If you were entertained by Michael Moore's films, I'm guessing yes. If you don't have a problem with the "inventor of the internet" and his credibility then I'm guessing yes as well. But these are just guesses.
Great, everyone on this forum who doesn't understand climatology and geology will be chiming in on this thread, calling global warming 'alarmist' and 'unsupported'.
'
'
I have not read it, and I have no intention of doing so, having read the reviews. I did read a bit of Crichton when I was young and stupid however - his novels are almost invariably anti-science, and this appears to be no exception. It seems to be claiming that because we don't know everything, we actually know nothing, and therefore everything must be ok. Flawed logic in many ways.
Should be 'finding out about Crichton's agenda on global warming'...
Stunt
Diamond Member
- Jul 17, 2002
- 9,717
- 2
- 0
CO2 levels are good to know I guess, but they do not show what the temperatures were during those time periods. Last time I checked it was called global WARMING not global gassing. If we can measure CO2 levels, should we not have temperature data extending well before the industrial revolution?
If we are trending up after an ice age is that not expected? I want to see reliable data showing lifecycle temperature plots for the earth; how can we fight something we don't understand?
'An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure'
That's easy to say, but the costs associated with just the Kyoto requirements are enormous...and for a long term reduction in temperature of less than a degree? Again, if we don't understand the problem, how can we fight it or make recommendations?
I am all for global warming studies but wholeheartedly against implementation of targets or costly reduction in CO2 emissions. I feel we as a society have not understood the problem or the earth's uncanny ability to adapt.
Ice cores.
Does it matter if it's expected? It's still not a good thing.
Kyoto is just nowhere near the level of action needed on greenhouse gasses, and it doesn't even mention deforestation. It's almost not worth bothering with.
Of course the earth will adapt. The earth will be fine, and life, even human life, will go on in one form or another. Modern human civilization on the other hand...
destrekor
Lifer
- Nov 18, 2005
- 28,799
- 359
- 126
while i cannot comment on the movie and thus do not know what facts those professors are all debating, and thus not sure which 'side' of the argument they are on.. I can say this... there will always be a handful of disbelievers who 'have data' that supports their claim of being right and the rest of the world is wrong, when is reality, they are just that, a handful of disbelievers. 98% of scientists across the world are all in agreeance that global warming is really happening, and that something must be done.
me? im in the group that says we're all fvcked and there isn't anything we can do. I think we are all passed the turning point and that whatever is going to happen is just going to happen now, and that cutting all CO2 production still won't do anything. i mean, we are already at levels higher than ever, but then again, everything is brand new and record setting, since the current climate doesn't even fit into any models.. temperatures are higher than ever, CO2 levels are higher than ever, and we look at the past and basically see we should be frozen by now, and that the global warming period should be over and the global freezing should begin.
but i guess thats why there are scientists making the plan for us, and not me. i'd say "game over" and just continue living the way I am now, forget trying to change if its already too late. we'll see if anyone comes up with something tangible and see that we need to change in certain ways. till everyone sees eye to eye and we have a true plan, not much we can do since we dont know what needs to be done. but don't follow my philosophy, please, because its obviously completely wrong, and i am only furthering the belief (through my own actions no less) that mankind is royally fvcked and rightfully so, since we are the one species that doesn't live in balance with its environment. we build things, destroy things, slowly destroy the planet and could care less. maybe an ice age could kill off most of us, and the survivors can look and have an 'oh sh!t' expression and decide to change and become more like the animals we should be.
i've read the book, found it an enjoyable read, BUT... crichton can easily grab the data he wants from many sources and use it as is... the problem with this debate is there is data that can be used from both sides that support both sides, but both contradict each other. the data you want to see if out there, even if there is data that also say the opposite.
kami
Lifer
- Oct 9, 1999
- 17,627
- 5
- 81
Obviously the way the movie presents some of the information is a little wacky, and all the Gore backstory, etc....but this is a movie. People won't go see it if it's just a man monotonously reading off scientific facts. It has to have character development and a story just like any other film or documentary.
But those ice cores aren't fabricated, and patterns for 650k years were pretty consistent. That's a significant amount of time...and the fact that CO2 levels and temperatures are higher now than they have been in the last 650,000 years is a little bit of a concern I would think no matter what side you're on. I don't know what's worse...the hardcore tree huggers or the people who think global warming is all a big conspiracy.
What do non-believers think the believers in global warming will GAIN out of this, besides the well being of the planet? There is nothing selfish about it. It's my feeling they're just people who are afraid of change, and of course people who's paychecks depend on them ignoring the problem...and really, can you blame them?
You don't have to be a tree hugger to recognize there's a problem that could have some serious consequences in the decades to come.
But those ice cores aren't fabricated, and patterns for 650k years were pretty consistent. That's a significant amount of time...and the fact that CO2 levels and temperatures are higher now than they have been in the last 650,000 years is a little bit of a concern I would think no matter what side you're on. I don't know what's worse...the hardcore tree huggers or the people who think global warming is all a big conspiracy.
