I think Ronstang's opinion should be void in this discussion.
According to your sig, you hate the environment.
jk
According to your sig, you hate the environment.
jk
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: virtualgames0
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: virtualgames0
I haven't seen the movie.. but there was a really interesting article from Michael Crichton on global warming titled aliens are the cause for global warming.
You should read the article if you plan on watching the movie.
The article basically argues that the evidence for global warming is akin to evidence for aliens. That is, for aliens there is the drake's equation, that shows all the variables to there being aliens. However, one does not know how much of each variable would actually prove anything. Thus those variables doesn't mean anything. The same thing works for global warming. We know carbon dioxide, CFC's, pollution, and what not, causes global warming. But we have no idea if the amount we're putting out right now actually has any noticeable effect.
http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote04.html
That idea was a 90's movie. We also know more than you think.
Nice to know that you represent ATOT.
Goto the EPA website if you want to know.
Originally posted by: Feldenak
Originally posted by: DefDC
Let's make this easy:
Hmmm... Believe the status quo and it's corporate mouthpieces or neutral scientics worldwide and observable fact? That's a tricky one...
If you don't think those scientists are following the $$$ just like the corporations, you are deluding yourself. Scientists & researchers will do almost anything to suckle at the government teat.
Originally posted by: DaShen
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: virtualgames0
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: virtualgames0
I haven't seen the movie.. but there was a really interesting article from Michael Crichton on global warming titled aliens are the cause for global warming.
You should read the article if you plan on watching the movie.
The article basically argues that the evidence for global warming is akin to evidence for aliens. That is, for aliens there is the drake's equation, that shows all the variables to there being aliens. However, one does not know how much of each variable would actually prove anything. Thus those variables doesn't mean anything. The same thing works for global warming. We know carbon dioxide, CFC's, pollution, and what not, causes global warming. But we have no idea if the amount we're putting out right now actually has any noticeable effect.
http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote04.html
That idea was a 90's movie. We also know more than you think.
Nice to know that you represent ATOT.
Goto the EPA website if you want to know.
QFFreakingT
Michael Crichton misquoted so many scientific journals when he wrote that drivvle. Even the scientist who wrote the journals asked him to not misuse their research and publicly denounced his book as fiction.
The fact of the matter is that most of those journals said that in the overall scheme of things, global warming by humans will not kill the Earth (that given enough time and lack of certain factors <human>, the earth will heal itself), but of course those certain factors are actually growing exponentially.
Originally posted by: DefDC
Originally posted by: Feldenak
Originally posted by: DefDC
Let's make this easy:
Hmmm... Believe the status quo and it's corporate mouthpieces or neutral scientics worldwide and observable fact? That's a tricky one...
If you don't think those scientists are following the $$$ just like the corporations, you are deluding yourself. Scientists & researchers will do almost anything to suckle at the government teat.
You're right. All scientists are lying scumbags. We should just listen to corporate lobbiests, or Sean Hannity. They'll tell us the TRUTH!
Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Originally posted by: jagec
Originally posted by: Ronstang
If that movie makes sense to you then you are not very bright. There is very little "truth" in the entire movie. Al Gore has never cared about the truth when it comes to his agenda. Read some of his books. The guy is way out in left field. He is a whacko.
left field, perhaps, but do you really think that the millions of scientists around the world (who are all much smarter than you) are wrong about global warming?
Millions?
Originally posted by: goku
Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Oh my goodness global warming is coming. Oh wait, it's just summer.
Dumbass. Explain to me WTF in the last 15 years were the hottest temps on record recorded? It's fscking 115 in california, I can't remember when it's been this hot at all. Yea sure it's summer, right ok... :roll:
your attitude just exhibited one of the main problems concerning most major issues around the world, whether it be terrorism, economic unbalance, political turmoil, or global warming - namely, "it's not my fvcking problem, let someone else solve it."Originally posted by: virtualgames0
Whether or not his data is accurate, he does have a point. You can't accurately predict how the environment is going to be fvcked up in 100years, just like you can't predict how bad horse pollution would be in 1900. Sure scientists may model that at the rate we're going now, the world would be fvcked up in 100 years or so. But the pollution won't be going at the rate it is going now for the next 100 years. It will diminish as technology progresses.
