The Great Global Warning Swindle - Page 2

littleFella · 03-26-2007, 12:57 PM

Not that I will switch back to incadescent lighting, or buy a wasteful gas guzzler, but I gotta admit I am now having second thoughts about that global warming thing is generated bu human activity.

The CO2-Temperature lag presented the movie posted by JS seems to be the nail in the coffin, or at least to be raising some serious questions about Gore's presentation.

mariuskl · 03-26-2007, 01:10 PM

This planet has a lot of problems caused by human hand. So we can say that we did with our own hadn and now we try to conserve what is left.

P.S. I'm not an ecologist, just say my opinion

littleFella · 03-26-2007, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mariuskl

This planet has a lot of problems caused by human hand. So we can say that we did with our own hadn and now we try to conserve what is left.

That I agree with too, and I am not starting to toss empty cans out of my car while driving just because now I have doubts about humans-global warming situation. Actually, a documentary that is worth watching is "Manufactured Landscapes" by Edward Burtynsky.

StupidScript · 03-26-2007, 01:31 PM

I find it hard to believe that some people find it hard to believe that all of the pollution including toxic waste and the sheer volume of particulates that humankind has dumped into the atmosphere for 100 years or so would not have an impact on the ecosystem.

It takes so little human interaction to disturb or destroy nature's balance that it seems inconceivable that we have not caused changes in the way the planet functions.

Those of you who are having a hard time swallowing arguments that humankind's gross negligence in this regard is contributing to climate changes should seek out and post articles that deliver evidence demonstrating how pollution etc. is interacting with the environment in a benign way ... that explain how all of these chemicals and particles can not cause any change in our planet's climate. All we've seen so far is references to statements and studies that say, "It's not humans, it's natural". Where are the references that say, "Pumping huge amounts of extra CO2 along with man-made toxins and vast quantities of foreign particles into the atmosphere interacts with it in this non-destructive manner."

It's really easy to argue against a particular position by saying "See? It could have happened this way", but it is much more difficult to supply independent reasoning that empirically proves a different perspective by saying, "The cause and effect relationship put forth by the first argument is flawed because this is how all of those factors are really integrating."

i.e. Millions of tons of coal-fired power plant emissions could not change the nature of Earth's atmosphere because those emissions are rendered harmless as they pass through the troposphere and the chemical composition of those emissions is changed in this way so that they no longer constitute a chemical agent that might possibly have any impact on the atmosphere as a whole.

I've never heard of any scientific basis for rejection of the theories presented in Mr. Gore's movie. I have only heard of arguments that scoff at it or deny its claims based on "common sense" ... which isn't really much of a counter position.

littleFella · 03-26-2007, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StupidScript

I find it hard to believe that some people find it hard to believe that all of the pollution including toxic waste and the sheer volume of particulates that humankind has dumped into the atmosphere for 100 years or so would not have an impact on the ecosystem.

I think we're talking about global warming which is one small (although very important) part of the term "ecosystem". For instance polluting a river by dumping toxic waste in it is a quite different thing than global warming.

I'm sure emissions have negative influence on human health, but that too may be because largest concentrations of people are around industries that emit this and that. Still, the movie above casts some serious doubts about the influence of human activity on the climatic change on the global scale.
Watch it. Time well spent.

StupidScript · 03-26-2007, 02:24 PM

That's why it's called an ecosystem ... one can't talk about dumping pollution into a river without talking about that river flowing to the ocean and about how that affects the water vapor produced by evaporation along the way and about how the remaining cruddy water is then merged with the ocean's brine and then about how that water corrupts the evaporation process of the ocean itself and then about how the pollutants that become part of the vapor are then injected into the atmosphere which then reacts by ... yaddayaddayadda.

There is no insignificant part of the 'system'. If any claims are made that "human pollutants aren't hurting the atmosphere", that's not very astute. Literally everything that enters our environment has some sort of impact on all parts of it. Let's not wait until we reach an irreversible critical mass before we recognize that human waste is definitely affecting our planet's ability to keep itself clean enough so we can continue to live here. We don't know or care about how to deal with it, now, so there is no hope that we will be able to reverse its effects once it gets past the tipping point.

It's true that the planet doesn't give a crap about us ... it's just as happy to consist of volcanoes and a methane atmosphere. WE should be concerned enough to maintain an environment that will sustain US. We simply can't go around dumping and polluting at will forever ... sooner or later it will catch up with us.

littleFella · 03-26-2007, 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StupidScript

It's true that the planet doesn't give a crap about us ... it's just as happy to consist of volcanoes and a methane atmosphere. WE should be concerned enough to maintain an environment that will sustain US. We simply can't go around dumping and polluting at will forever ... sooner or later it will catch up with us.

