An inconvenient truth: environmental perspective film vs digital

Status
Not open for further replies.
colyn said:
I think Al Gore is full of crap....
Click to expand...
That's really polite - I wouldn't be so diplomatic!

By the way, I have 50 acres of trees, vegetation and wetlands. I'll be happy to sell 'carbon credits' to RFF members at a good price. 😎
 
That's the real point, IMHO, we all need to do what we can, because no one is planning to live in a forest. And keep putting pressure on governments and corporations around the world, and probably pray.
 
Unless you're willing to support nuclear power, both fission and fusion, you're not serious about reducing carbon emissions. We have become beings dependent on advanced technology. It's too late to go back to twigs and berries. We must embrace our nuclear future with all its risks and benefits. In for a penny, in for a pound, as they say.
 
I'm not getting into the politics nor the political hate mongering! True science should never be a political football! I personally wonder though about these things: a) have we not had ice ages before? b) where did the glaciers go that once covered great portions of North America? c) was that global warming that caused them to disappear? d) if it was global warming what caused that? e) what caused Leif Ericson to give Greenland it's name, was it because it had green grass and no glaciers much to speak of? f) where killed the dinosaurs, was it not a global climate change?

Those are some of the things I think about and I'm sure there are others! I believe that global changes have happened since the begining of time for our small planet! It is probably true that the things mankin does probably adds to it or hastens it a bit, but sooner or later the trend reverses and the temps head the other way! Perhaps another collision with a meteror or a humongus volcanic erruption or series of them will darken the skies an cool thing rapidly. Do you think one of those could have triggered the ice ages?

Perhaps people should exercise a bit more self control and be a little more thoughtful and gracious towards their neighbors and fellow men and women!
Listen to what they have to say! We may not agree with them 100% and that is okay, but it does not necessarily make them dolts either!

And that's all I'm going to say about that!

Best regards to all,
Tom Harrell
 
pedro.m.reis said:
So is not happening and/or is not real?
Click to expand...

I believe that it is a natural cyclical process. That's what I was taught in various science classes over the years. I'm sure man is contributing to it, but the ice age ended without our intervention, and we'll likely see another ice age at some point.
 
So i'm guessing that you dont beleive the movie cited.
I'm not an expert on the subject, so i dont know if previous ice ages or global warmings started and evoluted as fast as i think is happening now.. in a few decades. So i dont now how natural this is.

But I agree with you, the ice age will end at some point....

Al Patterson said:
I believe that it is a natural cyclical process. That's what I was taught in various science classes over the years. I'm sure man is contributing to it, but the ice age ended without our intervention, and we'll likely see another ice age at some point.
Click to expand...
 
NickTrop said:
There is virtually NO DEBATE in the scientific community that climate change is occurring, is occurring rapidly, and is the result of human activity.

Period.
Click to expand...


With respect, Nick, do you say that because you've read it or because you have direct experience of views in a scientific community?

Since 1992 I've written a column for Astronomy Now magazine, one of the world's leading astronomical journals. That doesn't make me an expert on anything, but it does mean that I'm aware of current debates within the field. Modern astronomy includes our own world in the study of planetary development, but also looks beyond to wider changes within the solar system. I can assure you that there is very wide scepticism within the astronomical community regarding the predominantly human origin of global warming or climate change.

There is a vast amount that we simply do not know, especially regarding the role of the Sun - itself a very dynamic entity - and its relationship to changes within our climate, although we have strong evidence of a profound link, one which many in astronomy believe has been ignored in this debate, as frankly there is no money in it for anyone - pro or contra.

History has taught us that when science becomes politicised, regardless of by whom, our understanding of complex truths seldom benefits.

Cheers, Ian
 
History has taught us that when science becomes politicised, regardless of by whom, our understanding of complex truths seldom benefits.

Agreed!
 
What is the Junk Science?

What is the Junk Science?

Its when you take a vote of scientists and go with the consensus rather than use a scientific method to measure. That is, hypothesis, design a test, test and analyze before you reach a conclusion.

Concensus and science don't fit well in the same sentence.
 
Brad Bireley said:
Just take the damn picture!!!

But you know what? If Iran creates a nuclear weapon, and they will use it if they create it, there's going to be global warming for sure!
Click to expand...

Actually the theories point more towards "nuclear winter" rather than "global warming" where use of nuclear weapons are concerned. At least I remember a Carl Sagan article about that back in the 1970s.

In this case, the "warming" will be a localized effect near where the weapon is used.
 
Jocko said:
I can assure you that there is very wide scepticism within the astronomical community regarding the predominantly human origin of global warming or climate change.
Click to expand...
This is true, and fair point about the role of solar activity, but as far as I can tell the majority of peer-reviewed climate research doesn't share that scepticism. There are arguments to be had, no doubt, but the consensus that human action is a major contributory factor to climate change seems to be hardening.

Personally I'd rather read the science than take much notice of a bunch of people speculating on an internet forum 🙂

Ian
 
kshapero said:
here ye, here ye, pass the Scotch!
Click to expand...

"History has taught us that when science becomes politicised, regardless of by whom, our understanding of complex truths seldom benefits.
Cheers, Ian"

Have to credit that quote to Ian (Jocko) even though we come from opposit sides of the equation, but I'll share that scotch. 🙂
 
Jocko said:
There is a vast amount that we simply do not know, especially regarding the role of the Sun - itself a very dynamic entity - and its relationship to changes within our climate, although we have strong evidence of a profound link, one which many in astronomy believe has been ignored in this debate, as frankly there is no money in it for anyone - pro or contra.

History has taught us that when science becomes politicised, regardless of by whom, our understanding of complex truths seldom benefits.

Cheers, Ian
Click to expand...

Exactly!

I have acquired my scepticsm towards global warming more from my bias towards Astronomy and the hard sciences than the fact that some entertainer on the radio is chasing ratings points. And for the record, I don't even listen to Rush Limbaugh. I find him boring.
 
I am no scientist, so, hell if I know what causes global warming, but I am really sick of hearing people blame it on Bush or big corporations. Last I heard no one is forcing mankind to drive huge SUV's to the drug store, etc. IMHO change starts with the individual.
Now pass me another scotch!!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom