[besson3c]

Originally Posted by abe

Actually, we don't really know how much he knows about science. We know that he believes or puts more stock in the arguments that oppose many of the positions held by many scientists.

What that means is that we MAY not know what he knows about the arguments in favor of his decisions. Many people don't agree with them. Many do.

I'd rather leave the blame out of the argument. It's better to have ONE plaintiff (i.e. the Earth's health and viability to support life) than any number of defendants (Bush, et al.).

Keep it simple. Don't play the blame game.

I was hoping in earnest that you would come out of your partisan shell, and actually offer a consession to a *gasp* weakness of the president.

Let's just call a spade a spade, his science agenda (or lack of one) sucks ass.

[abe]

Originally Posted by besson3c

Supply and demand. If there is enough demand, there is increased sales, which leads to the ability to decrease per-unit costs and make up for this loss in volume.

My metaphor for TVs still applies, but perhaps a better one is digital cameras. Even though analog cameras are cheaper than digital, the demand in digital has created a surge in both volume sold and a drop in unit cost.

The more you press the more I'm sensing we might need to talk specifics in order to make sense of this analogy and I don't want to become knowledgeable about the specifics of pollution control technology.

We don't know what most manufacturing companies in the 3rd, 2nd and 1st world can afford to spend on pollution controls.

We don't know how many companies produce the technology.

We don't know how many different types of devices or systems there are.

We don't know how much the R&D cost to develop. We don't know how much the factory and productions costs come to. We don't know what the projected worldwide, regional and/or industry specific demand there is.

WIthout all that we can't get any closer to a truth about what may or may not mean affordable remedies to the continuing pollution problem.

But, again, the essence of the question is whether we are out of time and whether we can't afford NOT to do everything we can to stop all pollution as soon as possible.

[abe]

Originally Posted by besson3c

I was hoping in earnest that you would come out of your partisan shell, and actually offer a consession to a *gasp* weakness of the president.

Let's just call a spade a spade, his science agenda (or lack of one) sucks ass.

The planet is approaching the point where nothing we might do can save it and us from catastrophe. We must do something now.

There. No blaming.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by abe

The planet is approaching the point where nothing we might do can save it and us from catastrophe. We must do something now.

There. No blaming.

Fortunately, Bush had a revelation recently that we are addicted to fossil fuels, even though Jimmy Carter was saying the same things during his presidency.

It's nice to see that he is convinced of this... in a way, perhaps these oil prices are for the best, although it makes life much tougher for the poor.


You'll excuse my cyncism that he'll do nothing more than pay lip service to this problem though.

[abe]

Originally Posted by besson3c

Fortunately, Bush had a revelation recently that we are addicted to fossil fuels, even though Jimmy Carter was saying the same things during his presidency.

It's nice to see that he is convinced of this... in a way, perhaps these oil prices are for the best, although it makes life much tougher for the poor.

You'll excuse my cyncism that he'll do nothing more than pay lip service to this problem though.

Being an oil man I think he recognized the truth of this situation long ago but he ALSO recognized the American public wasn't going to respond well to anything the government did to curb our oil consumption. But before he might have had a moment to deal with that he was forced to recognize the existence of a war on the US.

Certain things can and should be left to forces other than the government to resolve.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by besson3c

Posting this here instead of the Political forum, because aside from the right wing knee-jerk reactions I'm sure this thread will get, in my opinion this issue is a scientific one, not a political one.

If this is a scientific issue, then why are you posting about a movie by a CAREER POLITICIAN. It is absurd how so many of you accuse people of politicizing this issue and yet defend Al Gore's authority on this issue.

Al Gore is a career politician who became obsessed with Global Warming while he was in office. I have no doubt that he really believes in what he says, this issue is one of the few he has been unwavering on. But he is not a climate scientist, he has never been a climate scientist and he will never be a climate scientist. Period.

REAL climate scientists know that the sun has indeed increased output, yet the Anthropomorphic Global Warming zealots ignore it.

REAL climate scientists know that the atmospheric temperature has not increased one bit and the surface temperature has, which is exactly how the radiant heat effect of the sun heats up the earth, yet the Anthropomorphic Global Warming zealots ignore it.

REAL climate scientists know that the greenhouse gases humans emit are a tiny percentage of the total greenhouse gases, yet the Anthropomorphic Global Warming zealots ignore it.

REAL climate scientists know that Holocene Maximum was the hottest period in human history and that this period occurred approximately 7500 to 4000 years before the present, yet the Anthropomorphic Global Warming zealots ignore it.

REAL climate scientists know that CO2 in our atmosphere has been increasing steadily for the last 18,000 years, yet the Anthropomorphic Global Warming zealots ignore it.

REAL climate scientists know that CO2 is less that 4/100ths of 1% our atmosphere, yet the Anthropomorphic Global Warming zealots ignore it.

REAL climate scientists know that the earth is reactive and self regulating and the effects of warming will in fact cause a cooling, yet the Anthropomorphic Global Warming zealots ignore it.

Do you believe me? Do you give ME authority? No? Well maybe I can run for office so I can be a climate science expert too.

[BlueSky]

Do REAL climate scientists eat quiche?

[black bear theory]

i've rearranged your points, hopefully, into a more logical order.

Originally Posted by smacintush

REAL climate scientists know that CO2 in our atmosphere has been increasing steadily for the last 18,000 years, yet the Anthropomorphic Global Warming zealots ignore it.

REAL climate scientists know that Holocene Maximum was the hottest period in human history and that this period occurred approximately 7500 to 4000 years before the present, yet the Anthropomorphic Global Warming zealots ignore it.

taken within context, these facts don't mean a whole lot.

the last 18,000 years is part of a recurring, relatively stable natural cycle. the only thing that appears out of the norm, is within the past 100 years. CO2 has been rising (and falling) but has never, naturally, gone above 300 ppm in the past. we are now approaching 400ppm and in a very short time-period.



the warm temperatures are part of the upswing in that cycle. you'll notice similiar temperatures at 18, 130, 230 and 320 Ka (~100k years apart). again, the only unnatural change in the past 400k years is the current CO2 spike.

Originally Posted by smacintush

REAL climate scientists know that the earth is reactive and self regulating and the effects of warming will in fact cause a cooling, yet the Anthropomorphic Global Warming zealots ignore it.

yeah, over the next 100,000 years! that is if the cycle continues as it has been, though it seems to be deviating from the norm.

