An Inconvenient Truth

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

BlancoNino

Diamond Member
Oct 31, 2005
5,695
0
0
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Do you also think that humans aren't to blame for the arsenic, mercury and other crap in the water?

They're also to blame for the technology that has helped clean it up! We advance. It's safe to swim in virtually every body of water in the U.S. Even the Hudson River!
 

miketheidiot

Lifer
Sep 3, 2004
11,060
1
0
Originally posted by: BlancoNino
It's not global warming anymore, it's climate change. The environmentalists got it wrong, so they changed what it's called.

It's clear the evidence keeps changing, and new theories keep arising. Because of this, it is very important we stand back and keep studying. Nothing major has happened yet.

The globe is warming as an average, however not all places will get warmer. Changing the term was done to avoid a stupid fallacious argument used against global warming.
 

miketheidiot

Lifer
Sep 3, 2004
11,060
1
0
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: aidanjm
The images of parts of the world (huge glaciers, ice shelves, permafrost) just melting away are sombre.

They have been doing that for thousands of years. Perhaps you?ve heard of the cyclical weather pattern known as Ice Ages. We?re coming out of one and will continue to do so until the next one. This has never changed.

the ice melting now has been ice for several ice ages. Its a bit unprecedented.
 

BlancoNino

Diamond Member
Oct 31, 2005
5,695
0
0
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Originally posted by: BlancoNino
It's not global warming anymore, it's climate change. The environmentalists got it wrong, so they changed what it's called.

It's clear the evidence keeps changing, and new theories keep arising. Because of this, it is very important we stand back and keep studying. Nothing major has happened yet.

The globe is warming as an average, however not all places will get warmer. Changing the term was done to avoid a stupid fallacious argument used against global warming.

It warms and cools all the time. There are also massive benefits to a higher temperature. Nobody has died as a result of global warming.
 

zephyrprime

Diamond Member
Feb 18, 2001
7,512
2
81
Legendkiller, your argument is weak. It prevents a strawman argument because you say that the other side says that "the earth was never warmer in the past" but in reality, the other side has never claimed that. Nobody has ever claimed that.

Everyone knows and accepts that the earth has had periods of cold and warmth and this isn't the hottest period in history by a longshot.

So there you go.

Also, there were no oceans in the midwest tens of thousands of years ago. That was tens of millions of years ago. Back when pangaea broke up, the north america plate started subducting the pacific plate and eventually, all the western and midwestern states were lifted out of the seabed where they had been before.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
35,858
10,167
136
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: aidanjm
The images of parts of the world (huge glaciers, ice shelves, permafrost) just melting away are sombre.

They have been doing that for thousands of years. Perhaps you?ve heard of the cyclical weather pattern known as Ice Ages. We?re coming out of one and will continue to do so until the next one. This has never changed.

the ice melting now has been ice for several ice ages. Its a bit unprecedented.

If that's the case, it merely shows significance to the current warming trend compared to the other warming trends in the recent past. I believe the argument is that we are speeding it up. Yet, we've only begun to do so in the last hundred years, certainly we've not yet warmed it -beyond- where it would eventually end up on its own?

As to the Ice, there have been times in the planet's history when there has been no ice on a pole. So I do not call the melting of ice, thousands of years old, unprecedented. I expect it to happen again, eventually, as it has done before.
 

Deptacon

Platinum Member
Nov 22, 2004
2,282
1
81
so tommorow to fix this problem, everyone who is complaining will:
A: walk to work, no matter how far....
B: eat thier cooked food raw
C: eat thier cooled food warm
D: not use any device that use electricity....

maybe, just maybe, you will have a job and not havin food posioning at the end of the day.....thats even if you make it to work....cvause some of us here I bet drive way to far to get to work.
 

miketheidiot

Lifer
Sep 3, 2004
11,060
1
0
Originally posted by: Deptacon
so tommorow to fix this problem, everyone who is complaining will:
A: walk to work, no matter how far....
B: eat thier cooked food raw
C: eat thier cooled food warm
D: not use any device that use electricity....

maybe, just maybe, you will have a job and not havin food posioning at the end of the day.....thats even if you make it to work....cvause some of us here I bet drive way to far to get to work.

some power does come from exceptable places. I for one drive about 1500 miles a year in a car that gets a bit over 30mpg. I walk to class, every day.
 

Legend

Platinum Member
Apr 21, 2005
2,254
1
0
Originally posted by: Deptacon
so tommorow to fix this problem, everyone who is complaining will:
A: walk to work, no matter how far....
B: eat thier cooked food raw
C: eat thier cooled food warm
D: not use any device that use electricity....

maybe, just maybe, you will have a job and not havin food posioning at the end of the day.....thats even if you make it to work....cvause some of us here I bet drive way to far to get to work.

