RuntheDamnBall Posted June 5, 2006 Share Posted June 5, 2006 The original post in this thread linked to a hit-piece on An Inconvenient Truth. I linked to the week-two box office numbers for the same film. It looks like the negative press and propaganda from Big Oil has actually had a positive impact with regards to people going out and seeing Gore's film, no doubt quite the opposite effect that Big Oil and their media lackeys wanted. I thought it seemed relevent in light of this thread. I apologize that the standards for what I consider relevent on the PPP are not on the same level of yours...an inconvenient truth, indeed. Mea culpa. 703142[/snapback] You obviously are just a bad scientist. Besides, carbon dioxide is life... "We breathe it in!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted June 5, 2006 Share Posted June 5, 2006 You obviously are just a bad scientist. Besides, carbon dioxide is life... "We breathe it in!" 703207[/snapback] Actually, he didn't post any science...he posted this week's box office gross for a movie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted June 5, 2006 Share Posted June 5, 2006 Actually, he didn't post any science...he posted this week's box office gross for a movie. 703209[/snapback] We've already discussed that scientists are virtually unanimous in recognizing the human impact contributing to global warming. So, in the face of hit-pieces disguised as movie reviews, personal smear tactics directed at Gore, utilizing front groups for Big Oil to produce absurd propaganda films, and issuing baseless "policy" opinions from thinktanks beholden to industry, in my opinion, showing that An Inconvenient Truth is doing exceedingly well at the box office in spite of the millions of dollars the industry is shelling out to silence it, is very relevent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweet baboo Posted June 5, 2006 Share Posted June 5, 2006 This movie will probably have the same effect that Michael Moore films do (and draw the same audience): most people coming out of the theater will suddenly be an expert on something they don't actually know stevestojan about and will never bother to actually look into. Is the movie packaged as a double feature with that gem "Loose Change" ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cromagnum Posted June 5, 2006 Share Posted June 5, 2006 As a child fishing with my father we would pickup trash that lined the banks and to this day I still clean up trash that others have left behind. I am thankfull that the waters I fish in are no longer like they were in the 70's. If global warming is true which I believe it is, how can the world can prevent it.? It would take systematic changes worldwide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted June 5, 2006 Share Posted June 5, 2006 As a child fishing with my father we would pickup trash that lined the banks and to this day I still clean up trash that others have left behind. I am thankfull that the waters I fish in are no longer like they were in the 70's. If global warming is true which I believe it is, how can the world can prevent it.? It would take systematic changes worldwide. 703325[/snapback] ...or a lot of little changes from people believing that it would make a difference. There is so much less litter now because laws were enacted against littering, and people have gradually gotten into the mindset that it's wrong to do so. It's a small change that makes a difference, and differences tend to make differences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted June 5, 2006 Share Posted June 5, 2006 The question isn't that waming isn't occuring. It's whether man is responsible for it. I have seen a graph (and I can't find it) that shows the suns output superimposed over the global temp over the last 200 years and they are almost identical. Of course, Bush should do something about the sun! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cromagnum Posted June 5, 2006 Share Posted June 5, 2006 The question isn't that waming isn't occuring. It's whether man is responsible for it. I have seen a graph (and I can't find it) that shows the suns output superimposed over the global temp over the last 200 years and they are almost identical. Of course, Bush should do something about the sun! 703470[/snapback] Ocassionally I listen to conservative radio and savage claims it's a natural process and we have no influence. And then theres the scientist who believe we are influencing global warming. Are these scientist just playing patisan political games? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted June 5, 2006 Share Posted June 5, 2006 This is a serious question: Are you saying that we are all going to die via global warming when in by rights we should all die due to a natural ice age? Is the freezing death somehow more pure? Dead is dead right? 703089[/snapback] I'm not thrilled by either outcome. But a return to glaciaration is gradual compared to the warming, and can take a thousands of years. This gives plant life a chance to find new temperate zones, and animal life too of course. Global warming, on the the hand, is occuring startlingly fast. If over a period of only 40 years western new york were to turn into a tropical climate, say, the current plant life would die off but it is doubtfull that a tropical ecosystem could spread north fast enough. So what you get is an extinction of most species. (It is only is anectdotal, but we seem to be seeing already that Maple trees are dying off rather than spreading. I don't know if that is from global warming tho. Ragweed and poison ivy are doing quite well, on the other hand.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted June 5, 2006 Share Posted June 5, 2006 Because trends never change, do they? What's the answer? Should we all go back to horse and carraige transport? I have an idea. Why don't all those who are concerned about global warming turn in their cars, quit using electricity and move to the country? There are plenty of Amish communities around where I live that would be HAPPY to have the labor. 703100[/snapback] You're right, trends do change. It's just oddly coincidental when we happen to be industrializing exactly when 100 million year/500,000 year trends change. And I'm not suggesting turning in my car. I happen to think it is too late. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted June 5, 2006 Share Posted June 5, 2006 Were DOOOOMED!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Helmet_hair Posted June 6, 2006 Share Posted June 6, 2006 (It is only is anectdotal, but we seem to be seeing already that Maple trees are dying off rather than spreading. I don't know if that is from global warming tho. Ragweed and poison ivy are doing quite well, on the other hand.) 703490[/snapback] Sorry, I gotta draw my line here. Maple decline as seen in parts of upstate NY, Vermont and New Hampshire has nothing to do with global warming. Maple decline is not the result one thing or event, but is a disease complex with many predisposing a-biotic and biotic factor leading to the death of the tree. Sulfur dioxide fallout from Midwestern and Canadian coal burning plants damage tissue weakening the tree lowers the PH in the soil binding up essential Micronutrients like Ca and Mg and others used in chlorophyll production and in host defense metabolites. Also the death of certain beneficial micro flora in naturally supportive soils has lead to a pathogenic soil in which low level root degraders reduce the absorptive root biomass further inhibiting the host ability to gather essential nutrients and water. There’s more to it but I think you get the picture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted June 6, 2006 Share Posted June 6, 2006 Sorry, I gotta draw my line here. Maple decline as seen in parts of upstate NY, Vermont and New Hampshire has nothing to do with global warming. Maple decline is not the result one thing or event, but is a disease complex with many predisposing a-biotic and biotic factor leading to the death of the tree. Sulfur dioxide fallout from Midwestern and Canadian coal burning plants damage tissue weakening the tree lowers the PH in the soil binding up essential Micronutrients like Ca and Mg and others used in chlorophyll production and in host defense metabolites. Also the death of certain beneficial micro flora in naturally supportive soils has lead to a pathogenic soil in which low level root degraders reduce the absorptive root biomass further inhibiting the host ability to gather essential nutrients and water. There’s more to it but I think you get the picture. 703589[/snapback] As I said, I've never heard it was from warming. I just thought the Maple die-off was interesting enough to mention parenthetically. Since you obviously know about it, is this effecting the entire population, or is it localized? Will we still have maple syrup in 20 years? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ch19079 Posted June 6, 2006 Share Posted June 6, 2006 a long story short, the movie may be over blowing the effects of global warming, but the guy reviewing it is a dumbass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 a long story short, the movie may be over blowing the effects of global warming, but the guy reviewing it is a dumbass. 704047[/snapback] Isn't "dumbass movie critic" an oxymoron? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
callemasiseesem Posted June 8, 2006 Share Posted June 8, 2006 For some alternate opinions on Global Warming go to www.reason.com and put Global Warming in the search field. Look for articles written by Ronald Bailey. Here's one example: http://www.reason.com/rb/rb111004.shtml. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted June 8, 2006 Share Posted June 8, 2006 For some alternate opinions on Global Warming go to www.reason.com and put Global Warming in the search field. Look for articles written by Ronald Bailey. Here's one example: http://www.reason.com/rb/rb111004.shtml. 705184[/snapback] The alternate opinions this author cites come from 1) a scientist (Lindzen) who has been underwritten by OPEC and the oil industry and 2) a scientist (Christy) whose figures have since been found to have significant errors. Projections are projections, they're not fact. People who say "maybe we are, maybe we aren't affecting the environment" serve no purpose but to give an "attaboy" to those who profit from unsustainable methods. Why does a climatologist like Lindzen cite economic concerns as a reason not to advance on global warming science? It's pretty clear. The projections shouldn't be ignored in favor of this so-called argument, and turning it into an argument, instead of an opportunity to do move forward and do good is an absolute waste of time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted June 13, 2006 Author Share Posted June 13, 2006 Looks like Manbearpig is trying to spawn offspring http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060613/en_nm/...ronment_gore_dc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted June 13, 2006 Share Posted June 13, 2006 Looks like Manbearpig is trying to spawn offspringhttp://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060613/en_nm/...ronment_gore_dc 707642[/snapback] His "Thousand Points of Doom" program. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OGTEleven Posted June 14, 2006 Share Posted June 14, 2006 Link.... Don't shoot the messenger. I thought it might be interesting. Link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts