i hear they are going to disprove the law of gravity and show that within a
matter of years all people on earth will simply shoot off into space because
our natural "stickiness" will wear off.
that being said, the fact that this program was even created shows that stupid
people will say stupid things just to be noticed and be controversial.
[#22165]
Written by: adritch [13/03/2007, 11:06]
don't bother debating people here, most know nothing they are stupid ignorant
people that beleive everythinhg they here on tv, from the government or from a
friend. they spend no time to actually researching any facts, which is the
problem with the general public they have no brains with which to think for
themselves.
i suppose we caused the ice-age as well? or the end of the dinosaurs? its called
mother nature to think that we can control the climate is retarded the earth
enters cooling and warming cylcles constantly. right now we are warming, before
we know it we will be cooling, and i'm sure that will be our fault as well!
global warming, smoking dangers, they are farces, fraduant scams to try to scare
us into supporting the people who make millions off of these theorys. get a damn
brain and do some research. seriously, don't comment on something that you know
nothing about, don't watch cnn and think you are becoming political, you are
just repeating what you have been told by a large corporation.
[#22166]
Written by: adritch [13/03/2007, 11:07]
don't bother debating people here, most know nothing they are stupid ignorant
people that beleive everythinhg they here on tv, from the government or from a
friend. they spend no time to actually researching any facts, which is the
problem with the general public they have no brains with which to think for
themselves.
i suppose we caused the ice-age as well? or the end of the dinosaurs? its called
mother nature to think that we can control the climate is retarded the earth
enters cooling and warming cylcles constantly. right now we are warming, before
we know it we will be cooling, and i'm sure that will be our fault as well!
global warming, smoking dangers, they are farces, fraduant scams to try to scare
us into supporting the people who make millions off of these theorys. get a damn
brain and do some research. seriously, don't comment on something that you know
nothing about, don't watch cnn and think you are becoming political, you are
just repeating what you have been told by a large corporation.
[#22168]
Written by: adritch [13/03/2007, 11:22]
the liberal left controls the media, we all know that. so when you spend all day
watching tv, you might think these "hippy" hollywood political views are wildly
accepted, you are wrong its just the losers who educate themselves with the tv
that believe this shit. when you say this show is a joke did you research
global warming? did you? think about it, no you just posted based on what you
hear on tv!
[#22170]
Written by: Kelderkeuken [13/03/2007, 11:32]
the answer is we simply do not know for sure. man isn't that brilliant.
but that doesn't take away the fact that the us is the worst polluter, even per
capita. even if global warming isn't (significantly) affected by pollution, that
doesn't mean pollution doesn't hurt. stop acting like a f**king third world
country, and invest in things that matter - also for instance rebuilding areas
that are destroyed in your own country instead of destroying areas elsewhere in
the world.
i think i'll download and watch it. i did read about both sides of the story
already though, both sides have strong points.
[#22172]
Written by: nexx9 [13/03/2007, 11:46]
some remarks by kurt volker, principal deputy assistant secretary for european
and eurasian affairs
remarks at the german marshall fund, berlin, germany, february 12, 2007
(he starts with some fawning remarks about how true human contributions to gw is)
"the united states is number one in greenhouse gas emissions primarily because
it is the number one economy in the world. with 5% of the world's population we
produce 25% of global wealth. and despite being relatively clean and green,
germany leads europe in emissions, because it is europe's largest economy. our
emissions are not out of line with the size of our economy. and it's worth
noting: the international energy agency is forecasting that china, with a
smaller economy, is expected to surpass u.s. greenhouse gas emissions by 2009.
more important than current emissions is the trend line. what is actually
happening to emissions? are they being reduced? this, after all, is what kyoto
is supposed to address.
according to data from the un framework convention on climate change, from
2000-2004--the most recent period for which we have good, comparative data--u.s.
greenhouse gas emissions increased by 1.3 percent. this is an increase, but a
very modest increase. the eu-25, on the other hand, increased collective
emissions by 2.1 percent.
and, no, this is not because the new eu members added since the 2004 expansion
run dirtier economies than the previous 15 members, and this then bumps up the
numbers. actually, the new members have the opposite effect. those nations--by
moving away from some older energy technologies like brown coal--are part of the
good news story. if the new eu members did not bring down the average, the old
eu-15 would get a worse report card--having increased emissions by 2.4 percent
during this same time period.
germany, i should state, had an admirable record of actually cutting greenhouse
gas emissions by 0.7 percent during this time period--but germany's efforts were
overshadowed by increases in most other eu economies.
now let's be honest--even a 2.4 percent increase for the eu-15 is a very modest
increase. but given the way this issue gets talked about publicly in europe, i
would venture to say that few people in europe know that from 2000 to 2004,
eu-15 emissions grew at nearly double the u.s. rate, and that europe, at least
during this period, has been moving away from-not towards-its kyoto target of an
8 percent cut.
even so, the trend in both europe and the united states is in the right
direction-reducing the growth in emissions. the figure cited above--a 1.3
percent growth in u.s. emissions from 2000 to 2004--translates to 0.325 percent
per year. over the period 1990 to 2000, the united states experienced a 14.3
percent increase in its emissions, or 1.4 percent per year. so we have slowed
considerably.
now notice something else. this time period of 2000 to 2004 was a period of
rapid economic growth in the united states. between 2000 and 2004 we grew our
economy by almost 1.9 trillion dollars (or nearly 1.46 trillion euros). that's
about the equivalent of adding italy to the u.s. economy. and we increased our
population by 11.3 million people--adding more than the population of greece.
and yet our emissions grew only 1.3 percent--that tells you a lot about how the
u.s. economy is already changing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
it is of course very hard if not impossible to see an actual decrease in
emissions when both your economy and population are growing, though we came
close. so how do we get a better measure of what is really happening? we do that
by measuring the greenhouse gas intensity of an economy--that is, greenhouse
emissions per unit of gdp. as our economy soared, our emissions rose only
slightly; from 2000 to 2004, we reduced the greenhouse gas intensity of the u.s.
economy by 7.5 percent. that is a good result.
how did the eu-25 perform? they also saw a reduction in greenhouse gas
intensity. theirs was about 4.5 percent. also a good result, though not quite as
steep a decline as the united states.
how did the united states achieve this lower emissions intensity ratio? by
working very hard to bring cleaner technology into the marketplace. through a
combination of targeted market decisions, incentives, voluntary partnerships and
mandates, the administration's policies have helped speed the deployment of
cleaner technology.
and this is the key: kyoto provides a target for emissions reductions. to
actually cut the emissions -whether one is a kyoto country or not--one needs to
put new, cleaner technology in place. and this is where the united states is
leading the world. our approach is producing concrete results, even as our
economy expands."
so whatever one's take on gw is, one has to wonder why the mainstream media
rarely reports facts like those above. no, it's mainly just scare pieces about
good and evil. evil always being the bad us and the good eu. slangted news for
the greater good, or for their own good? nex
[#22187]
Written by: Dravont [13/03/2007, 14:17]
anyone here remember when global cooling was the biggest concern?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/global_cooling
i\\\'d bet in 10-30 years people are going to be looking back at this time period
knowing that global warming was wrong and they will wonder how we ever believed
this craziness.
remember, there is no conclusive proof one way or another in this debate. as
for global weather cycles, they last for a lot more than just a few decades.
just look at how long the last ice age was. there is no proof that the humans
have affected the global weather patterns as of yet, and there will be no
conclusive proof for many, many, many more years. that is why global warming is
a theory.
[#22192]
Written by: Shaded Spriter [13/03/2007, 15:28]
i was born in the 80s and i was surprised when i heard "global cooling" being
talked about...the only time i had ever seen anything about this mentioned
before was in the first episode of sliders where it was a parody.
i watched this documentary on teleport reply and i believe it would make a good
counterpoint the inconvenient truth.
i don't believe that gw is "man made" but i think that if the activists can get
us in developed countries to stop using so much fossil fuels than it will not
be a bad thing.
i was surprised that thatcher created one of the first studies...i knew she was
a censoring b- but i didn't know she started this as well.
[#22205]
Written by: StuartR [13/03/2007, 16:16]
i have seen both sides of this but the bit that always gets me is when we have
an exceptionally hot day they say \"the warmest day since 18**\" okay, so why
was
18** warmer? we didn\'t have the industry, we didn\'t have the cars, we didn\'t
have the global warming.....but yet it was still warmer!!!
after watching all these programmes i guess i\'m going to have to come down on
the side of the \"global warming is a conspiracy for people who have to believe
in something\". well for all you \"have to believers\" believe in all the
children
you are killing in africa due to non industrialisation.... that is a
measurable, and terrible fact! thier blood is on your hands, remember that the
next time you think you are helping save the world by scratching someones gas
guzzling suv.