Simply said, in 30-40 years, we would probably not have anymore coal powerplants, gasoline vehicles, etc. Thus, quit worrying about how much we are fvcking up the environment today. Buy your gas guzzling vehicles. But at the same time, let scientists research alternative environment-friendly fuels that will eventually take over the market.
Originally posted by: Toasthead
Originally posted by: goku
Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Oh my goodness global warming is coming. Oh wait, it's just summer.
Dumbass. Explain to me WTF in the last 15 years were the hottest temps on record recorded? It's fscking 115 in california, I can't remember when it's been this hot at all. Yea sure it's summer, right ok... :roll:
Okay so If it global warming causing this then why was the record in sacramento of 114 set in 1924?!!?!?!?
you cant jsut say 'Oh its HOT....MUST BE GLOBAL WARMING!!!'
Thats just ignorant and stupid.
Originally posted by: theNEOone
Originally posted by: Toasthead
Originally posted by: goku
Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Oh my goodness global warming is coming. Oh wait, it's just summer.
Dumbass. Explain to me WTF in the last 15 years were the hottest temps on record recorded? It's fscking 115 in california, I can't remember when it's been this hot at all. Yea sure it's summer, right ok... :roll:
Okay so If it global warming causing this then why was the record in sacramento of 114 set in 1924?!!?!?!?
you cant jsut say 'Oh its HOT....MUST BE GLOBAL WARMING!!!'
Thats just ignorant and stupid.
you know, even more ignorant and stupid is misrepresenting and/or misinterpreting statistics. a single day's reading for temperature means nothing when you're talking about climate change which occurs on the order of hundreds, thousands, even millions of years.
scientists use yearly average temperatures, often comparing multi-year spans of time so as to eliminate any anamolies and also so that they can extrapolate and predict more accurately and further into the future.
=|
Originally posted by: theNEOone
your attitude just exhibited one of the main problems concerning most major issues around the world, whether it be terrorism, economic unbalance, political turmoil, or global warming - namely, "it's not my fvcking problem, let someone else solve it."Originally posted by: virtualgames0
Whether or not his data is accurate, he does have a point. You can't accurately predict how the environment is going to be fvcked up in 100years, just like you can't predict how bad horse pollution would be in 1900. Sure scientists may model that at the rate we're going now, the world would be fvcked up in 100 years or so. But the pollution won't be going at the rate it is going now for the next 100 years. It will diminish as technology progresses.
Simply said, in 30-40 years, we would probably not have anymore coal powerplants, gasoline vehicles, etc. Thus, quit worrying about how much we are fvcking up the environment today. Buy your gas guzzling vehicles. But at the same time, let scientists research alternative environment-friendly fuels that will eventually take over the market.
hopefully there's enough concerned people to take our existence seriously and make progressive change, and that it doesn't take a major catastrophe (a la 9/11 and america waking up to terrorism) for people to consider our harmful effects against the environment.
most people don't accept that there's a problem because accepting a problem means that we have to develop a solution. unfortunately, too many people are too self indulgent and lazy to change their ways and it's much easier not to acknowledge the problem in the first place.
=|
what you're saying is true for the united states, but what about the other 6 billion people on earth?Originally posted by: virtualgames0
It has nothing to do with "it's not my fvcking problem, let someone else solve it", it's about rationality. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for saving the environment. But the foresights of these scientists are just plain bad science.
You would be right that there is a problem if technology doesn't change. But it's beyond ludicrous to base a 100year prediction on current technology. People will not be driving gas guzzling cars in 30 years. Cars will run on water in 30 years. Thus, worrying about people driving hummers because they're fvcking up the environment is plain stupid.
