Give me as credible a source as Al Gore and have that person make a film backed up with science and fact and then I'll try to answer your question. But remember, I'm an American so it's gotta be entertaining or I won't vote for it.
Just to ask again, because Im honestly not sure. Is al gore a scientist? Or a meteorologist? Is he even qualified to be a weather man?
let me say it again...it's a FACT, not ONE peer reviewed article exists refuting the scientific consensus that man is indeed exacerbating the effects of global warming.
NOT ONE.
Careful there chief, loads of scientific "facts" have been proved completely inaccurate 20 years later. Keep that in mind. While many "facts" of science have later been 100% refuted. I can't think of anything from the bible that has been 100% PROVED to be wrong.
I'd be ignorant to not go see this movie? I have PLENTY of places to gain knowledge on the subject of global warming. Computers, library, TV, Radio. How exactly do I end up ignorant because I don't want to see a movie made by a fat-ass loser politician who couldnt beat my high school class president in an election? Why the fuck would anyone WANT to see a movie by him on this topic? Is he a fuckin meteorologist?
And your post borders on an insult to me. Watch it. I report posts that break the rules faster than anybody.
Calm yourself. Al Gore is extremely intelligent. If he couldn't beat your class president in an election it's because he's not the best politician. The two don't always go hand-in-hand as we see with our current president.
I guess I should have been more global in my statement. People who don't find some reliable and sound resource to learn about global warming are ignorant. Is that better?
Careful there chief, loads of scientific "facts" have been proved completely inaccurate 20 years later. Keep that in mind. While many "facts" of science have later been 100% refuted. I can't think of anything from the bible that has been 100% PROVED to be wrong.
So in the last 20 years, what are some examples of scientific theories with this much concensus has been proved wrong?
I'm not saying that science is always perfect or that we won't find out we were wrong on this or that, that but the science with this one is pretty overwhelming.
Gore is not a meteorologist. Meteorologists predict WEATHER, what we are discussing is CLIMATE. different things. (and no, gore is not a climatologist, but he does have a very good understanding of it)
Just to ask again, because Im honestly not sure. Is al gore a scientist? Or a meteorologist? Is he even qualified to be a weather man?
I don't believe he's a scientist, no. Does one have to be a scientist to present scientific information from the work of scientists? Do I have to be a mathematician to know that 1+1=2? Of course not. With global warming it really is that simple.
Calm yourself. Al Gore is extremely intelligent. If he couldn't beat your class president in an election it's because he's not the best politician. The two don't always go hand-in-hand as we see with our current president.
I guess I should have been more global in my statement. People who don't find some reliable and sound resource to learn about global warming are ignorant. Is that better?
I guess Ill take your quest for global knowledge bestowed upon us by the uber-intellect Al Gore over your original personal attack.
So in the last 20 years, what are some examples of scientific theories with this much concensus has been proved wrong?
I'm not saying that science is always perfect or that we won't find out we were wrong on this or that, that but the science with this one is pretty overwhelming.
Gore is not a meteorologist. Meteorologists predict WEATHER, what we are discussing is CLIMATE. different things. (and no, gore is not a climatologist, but he does have a very good understanding of it)
Did he gain this understanding of it between losing presidential elections? Or between twinkies? Sorry, but I wouldnt go see a movie on climate change made by al gore, anymore than I would one made by Bush, or by Reagan, or any other president for that matter. That'd be like seeing a movie made about the sanctity of life by Bin Laden. He knows nothing about it.
I guess Ill take your quest for global knowledge bestowed upon us by the uber-intellect Al Gore over your original personal attack.
It wasn't a personal attack and certainly not on you. I got the impression that the poster refused to even entertain the idea of global warming, thus meeting the definition of ignorance provided below by http://www.dictionary.com
Did he gain this understanding of it between losing presidential elections? Or between twinkies? Sorry, but I wouldnt go see a movie on climate change made by al gore, anymore than I would one made by Bush, or by Reagan, or any other president for that matter. That'd be like seeing a movie made about the sanctity of life by Bin Laden. He knows nothing about it.
Without seeing the movie, or reading any of his books, how did you come to the conclusion that he knows nothing about it? He has written books on it before (he wrote a pretty well recieved book published in 1992, well before climate change was a sexy political issue). I would be skeptical too if he presented his own data as his evidence, but he is using facts and data from top scientists and merely echoing what they are saying. I do have some issues with is book (just finished reading the book version of the movie) but overall was quite well informed and well done.