Originally Posted by smacintush

REAL climate scientists know that the sun has indeed increased output, yet the Anthropomorphic Global Warming zealots ignore it.

REAL climate scientists know that the atmospheric temperature has not increased one bit and the surface temperature has, which is exactly how the radiant heat effect of the sun heats up the earth, yet the Anthropomorphic Global Warming zealots ignore it.

i've been interested in this area of study but i've found little on it. i've read that an increase in solar output accounts for 5-25% of the warming we observe. that still leaves 75-95% that needs to be accounted for somehow.

Originally Posted by smacintush

REAL climate scientists know that CO2 is less that 4/100ths of 1% our atmosphere, yet the Anthropomorphic Global Warming zealots ignore it.

REAL climate scientists know that the greenhouse gases humans emit are a tiny percentage of the total greenhouse gases, yet the Anthropomorphic Global Warming zealots ignore it.

since 99% of the atmosphere is oxygen or nitrogen, neither of which is a greenhouse gas, that 4/100ths of 1% increases in relevance a hundred-fold. all greenhouse gases (and their warming effects are not doubted) make up a fraction of 1%.

---

i think you are taking this antropomorphic global warming zealots ignoring facts things a little too far. a simple fact doesn't necessarily make sense by itself, but rather in a larger context.

we just had the third coldest winter in fairbanks in the past 50 years. by itself you could say that it is very important statistic in the global warming debate, but it is really meaningless in face of the fact that arctic regions are undergoing, and have been undergoing, the most significant warming on the planet in the past decades.

as far as the movie, i'll see it at a cheap matinee, if it makes it up here.

[Spliffdaddy]

Can somebody make a graph that reflects the future temperature predictions of the "global warming" proponents - broken down annually since 1979?

Because everytime "new data" (aka 'more accurate') is published it seems that the "global warming" proponents have to revise their temperature predictions downward. First it was 10 or 15 degrees Fahrenheit increase over 50 years....then it was 10F degrees over 100 years...then it was 5-6F degrees over 100 years....now it's "a few tenths of a degree Centigrade" over the next few decades...

I figure in about ten more years it will be very apparent that temperatures have not yet increased - and won't be likely to increase at all in the future.

Just reverse the bogus "hockey stick", Mann - and you'd get a visual interpretation of what I'm saying.

It won't stop the anti-industrialization eco-weenie political zealots from creating a new "the end is near" scenario. In fact, they'll probably just gradually morph the current "global warming" thing into something totally different - yet somehow still related.

[black bear theory]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

I figure in about ten more years it will be very apparent that temperatures have not yet increased -

c'mon... i know you are aware that temperatures have increased, from the myriad previous threads...

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by black bear theory

i've rearranged your points, hopefully, into a more logical order.

taken within context, these facts don't mean a whole lot.

the last 18,000 years is part of a recurring, relatively stable natural cycle. the only thing that appears out of the norm, is within the past 100 years. CO2 has been rising (and falling) but has never, naturally, gone above 300 ppm in the past. we are now approaching 400ppm and in a very short time-period.



the warm temperatures are part of the upswing in that cycle. you'll notice similiar temperatures at 18, 130, 230 and 320 Ka (~100k years apart). again, the only unnatural change in the past 400k years is the current CO2 spike.

During the Eemian Interglacial Period the earth's temperature and CO2 levels were what they are today. This cycle lasted about 20,000 years and was followed by a full fledged ice age. Also, ice core data is way too general to account for small periods of spiking like we are going through now.

yeah, over the next 100,000 years! that is if the cycle continues as it has been, though it seems to be deviating from the norm.

It is sheer arrogance to think that we have a clue what the "norm" is supposed to be . We are discussing tens, hundreds, thousands and hundred thousands of years, of a planet that is billions of years old AFAWK.

i've been interested in this area of study but i've found little on it. i've read that an increase in solar output accounts for 5-25% of the warming we observe. that still leaves 75-95% that needs to be accounted for somehow.

since 99% of the atmosphere is oxygen or nitrogen, neither of which is a greenhouse gas, that 4/100ths of 1% increases in relevance a hundred-fold. all greenhouse gases (and their warming effects are not doubted) make up a fraction of 1%.

CO2 accounts for only 2-4% of all greenhouse gases. Its net effect is a small percentage of the actual greenhouse gases, of which water vapor is the mast prevalent by far.

i think you are taking this antropomorphic global warming zealots ignoring facts things a little too far. a simple fact doesn't necessarily make sense by itself, but rather in a larger context.

I was thinking the same thing about the zealots. They seem to be so concerned with the short view of the past 100 years when we really have no way of knowing the natural trends of short periods like this too far in the past.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by black bear theory

c'mon... i know you are aware that temperatures have increased, from the myriad previous threads...

You mean surface temperatures.

Measurements by balloons haven't shown a warming in the atmosphere.

[smacintush]

Look, my overall point is not that I know something that the AGWZ don't, or that they are wrong even. It is that there is another point of view on global warming, there is evidence to back it up, and that the IPCC's reports were reported, by panel members, to have been deliberately spun a certain way by politicians. There IS another view on global warming but it doesn't fit within the self-loathing, human hating zealots who have done a fabulous job of getting their message out. No one wants to hear anything that doesn't denigrate the human race or capitalism.

[black bear theory]

Originally Posted by smacintush

You mean surface temperatures.

Measurements by balloons haven't shown a warming in the atmosphere.

of course. i'm concerned with the rise in temperature where 99.99% of all life on earth is found.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by black bear theory

of course. i'm concerned with the rise in temperature where 99.99% of all life on earth is found.

The point is, that surface temps rising is inconsistent with an increase due to a greater greenhouse effect. In that instance the air would heat up first and then the surface.

[black bear theory]

Originally Posted by smacintush

The point is, that surface temps rising is inconsistent with an increase due to a greater greenhouse effect. In that instance the air would heat up first and then the surface.

sure. i guess i don't know how high those balloons are going...

O2, being a relatively heavy gas decreases dramatically in abundance even within a few thousand feet of the earth's surface (ever hang out at 10,000 feet?). so, it would stand to reason that CO2, an even heavier molecule, would be found predominantly in this zone as well.

of course, the troposphere is very well-mixed so the CO2 would be able to absorb the heat at a low elevation and transfer it to the surface very easily through the atmospheric mixing. the connection between CO2 and surface temps may not be so easily dismissed. esp. when other green house gases, water vapor and ozone, are also found predominantly near the earth's surface.

i feel like mankind has a very collective modesty. we so easily alter large portions of our environment (desertification, clear-cutting, etc), but at the same time admit that we play down our impact in the grand scheme of things ... and a certain naivity - we release, within a hundred years, the same amount of carbon that took hundreds of millions of years to sequester, yet feel that this imbalance is inconsequential.

[pathogen]

Originally Posted by smacintush

Look, my overall point is not that I know something that the AGWZ don't, or that they are wrong even. It is that there is another point of view on global warming, there is evidence to back it up, and that the IPCC's reports were reported, by panel members, to have been deliberately spun a certain way by politicians. There IS another view on global warming but it doesn't fit within the self-loathing, human hating zealots who have done a fabulous job of getting their message out. No one wants to hear anything that doesn't denigrate the human race or capitalism.

This reminds me of the ongoing problem with people defending pseudoscience by claiming it needs to be on equal footing with the real thing.

The analogy is that you two people go to a relationship councellor, where one person is nice and doing everything they can to help out (person A), and the other spouse is a lying, thieving jerk (B). The liar (B) tells the therapist that the good spouse is really the liar, is abusive, and that they threatens to kill spouse B all the time. The relationship councellor, having been taught to look at both people equally and figure the truth is somewhere in the middle, starts thinking that spouse A is probably just 50% abusive, instead of the actuality of 0%.

Essentially, smacintush, the people studying the climate crisis are probably not the human hating zealots out to destroy capitalism you label them to be, but by insisting that your unsubstantiated arguements deserve equal footing, it seems to me that you're actually against trying to possibly make things better, by undermining the people who just want to conserve what's precious to them. That's right. Environmentalist are the real conservatives.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by smacintush

You mean surface temperatures.

Measurements by balloons haven't shown a warming in the atmosphere.

Completely and utterly wrong. Tropospheric measurements have indicated a temperature increase of 0.12-0.19 of a degree Centigrade within the 90s I believe (ie. one decade). This data has been published in some recent scientific journals within the past few years. And yes, the data for atmospheric-level temperatures is still relatively new, moderately unreliable, and of course an ongoing process - but, just like surface temperature data, what we have so far shows an increase in temperature. You are wrong.

Most of your points have been covered, and refuted effectively, in the last "global warming or climate change" threads in the political lounge. We discussed the trophospheric warming there as well. You are incorrect on most of them, and your ignorance of the topic is clear. It would seem you've got your information from intarweb articles or sites, rather than from scientific journals or articles.

I'm not gonna bother going through all your points at the moment, much as black bear has - he participated in those threads too, and he's already written much of the information in them. Suffice to say, that your comment above is quite wrong, and most of your other statements are either just as wrong, or are not indicative of the actual stance taken by modern-day climate scientists.

"REAL climate scientists??" What do you know about real climate scientists? I work with and study under real climate scientists, and every one of them thinks global climate change is a real and serious issue.

I think you need to stop visiting teh intarweb sites and start picking up some more scientific journals, partner.

greg

[Spliffdaddy]

Because we all know 'peer review' is not subject to bias, distortion, and outright lies.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by pathogen

Essentially, smacintush, the people studying the climate crisis are probably not the human hating zealots out to destroy capitalism you label them to be, but by insisting that your unsubstantiated arguements deserve equal footing, it seems to me that you're actually against trying to possibly make things better, by undermining the people who just want to conserve what's precious to them. That's right. Environmentalist are the real conservatives.

I wasn't trying to say that the people studying climate are zealots. It's the throngs of assbags in politics and the press that are obsessed with the denigration of everything that a human does. In everything that I have read in favor of AGW, the scientists involved seem very reasonable. Al Gore said himself that it is necessary to "over-represent" the dangers of global warming and some climate scientists have implied the same thing. A few have even admitted that the issue is overstated in order to procure funding.

Early discussion of Al Gore's upcoming movie and book have already pointed out lies and inaccuracies. If the evidence so overwhelming and catastrophic, then why is it necessary to "over-represent" or outright lie?

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton

Completely and utterly wrong. Tropospheric measurements have indicated a temperature increase of 0.12-0.19 of a degree Centigrade within the 90s I believe (ie. one decade). This data has been published in some recent scientific journals within the past few years. And yes, the data for atmospheric-level temperatures is still relatively new, moderately unreliable, and of course an ongoing process - but, just like surface temperature data, what we have so far shows an increase in temperature. You are wrong.

OK, if I am wrong so be it.

It would seem you've got your information from intarweb articles or sites, rather than from scientific journals or articles.

I think you need to stop visiting teh intarweb sites and start picking up some more scientific journals, partner.

It has also been proven that those who disagree with the popular sensationalist view of GW are not allowed to have more than a limited voice in the scientific journals, if at all. Sometimes they are even accused of being in the pockets of Big Oil™.

"REAL climate scientists??" What do you know about real climate scientists? I work with and study under real climate scientists, and every one of them thinks global climate change is a real and serious issue.

I know that the AlGore is a big fat rich lying politician who is NOT a climate anything, yet his will be given accolades for his Moore-esque misrepresentation of an issue that he has no authority on. Which was the point of my "REAL climate scientists" remarks. AlGore is given praise for his lies and exaggerations, and those who are REAL climate scientists that have an opposing view are ignored. You may tell me that I don't know sh*t, but I argue here just for fun and expect no one to take a production machinist from Indiana seriously about ANYTHING except maybe how pistons are made. (If you wanna start a thread on aluminum automobile piston manufacturing I'd be happy to chime in there too. ) The Al Gore is given standing o's at Sundance and no one on HIS side of the issue will dare refute his movie, and he is just a lying pig.

I know this issue has been beaten to death but it is not an issue that is going away.

Whether you agree with me or not, or think I am just an ignorant jerk there are a few facts that are irrefutable IMO:

1. Climate is extremely complicated.

2. Historically speaking, the scientific community has a utterly dismal record of prediction on very complicated issues. Especially in reference to climate. They have been wrong time and time again in the prediction of what the climate is going to do.

3. Computer models are only as good as the data put into them, and the data we have is a far, FAR cry from being anything resembling complete.

[Monique]

Even if global warming is partly due to natural causes, it does not changed that all the pollution we have created for years is coming back to bite us in the a..

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by smacintush

OK, if I am wrong so be it.