You missed my point, or did I present it improperly? I'm all for environmental responsibility.

Sure most kinds of human activity producing pollution affects the atmosphere. The issue though is whether the level of pollution humans are producing right now does influence global temperatures or not. As of now I have doubts that it does.

**G10** · 03-26-2007, 04:05 PM

Stupidscript, I do agree with what you are saying in that it is an ecosystem and any change we cause is going to have an effect.

Nations have tested nuclear warheads under the sea, there are constant wars going on where bombs are constantly being dropped and uranium issues etc. Oil companies basically control the world and can pollute as money makes the world go round.

GM food companies like monsanto can almost force GM crops on people.

All these things affect the ecosystem and are major problems but why do you think that these are not also thrown into the ecosystem pot? Money.

littleFella's point is correct, the point in this thread is mainly about how much scare-mongering there is within this and what people have to gain from it. I do agree that the CO2 emissions will be affecting the environment though.

StupidScript · 03-26-2007, 04:12 PM

I think I did get your point, littleFella. I'm just stressing the fact that no part of the ecosystem can be impacted without the rest of the ecosystem being impacted. It's all the same loop.

If someone empties their used engine oil into their local pond, it has an effect on every part of the system in some small way. If a giant petrochemical company empties thousands of gallons of used oil into some other body of water (or on land, even), it has a greater impact, true, but the smaller abuses also contribute.

Global temperatures are directly tied into that system, and are directly related to those sorts of effects. We can't simply accept the idea that when the planet's water supply (or other attribute) becomes contaminated that it has no impact on the ecosystem overall. There is only so much a planet can take.

For all we know, we are much closer to the tipping point than we are capable of detecting. For all we know, it might be that last quart of oil that trips the final switch.

We DO know that humans are producing much more pollution of all forms than any other natural creature on Earth. We always have, because we can. We MUST know that our pollution is having an impact on the ecosystem as a whole. Therefore, we MUST acknowledge that some of that impact is likely to be negative, ergo sum, the longer we continue to make even a small negative impact, and we're making a big negative impact, the more likely that humankind is the single force most responsible both for contributing to the deterioration of the natural world we depend on for life AND for mitigating our actions to absolutely minimize any negative impact we are making.

We can't wait until the chimpanzees decide to take action. And we can't wait until the ecosystem becomes so badly damaged that there is NO recovery for it. At that point, the Earth can expect only a slide into a world where human beings simply cannot survive.

I, for one, don't want to wait until our scientists tell us, "Well, folks, that's it. Turns out that humankind IS responsible for messing up the ecosystem, like Al Gore warned us about 30 years ago. Because we didn't make any attempts to clean things up while there was still time, as we debated whether it was God or Man who was messing thing up, we're in a situation where we simply do not have the ability or the time to reverse the effects of generations of human waste spilling into the ecosystem. The end is here, folks. We could have worked on it when the problem was smaller and still managable, but we dicked around for too long, and now it's too late. Say 'bye bye' to Earth."

<edit>
I apologize for fear-mongering, G10, but this is clearly not the type of thing that the media are going to solve for us. Nor are the major corporations who contribute to this mess going to do anything about it, soon. We can go back to sleep for another decade, but if we don't get afraid of the potential consequences pretty soon, we can expect our daily lives to be changed by the forces of nature and we won't be able to do anything about it.

I'd rather be afraid while there is still time than be afraid because all hope is gone.
</edit>

**G10** · 03-26-2007, 04:19 PM

I actually do agree with you dude.

If you got time though, just see what you think of that video John Scott posted up, gotta be worth a watch

EBORG9 · 03-26-2007, 06:22 PM

I'll have to admit, I've been hearing Global Warming since the Carter Administration, and I may be a little desensitized to the term now.
I saw a Doomsday special on MSNBC about 3 weeks ago.
They went through all of the probable, and not so probable ways that the world could be plunged into chaos.

After they had gone through, Comets, Meteors, Bird Flu, Aids, Global Warming, and every disgusting and completely scary scenario that all are very plausible...the only one that really scared the CRAP out of me, was a catastrophic black out (due to attack or repetitive system failures), that cascaded across the entire country.

That scared the bejesus out of me. Completely cut off with no communication, internet, transportation, refrigeration, and banks.
The special said that it would take the U.S. 2 years to recover technically, and a decade to recover economically, and we would be vulnerable to constant attack every day.

littleFella · 03-26-2007, 08:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StupidScript

If someone empties their used engine oil into their local pond, it has an effect on every part of the system in some small way. If a giant petrochemical company empties thousands of gallons of used oil into some other body of water (or on land, even), it has a greater impact, true, but the smaller abuses also contribute.

