honestly belive it exists only in the minds of ppl who want it to. If there is no factual evidence substantial to other facts, then what are we to believe. To be honest when some one contributes a theory like population control, i find that more appealing. The us has a fertility rate of 1.5-2 but our population keeeps growing, talk about immigration control. I dunno guys i mean for people who strongly believe in Global Warming, non of u guys have put up a valid argument on its existence, u have suggested areas of intreast but thats not enough.


Al gore.. Maybe it is a politicians battle becuase it could be a world wide issue
but i dont think it is something we should vote him in office for. Environmental standards are good i agree, but i have never liked the guy and hope he is never one day president. Just like we have a pentagon, we most likely have a part of the gov who studies the environment, It is very important we watch for mothernature, look at new orleans, under water and that was just a hurrican.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JackdaWack

Just like we have a pentagon, we most likely have a part of the gov who studies the environment, It is very important we watch for mothernature, look at new orleans, under water and that was just a hurrican.

---

Actually the Pentagon is interested in, and has enough faith in, the existence of global warming to be planning for naval control of the Northern passage from the Atlantic to the Pacific.
And I'm not talking subs. I'm talking about surface vessels.
This is being worked out NOW, since the design, planning, approval, and eventual construction of a warship can take up to 20 years.
Sadly I can't provide a link; this is info I picked up in person at the UMass environmental lecture series in spring of 2006.

I can understand there concern, and well there main purpose is in case of an global flooding, to have take the measures neccessary to maintain the U.S. control and government. The pentagon should be taking action now, becuase well they ussually wait until its too late, these arent neccisarily GlobalWarming concerns as in case of any sudden flood the U.S. can remain to hold its control. For them to concider the possibilities of global warming only they know its not going to have a dissasterous effect for atleast another 100 years, and it gives them an excuse to build all the ships they want. This is just another label for globalwarming and things for people to hide behind becuase they have no evidence of GW, but i can see benificial preperation on the matter becuase this is something that could happen just from freak nature.

Czech president Vaclav Klaus, in Czech daily Hospodarske Noviny, on the myth of man-made global warming

QUESTION: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has released its report and you say that global warming is a myth. How did you get this idea, Mr President?

Klaus: It's not my idea. Global warming is a myth and every serious person and scientist says so. It is not fair to refer to the UN panel. IPCC is not a scientific institution: it's a political body, a sort of non-government organisation of green flavour. It's neither a forum of neutral scientists nor a balanced group of scientists. These people are politicised scientists who arrive there with a one-sided opinion and a one-sided assignment.
Also, it's an undignified slapstick that people don't wait for the full report in May2007 but instead respond, in such a serious way, to the summary for policymakers where all the "buts" are scratched, removed and replaced with oversimplified theses. This is clearly such an incredible failure of so many people, from journalists to politicians ...

Question: Don't you believe that we're ruining our planet?

Klaus: I will pretend that I haven't heard you. Perhaps only Mr Al Gore may be saying something along these lines: a sane person can't. I don't see any ruining of the planet, I have never seen it, and I don't think that a reasonable and serious person could say such a thing ... We know that there exists a huge correlation between the care we give to the environment on one side and the wealth and technological prowess on the other side. It's clear that the poorer the society is, the more brutally it behaves with respect to nature, and vice versa. It's also true that there exist social systems that are damaging nature -- by eliminating private ownership and similar things -- much more than the freer societies. These tendencies become important in the long run. They unambiguously imply that on February 8, 2007, nature is protected incomparably more than on February 8 10 years ago or 50 years ago or 100 years ago.
Cut & paste: Climate panel a political body without any scientific basis | Opinion | The Australian

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psycho4Bud

Czech president Vaclav Klaus, in Czech daily Hospodarske Noviny, on the myth of man-made global warming:
Klaus: "It's not my idea. Global warming is a myth and every serious person and scientist says so."

---

Hmmm... if every scientist agreed, I think we might not be having this debate at all!
:D
Oh, and the caveat of 'serious' scientists and people... well, that's just a politician being... well... a politician!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gatekeeper777

Heat age????? Show me anywhere in the earths Geological record where there was ever ONE heat age in the earths 4 billion year existance.
It's only a coincidance that all the green house gasses are making the planet get warmer.
Give me a break.
When i was a kid(of 14) i used to play in snow up to my ass, now i am 39 and have snow up to my big toe. Warming? I would say so.
90% or better of the earths climatologist now say that global warming is real, I will beilieve them and not a GOVERNMENTS official line because they have big oil intrests at heart.
When your in Wal-mart looking for the SPF 500 so you wont get cooked while out joy riding to get baked, dont say i didnt warn ya.

---

Well I'm a believer of Man induced global warming, just like to tell this poster that in Buffalo they have 12+ feet of snow and another storm on the way. I think that would sufficiently cover your big toe,~LOL~.