It has also been proven that those who disagree with the popular sensationalist view of GW are not allowed to have more than a limited voice in the scientific journals, if at all. Sometimes they are even accused of being in the pockets of Big Oil™.



I know that the AlGore is a big fat rich lying politician who is NOT a climate anything, yet his will be given accolades for his Moore-esque misrepresentation of an issue that he has no authority on. Which was the point of my "REAL climate scientists" remarks. AlGore is given praise for his lies and exaggerations, and those who are REAL climate scientists that have an opposing view are ignored. You may tell me that I don't know sh*t, but I argue here just for fun and expect no one to take a production machinist from Indiana seriously about ANYTHING except maybe how pistons are made. (If you wanna start a thread on aluminum automobile piston manufacturing I'd be happy to chime in there too. ) The Al Gore is given standing o's at Sundance and no one on HIS side of the issue will dare refute his movie, and he is just a lying pig.

I know this issue has been beaten to death but it is not an issue that is going away.

Whether you agree with me or not, or think I am just an ignorant jerk there are a few facts that are irrefutable IMO:

1. Climate is extremely complicated.

2. Historically speaking, the scientific community has a utterly dismal record of prediction on very complicated issues. Especially in reference to climate. They have been wrong time and time again in the prediction of what the climate is going to do.

3. Computer models are only as good as the data put into them, and the data we have is a far, FAR cry from being anything resembling complete.

I have some friends whom I respect as authorities on this issue, and while they say that it is very difficult to predict exactly what the climate will be like x number of years from now, it is pretty unanimous that we are undergoing some global climate *change*.

The exact effects and rates of these changes can perhaps be disputed, but I think things like the effect of the melting of the ice caps can be predicted pretty accurately.

The question is, when are we going to start doing something about this problem, or is it already too late?

Take everything I say here with a few grains of salt, I don't know as much as several others in here.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by smacintush

OK, if I am wrong so be it.

That might be your response, but from my perspective it's just another person who doesn't know any better, spreading lies and FUD. That annoys me, because it's largely that movement which has been stopping us from doing anything about the increasing pollution and emissions which are going to (and already have) cause us so many problems.

Originally Posted by smacintush

It has also been proven that those who disagree with the popular sensationalist view of GW are not allowed to have more than a limited voice in the scientific journals, if at all. Sometimes they are even accused of being in the pockets of Big Oil™.

I agree, but this is often partly because they are often funded by Big Oil™ or other similar companies who - surprise, suprise - have a vested financial interest in not limiting their emissions or pollution. Industry science has a well-known and well-proven bias - you can look at any environmental-industrial battleground in the past 60 years to see examples of this. The removal of Phosphorus from laundry detergents (which supplied as much as 50% of the P that caused eutrophic lakes) is merely one example of this (Dr. David Schindler works at my university, and I've heard him give lectures about the resistance from industry).

Originally Posted by smacintush

I know that the AlGore is a big fat rich lying politician who is NOT a climate anything, yet his will be given accolades for his Moore-esque misrepresentation of an issue that he has no authority on. Which was the point of my "REAL climate scientists" remarks. AlGore is given praise for his lies and exaggerations, and those who are REAL climate scientists that have an opposing view are ignored.

They are mostly ignored within the scientific community because they are in the vast minority, and no one will deny that. On the other hand, within the public, the industry, and North American government they hold influence that is far above the scientific knowledge they bring to the field.

As far as I know, Al Gore is no longer a politician, although that doesn't mean he won't get back in the ring. However, this is a movie - and thus appropriately outrageous and prophetic, it would seem from the trailer - on climate change that he has every right to make. I fail to see how the fact that you don't like him as a person, or as a politician gives you the right to respond with your own lies and FUD for the opposite site.

Originally Posted by smacintush

You may tell me that I don't know sh*t, but I argue here just for fun and expect no one to take a production machinist from Indiana seriously about ANYTHING except maybe how pistons are made. (If you wanna start a thread on aluminum automobile piston manufacturing I'd be happy to chime in there too. )

Well, exactly. You won't see me making outrageous comments about machining techniques in that thread, though. Why? Because I don't know jack about the subject, and I've never studied it. As a machinist coming in and making a list of sweeping statements about climate change...you can take from that what you will.

Originally Posted by smacintush

Whether you agree with me or not, or think I am just an ignorant jerk there are a few facts that are irrefutable IMO:

1. Climate is extremely complicated.

2. Historically speaking, the scientific community has a utterly dismal record of prediction on very complicated issues. Especially in reference to climate. They have been wrong time and time again in the prediction of what the climate is going to do.

3. Computer models are only as good as the data put into them, and the data we have is a far, FAR cry from being anything resembling complete.

No one denies this. In fact, your "historic" comment is quite accurate because climate science is one of the newest scientific fields, and - as Spliffdaddy's endless, repetitive drone about "global cooling" indicates - when it first began data was so limited they had little to work with. Again, covered ad naseum in the pol lounge threads.

The bottom line is, as the field has expanded and grown, all our data has pointed to an anthropogenic cause for both increasing levels of pollution and so-called "greenhouse gas" levels in the atmosphere, along with a host of other related effects (like, for example, jet contrails, which if my memory serves me right will one day account for 5% of cloud cover in some areas of the world and is predicted to affect radiation balance).

It's absolutely ludicrous to those "REAL scientists" to think that the amount of impact humans are having on the planet does not have an affect on its processes which evolved for millions or even billions of years without significant "artifical" interference. What's your solution? From the tone of your posts, it seems like you think there's not much we can do, and should therefore do nothing. Great plan. I mean, it's worked so far, right?

greg

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by abe

If the US WAS knowingly fouling the planet's environment and kept doing so with full knowledge of the ramifications of this, (btw, what WOULD they really be?) why would they/we do this?

I wonder if the govt. knows something we don't.

Sigh.

We've fouled the planet's environment for thousands of years, ever since the dawn of civilization, and I think almost every major point of civilization that has collapsed at least in part was due to environmental overburden (Sumerian, Greek, Roman, Mayan, etc. etc. etc.). Interestingly, some of the ones which were able to survive and flourish avoided this fouling, had an environment which was hard to "mess up," or fixed the perceived problem (the Incas in Peru, Japan, Domincan Republic, China, Egypt).

It's called "human greed." Today it's also called "capitalism" or "free-market economy," which has certainly been hard on our natural resources and lacks a central authority that can demand more strict environmental laws (interestingly, civilizations which implemented strict environmental rules such as the Incas, Japan, or the Dominican Republic did it with authoritarian governments and against popular/political opinion).

And no, the government doesn't know something we don't, at least on the environmental side. The beauty of the issue is that most of it is debated in the scientific community, but unfortunately little of that knowledge transfers over to the political realm. What is a deciding factor there is money - economists, after all, run the show.

greg

[abe]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton

Sigh.

We've fouled the planet's environment for thousands of years, ever since the dawn of civilization, and I think almost every major point of civilization that has collapsed at least in part was due to environmental overburden (Sumerian, Greek, Roman, Mayan, etc. etc. etc.). Interestingly, some of the ones which were able to survive and flourish avoided this fouling, had an environment which was hard to "mess up," or fixed the perceived problem (the Incas in Peru, Japan, Domincan Republic, China, Egypt).

It's called "human greed." Today it's also called "capitalism" or "free-market economy," which has certainly been hard on our natural resources and lacks a central authority that can demand more strict environmental laws (interestingly, civilizations which implemented strict environmental rules such as the Incas, Japan, or the Dominican Republic did it with authoritarian governments and against popular/political opinion).

And no, the government doesn't know something we don't, at least on the environmental side. The beauty of the issue is that most of it is debated in the scientific community, but unfortunately little of that knowledge transfers over to the political realm. What is a deciding factor there is money - economists, after all, run the show.

greg

Perfect metaphor:

In the film, Jaws, when Sheriff Brody tells the Mayor that it isn't safe to open the beaches and he worries about how much tourism would be lost by spreading the news that there was a shark in their waters.

And we know what happened.

[black bear theory]

Originally Posted by abe

Perfect metaphor:

In the film, Jaws, when Sheriff Brody tells the Mayor that it isn't safe to open the beaches and he worries about how much tourism would be lost by spreading the news that there was a shark in their waters.

And we know what happened.

the shark ate everybody?

i don't know about that analogy, though i'll readily admit i don't know how the movie ends either, so i may not understand your point. that being said...

the dangers of global warming are not one of clearly identifiable enemy bent on inflicting imminent bodily harm but could have larger, longer-term consequences - loss of arable land, sea level rise, reduced access to water, environmental degradation. global warming probably won't kill anybody directly, as a shark could, but as greg points out, it could, and historically has, lead to a myriad causes of civilization decline.

and our world is so populated now, that simply moving to the next available piece of unspoilt, pristine land is not an option. so don't think about moving to alaska anyone...

[abe]

Originally Posted by black bear theory

...and our world is so populated now, that simply moving to the next available piece of unspoilt, pristine land is not an option. so don't think about moving to alaska anyone...

Oh, come on there are millions of square miles of untouched land there and you want to keep it ALL to yourself? Hmph!

BTW, you wouldn't be acquainted with someone who used to post here named, AKcrab, would you?

[black bear theory]

Originally Posted by abe

BTW, you wouldn't be acquainted with someone who used to post here named, AKcrab, would you?

no, i've never met him. he does live seven hours south of me. but, he's still around here - i thought i saw a post from him recently.

[abe]

Originally Posted by black bear theory

the shark ate everybody?

i don't know about that analogy, though i'll readily admit i don't know how the movie ends either, so i may not understand your point. that being said...

the dangers of global warming are not one of clearly identifiable enemy bent on inflicting imminent bodily harm but could have larger, longer-term consequences - loss of arable land, sea level rise, reduced access to water, environmental degradation. global warming probably won't kill anybody directly, as a shark could, but as greg points out, it could, and historically has, lead to a myriad causes of civilization decline.

and our world is so populated now, that simply moving to the next available piece of unspoilt, pristine land is not an option. so don't think about moving to alaska anyone...

The point of the analogy is that the Mayor thought he could get away with gambling that no one else would be eaten. He was wrong in choosing to safeguard the commercial business interests over people's lives and more lives were lost as a result.

The deaths were needless.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton

That might be your response, but from my perspective it's just another person who doesn't know any better, spreading lies and FUD. That annoys me, because it's largely that movement which has been stopping us from doing anything about the increasing pollution and emissions which are going to (and already have) cause us so many problems.

Lies and FUD? Like The Al Gore™ is doing with his book and movie?

I agree, but this is often partly because they are often funded by Big Oil™ or other similar companies who - surprise, suprise - have a vested financial interest in not limiting their emissions or pollution.

Really? You have proof their affiliations? Or is this just FUD? So getting funding from corrupt political organizations like the UN is better? Many of those funding the ""mainstream" GW research have their own agendas too…but I guess that's OK since they are on YOUR side.

They are mostly ignored within the scientific community because they are in the vast minority, and no one will deny that. On the other hand, within the public, the industry, and North American government they hold influence that is far above the scientific knowledge they bring to the field.

Consensus doesn't equal correct and being in the minority doesn't mean sh*t. Einstein went against the consensus too, maybe he should have just conformed instead.

As far as I know, Al Gore is no longer a politician, although that doesn't mean he won't get back in the ring. However, this is a movie - and thus appropriately outrageous and prophetic, it would seem from the trailer - on climate change that he has every right to make. I fail to see how the fact that you don't like him as a person, or as a politician gives you the right to respond with your own lies and FUD for the opposite site.

Ahhh, there it is. "appropriately outrageous and prophetic"? He has every right as a former politician who has never been a climate scientist in his life to make a movie full of inaccuracies and FUD…yet the scientists who have done climate research for decades don't because they disagree with the "consensus" on AGW? It is clear that you are in the camp the says it's perfectly justifiable to lie and distort in order serve your own agenda.

Well, exactly. You won't see me making outrageous comments about machining techniques in that thread, though. Why? Because I don't know jack about the subject, and I've never studied it. As a machinist coming in and making a list of sweeping statements about climate change...you can take from that what you will.

I wouldn't care if you did. We would have a discussion, I would own you and move on. This is JUST a Mac forum son. If you ever see me writing Op-ed pieces or going on speaking tours about AGW then you have a point. As long as you are reading my posts in a friendly thread on a Mac site you really have no basis to try and silence me. I have already said that I don't expect anyone to take me seriously and I argue for fun. You really should lighten up, you'll live longer.

No one denies this. In fact, your "historic" comment is quite accurate because climate science is one of the newest scientific fields, and - as Spliffdaddy's endless, repetitive drone about "global cooling" indicates - when it first began data was so limited they had little to work with. Again, covered ad naseum in the pol lounge threads.