Nuclear, hydro, wind power.
 

miketheidiot

Lifer
Sep 3, 2004
11,060
1
0
Originally posted by: Legend
Originally posted by: Deptacon
so tommorow to fix this problem, everyone who is complaining will:
A: walk to work, no matter how far....
B: eat thier cooked food raw
C: eat thier cooled food warm
D: not use any device that use electricity....

maybe, just maybe, you will have a job and not havin food posioning at the end of the day.....thats even if you make it to work....cvause some of us here I bet drive way to far to get to work.

Nuclear, hydro, wind power.

solar, geothermal
 

Deptacon

Platinum Member
Nov 22, 2004
2,282
1
81
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Originally posted by: Legend
Originally posted by: Deptacon
so tommorow to fix this problem, everyone who is complaining will:
A: walk to work, no matter how far....
B: eat thier cooked food raw
C: eat thier cooled food warm
D: not use any device that use electricity....

maybe, just maybe, you will have a job and not havin food posioning at the end of the day.....thats even if you make it to work....cvause some of us here I bet drive way to far to get to work.

Nuclear, hydro, wind power.

solar, geothermal


nuclear really is the answer, except the very far left goes nutts about it.....even though its so clean, so efficent, so cheap, and 10 times safer then it was just 20 or 30 years ago

solar and wind.... cost per Kwh is too high, geothermal is restricted to location...hydro the same, but we use it where we can
 

ericlp

Diamond Member
Dec 24, 2000
6,137
225
106
Here is my take on global warming...

First of all it's all driven by the all mighty dollar...

80% or more of the fools in the USA go to some sort of church and that is of GOD loving faith... Most of the faiths could care less about environmental problems because "GOD WILL SAVE EM" in the end anyway. So why worry as long as that money dish keeps getting full by the end of sunday mass who cares right?

Like Bush, the same born again faith has said many times, Man has nothing to do with the environment...

The biggest problem we have chopped down and continue to chop down over 90% of the WORLDS old growth forests. These forests that once existed take in a hell of a lot of pollution, they create lots of cool and fresh oxygen we have been burning up for some time now... Personally I think we have gone too far, I believe in the next 10 years if we keep going the same way we are going the point of no return the balance will be tipped and we will be screwed... Just my own thoughts.

I can see the changes and I really believe are government is keeping it toned down. They don't want you to know how badly we screwing up the environment. Keep spending the money... Nothing to worry about...

Meanwhile... The OZONE hole is getting bigger we are burning coal and oil at record levels. Ocean temps are warmer then any time on record. We don't have the Filter; the worlds forests to take it back in cool it down and produce pure oxygen.

I believe we are playing a game and mother nature will always win. You take too many pieces out of the building blocks of life and something will have to give. I guess when we have a few 100K people dieing in the USA maybe someone will wake up?

The things we need to start doing, is carpooling, riding the bus, riding a bike (you live too far out? Move closer to work or find a different job...) Start using Solar for heating up water(easy to do)... Run solar for LED lights for whole house lighting..... I think its pretty simple for these type of changes... Open a window instead of turning on the AC... Wear a sweatshirt instead of turning on the heat...

If you have to drive... Get a car that gets 35+ MPG. Trade in the old one...

Here is how you can tell that our own government is not worried about the health of the planet. Ever walk in to a store to buy a light bulb? Why aren't they all fluorescent? It's pretty easy change...
Why don't we have a trade in for old cars to new ones? Why don't we have a gas tax, you drive in with a V8? You pay 4 bucks at the pump... Drive in with a 4 cylinder you pay the going rate. Simple change... But your government doesn't care. Why not make more LED bulbs? We could really cut down a lot of power... Why do we even HAVE TVs, Refrigerators, Air Conditioning, Computer Monitors, etc...etc...etc... If they can't have the Energy Star label on them then they should be banned... Then there are the people that say... Well, these items cost MORE and how will the POOR afford them? Well, how do the POOR afford the energy cost and how do you and I pay for the big energy consumption on the panet ... Anything that is less efficient and consumer buy be it poor or stupidity we will pay for it one way or another... We have to switch back to more QUALITY and Efficient products from cars to electronics...

Tho, I have to give bush credit for solar rebate programs. Amazing.... One thing the dude actually did good on. Maybe a goof? I'm sure he got rich off of it somehow tho.... I don't know the real reason yet.

==Edit==
I haven't seen the movie yet. I will rent it when it comes out on DVD.

 

XZeroII

Lifer
Jun 30, 2001
12,572
0
0
http://www.michaelcrichton.com/speeches/npc-speech.html

Here is an article called The Impossibility of Prediction. It's a great read.