I know! there up to there ass in snow, they probably want the world to warm up alittle.. ha. I dunno guys, im still hearing people say they belive in global warming yet have no explinations why they do.... im open ears guys. We all should be. I have looked and the more i look for information cocerning global warming it just brings me to the conclusions that people have nothing to do, and think of reasonable yet inconclusive information concerning global warming, we all know we dump shit into our plantets atmosphere and earth, however to exactly what extent if any is it effecting the planet. Politicians make up alot of bull crap as we all know, and if people are beliving then there winning.

So you take one event thats localized and use that to say look, its all BS. well climatic weather changes and changing weather paterns are the direct cause of a planet trying to balance it all out. I suppose that one day when you raise your shield on your space suit to kiss your grand children goodbye as they leave your house you will then realize its real.
But if your right and I am wrong, then are We not GUILTY OF SHOWING no RESTRAINT? Its not broke so lets not worry about it till it becomes a major problem. 9 out of 10 dentists survey say crest fights cavities. but most people wont switch till they get a cavity, but by then its to late the damage is done. Should we wait till the seas have boiled away, or investigate and do something NOW?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gatekeeper777

So you take one event thats localized and use that to say look, its all BS. well climatic weather changes and changing weather paterns are the direct cause of a planet trying to balance it all out. I suppose that one day when you raise your shield on your space suit to kiss your grand children goodbye as they leave your house you will then realize its real.
But if your right and I am wrong, then are We not GUILTY OF SHOWING no RESTRAINT? Its not broke so lets not worry about it till it becomes a major problem. 9 out of 10 dentists survey say crest fights cavities. but most people wont switch till they get a cavity, but by then its to late the damage is done. Should we wait till the seas have boiled away, or investigate and do something NOW?

---

This is the attitude that blurrs this situation, no one said to forget it or not worry about it, but dont claim shit you dont have proof of. Read the thread entirely and understand mine as others points of veiws. No one said to stop the theory of Global warming, or to hell with the earth, we should make the environmetn as best we can, and take what we know not what we dont, and use that to better our situation, if our situatuion even has a problem. Who knows? this wasnt a thread on the dissaproval of global warming but just an outlook on the theory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JackdaWack

I think this is a very ignorant comment, kinda like jump on the band wagon. Just becuase people "think" it exist's doesnt mean would should all just drop to the dicoverer, If we took theory and applied stratagy we would be sorry ass MFer's. If you really want to prove global warming exists, well lets get some facts, and dont just look into what one person says becuase thats not the argument, i would suggest looking at the other side before comming to a conclusion. The Ice caps of the world could be melting from a number of diferent reasons and no scientist can say This Is why there is global warming, so dont bullshit around and say it doesnt exist only in the minds who feel that way, becuase i honestly belive it exists only in the minds of ppl who want it to. If there is no factual evidence substantial to other facts, then what are we to believe. To be honest when some one contributes a theory like population control, i find that more appealing. The us has a fertility rate of 1.5-2 but our population keeeps growing, talk about immigration control. I dunno guys i mean for people who strongly believe in Global Warming, non of u guys have put up a valid argument on its existence, u have suggested areas of intreast but thats not enough.


Al gore.. Maybe it is a politicians battle becuase it could be a world wide issue
but i dont think it is something we should vote him in office for. Environmental standards are good i agree, but i have never liked the guy and hope he is never one day president. Just like we have a pentagon, we most likely have a part of the gov who studies the environment, It is very important we watch for mothernature, look at new orleans, under water and that was just a hurrican.

---

Well I disagree 100% and stick with my comment.

Al Gore isn't running for office btw, he tried that once before... like I said you don't like the idea of it - like your government doesn't like the idea of it.

I live in the UK and we have a different attitude towards it.

Oh...

Read this http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf

I can't even believe some people are still debating this??

well no one has yet to give me a clear cut answer, I read it, it even states that there is a large uncertainty in most of there findings.

Hey, im not here to fight wether or not its real, i just think its abselutly rediculous ppl talk about how it is such a big deal when there isnt any evidence, if it were so cut and clear, global warming, we would know why, and we dont.

My point is simply people take such sides when they know little or nothing on the matter, the people studying it dont even know that much about it.

Please dont think im here to say it doesnt exist, i already stated it very well could. My basic veiws go both ways, u cant rule out one becuase your gut says so.

Before we make it so popularized i believe we need to have some ground of findings regarding the matter. Other then that is people talking out of there asses what they "think".

I would just like to say.. Its March and I have 2 of 3 flood pumps running in my basement. :( I should be outside shoveling, not bailing out water.

Shit Zim its snowing here and Denver went 61 days with snow on the ground

record is 63 days 83-84

jan 07 61 days....

jan 1913 60 days....


There is climate change....there is allways climate change. The Libs want you to believe it is ALL our fault.. I dont buy it