Yes, and it is STILL very young. The field has come a LONG way and the technology ussed in the research has improved exponentially but the problem is that no matter how much you think we know, and how thorough you think we are being and how grand you think the models are becoming there is a huge problem. Data. The kind of data you need in order to have even a MODICUM of accuracy will take a hell of a lot longer than a few decades of fumbling along to accumulate. There are just far too many variables and too many unknowns and for you and those whose opinions you've bought to think that you have a lock on the why, the when and the effects of GW is the sheerest of arrogance. This planet is a far greater life form than you and other pointy-headed academicians will ever understand.

The bottom line is, as the field has expanded and grown, all our data has pointed to an anthropogenic cause for both increasing levels of pollution and so-called "greenhouse gas" levels in the atmosphere, along with a host of other related effects (like, for example, jet contrails, which if my memory serves me right will one day account for 5% of cloud cover in some areas of the world and is predicted to affect radiation balance).

You said "pointed to". This is at least REASONABLE. The pundits imply that it is settled. That is a HUGE difference.

It's absolutely ludicrous to those "REAL scientists" to think that the amount of impact humans are having on the planet does not have an affect on its processes which evolved for millions or even billions of years without significant "artifical" interference. What's your solution? From the tone of your posts, it seems like you think there's not much we can do, and should therefore do nothing. Great plan. I mean, it's worked so far, right?

In other threads on other subjects I have accused man of not feeling like a part of nature. which has destructive results. Unfortunately, this feeling of disconnectedness with the world is also among people like you. The AGW pundits seem to expect that man should NOT affect his environment. It's almost as if you feel that we should move like wraiths through the world and there should be no trace of our existence. It just isn't possible to exist in a way that we leave no measurable effects on our environment. There are SIX BILLION of us. You have NO idea whether we can ever live in a modern world that doesn't cause a climate change. You have NO idea, you think you do but you don't. Nature has a way of balancing itself and that does indeed include us. When we become too much of a burden on our environment then we will pay…there really IS no way around it. You can prolong it but it will eventually come around. It always does.

As J. Robert Oppenheimer put it:

It is perfectly obvious that the whole world is going to hell. The only possible chance that it might not is that we do not attempt to prevent it from doing so.

Gambling on changing the world to accommodate the as yet unsettled Anthropomorphic aspect of GW is just as dangerous and stupid as the actions of those whom you accuse of damaging our planet out of greed.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by smacintush

Lies and FUD? Like The Al Gore™ is doing with his book and movie?
...
Ahhh, there it is. "appropriately outrageous and prophetic"? He has every right as a former politician who has never been a climate scientist in his life to make a movie full of inaccuracies and FUD…yet the scientists who have done climate research for decades don't because they disagree with the "consensus" on AGW? It is clear that you are in the camp the says it's perfectly justifiable to lie and distort in order serve your own agenda.

First of all, I have not seen the movie, and I don't know what lies or FUD may be in it. So I can't comment on that. Second of all, you conveniently ignore my comment on the morality of spreading the same sort of dishonesty for the opposing side. I oppose radical environmentalism, because I feel it makes no sense in the type of society we live in. I also oppose radical anti-environmentalism, because that also makes no sense given what scientists are seeing all around us. In any case, you still seem to like pointing the finger elsewhere in the "well he started it first" mentality, so I guess I'll assume you have no problems spreading "lies and FUD" for whatever side you may be supporting.

Finally, climate scientists who disagree with the current consensus on climate change are quite free to publish scientific articles on the subject, and do so - but with decreasing frequency, I might add. This isn't because they are somehow being "blocked." This is because there is decreasing evidence that humans are NOT having a serious impact on the planet, and articles denying this come under increasingly harsh criticism for containing "bad science."

Originally Posted by smacintush

Really? You have proof their affiliations? Or is this just FUD? So getting funding from corrupt political organizations like the UN is better? Many of those funding the ""mainstream" GW research have their own agendas too…but I guess that's OK since they are on YOUR side.
...
Consensus doesn't equal correct and being in the minority doesn't mean sh*t. Einstein went against the consensus too, maybe he should have just conformed instead.

Your claim of "getting funding through the UN" is just another example of your ignorance on the subject. Climate science isn't a political battleground, as people around here seem to want to make it. You decry Gore's politics and the "corrupt UN," blah blah blah - but the vast majority of climate scientists are not funded by a particular political entity, or at least not one that expects favourable results to their agenda. Most work in universities and the like, and their data and reports are shared worldwide.

You can mention Einstein all you want. Why not throw in Newton, too? How about Galileo? Your lack of knowledge on the subject makes it clear that the failure of such analogies escapes you. Each of these men changed the face of science because their theories fit better than anything in their time, and were able to withstand critical opposition. Thus far, nothing of the sort has been offered by a scientific entity that opposes anthropogenic climate change.

It is this that you seem to fail to grasp. Science is a debate, at all times. It is not that scientists accept what is proven right - they reject what is proven wrong, and thus what remains is taken as "correct" when all possible alternatives are thought to have been rejected. That is the methodology of science. Debate, and rejection. Thus far, climate change has been a large debate in the scientific community, and the idea that humans are having a large and potentially dangerous impact on our environment cannot be disproven by any dissenting scientists.

Originally Posted by smacintush

I wouldn't care if you did. We would have a discussion, I would own you and move on. This is JUST a Mac forum son. If you ever see me writing Op-ed pieces or going on speaking tours about AGW then you have a point. As long as you are reading my posts in a friendly thread on a Mac site you really have no basis to try and silence me. I have already said that I don't expect anyone to take me seriously and I argue for fun. You really should lighten up, you'll live longer.

I wouldn't even bother to try. Why should I? I know nothing about machining. And, I didn't try to silence you - as you said, I just owned you instead. Some of your statements were lies, others were distorted, and others were legitimate concerns. The combination indicated you probably took them off some website somewhere, and that you didn't really know much about the issue.

"Lightening up" is all well and good, but this is a subject I've spent the last 4 years of my life learning about, and if I'm lucky enough to make it into law school I might spend the rest of my life debating the rules and regulations of environmental law. It pains me when people who should know better act ignorantly.

Originally Posted by smacintush

Yes, and it is STILL very young. The field has come a LONG way and the technology ussed in the research has improved exponentially but the problem is that no matter how much you think we know, and how thorough you think we are being and how grand you think the models are becoming there is a huge problem. Data. The kind of data you need in order to have even a MODICUM of accuracy will take a hell of a lot longer than a few decades of fumbling along to accumulate. There are just far too many variables and too many unknowns and for you and those whose opinions you've bought to think that you have a lock on the why, the when and the effects of GW is the sheerest of arrogance. This planet is a far greater life form than you and other pointy-headed academicians will ever understand.
...
You said "pointed to". This is at least REASONABLE. The pundits imply that it is settled. That is a HUGE difference.

You're telling me about how much of a great life form the planet is? You, a machinist from wherever? Thanks for that, bud.

If you missed the sarcasm, then you may have also missed other things, such as: these people spend their entire lives studying the planet. I've spent the last four years getting a biology degree from university. I take courses, telling me all about what we know of the planet, and all the problems we have with the data we do have. Don't bother with the eye-rolling "pointy-head" insults. These people eat, live and breathe what they do - otherwise, there's no way anyone could stand being in school for that long.

I will say the same thing with your comments on data, and the issue being "settled." These people know how much more data they need - that statement is in probably every scientific article's conclusion. However, that does not mean no conclusions can be made. That also does not mean that the data we do have is not useful, or cannot indicate anything.

Again, I ask you: because you think there are so many variables and unknowns, do you think we should then do nothing? Is that your solution? Sit back, hold tight, and wait another 50 years until we know a little more about the subject? I would just like for you to come out, and say exactly this if it is what you mean.

Originally Posted by smacintush

In other threads on other subjects I have accused man of not feeling like a part of nature. which has destructive results. Unfortunately, this feeling of disconnectedness with the world is also among people like you. The AGW pundits seem to expect that man should NOT affect his environment. It's almost as if you feel that we should move like wraiths through the world and there should be no trace of our existence. It just isn't possible to exist in a way that we leave no measurable effects on our environment. There are SIX BILLION of us. You have NO idea whether we can ever live in a modern world that doesn't cause a climate change. You have NO idea, you think you do but you don't. Nature has a way of balancing itself and that does indeed include us. When we become too much of a burden on our environment then we will pay…there really IS no way around it. You can prolong it but it will eventually come around. It always does.
...
Gambling on changing the world to accommodate the as yet unsettled Anthropomorphic aspect of GW is just as dangerous and stupid as the actions of those whom you accuse of damaging our planet out of greed.

Hahaha...sigh.

The entire point of the issue is that man affects his environment. No one is trying to say we shouldn't, unlike what you claim. It's impossible - every animal affects their environment to some extent. It's a basic understanding of ecologists. Your claims are silly and uninformed.

Not only are you silly and uninformed, but you're ignorant of the issue here as well. Your quasi-mystical, prophetic warnings about nature always "balancing itself" might be alright on a general level, but the fact remains that history has proven man can live in his environment at a sustainable level. We have done so in the past, at the same time as civilizations in other places have overburdened their nest and crashed.

The issue is how MUCH of an effect we have. According to you, we should not bother to stop anything - we will eventually have too great a burden on the environment, and then Nature will somehow compensate and kill us all, I suppose? That's not only fatalistic, but stupid and short-sighted. According to you, we then don't need to change anything, but just keep living the way we are, and then somewhere down the road our great-grandchildren can deal with the problem as it arises. Never mind that perhaps if we lowered our polluting now, and perhaps looked at ways that we could lower this environmental burden, we could lessen or negate this impact. I mean, that's the issue, isn't it? - we're living "beyond our environmental means"? Nope. It's much better not to trust what the scientists say Nature is telling us, and not spend any money on trying to fix the potential problem. Just keep doing what we're doing. Nature will balance and, as you say, eventually "we will pay"...later. Much later.

abe, there you go. Perfect example for you. Do you need to wonder any longer why we won't do anything now? The human being: short-sighted, because spending money for tomorrow just means we'll have less today.



greg

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by smacintush

Consensus doesn't equal correct and being in the minority doesn't mean sh*t. Einstein went against the consensus too, maybe he should have just conformed instead.

Einstein were also wrong on a lot of issues. Such is the ways of science.

[itistoday]

Hi, itistoday here jumping in the middle of a thread without having read every single post as usual,

From what I've read, there are people calling this a political issue. Please keep in mind that it's not inherently political, it's simply that one group of people generally supports preventing global warming (liberals) and another group generally is too stupid and ignorant to care about it (conservatives).

Then there's another opinion stated in this thread: "It's going to cost too much to fix things!"
Boo-f*cking-hoo you worthless piece of sh*t. The financial cost of stopping global warming is completely and utterly irrelevant.

Perhaps you don't understand what global warming means. It means that several hundreds of millions of people will die, perhaps billions, and these include potentially you (if you're young enough) and your children. It will only get worse and worse unless something is done about it.

Are you really that selfish that you could care less? Is your SUV of that much importance to you than the importance of the planet? How can you roll your eyes when the entire legitimate scientific community is telling you that in the next few decades, we will be f*cked?

[Spliffdaddy]

Or maybe you're just flatly wrong.

I have an idea. Let's spend *your* money first.

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Or maybe you're just flatly wrong.

I have an idea. Let's spend *your* money first.

No, see Spliff, it doesn't work like that. *You're* the one who is wrong. It's like a crime scene investigation. The detective found your prints on the gun, your DNA on the victim, and a video of you shooting the person in the convenience store. No matter how much you claim you didn't shoot them, the jury will shake its head and say: "Your honor, we the jury find, beyond any reasonable doubt, the defendant, Spliffdaddy, guilty of all charges".

That's basically what we have here. So you can whine and say that scientists are wrong, but that doesn't make them wrong.

And yes, I'd gladly spent my own money to help the cause if I had any amount worth giving. I'm a college student so I barely have enough for myself. However I rarely drive, whenever I can I bike. On campus I always bike to and from classes, and when I'm going out with friends we car pool. Stuff like that helps, especially when lots of people are doing it.

Oh, and when I do get a decent amount of money, I'll be sure to make my first car purchase the most environmentally friendly at the that point in time (while being practical, you can't drive a golf-cart on I-95).

[Spliffdaddy]

Car?

Pfft.

Dude. It's gonna take *all* your money and all of your children's money and all of your grandchildren's money to fix the planet.

See that Mac in front of you?

Make it last, homie, It'll be the last one you ever see.

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Car?

Pfft.

Dude. It's gonna take *all* your money and all of your children's money and all of your grandchildren's money to fix the planet.