What do non-believers think the believers in global warming will GAIN out of this, besides the well being of the planet? There is nothing selfish about it. It's my feeling they're just people who are afraid of change, and of course people who's paychecks depend on them ignoring the problem...and really, can you blame them?
You don't have to be a tree hugger to recognize there's a problem that could have some serious consequences in the decades to come.
Stunt
Diamond Member
- Jul 17, 2002
- 9,717
- 2
- 0
Your chart shows we are within the long term range...
Why should behaviour be changed if we are not out of control?
Many things in life are cyclical. Ice ages are like winter, they will happen we shouldn't try to stop it. The trend after winter is to warm, a temperature increase is expected; during the ice age, should we have not tried to keep the earth from warming!?
Bolded.. that's a pretty risky gamble to take. Stunt doesn't believe we know enough, so we should keep going with the riskiest course of action? Since someone already used the seatbelt metaphor... That's like saying, I don't know if I'm going to get in a car accident today, so I won't buckle up.
And Atheus, the issue is not whether the earth will adapt-- for one thing the earth is not some big organism, and statements like "the earth will adapt" should be left to Gaeaist hippies, not scientific discussion. Life may not cease be exist, but biodiversity will be significantly diminished by accelerated climate change.
A lot of people in this thread are missing an important fact-- climate change has been ACCELERATED by CO2 emission. Yes the earth is supposed to warm after an ice age, but not to this extent. Also missing is that the issue is global average temperature, not local temperatures. Ice cores show global average temperature at the time of snow deposition.
Of course people are going to pipe in and call the messages in this movie alarmist and complete crap. How else are they going justify all the crap that they "Need" to buy to get some fulfillment in their lives.
http://www.john-daly.com/co2-temp.jpg
If you want temperatures, here's a graph over the last 150k years. A change of about 100ppm of CO2 concentrations caused a change of about 6°C. If you look at the 400k year ice core samples, CO2 concentrations today are over 100ppm greater than at any point during the last 400k years. Even if Kyoto is enacted and followed everywhere, all it hopes to do is keep it steady at 500ppm, not even reduce it.
But I talk about CO2 emissions and not temperatures because (unless you don't think CO2 is a greenhouse gas), because that's what ultimately drives temperatures. If you want to control the speed of a car, you're really trying to control its RPMs.
The discussion over global warming is not the earth's ability the adapt. Even if we denotated every nuclear weapon, the earth and life on it would survive and adapt. The discussion is rather our own convinient way of life, about keeping the status quo - even if the worst predictions of global warming come true, people will still survive, but it would cause too much of a disruption. So why risk that? And not Kyoto is neither draconian nor costly - it is so modest in its aims it doesn't even try to reduce CO2 concentrations.
Being within the long term range does not mean we are within range of rate of change. Fast climate change like this HAS occurred, but only in catastrophic situations like massive amounts of material being spewed into the atmosphere by volcanic activity, the meteor that cause the extinction of the dinosaurs, etc.
So? Any temperature you can think of is in the long term range. Go back millions of years and it will be even hotter, go back billions and it will be too hot to support any life at all.
The point is that is is pretty hot now, and will be even hotter soon.
We should change our behavior because human civilization is likely to be seriously harmed in the next couple hundred years if we don't. I mean - the very least effects would be New York, London, and every other major coastal city underwater.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
Global warming exists and may present a problem. That's not the issue in this thread. The issue is that Gore's little documentary is overly alarmist and (purposefully) politically inflammatory. And given that the majority of the substantial Gore family wealth came from oil money (the exact same company that dumped the toxic waste at Love Canal in fact), it's also more than a wee bit hypocritical.
exactly.
and to IGBT who pointed to the collapsing glaciers that occurred in the past (among other things) - we aren't disputing whether those things occurred but the frequency at which they're occurring now.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
A couple issues about this thread I'd like to bring up.
First, science is not something you "believe" in. When you talk about believers and non-believers, you're no longer talking science.
Second, the gain is obvious. Fear is a drug. Fearmongering is dominance and power. And there's a lot of money in power.
First, science is not something you "believe" in. When you talk about believers and non-believers, you're no longer talking science.
Second, the gain is obvious. Fear is a drug. Fearmongering is dominance and power. And there's a lot of money in power.
Hrmmm - take some Environmental Science classes, you nubs. Most enviro scientists agree that if a 3 degree spike in temperature happens many parts of the Earth will be under water, like Texas, Flordia, China, etc. Who cares about Al Gore... quit spouting whatever Limbaugh says.
If it gets any warmer then major inhabited areas will be underwater - how is that not a problem? That's not fear of change, that's fear of being underwater.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
No, that's fear of change. I've spent most of my life on some of the youngest land on earth (the Pacific NW west of the Cascade Mountains). It was under the ocean some 20 million years ago. Then there were the great Missoula floods after the last ice age. And lastly was the Bonneville flood less than 500 years ago. On and on.
It's possible that stopping global warming may be as impossible as stopping volcanoes from erupting, and just as ridiculous to attempt to do so.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 384
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter