View Full Version : Please Be Aware of Inconvenient Truth
rynb1n
11-24-2006, 11:26 PM
Please, Everyone, Anyone.
If you care about yourself, If you care about your family, If you care about your friends and your pets, and the world we live in, Please...please see the Inconvenient Truth. THIS IS FOR ANYONE WHO CARES. This is a newly released movie done by Al Gore, former running president (which should have one due to popular vote), who is trying his very best to nationally WARN everyone in our country, and eventually everyone in our world, about the imposing and INCREASINGLY LARGE problem with global warming...
It is so important to me that our world is saved and conserved. I hope other people feel the same way about our environment, because without it, none of us would ever have been here, let alone survived on this earth. If you care, become aware. Please.
Ryan Johnson
Have you ever considered writing speeches for the President? I mean maybe then he wouldn't come across so ignorant sometimes. (my parents would die they are die hard Bush fans)
Anyway, in all seriousness I totally agree with you about conserving and I'll definitely be checking out the movie.
Mister Matt
11-25-2006, 12:20 AM
the "inconveient truth" is nothing more than a theory. just as many scientists believe it is a natural cycle that the earth goes through every like million years or some long period of time.
but so that we dont spark major political disputes, we should probably try to keep the talk about political issues to a minimum
the "inconveient truth" is nothing more than a theory. just as many scientists believe it is a natural cycle that the earth goes through every like million years or some long period of time.
but so that we dont spark major political disputes, we should probably try to keep the talk about political issues to a minimum
Don't be ignorant Matt. History repeats itself so scientists do have a good foundation to base their theory on. And even if what they are predicting doesn't occur in ten years, how do you know it won't happen in 15 yrs or 20 yrs? We should still at least be doing simple things to change the amount of impact we have on our planet.
Oh and you sound like my mother. She always wants to avoid the political discussions.
a chewy rock
11-25-2006, 03:03 AM
I think that you'd have to be really dumb to say that global warming isn't occurring. There's so many signs and evidence and calling it a theory doesn't mean anything. Nearly everything in science is a theory because there's always that something that remains undiscovered that could disagree with what the theory states. Those scientists know what they're talking about.
Mister Matt
11-25-2006, 07:13 AM
Ok. Ive been researching and reading all night and have compiled this list of key information to support my belief that global warming is a naturally occuring cycle of our planet, not from gas emissions, big factories, etc. Please read all of this before posting.
to help you understand this information better, the Kyoto Protocol is an agreement made under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Countries that ratify this protocol commit to reduce their emissions of carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases, or engage in emissions trading if they maintain or increase emissions of these gases. (they support the "man-made global warming view")
"after awhile people start believing it must be true because we hear it so often"
1. The idea that man-made pollution is responsible for global warming is not supported by historical fact. The period known as the Holocene Maximum is a good example-- so-named because it was the hottest period in human history. The interesting thing is this period occurred approximately 7500 to 4000 years B.P. (before present)-- long before human's invented industrial pollution.
2. CO2 in our atmosphere has been increasing steadily for the last 18,000 years-- long before humans invented smokestacks. Unless you count campfires and intestinal gas, man played no role in the pre-industrial increases.
Ignoring these 18,000 years of data "global warming activists" contend recent increases in atmospheric CO2 are unnatural and are the result of only 200 years or so of human pollution causing a runaway greenhouse effect
3. Total human contributions to greenhouse gases account for only about 0.28% of the "greenhouse effect"
Approximately 99.72% of the "greenhouse effect" is due to natural causes -- mostly water vapor and traces of other gases, which we can do nothing at all about. Eliminating human activity altogether would have little impact on climate change.
The significance of the Little Ice Age cannot be overestimated. The 1.5? F temperature increase over the last 150 years, so often cited as evidence of man-made warming, most likely represents a return to normal temperatures following a 400-year period of unusually cold weather. Even the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the chief proponent of the Kyoto Protocol global warming treaty signed in December 1997, concludes that: "The Little Ice Age came to an end only in the nineteenth century. Thus, some of the global warming since 1850 could be a recovery from the Little Ice Age rather than a direct result of human activities."
Q: What is the most dangerous untrue "fact" about global warming that?s out there in the media-sphere?
A: The rise in sea level. Again, the observations show that sea level has risen in the last 18,000 years by about 400 feet and is continuing to rise at a uniform rate, and is not accelerating, irrespective of warming or cooling. In fact, sea level will continue to rise at a slow rate of 8 inches per century, as it has been for the last few thousand years.
Q: Here?s a line from a recent Mother Jones article: "There is overwhelming scientific consensus that greenhouse gases emitted by human activity are causing global average temperatures to rise." Is that true?
A: It?s completely unsupported by any observation, but it?s supported by computer climate models. In other words, the computer models would indicate this. The observations do not.
Q: Climate is extremely complicated -- is that a true statement?
A: Immensely complicated. Which is a reason why the models will never be able to adequately simulate the atmosphere. It?s just too complicated.
"What you can say is, yes, carbon dioxide (in the atmosphere) is at levels higher than ever before, and carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, so it's reasonable to say that there's warming associated with the increase of carbon dioxide," said Dr. Waleed Abdalati, co-author of the paper that announced the Greenland discovery.
"But you can't make the leap yet that all the cars in the world have led to what we're observing in the thinning of the Greenland ice sheet," Abdalati said.
"For the ordinary person, it's a common misperception that weather is not changing ... that last winter is about as cold as this winter and last summer is about as warm ... and the world is pretty much constant," Dr. William Krabill said. "That's not true. The Earth has gone through and continues to go through cycles of warming and cooling. It's just natural."
MYTH : Global temperatures are rising at a rapid, unprecedented rate.
FACT: Accurate satellite, balloon and mountain top observations made over the last three decades have not shown any significant change in the long term rate of increase in global temperatures. Average ground station readings do show a mild warming of 0.6C to 0.8C over the last 100 years, which is well within the natural variations recorded in the last millennium.
The real truth is that the main greenhouse gas - the one that has the most direct effect on land temperature - is water vapour, 99 per cent of which is entirely natural.
If all the water vapour was removed from the atmosphere, the temperature would fall by 33 degrees Celsius. But, remove all the carbon dioxide and the temperature might fall by just 0.3 per cent.
Although we wouldn't be around, because without it there would be no green plants, no herbivorous farm animals and no food for us to eat.
It has been estimated that the cost of cutting fossil fuel emissions in line with the Kyoto Protocol would be ?76trillion.
What is the greenhouse effect, and is it affecting our climate?
The greenhouse effect is unquestionably real and helps to regulate the temperature of our planet. It is essential for life on Earth and is one of Earth's natural processes. It is the result of heat absorption by certain gases in the atmosphere (called greenhouse gases because they effectively 'trap' heat in the lower atmosphere) and re-radiation downward of some of that heat. Water vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas, followed by carbon dioxide and other trace gases. Without a natural greenhouse effect, the temperature of the Earth would be about zero degrees F (-18?C) instead of its present 57?F (14?C). So, the concern is not with the fact that we have a greenhouse effect, but whether human activities are leading to an enhancement of the greenhouse effect.
END
*stretches arms, yawns, head falls onto couch*
http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA194.html
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
http://www.junkscience.com/july04/Daily_Mail-Bellamy.htm
http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?ide=4
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2000/ast20oct_1.htm
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=18881
hanstin
11-25-2006, 10:46 AM
i know its serious busness and all but ....
http://pics.obra.se/globalwarming.jpg
Spartan
11-25-2006, 12:43 PM
Hanstin Wins, lol.
How about we don't make a joke out this?
It's good to see that you did the research to support your opinion. I do think, however, that each of us should at least watch the film before drawing any more conclusions. Each person is entitled to their own opinion and I have every intention of looking into your sources that you graciously listed.
However, I do hope that these facts are not being used to justify the damage we do cause to the Earth. It's there whether you wish to acknowledge it or not.
Mister Matt
11-25-2006, 02:18 PM
On contraire Cady. Some substances like sulfur dioxide, an air pollutant, can actually refelect solar energy thus somewhat cooling the Earth. In 1991, Mount Pinatubo shot a huge amount of sulfurous waste into the stratosphere and cooled the the planet 0.9 degrees for an entire year. So to combat the Earth heating up, we could actually pollute it a "crap ton" and possibly bring down the temperature.
On contraire Cady. Some substances like sulfur dioxide, an air pollutant, can actually refelect solar energy thus somewhat cooling the Earth. In 1991, Mount Pinatubo shot a huge amount of sulfurous waste into the stratosphere and cooled the the planet 0.9 degrees for an entire year. So to combat the Earth heating up, we could actually pollute it a "crap ton" and possibly bring down the temperature.
Again you are trying to justify so called pollutants. I was not just referring to pollutants, however.
Also, I still have not denied that in some situations pollutants may benefit the Earth in one way or another. I did notice that you did not mention how sulfur dioxide has been connected with acid rain or how the same sulfur dioxide pollution you are referring to can cause long term or short term respiratory problems for those of us who may be exposed to it. And it is also possible that being exposed to high levels of sulfur dioxide may result in death. So you can pollute the world with a "crapton" of sulfur dioxide, but only with the result of these negative effects with what you believe to be positive ones.
Thank you Matt for covering the stuff I was afraid I'd have to type out and source. =P
But do the research yourself folks! Reading some reliable sources and books can really help you make your own opinion. I actually got interested after reading the Michael Crichton book "State of Fear" (Which is excellent, btw), and taking a look at the sources he had in the back.
a chewy rock
11-25-2006, 05:47 PM
Whether humans are contributing to global warming or not, it's happening. And if canceling out global warming with negative pollutants such as the sulfur dioxide that Mister Matt mentioned is done, it still leaves negative effects regardless of the ones it's canceling out.
rynb1n
11-25-2006, 06:50 PM
Wow, I can't believe how many posts this thread has recieved in one day. It is safe to say that I am staying out of this arguement, because I do feel that listening to other peoples opinions is a big part of my learning process.
If you are saying all of this, and still have YET to see the Inconvenient Truth, I STRONGLY URGE you to take a look at what Al Gore has to say about the issue at hand.
Thanks for being so responsive :)
Wow, I can't believe how many posts this thread has recieved in one day. It is safe to say that I am staying out of this arguement, because I do feel that listening to other peoples opinions is a big part of my learning process.
If you are saying all of this, and still have YET to see the Inconvenient Truth, I STRONGLY URGE you to take a look at what Al Gore has to say about the issue at hand.
Thanks for being so responsive :)
Well I am personally always up for an interesting debate, and this thread has taught me that I have some pretty good opponents out there. I also have every intention of seeing the film and also reading the book Will mentioned.
rynb1n
11-25-2006, 07:00 PM
I am pretty interested in reading that book Will talked about :) Athough I'm not a huge book reader, Id always like a good start ;)
Ziegler
11-26-2006, 12:22 PM
Couple of things. Since I been on holiday, I'd like to thank Matty boy for posting the truth.
Second of all....The inconvient Truth is...AL GORE IS A FRICKING PSYCHO..CERTIFIABLE INSANE..OFF HIS ROCKER...and what gives me the right to say this? Oh, nothing more than he was my state respresentative/senator for 20 some odd years. He preaches about global warming, and polluting the earth, and having 1.5 gallon toilets. Yet, he used to keep a Gas lamp burning(ala eternal flame) outside his estate. He uses a large private jet to fly around giving his speeches about saving the planet...if he were serious, wouldnt he use commercial flights instead of one jet just for him?
Why do you think he lost the election...because he didnt carry his own home state, the one he grew up in, 'cause we knew how much of a crackpot he is.
As to the global warming, while I patently dont believe our CO emissions are the sole cause of this planets troubles. Of course, since USA uses the largest amount of them, it is better to persecute the USA instead of say...Brazil strip mining the Amazon. There is much that can be done to clean up the planet. But this planet has been here much longer than we have, and it has survived meteors hitting it, throwing enough pollution in the air to kill all the dinosaurs. And other such disasters that the human populace has no control over.
Of course, I would like to see free clean energy...but that doesnt mean I am going to go live in a cave either.
Some more reading for our disaffected doom sayers.
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/aprilholladay/2006-08-07-global-warming-truth_x.htm
http://www.akdart.com/warming.html
That last link, you might want to click on the "Environmental Propaganda Movie Reviews (http://www.akdart.com/warming3.html) " to get a better picture of the fictional movie by Al Gore.
Darthorious
11-30-2006, 11:17 AM
Well I was gonna type in a bunch of facts and opinions but decided this might just as well be good enough.
"OMG! we're all gonna die! Quick someone do something! What's going on!?"