Did he gain this understanding of it between losing presidential elections? Or between twinkies? Sorry, but I wouldnt go see a movie on climate change made by al gore, anymore than I would one made by Bush, or by Reagan, or any other president for that matter. That'd be like seeing a movie made about the sanctity of life by Bin Laden. He knows nothing about it.
What position are you in to judge who knows what? I'll be honest, making extreme statements like that really hurts the validity of things you say. Al Gore absolutely knows climate change, inside and out. He's given this presentation over a thousand times and has earned the respect of a great deal of humans by doing so.
Did he gain this understanding of it between losing presidential elections? Or between twinkies? Sorry, but I wouldnt go see a movie on climate change made by al gore, anymore than I would one made by Bush, or by Reagan, or any other president for that matter. That'd be like seeing a movie made about the sanctity of life by Bin Laden. He knows nothing about it.
lmao...sorry, both quotes were embedded and it fucked it up....I've fixed it. The funny thing is it's in your own reply too....you might wanna edit that one above.
lmao...sorry, both quotes were embedded and it fucked it up....I've fixed it. The funny thing is it's in your own reply too....you might wanna edit that one above.
I thought I might have been caught up in smear campaign. he he he
I thought I might have been caught up in smear campaign. he he he
Well you should still edit your post above because it looks like you're having a little argument with yourself and may give others the opportunity to question your sanity
4) lotsa scenes with big ol' 'splosions in slow motion and cars flying off cliffs
5) every gun death must be immediately prefaced by witty banter
6) speedboat chases, car chases, jet chases, chases in general
7) fart jokes
8) a Skynrd-heavy soundtrack
9) a gorgeous blonde woman who wears skintight leather and never talks
10) a really funny black sidekick who dies tragically
9) a bunch of "freedom haters" done get blowed up
10) an intense yet understated emotional tension between dysfunctional couples reminiscent of early cassavetes films and the classic "who's afraid of virginia woolf?"
After reading this thread I have to side with the Cons. I don't think global warming is a reality. I mean, cows farts contain greenhouse gasses and the amount of flatulence they create actually outweighs the emissions from our cars, or so I've heard. Either way, my understanding is the global temperature has risen an average of 1 degree fahrenheit in the last 100 years. Not something to be that worried about.
Still, Bush should have said he'd watch the film out of respect. Assholes like Bush always do stuff like this though.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
After reading this thread I have to side with the Cons. I don't think global warming is a reality. I mean, cows farts contain greenhouse gasses and the amount of flatulence they create actually outweighs the emissions from our cars, or so I've heard. Either way, my understanding is the global temperature has risen an average of 1 degree fahrenheit in the last 100 years. Not something to be that worried about.
Still, Bush should have said he'd watch the film out of respect. Assholes like Bush always do stuff like this though.
About the cows, that is wrong. Where did you hear that??? Besides, that is methane, so different gas but much more efficient at trapping insolation. Cows are actually a problem as well. They are major producers of green house gasses and much more efficent at it than buffalo and other large ungulates that they replaced.
Secondly, the global temperature avg, may not have changed much (I"m sure its more than 1 degree) but even if it was say, 5 degrees farenheit, it may be up to a 15 degree change in arctic regions and less so by closer to the equator. So, glaciers melt which starts a feedback loop. Your facts are a bit off.
That's interesting. I didn't know that....but then again, I'm lucky I even got to see it. After all, I live in Utah where this film only played in two theaters throughout the entire state, both 30 miles from where I live.
Well, it sounds like you may have an open mind about things so I hope you do get a chance to see it.
so you got into your polluting vehicle and travelled 60 miles to see this movie? why not wait to see it when you can rent it at blockbuster?
"PC Load Letter?! What the fuck does that mean?"
~Michael Bolton
let me say it again...it's a FACT, not ONE peer reviewed article exists refuting the scientific consensus that man is indeed exacerbating the effects of global warming.
NOT ONE.
Scientists tend to not like to disagree with popular theories for mulitple reasons.
1) Haughtiness......... they don't like admitting mistakes.
2) Fear of being ostracized by their community.
3) Fear of losing grant money. This is a big one.
4) more reasons Im sure.
It wasn't a personal attack and certainly not on you. I got the impression that the poster refused to even entertain the idea of global warming, thus meeting the definition of ignorance provided below by http://www.dictionary.com
ignorance
n : the lack of knowledge or education
I could care less what the OP said. I said, "I wont go see it either. Does that make me a bad person". And you said, "no, just ignorant". Then went on to define the word for me. I got the impression that was personal. Oh well, nevermind anyways, Im like a rhinoceros, my skin is 3 feet thick.