Again agreed, but what are we to do with human farts? After all they contain methane which is in fact a "smaller abuse" of the environment as methane is commonly regarded as a contributor to global warming. Do you think it would be prudent to ban farts? Offer substitutes? Burping perhaps? I, for one, would fight for my right to fart. Especially now that I am in my 40's I think a fart a day keeps a doctor away - global warming or not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by StupidScript

Global temperatures are directly tied into that system, and are directly related to those sorts of effects. We can't simply accept the idea that when the planet's water supply (or other attribute) becomes contaminated that it has no impact on the ecosystem overall. There is only so much a planet can take.

Based on what I understand about these things some types water contamination might actually inhibit global warming. Let's say there is a huge oil spill. Oil floats on the water's surface and thus diminishes the area of water which would otherwise evaporate, or evaporate quicker. Less clouds (which are a global warming contributor too) would be created.

Just please, don't tell me I'm for polluted waters.

Quote:

Originally Posted by StupidScript

Therefore, we MUST acknowledge that some of that impact is likely to be negative, ergo sum, the longer we continue to make even a small negative impact [...]

Basic premise of the statement is OK. Just made me chuckle here how you showed your Latin sucks

(you wrote "therefore I am" instead of "therefore")

Quote:

Originally Posted by StupidScript

I, for one, don't want to wait until our scientists tell us, "Well, folks, that's it. Turns out that humankind IS responsible for messing up the ecosystem, like Al Gore warned us about 3 years ago.

Al Gore told warned us that we are messing up the ecosystem? They taught me about that 35++ years ago in primary school. Not sure how old you are but for some reason I have a feeling they already completed the cleaning of the River Thames before you were born, and that was also long before Al Gore was even politically active.
[edit]
Just checked in Wikipedia; the organization most kids in my home country had to participate in was called Nature's Preservation League. It was established in 1928.
[/edit]

Did you watch the flick JS posted?

**John Scott** · 03-26-2007, 08:39 PM

Quote:

I, for one, don't want to wait until our scientists tell us, "Well, folks, that's it. Turns out that humankind IS responsible for messing up the ecosystem, like Al Gore warned us about 3 years ago.

Funny how Al Gore gets credit for this. I was taught from childhood about the impact of pollution on the planet, well before Al Gore invented the Internet.

Pollution may or may not cause global warming, but it sure as hell causes other health issues -

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/1099418.stm

http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/airpollution/

StupidScript · 03-27-2007, 04:30 PM

I've only been able to watch the video in short bursts before I collapse in fits of laughter ... but I'll get through it and give it as good a shot as I am able. It's tough to swallow when it's main premise is that people who believe in the possibility of humankind contributing to global environmental issues are telling "lies", but I'll keep plodding through it. If it matters, I didn't need to watch Mr. Gore's presentation, so when I do get through the other video, it will be about the only piece of media I will have absorbed regarding this topic. It does point out how futile it is to try to truly communicate using the 1-hour video format, though ... spinspinspin ... I'm sure the Gore piece does the same. Either you agree with amazingly naked sound bites or you seek out more information. My guess is that most people would take either video at face value, agreeing with one or the other depending on what their friends thought.

And, of course, I do know that Al Gore didn't discover anything ... I was imagining something some future scientists might say using common language that normal people might be able to relate to.

Ergo sum ... quietly farting.

**John Scott** · 03-27-2007, 06:42 PM

Quote:

I've only been able to watch the video in short bursts before I collapse in fits of laughter

Love that intellectual integrity. You go bash away without even knowing what they are saying. Kind of the epitome of closed minded, no?

Quote:

It's tough to swallow when it's main premise is that people who believe in the possibility of humankind contributing to global environmental issues are telling "lies"

There is clear and irrefutable proof that they are lying.

Here's an idea. Let the meteorologists and climatologists say whether humanity is causing global warming. I think scientists are eminently-more-qualified than politicians to determine the state of the climate.

littleFella · 03-27-2007, 06:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StupidScript

It does point out how futile it is to try to truly communicate using the 1-hour video format, though ... spinspinspin ... I'm sure the Gore piece does the same. Either you agree with amazingly naked sound bites or you seek out more information. My guess is that most people would take either video at face value, agreeing with one or the other depending on what their friends thought.

It appears that you took one of the movies at face value and then you refused to see the other, ergo you did not seek more information.

To me it shows you didn't even give yourself a chance to make a choice but rather that you opted for the first thing that came along and got stuck with it. I'd compare it to a dogmatic approach in the not so flattering sense.

damien_ls · 03-28-2007, 04:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by G10

I have noticed that in businesses in the UK, a new tax has appeared over the last few years on their electric bills. What's it called?

Climate Change Levy tax - You can almost smell the extra money pouring into the governments pockets.

Yes, I completely agree - I've noticed that too. "Green" has become a big p