"Huh? not for another 7,000 years? pffttt... who cares then let me get back to my TV and games"
Funny these so called "primitive" ruins we uncover everyday and wonder how such a primitive society could have built such large structures, more than likely were not primitive at all but another technology of another time possibly more advanced than us with the same attitude.
The whole green house effect will be debated long after we are all dead I'm sure and more than likely will still be at square one. But who knows I could be completely wrong lol...
All we really need is to be able to make our own atmosphere and fix it when required. I would guess this would occur before we ever knew the truth about what effects we all have on the earths atmosphere. In fact could answer a lot of questions about it.
a chewy rock
11-30-2006, 03:46 PM
We could....... go to the moon and set up colonies in space and on Mars. Because by the time global warming even matters, I'm sure it'll be possible.
Mister Matt
11-30-2006, 04:32 PM
yeah but wed also have to simehow change the climate or wear special suits on the moon and mars because both of them, i think, are like somewhere around zero degrees.
Ziegler
11-30-2006, 04:55 PM
Moon
The mean daytime temperature is 225? F (107? C), while the mean nighttime temperature is ?243? (?153? C).
Mars
The lowest surface temperature on Mars is ?190? F (?123? C), while the hottest temperature is 90? F (32? C).
Mister Matt
11-30-2006, 04:57 PM
nvm, youre right. Mars sounds a lot better
We could....... go to the moon and set up colonies in space and on Mars. Because by the time global warming even matters, I'm sure it'll be possible.
You could not pay me enough to go into space much less step foot on a rocket that is still on the ground. I'd die of a heart attack.
Mister Matt
11-30-2006, 07:33 PM
why are you so scared cady?
a chewy rock
11-30-2006, 08:03 PM
Pay you to do something awesome?!?!!? Some lady payed like tons of money to go take a trip to space for a week.
why are you so scared cady?
Well I can barely get on an airplane without having major panic attacks because my two biggest fears are combined: small enclosed spaces and heights. Oh and space...I just don't like the idea of potentially drifting off into space and dying because of lack of oxygen. I'm uber paranoid about that kind of thing.
rynb1n
11-30-2006, 09:36 PM
Im sorry that sucks.. i would hate to have fear of flying, because flying is the coozlest thing ever technologized. Lol :)
Im sorry that sucks.. i would hate to have fear of flying, because flying is the coozlest thing ever technologized. Lol :)
Yeah tell me about it. I can't even be in a really tall building or my legs turn to jelly.
Shadeonyx
12-06-2006, 09:54 PM
I have to say I am sorry to step in here, because I normally don't....but
Do you know, that all scientist did research, backed up their theories with their reasearch and such about Global warming up until........ the late 70s
Why because ... it became political........ the people who gave out the money for research were no longer simple curiosity in Intellectual knowledge... it became political.... pure and simple
In those days... the people who ran the world..... the Industrials, car makers, oil tycoons all those things... and they "influenced" I say that as politely as possible without pointing fingers
Until the Scientist instead of being completely agreed with, started trying to find natural causes for it.... Well it's time that Humanity woke up and smelled the coffee......we have never been this numerous, we have never used this much energy or consumed it, we have never naturally had this many MAN made products hit the atmosphere in such a small period of time unchecked....
Trust me.... I do not need a scientist to tell me what the Earth is....and it's about to clean house unless someone turns things around... sure natural disasters have happened before... but Gore points it out... that Alantic belt stops.... and guess what folks the "ENTIRE" northern hemisphere of the world will be wiped out by a freeze that will last as least 200 years.... and you want to see a flip of power....well there it is.. that happens and the only places that will stay relatively the same.... Equator... all our 3 world countries will wind up with the prized land and ressources..... and we are out in the cold
This.... has nothing to do with politics folks..... this has to do with Humanity's wastefulness including mine
Mister Matt
12-06-2006, 10:19 PM
couple things
1. source?
2. your sentence structure and "....."s make what you are trying to say kinda hard to read and understand
3. are you proposing that no scientist has done any research on the natural causes of global warming in over 30 years?
4. did you happen to read my post on page 1?
a chewy rock
12-06-2006, 10:20 PM
Fully agreed.
rynb1n
12-07-2006, 08:38 PM
So i pretty much fully agree with Shadeonyx.... Just my beliefs.
(time to move to austrailia!!)
vBulletin® v3.6.4, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.