Just watching An Inconvenient Truth gives you only one side of the story. It's like going to a debate where only one person shows up and you listen to the one person try to push their point on you for an hour without anyone there to show the contrary side of things. If you want to be truly informed, you have to get both sides of the story. Hopefully the article above will help with that a bit.
 

Legend

Platinum Member
Apr 21, 2005
2,254
1
0
Originally posted by: Deptacon
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Originally posted by: Legend
Originally posted by: Deptacon
so tommorow to fix this problem, everyone who is complaining will:
A: walk to work, no matter how far....
B: eat thier cooked food raw
C: eat thier cooled food warm
D: not use any device that use electricity....

maybe, just maybe, you will have a job and not havin food posioning at the end of the day.....thats even if you make it to work....cvause some of us here I bet drive way to far to get to work.

Nuclear, hydro, wind power.

solar, geothermal


nuclear really is the answer, except the very far left goes nutts about it.....even though its so clean, so efficent, so cheap, and 10 times safer then it was just 20 or 30 years ago

solar and wind.... cost per Kwh is too high, geothermal is restricted to location...hydro the same, but we use it where we can

We should push nuclear.

Wind is getting better.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1765054.stm
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
Originally posted by: zephyrprime
Legendkiller, your argument is weak. It prevents a strawman argument because you say that the other side says that "the earth was never warmer in the past" but in reality, the other side has never claimed that. Nobody has ever claimed that.

Everyone knows and accepts that the earth has had periods of cold and warmth and this isn't the hottest period in history by a longshot.

So there you go.

Also, there were no oceans in the midwest tens of thousands of years ago. That was tens of millions of years ago. Back when pangaea broke up, the north america plate started subducting the pacific plate and eventually, all the western and midwestern states were lifted out of the seabed where they had been before.

The claim is that we have deviated outside the mean, but we really haven't. The other side says that humans are impacting the environment, causing global warming. How can they extrapolate human effects when we are at a peak right now? Just because it's warmer than the past peak doesn't mean that *WE* caused that. Correlation does not infer causation.

 

BrownTown

Diamond Member
Dec 1, 2005
5,314
1
0
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Correlation does not infer causation.

Yes, thank god more people understand this, i was starting to think i was alone. Just becasue the earth is getting warmer does NOT nescecarrily mean that humans are causing it, it *could* mean that, or it could be a million other things. The little ice age happened during human history, and I don't see everyone blaming it on people. I'm not saying that humans can't influence the enviroment, we all know they can, the ozone hole is proof of that. However, you need some pretty darn good proof that humans are behind global warming before we go changing the entire foundation of our society to try to combat it. Also, you need some good proof that this change is for the worse, everyone assumes change is bad, but again, we need some pretty hard evidence that global warming is gonna casue us great harm before we try to combat it. You have to understand, energy is the basis for everything we do, every good and service relies on affordable energy prices. When energy prices go up the price of EVERYTHING goes up, and im taling about REAL costs, if energy requires more of our resources to produce than thats less resources producing other things you want.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,792
6,351
126
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: zephyrprime
Legendkiller, your argument is weak. It prevents a strawman argument because you say that the other side says that "the earth was never warmer in the past" but in reality, the other side has never claimed that. Nobody has ever claimed that.

Everyone knows and accepts that the earth has had periods of cold and warmth and this isn't the hottest period in history by a longshot.

So there you go.

Also, there were no oceans in the midwest tens of thousands of years ago. That was tens of millions of years ago. Back when pangaea broke up, the north america plate started subducting the pacific plate and eventually, all the western and midwestern states were lifted out of the seabed where they had been before.

The claim is that we have deviated outside the mean, but we really haven't. The other side says that humans are impacting the environment, causing global warming. How can they extrapolate human effects when we are at a peak right now? Just because it's warmer than the past peak doesn't mean that *WE* caused that. Correlation does not infer causation.

Same arguement used for not banning CFCs.
 

BrownTown

Diamond Member
Dec 1, 2005
5,314
1
0
That statement is a FACT, not some political jargon. It is simply saying that 2 events occuring at the same time is not prrof that they are related, but of course they very well could be. I just read that Michael Chricton argument, and in the end its pretty much makign the same argument i'm making, except it is better worded and has accompanying pictures. There are so many things in this world that need to be fixed, starvation and disease are rampant across huge swaths of this earth, it is absurd to argue that we should invest Trillions of dollars to try to combat a problem that MIGHT occur in 50-100 years when there are bigger problem right NOW that could EASILY be solved with that much money. Just think how many people might die every year in some global warming disater if we dont invest the resources to stop it, then think about how many people are dying RIGHT NOW becasue we wont spend money to help them.
 

WHAMPOM

Diamond Member
Feb 28, 2006
7,628
183
106
Originally posted by: BrownTown
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Correlation does not infer causation.

