An Inconvenient Truth - Your Thought?

[cschin4]

Re: An Inconvenient Truth - Your Thought?

Read some articles on junkscience.com on global warming. There are many other websites which discuss it. Alot of this is purely politically motivated in order to enact "green" laws to limit the rights of individuals, to expand the gov't and to control the people. After all, who can be "against" clean air and water, right? Hard to argue with that.
As for financial implications, you will all be hit dearly in the pocketbook if alot of these laws are enacted. It is already near impossible for us to harvest any energy sources in our country. More and more laws will be passed making this increasingly more expensive and difficult. It sounds wonderful to be "green". But, I don't want to live in the 1800's. I want to live now as I am sure most of you do. I want to run my computer, turn on my lights, watch my TV and heat my home. Any energy source that is used on a massive scale is going to have environmental ramifications. There will be unintended side effects from anything that is used.
Wake up to the fear tactics. This is used to make us overly emotional and dissolve commonsense.

[SuzeOFan]

Re: An Inconvenient Truth - Your Thought?

Here's an excerpt from the sunday church bullitan I thought was appropriately related to the subject:

From the Pastor,
"Anxiety in today's world is almost epidemic. Since the earliest days of the church, Catholics have recognized the debilitating nature of anxiety that results from a lack of faith. Saint Paul reminds us that fear is useless; what is needed is trust. During mass the priest prays, "Protect us from all anxiety as we wait in joyful hope for the coming of our savior, Jesus Christ." The catechism of the Catholic Church also addresses anxiety: "Abandonment to the providence of the Father in heaven frees us from anxiety."

Saint Paul reminds us that fear is useless; what is needed is trust.

'Be not afraid!'

[asmom]

Re: An Inconvenient Truth - Your Thought?

what else is there to say but, 'ba-a-a-a-a-h'!



like sheep led to the slaughter.

I would discuss this point with you further, but I think you covered your side pretty thoroughly with this comment.

[SuzeOFan]

Re: An Inconvenient Truth - Your Thought?

Think of it as a challenge - not an insult. Never the intention.
I respect everyone's opinion - and the fact that they even have one!

It's more of an opportunity to prove you can think outside the herd.

Hey it's easy to think about global warming...

...especially in the heat of summer!


OK, how about some facts instead of feelings...?

[Lemony]

Re: An Inconvenient Truth - Your Thought?

I'm not American, so the fact that its an Al Gore documentary means nothing to me politically. It's the environmental science and issues I'm concerned with.

g0d may have invented us, but we invented greenhouse gasses. I don't think copious amounts of poison sprayed into the atmosphere was part of any deity's "plan." I'll check my bible, though.

[asmom]

Re: An Inconvenient Truth - Your Thought?

It's more of an opportunity to prove you can think outside the herd.


OK, how about some facts instead of feelings...?

Oh so you've decided that I'm some sort of sheep and now I'm supposed to prove to you that I'm not? lol, thanks I'll pass.


As for facts, curiously I haven't read a single one from you, you'll pardon me if I don't view your church bulletin as an authoritative source on the subject.

[SuzeOFan]

Re: An Inconvenient Truth - Your Thought?

Why take offense?

The truth of the matter is EVERYONE is a sheep.
We are all sheep to something or someone.

I'm a sheep too. God called us sheep. Why not get angry with him too?

The point of the sheep thing is, to know your master.

Do you want a fear monger to be your master?

"To treat your facts with imagination is one thing, to imagine your facts is another." (John Burroughs, naturalist)

There are very few people who are able to objectively use their brains for rational critical thinking beyond their *emotions*.

"Most people go not by argument, but by sympathies."
(John Henry Neumann)

[flash]

Re: An Inconvenient Truth - Your Thought?

As someone who has written environmental permits, worked with the EPA on environmental regulations, done the medical research on permitable limits, I can say with confidence...you are all correct.

Almost everyone with a "side" takes the facts as they see them and stay focused on them. Scientific data requires interpretation and has flaws. It's only as accurate as our current knowledge and techniques allow for. Michael Crichton recently wrote an excellent expert novel on environmental politics; unfortunately he had poor advisors on some "facts" that had to be adjusted.

Regulations have a difficult time projecting forward, and new data is constantly available. There will always be a financial impact. But it's not as cut and dried as many would like it to be.

[crosses]

Re: An Inconvenient Truth - Your Thought?

I saw the movie and the statement in the movie that had the biggest impact on me was something like: of all the peered reviewed studies on global warming, none said that it wasn't up. I want to investigate this more because this is quite important and if true will change my views on global warming quite a bit. The problem is that nothing about this statement is on their website. Can anyone confirm or show this to be untrue and also what the exact statement on this was?

[DivaJen]

Re: An Inconvenient Truth - Your Thought?