See that Mac in front of you?

Make it last, homie, It'll be the last one you ever see.

Buddy, not even the experts know exactly what kind of financial effort is required to fix global warming because they're still coming up with various ways to fix it. So don't even pretend you know.

Going back to the issue of global warming:

Spliffdaddy, your main problem is your lack of evidence. See, here in "reality", if one makes a claim people expect you to have evidence to support it. Scientists have mountain-loads of it. You? Your schtick is: "Well they were wrong about global cooling, so they must be wrong about this too!"

How illogical can you get? Damn, I guess if they (and by "they" we mean a fraction of the scientific population) were wrong about global cooling, then they must be wrong about everything else, right? I mean, scientists have certainly never been right, have they? Well, even with the fact that today they understand how the weather works much better than they did in the 1970s, and the fact that climatology/meteorology was only a couple years old at that time (it was only in the 1960s that the chaotic nature of the atmosphere was first understood by Edward Lorenz), surely they must still know absolutely nothing about how the weather works!

Oh, wait, hold on, Spliffdaddy knows how the weather works!

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

...it works in cycles...

Where would we be without you man! All hail the great and knowledgeable Spliffdaddy!

You're really too much.

[besson3c]

I think Moncton and itistoday have laid out good cases. Until somebody can actually making a compelling argument proving that the majority of the scientific community does not support the theory, you'll excuse me if I side with the experts (the scientists).

Why do you anti-global warming people cling to your beliefs? Is it just a matter of believing what you want to believe, or is there actually a compelling argument there?

What happened to the pragmatism and sense of reality that is supposedly prevalent among Conservatism?

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c

I think Moncton and itistoday have laid out good cases. Until somebody can actually making a compelling argument proving that the majority of the scientific community does not support the theory, you'll excuse me if I side with the experts (the scientists).

Why do you anti-global warming people cling to your beliefs? Is it just a matter of believing what you want to believe, or is there actually a compelling argument there?

What happened to the pragmatism and sense of reality that is supposedly prevalent among Conservatism?

"Pragmatism and [a] sense of reality" are NEVER allowed to get in the way of making money.

[MinM]

Originally Posted by besson3c

Why do you anti-global warming people cling to your beliefs?

The same reason you believe what you believe about global warming - you believe it to be so.

The only thing I know about the global warming debate is not to trust anyone - scientist or layperson - who claims to have definitive proof that either polar position is correct.

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by MinM

The same reason you believe what you believe about global warming - you believe it to be so.

The only thing I know about the global warming debate is not to trust anyone - scientist or layperson - who claims to have definitive proof that either polar position is correct.

*yawn*

Weak.

[black bear theory]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Car?

Pfft.

Dude. It's gonna take *all* your money and all of your children's money and all of your grandchildren's money to fix the planet.

See that Mac in front of you?

Make it last, homie, It'll be the last one you ever see.

i disagree.

it's not spending money that will help save the world. if the gov't has been proof of anything, it's that throwing money at a problem hardly ever solves that problem. btw, i think uncle sam already has a lock on any money that i or my children or my children's children might ever make.

consumerism is the biggest threat against the environment. buying stuff, disposing the packaging of the stuff you bought, using the fuel needed to get to the store so you can buy that stuff, the store seeing that you bought that stuff and ordering more that needs to be put on {ship, truck, plane} to replenish that stuff, somebody opens up a new tap somewhere to produce the gasoline to run the entire web so that you can get your stuff.

it may seem like a radical idea, but i think the greatest impact you can have is not to have an impact in the first place. sure, it might wreck the economy, but i'd rather wreck some artificial construct than something more tangible and real like the environment we live in that provides everything the economy needs. "live simply that others might simply live" - that might not make sense from an economists pov.

btw, my laptop is a pismo - that's an apple laptop that came out late '99. i love it and i'm not looking to replace it. my other computer is a PII running linux. you'd know better than i when that came out. i hope that they're the last computers i ever need to get.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by black bear theory

i disagree.

it's not spending money that will help save the world. if the gov't has been proof of anything, it's that throwing money at a problem hardly ever solves that problem. btw, i think uncle sam already has a lock on any money that i or my children or my children's children might ever make.

I'm with you here.

consumerism is the biggest threat against the environment. buying stuff, disposing the packaging of the stuff you bought, using the fuel needed to get to the store so you can buy that stuff, the store seeing that you bought that stuff and ordering more that needs to be put on {ship, truck, plane} to replenish that stuff, somebody opens up a new tap somewhere to produce the gasoline to run the entire web so that you can get your stuff.

Again, I'm with you, the disposable society is a huge problem. Seems like everyday someone invents a new way to make an old idea disposable.

it may seem like a radical idea, but i think the greatest impact you can have is not to have an impact in the first place. sure, it might wreck the economy, but i'd rather wreck some artificial construct than something more tangible and real like the environment we live in that provides everything the economy needs. "live simply that others might simply live" - that might not make sense from an economists pov.

I'm with you in spirit. I really am. The problem is that although I advocate this on a personal level and am trying to take my own life in this direction, there are many of those who are advocating what amounts to large scale social engineering in order to impose these ideals on the world. (or at the very least America) I realize that these things would be done out of love for mankind and of the earth but you know, so was the spanish inquisition. (OK, the spanish inquisition is an extreme example…)

[smacintush]

Here's a quote:

But the risk of doing nothing, the risk of our environment being jeopardized by the threat of global warming far exceeds the risks of any action we may be forced to take.

Sound familiar? Care to guess who it's from?

But the risk of doing nothing, the risk of the security of this country being jeopardized at the hands of a madman with weapons of mass destruction far exceeds the risks of any action we may be forced to take. - George W. Bush speaking on Iraq

[abe]

Originally Posted by smacintush

Here's a quote:


Sound familiar? Care to guess who it's from?

Nicely done!

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by smacintush

Here's a quote:


Sound familiar? Care to guess who it's from?

Nice bit of digging. Are you trying to say that the Iraq threat is as great as the environmental threat, assuming for a minute that the majority of the scientists are accurate?

[Monique]

Do not forget that the premise of this thread is that the U.S. are far worst than any other countries in the world. I say know at least they are not hypocrites.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by abe

Nicely done!

Nicely done! You were gone all of 12 hours and six minutes. But for you, I would imagine that is an extended period of time.

Welcome Back!

[besson3c]

Here's a pretty good article about the movie:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/22/mo...=1&oref=slogin