[#22233]
Written by: iDont [13/03/2007, 17:51]
krakatoa, a volcano that erupted in 1883, caused more danger to the atmosphere
and produced more co2 than 2000 years of man made fires, burning fuels, and
running gas and oil powered machinery. i'd love nothing more than to claim that
this doesnt mean we should be cautious about our environment. krakatoa is the
largest recorded volcanic eruption, but consider for a moment the fact that the
entire hawaii is made up f volcanic eruptions, and that tehre are similar island
chains fromed by volcanic activity, it can safely be assumed that these caused
much environmental damage as well, although possibly not as much as krak. the
krak eruption was so drastic the entire global temperature shifterd and the
sunsets across the entire world were a dfferent color for years. the moon truned
blue as well in the nigth sky for two years.this was pretty recent in the scheme
of things.
whatever you feel about global warming, we are considerably colder than the
years when eric the red settled and farmed greenland, which was not frozen at
the time. i understand people having concern of global warming, because if
global warming does exist, there is nothing an individual can do about it.
people want to have problems taht they can be 'against' without actually doing
anythig, that way they can just blame the 'corporation' or the government, like
the coprs are responsible for global warming. hey, if they are, at least less
animals will be killed for fur if the temps rise....although, we can still hunt
recreationaly.
[#22246]
Written by: themagus [13/03/2007, 18:52]
even if global warming isn't caused by man shouldn't we focus on green energy
and green cars?
pollution has other detrimental effects than maybe 'causing the planet to warm
up a degree or two right?
[#22250]
Written by: Klajv [13/03/2007, 19:13]
of course, we should try to develop and use more "green" technologies. this
debate wasn't about whether or not we should do that. it was about whether or
not global warming is a proven fact or a loosely based theory. too bad 90%
seemed to take it personally as soon as their beliefs were questioned, and
started attacking people directly with threats and foul language. instead of
trying to show that their beliefs might actually be right. never to attack the
debaters is the first rule of debates. who honestly thinks people will start
believing them just because they spue out that everyone who thinks otherwise is
a stupid moron? "duh, i don't want to be a moron, i must change my beliefs right
here and now!"
[#22266]
Written by: eXcel [13/03/2007, 20:17]
for anyone who actually reads this far, and actually cares about the issue:
notice the people claiming this has been 'debunked' never indicate how. if you
check the sites they refer to, it comes down to personal attacks such as 'so and
so's brother's uncle's cousin works for halliburton!' or 'so and so is no
scientist!' what now journalists and even al gore can't talk about issues and
present scientific evidence?
the bottom line is that this documentary offers a different perspective that is
rarely seen. watch it and decide for yourself.
[#22268]
Written by: eXcel [13/03/2007, 20:28]
Quote by themagus
even if global warming isn't caused by man shouldn't we focus on
green energy
and green cars?
pollution has other detrimental effects than maybe 'causing the planet to warm
up a degree or two right?
personally i don't believe in global warming, even before watching this i could
just ask myself "what is more likely to affect climate on earth, my truck or the
sun?" but i totally agree w/ this argument, basically that "pollution is bad and
we should try to reduce it as much as possible within reason." there is no need
for the hysteria surrounding the whole global warming argument. i don't know
anyone who likes pollution, but we also can't ignore the fact that co2 is a
byproduct of industrialization. the documentary makes a good point of this in
the last 10-15 mins, where it shows how the developing world (poorest),
particularly in africa, is being pressured into using the most expensive form of
energy. there needs to be a rational assessment of what is acceptable and i
don't think the 'omg the world is ending because of global warming' line helps
facilitate rational thought.
[#22359]
Written by: dosser66 [14/03/2007, 09:50]
regardless of party affiliation, i'm waiting to hear intelligent arguments (by
that i mean 'scientific') against the findings of this documentary. i'm a
physics grad who also studied meteorology. this makes more sense than the al
gore film. pollution, on the other hand, is a real problem with measurable
consequences for the local environment, health, etc... which must be kept in
check. these are two different things.