"Odyssey is giving us indications of recent global climate change in Mars," said Jeffrey Plaut, project scientist for the mission at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory."
Are our SUV's harming Mars also?? Obviously we should've signed Kyoto..save Mars!!!
"Odyssey is giving us indications of recent global climate change in Mars," said Jeffrey Plaut, project scientist for the mission at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory."
Are our SUV's harming Mars also?? Obviously we should've signed Kyoto..save Mars!!!
and this proves what?? ... what knowledge do you have that refutes the plethora of scientists out there??
mars is a whole new planet that we are trying to observe from satellites - who the heck knows what's going on there ... maybe this maybe that ... no one is even claiming to know for certain ... yet, you are gonna use this as your refute to role of man in climate change?
Scientists tend to not like to disagree with popular theories for mulitple reasons.
1) Haughtiness......... they don't like admitting mistakes.
2) Fear of being ostracized by their community.
3) Fear of losing grant money. This is a big one.
4) more reasons Im sure.
There is plenty of dissention within scientific communities. They are constantly trying to improve or disprove different ideas and testing hypothesis. This is how science is done. Many scientists have admitted mistakes and assumptions they have made. Scientists are also of a strange bunch who really are generally not too concerned about being ostracized. Just a personal observation)
....well, I certainly wouldn't put it past him. Either way, looks like someone has found a way to make money off of the side effects of destroying our planet.
August 3, 2006—From rising sea levels to stifling heat waves, the effects of global warming are shaping up to be a worldwide buzz kill.
But brewers in Greenland seem to be going with the flow, having found a new use for one of their homeland's fastest growing—but least celebrated—natural resources: melted Arctic ice.
On July 31 a team of canny entrepreneurs unveiled Greenland Beer, an ale brewed with water melted from Greenland's ice cap, at a public tasting in Copenhagen, Denmark.
Staffed by indigenous Greenlanders and located some 390 miles (625 kilometers) south of the Arctic Circle, Greenland Brewhouse is the world's first Inuit microbrewery.
And if reaction from tipplers at the tasting was any indication, the brewers may be on to something. Electrician Flemming Larsen described the ale to the Associated Press as "smooth, soft, but not bitter … different from most other beer."
"Maybe that is because it's ice-cap water," he said.
The water, the brewers say, is the beer's key ingredient, having been locked away for more than 2,000 years in Greenland's vast ice sheet.
"Today, with all the pollution … you cannot get cleaner water than melted ice-cap water," Greenland Brewhouse co-founder Salik Hard told the AP.
If scientists are right, he'll probably never have to worry about a shortage.
A series of studies released this spring found that Greenland's glaciers are melting into the ocean twice as quickly as they were five years ago because of global warming, and at its current pace Greenland's melt could become irreversible by 2100.
Comments
Just to ask again, because Im honestly not sure. Is al gore a scientist? Or a meteorologist? Is he even qualified to be a weather man?
www.myspace.com/jensvad
Careful there chief, loads of scientific "facts" have been proved completely inaccurate 20 years later. Keep that in mind. While many "facts" of science have later been 100% refuted. I can't think of anything from the bible that has been 100% PROVED to be wrong.
www.myspace.com/jensvad
I guess I should have been more global in my statement. People who don't find some reliable and sound resource to learn about global warming are ignorant. Is that better?
So in the last 20 years, what are some examples of scientific theories with this much concensus has been proved wrong?
I'm not saying that science is always perfect or that we won't find out we were wrong on this or that, that but the science with this one is pretty overwhelming.
Gore is not a meteorologist. Meteorologists predict WEATHER, what we are discussing is CLIMATE. different things. (and no, gore is not a climatologist, but he does have a very good understanding of it)
I guess Ill take your quest for global knowledge bestowed upon us by the uber-intellect Al Gore over your original personal attack.
www.myspace.com/jensvad
Did he gain this understanding of it between losing presidential elections? Or between twinkies? Sorry, but I wouldnt go see a movie on climate change made by al gore, anymore than I would one made by Bush, or by Reagan, or any other president for that matter. That'd be like seeing a movie made about the sanctity of life by Bin Laden. He knows nothing about it.
www.myspace.com/jensvad
Has he ever given any of us reason to think he cares?
ignorance
n : the lack of knowledge or education
Without seeing the movie, or reading any of his books, how did you come to the conclusion that he knows nothing about it? He has written books on it before (he wrote a pretty well recieved book published in 1992, well before climate change was a sexy political issue). I would be skeptical too if he presented his own data as his evidence, but he is using facts and data from top scientists and merely echoing what they are saying. I do have some issues with is book (just finished reading the book version of the movie) but overall was quite well informed and well done.
What the fuck? I didn't say this!
I thought I might have been caught up in smear campaign. he he he
*applause*
Of course, the gut has more nerve endings than the brain. Look it up.
After reading this thread I have to side with the Cons. I don't think global warming is a reality. I mean, cows farts contain greenhouse gasses and the amount of flatulence they create actually outweighs the emissions from our cars, or so I've heard. Either way, my understanding is the global temperature has risen an average of 1 degree fahrenheit in the last 100 years. Not something to be that worried about.
Still, Bush should have said he'd watch the film out of respect. Assholes like Bush always do stuff like this though.
About the cows, that is wrong. Where did you hear that??? Besides, that is methane, so different gas but much more efficient at trapping insolation. Cows are actually a problem as well. They are major producers of green house gasses and much more efficent at it than buffalo and other large ungulates that they replaced.
Secondly, the global temperature avg, may not have changed much (I"m sure its more than 1 degree) but even if it was say, 5 degrees farenheit, it may be up to a 15 degree change in arctic regions and less so by closer to the equator. So, glaciers melt which starts a feedback loop. Your facts are a bit off.
so you got into your polluting vehicle and travelled 60 miles to see this movie? why not wait to see it when you can rent it at blockbuster?
~Michael Bolton
Scientists tend to not like to disagree with popular theories for mulitple reasons.
1) Haughtiness......... they don't like admitting mistakes.
2) Fear of being ostracized by their community.
3) Fear of losing grant money. This is a big one.
4) more reasons Im sure.
www.myspace.com/jensvad
I could care less what the OP said. I said, "I wont go see it either. Does that make me a bad person". And you said, "no, just ignorant". Then went on to define the word for me. I got the impression that was personal. Oh well, nevermind anyways, Im like a rhinoceros, my skin is 3 feet thick.
www.myspace.com/jensvad
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mars_ice-age_031208.html
"Odyssey is giving us indications of recent global climate change in Mars," said Jeffrey Plaut, project scientist for the mission at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory."
Are our SUV's harming Mars also?? Obviously we should've signed Kyoto..save Mars!!!
and this proves what?? ... what knowledge do you have that refutes the plethora of scientists out there??
mars is a whole new planet that we are trying to observe from satellites - who the heck knows what's going on there ... maybe this maybe that ... no one is even claiming to know for certain ... yet, you are gonna use this as your refute to role of man in climate change?
unbelievable
There is plenty of dissention within scientific communities. They are constantly trying to improve or disprove different ideas and testing hypothesis. This is how science is done. Many scientists have admitted mistakes and assumptions they have made. Scientists are also of a strange bunch who really are generally not too concerned about being ostracized. Just a personal observation)
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/08/060803-warming-beer.html
August 3, 2006—From rising sea levels to stifling heat waves, the effects of global warming are shaping up to be a worldwide buzz kill.
But brewers in Greenland seem to be going with the flow, having found a new use for one of their homeland's fastest growing—but least celebrated—natural resources: melted Arctic ice.
On July 31 a team of canny entrepreneurs unveiled Greenland Beer, an ale brewed with water melted from Greenland's ice cap, at a public tasting in Copenhagen, Denmark.
Staffed by indigenous Greenlanders and located some 390 miles (625 kilometers) south of the Arctic Circle, Greenland Brewhouse is the world's first Inuit microbrewery.
And if reaction from tipplers at the tasting was any indication, the brewers may be on to something. Electrician Flemming Larsen described the ale to the Associated Press as "smooth, soft, but not bitter … different from most other beer."
"Maybe that is because it's ice-cap water," he said.
The water, the brewers say, is the beer's key ingredient, having been locked away for more than 2,000 years in Greenland's vast ice sheet.
"Today, with all the pollution … you cannot get cleaner water than melted ice-cap water," Greenland Brewhouse co-founder Salik Hard told the AP.
If scientists are right, he'll probably never have to worry about a shortage.
A series of studies released this spring found that Greenland's glaciers are melting into the ocean twice as quickly as they were five years ago because of global warming, and at its current pace Greenland's melt could become irreversible by 2100.