Learn to think critically, instead of taking down all the bullshit people tell you.. just because it feels right to you.
Originally posted by: theNEOone
what you're saying is true for the united states, but what about the other 6 billion people on earth?Originally posted by: virtualgames0
It has nothing to do with "it's not my fvcking problem, let someone else solve it", it's about rationality. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for saving the environment. But the foresights of these scientists are just plain bad science.
You would be right that there is a problem if technology doesn't change. But it's beyond ludicrous to base a 100year prediction on current technology. People will not be driving gas guzzling cars in 30 years. Cars will run on water in 30 years. Thus, worrying about people driving hummers because they're fvcking up the environment is plain stupid.
Learn to think critically, instead of taking down all the bullshit people tell you.. just because it feels right to you.
people in cuba, russia, asia, and much of the developing world still drive cars from the 1950s.
there are 3 billion poor chinese waiting to drive. are they going to be buying $40,000 hybrids or $500 cars with outdated technology? in 100 years the dynamics between rich and poor would have to change dramatically for the majority of the world to be able to afford these new technologies you speak of.
but, that's not my point. whereas you have this magic crystal ball that can tell you what technologies are going to be available to us 100 years from now, i'm arguing on a very general level. my argument is simply that people are resistant to the idea of global warming (as they are with other political issues) because (1) they feel far removed from the effects of the issue and (2) of what it would mean if they were to accept the consequences of their actions. if curbing our harmful effects on the environment meant having more sex rather than car-pooling or walking instead of driving your suburban, then in 15 years time we would have an impeccable planet with a population of 50 billion.
it's unfortunate that taking the path of least resistance is all too common in human nature.
=|
Originally posted by: virtualgames0
Originally posted by: theNEOone
what you're saying is true for the united states, but what about the other 6 billion people on earth?Originally posted by: virtualgames0
It has nothing to do with "it's not my fvcking problem, let someone else solve it", it's about rationality. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for saving the environment. But the foresights of these scientists are just plain bad science.
You would be right that there is a problem if technology doesn't change. But it's beyond ludicrous to base a 100year prediction on current technology. People will not be driving gas guzzling cars in 30 years. Cars will run on water in 30 years. Thus, worrying about people driving hummers because they're fvcking up the environment is plain stupid.
Learn to think critically, instead of taking down all the bullshit people tell you.. just because it feels right to you.
people in cuba, russia, asia, and much of the developing world still drive cars from the 1950s.
there are 3 billion poor chinese waiting to drive. are they going to be buying $40,000 hybrids or $500 cars with outdated technology? in 100 years the dynamics between rich and poor would have to change dramatically for the majority of the world to be able to afford these new technologies you speak of.
but, that's not my point. whereas you have this magic crystal ball that can tell you what technologies are going to be available to us 100 years from now, i'm arguing on a very general level. my argument is simply that people are resistant to the idea of global warming (as they are with other political issues) because (1) they feel far removed from the effects of the issue and (2) of what it would mean if they were to accept the consequences of their actions. if curbing our harmful effects on the environment meant having more sex rather than car-pooling or walking instead of driving your suburban, then in 15 years time we would have an impeccable planet with a population of 50 billion.
it's unfortunate that taking the path of least resistance is all too common in human nature.
=|
3 billion poor chinese?
Last time I checked, there are 1.3 billion in china. And you don't exactly need a car when you live in a super crowded city like beijing.
That said, as technology matures, fuel cell cars will likely cost less to make, and less to operate than gasoline powered cars. Cuba still drives cars from the 50s because they are economically closed off from the world since the castro regime took power in the 50s - not because they're cheaper. A modern compact would easily coss less than those 50s cars.
It's only a matter of time before the production of gasoline powered cars will cease, just like it was only a matter of time before horse and buggy transportation came to a cease.
It doesn't take a magic crystal ball to see this. It's just plain obvious.
Human's nature to take the path of least resistance is what drives us to grow and advance. It's a good thing. Driving super environment friendly hydrogen powered luxury cars is far better than being an environmentalist hippy and living back in the stone age.
Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
Originally posted by: virtualgames0
Originally posted by: theNEOone
what you're saying is true for the united states, but what about the other 6 billion people on earth?Originally posted by: virtualgames0
It has nothing to do with "it's not my fvcking problem, let someone else solve it", it's about rationality. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for saving the environment. But the foresights of these scientists are just plain bad science.
You would be right that there is a problem if technology doesn't change. But it's beyond ludicrous to base a 100year prediction on current technology. People will not be driving gas guzzling cars in 30 years. Cars will run on water in 30 years. Thus, worrying about people driving hummers because they're fvcking up the environment is plain stupid.
Learn to think critically, instead of taking down all the bullshit people tell you.. just because it feels right to you.
people in cuba, russia, asia, and much of the developing world still drive cars from the 1950s.
there are 3 billion poor chinese waiting to drive. are they going to be buying $40,000 hybrids or $500 cars with outdated technology? in 100 years the dynamics between rich and poor would have to change dramatically for the majority of the world to be able to afford these new technologies you speak of.
but, that's not my point. whereas you have this magic crystal ball that can tell you what technologies are going to be available to us 100 years from now, i'm arguing on a very general level. my argument is simply that people are resistant to the idea of global warming (as they are with other political issues) because (1) they feel far removed from the effects of the issue and (2) of what it would mean if they were to accept the consequences of their actions. if curbing our harmful effects on the environment meant having more sex rather than car-pooling or walking instead of driving your suburban, then in 15 years time we would have an impeccable planet with a population of 50 billion.
it's unfortunate that taking the path of least resistance is all too common in human nature.
=|
3 billion poor chinese?
Last time I checked, there are 1.3 billion in china. And you don't exactly need a car when you live in a super crowded city like beijing.
That said, as technology matures, fuel cell cars will likely cost less to make, and less to operate than gasoline powered cars. Cuba still drives cars from the 50s because they are economically closed off from the world since the castro regime took power in the 50s - not because they're cheaper. A modern compact would easily coss less than those 50s cars.
It's only a matter of time before the production of gasoline powered cars will cease, just like it was only a matter of time before horse and buggy transportation came to a cease.
It doesn't take a magic crystal ball to see this. It's just plain obvious.
Human's nature to take the path of least resistance is what drives us to grow and advance. It's a good thing. Driving super environment friendly hydrogen powered luxury cars is far better than being an environmentalist hippy and living back in the stone age.
I've seen people on this forum talk about hippies and living in the stone age several times.. and it makes no sense. Maybe I'm looking at the wrong hippies but I've never seen any living in the stone age.
Originally posted by: ajf3
Yep... Gore is an uber-scientist...
For all of Gore's later fascination with science and technology, he often struggled academically in those subjects. The political champion of the natural world received that sophomore D in Natural Sciences 6 (Man's Place in Nature) and then got a C-plus in Natural Sciences 118 his senior year. The self-proclaimed inventor of the Internet avoided all courses in mathematics and logic throughout college, despite his outstanding score on the math portion of the SAT. As was the case with many of his classmates, his high school math grades had dropped from A's to C's as he advanced from trigonometry to calculus in his senior year.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dy...ame=article&contentId=A37397-2000Mar18
Then he came to Gore's results in IQ tests taken in 1961 and 1964, at the beginning of his freshman and senior years. "One thirty-three and 134. Absolutely superb. That means tremendous ability."
* Over 140 - Genius or near genius
* 120 - 140 - Very superior intelligence
* 110 - 119 - Superior intelligence
* 90 - 109 - Normal or average intelligence
* 80 - 89 - Dullness
* 70 - 79 - Borderline deficiency
* Under 70 - Definite feeble-mindedness