Yes, thank god more people understand this, i was starting to think i was alone. Just becasue the earth is getting warmer does NOT nescecarrily mean that humans are causing it, it *could* mean that, or it could be a million other things. The little ice age happened during human history, and I don't see everyone blaming it on people. I'm not saying that humans can't influence the enviroment, we all know they can, the ozone hole is proof of that. However, you need some pretty darn good proof that humans are behind global warming before we go changing the entire foundation of our society to try to combat it. Also, you need some good proof that this change is for the worse, everyone assumes change is bad, but again, we need some pretty hard evidence that global warming is gonna casue us great harm before we try to combat it. You have to understand, energy is the basis for everything we do, every good and service relies on affordable energy prices. When energy prices go up the price of EVERYTHING goes up, and im taling about REAL costs, if energy requires more of our resources to produce than thats less resources producing other things you want.

Fact is the LITTLE ICE AGE was caused by volcanic eruption. Now what else do you have dead wrong?
 

miketheidiot

Lifer
Sep 3, 2004
11,060
1
0
Originally posted by: BrownTown
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Correlation does not infer causation.

Yes, thank god more people understand this, i was starting to think i was alone. Just becasue the earth is getting warmer does NOT nescecarrily mean that humans are causing it, it *could* mean that, or it could be a million other things. The little ice age happened during human history, and I don't see everyone blaming it on people. I'm not saying that humans can't influence the enviroment, we all know they can, the ozone hole is proof of that. However, you need some pretty darn good proof that humans are behind global warming before we go changing the entire foundation of our society to try to combat it. Also, you need some good proof that this change is for the worse, everyone assumes change is bad, but again, we need some pretty hard evidence that global warming is gonna casue us great harm before we try to combat it. You have to understand, energy is the basis for everything we do, every good and service relies on affordable energy prices. When energy prices go up the price of EVERYTHING goes up, and im taling about REAL costs, if energy requires more of our resources to produce than thats less resources producing other things you want.

All this evidence exists. causation has been proven. Its negative effects well demonstrated.
 

Acanthus

Lifer
Aug 28, 2001
19,915
2
76
ostif.org
Originally posted by: aidanjm
Originally posted by: syzygy
afterwards, the scientific concensus claimed by gore is far from true. and, yes, there was a scientific rebuttal to many of the points made in the film.

How can you rebutt something that is here - now - before our eyes?

"Climate change is with us. A decade ago, it was conjecture. Now the future is unfolding before our eyes. Canada's Inuit see it in disappearing Arctic ice and permafrost. The shantytown dwellers of Latin America and Southern Asia see it in lethal storms and floods. Europeans see it in disappearing glaciers, forest fires and fatal heat waves.
Scientists see it in tree rings, ancient coral and bubbles trapped in ice cores. These reveal that the world has not been as warm as it is now for a millennium or more. The three warmest years on record have all occurred since 1998; 19 of the warmest 20 since 1980. And Earth has probably never warmed as fast as in the past 30 years - a period when natural influences on global temperatures, such as solar cycles and volcanoes should have cooled us down. Studies of the thermal inertia of the oceans suggest that there is more warming in the pipeline."

New Scientist


this is really the most pressing issue of our times. God forbid that Greenland melts away - with a 20 foot elevation in the sea level you are looking at hundreds of millions of displaced people. The global community can't even handle a refugee crisis of 100,000 people, let alone 100 million people. The disease and death will be astronomical.

Yes, you can, because the sun is also hotter than it was 15 years ago.

Because carbon dioxide is not the primary gas that controls the earths temperature.

Because they cant even tell me if its going to rain tomorrow, but they are positive about long term global change.

Im not an anti global warming advocate... But a lot of the data being tossed around doesnt confirm global warming. Causation and Correlation.
 

Acanthus

Lifer
Aug 28, 2001
19,915
2
76
ostif.org
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: zephyrprime
Legendkiller, your argument is weak. It prevents a strawman argument because you say that the other side says that "the earth was never warmer in the past" but in reality, the other side has never claimed that. Nobody has ever claimed that.

Everyone knows and accepts that the earth has had periods of cold and warmth and this isn't the hottest period in history by a longshot.

So there you go.

Also, there were no oceans in the midwest tens of thousands of years ago. That was tens of millions of years ago. Back when pangaea broke up, the north america plate started subducting the pacific plate and eventually, all the western and midwestern states were lifted out of the seabed where they had been before.

The claim is that we have deviated outside the mean, but we really haven't. The other side says that humans are impacting the environment, causing global warming. How can they extrapolate human effects when we are at a peak right now? Just because it's warmer than the past peak doesn't mean that *WE* caused that. Correlation does not infer causation.

Same arguement used for not banning CFCs.

Last i knew china hasnt, and the ozone is fine.