Here's an interesting article that comes up under a search for global warming peer reviewed studies.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case.

The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature (3). In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations" [p. 21 in (4)].

IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements.

And some interesting commentary on peer review itself:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=109

Thus, while un-peer-reviewed claims should not be given much credence, just because a particular paper has passed through peer review does not absolutely insure that the conclusions are correct or scientifically valid. The "leaks" in the system outlined above unfortunately allow some less-than-ideal work to be published in peer-reviewed journals. This should therefore be a concern when the results of any one particular study are promoted over the conclusions of a larger body of past published work (especially if it is a new study that has not been fully absorbed or assessed by the community). Indeed, this is why scientific assessments such as the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA), or the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports, and the independent reports by the National Academy of Sciences, are so important in giving a balanced overview of the state of knowledge in the scientific research community.

[VJW]

Re: An Inconvenient Truth - Your Thought?

When this guy was a card-burning, tree-hugger in the sixties, we were definitely headed for another ice-age! So what's changed in 40 somethin years? They really ought to make up their minds. Either we're going into deep freeze people - or we're going to burn up!

Why ? Both are happening.

However, the cooling of the planet is over a span of 10,000 to 50,000 years, whereas the “Global Warming” is over the span of the next 50 to 100s of years.

#

[VJW]

Re: An Inconvenient Truth - Your Thought?

"Global warming". Let's see, if we have a winter that is too cold, it is global warming. If we have a winter that is too warm, it is global warming. If there is too much rain or snow, it is global warming. If we have a drought and not enough rain, it is global warming.

You’re conflating weather with climate.

There were more emissions put into the atmosphere when Mt St Helens erupted than all the cars in history.

But the man-made emissions are inert, and do not break back down into their base elements, and therefore stay in the atmosphere. Whereas, the volcanic emissions, being natural, break back down into their basic elements and (in general) return to the surface in raindrops, therefore their presence in the atmosphere is relatively temporary.

It’s similar to the difference between dumping biodegradable trash into a landfill versus dumping non-biodegradable material.

#

[DivaJen]

Re: An Inconvenient Truth - Your Thought?

The environment is not affecting our financial health. But, poorly conceived environmental policies based on poor science DOES affect our financial health and security. Environmental laws should be based on science not feel-good-ism.

What is the poor science to which you refer? From what I've read, scientists who study these matters are in agreement.

[DivaJen]

Re: An Inconvenient Truth - Your Thought?

Why take offense?

The truth of the matter is EVERYONE is a sheep.
We are all sheep to something or someone.

I'm a sheep too. God called us sheep. Why not get angry with him too?

The point of the sheep thing is, to know your master.

Do you want a fear monger to be your master?

"To treat your facts with imagination is one thing, to imagine your facts is another." (John Burroughs, naturalist)

There are very few people who are able to objectively use their brains for rational critical thinking beyond their *emotions*.

"Most people go not by argument, but by sympathies."
(John Henry Neumann)

Still no facts here. I'd like to hear more than trust God to combat what science seems to be bearing out.

[Dixiechick]

Re: An Inconvenient Truth - Your Thought?

I remember reading this article a while back and found it interesting...

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=2024641

I do believe that the globe is warming. What I'm unsure of is why it's warming. I believe it's a combination of man-made pollutants and of a natural cycle. I don't know if reducing man-made greenhouse gases will do much in reducing the warming trend - but it can't hurt. I think the globe is warming and will warm up regardless of what man does. Going from a petrolium based society to something that is cleaner (i.e. hydrogen, wind-power, solar-power, whatever) can only be a good thing. Maybe more expensive, but better in the long run. However or whatever we do, the globe will warm up and get warmer than recorded history. But I believe the earth has been much much warmer before. And in several 10's of thousands of years from now, the globe will be back in a deep freeze - another ice age. Remember, modern humans have proliferated greatly since the warming of the last ice age...

Before we kick the bucket on petrolium energy, we must first remove the fingers out of that vastly large piece of pie. The technology exists for all other forms of renewable energy - but that would involve a collapse (to what degree???) of alot of countries economy. How many mutual funds, retirement plans, companies, governments, etc... are attached to some petrolium industry? Way too many. That's why I don't see a conversion happening at a pace that is doable right now. It will be up to individuals to make their life as petrolium free as possible. Biodiesel is one example. Solar or wind generated power, hydrogen extracted from water (yes, there are claims that this has been done but squashed by the government - wonder why?? consider collapse of current economy), etc... Anyway, you get the point. I'm not a conspiracy theorist nor am I a complete follower of the doom/gloom of man-made warming theory. There are many more factors involved with the elimination of man-made emissions that lack of technology. The technology is there or close to it. IMO, it's the world's economy that isn't ready...

Dixiechick