An Inconvenient Truth

Charles Sullivan

ignoring Rob Allen and Generic
#91
Al wins, thank God. We are all talking about this.
BTW- Global warming caused by humans is real. We gotta use newer sunlight to power our lives. Never has there been a peer reviewed study that disputes it. Thank You Al.
Sox win. Thanks for 7 of the best Pedro!
cds
 
#92
chadk said:
". Because the government and environmental lobbies like the Sierra Club and Greenpeace are not trying to sell a product to anyone. Meanwhile the other side, the oil companies want oil to keep being consumed so they can make more record profits. The Sierra Club and Greenpeace do not get anything out of lobbying for stricter fuel efficiency standards or avoiding drilling in ANWR. What they get out of the deal is the satisfaction of protecting the environment and preserving the earth for future generations. "

We'd like to believe in that those representing both sides if this issue have good honest well intentioned reasons for their positions. I don't doubt there are corporate lobbyists who don't want tighter controls.

But please don't be so niave to assume these 'agencies' and 'clubs' don't have many subtle agendas - and yes MONEY is definately a factor. Just look at how PETA likes to scare and manipulate peoples emotions to rally around their cause. That's how they get MONEY. Who would support the sierra club or greenpeace if their wasn't an emotional battle to rally people behind?

Anyway - otter, good post.

I still haven't heard of many suggestions on how we can and should make a difference globally. How are we going to convince China, India, Russia, etc to slow down the population growth, reduce emissions and other pollutants, plant trees and fight erosion, stop burning up fossil fuels, etc? Sure, we can start at home, but we need a global strategy or it will litterally be like peeing in the ocean...
Chad -

Global stuff. What enrages me about the Kyoto Accord is that it was and is the first genuine strategic attempt to "agree to agree", globally, on managing emissions. So what did we do? Pulled out. There's 80 some odd nations out there that are willing to share the load, and we're saying screw you based on the fantasy that somehow we are so cool that we are above a global crisis. Read continued record American profits here, and the sick and sorry knowledge that we've gotta gotta gotta have that energy fix.


Otter
 

o mykiss

Active Member
#93
chadk said:
". I still haven't heard of many suggestions on how we can and should make a difference globally. How are we going to convince China, India, Russia, etc to slow down the population growth, reduce emissions and other pollutants, plant trees and fight erosion, stop burning up fossil fuels, etc? Sure, we can start at home, but we need a global strategy or it will litterally be like peeing in the ocean...
Hell if I know, but trying to exert some leadership on the issue would be a good place to start. I have no idea if the Kyoto Protocol was worth a crap, but all we did was say "f*$% it" and whine about how we would lose gazillions of jobs if we signed on. We didn't come up with anything better. Which I suppose should not be surprising. It is hard to exert leadership in trying to solve for human induced climate change when the people who run this country keep denying the problem exists in the face of a preponderance of scientific evidence that it does.

Showing some leadership is one way to get places like India and China on board. As much as I am often upset by how we short shrift the enviroment in this country, I realize there are way worse places than the U.S. But we have got to show the way.

Also, China and India alone are HUGE markets. If we showed some leadership in developing ways to produce energy and transport people and things in more earth-friendly ways, American companies could make a lot of money there. (That takes government policies that tilt the playing field a little more towards encouraging new approaches.) We don't necessarily need to assume that the only path to development that we can expect in places like China and India over the next 50 years has to look like the West's inglorious path to development over the last 150 years. Think of it wireline vs. wireless communication in the developing world. Many less developed countries had little wireline infrastructure historically, leaving those markets wide open for wireless technologies to fill the void. As a result, wireless communications in a lot of of developing countries dominate. Now is the time to give developing countries better ways of producing energy and moving people and things than burning oil, petroleum products and coal. (Some are figuring out on their own, like the very high use of domestically produced ethanol in Brazil.) But our elected leaders' number one priority is to maintain the status quo of the primacy of oil and other greenhouse emitting energy sources, because that is who is getting them elected to office right now (e.g., maybe why increased CAFE standards got left out of the Energy Policy Act of 2005?). So if places like China and India do get religion on these issues, it's probably going to be non-U.S. companies who make the killing because of our failure to better encourage new approaches through government policy.
 

Snake

tryin' not to get too comfortable
#94
The bottom line (IMHO)? Too many people on a planet with limited resources, producing too much toxic waste through our own consumptive lifestyles.

What happens when you inoculate a nutrient broth with bacteria? Log phase growth (happy bugs growing merrily), followed by a flat line (resource depletion and waste accumulation), and then the inevitable death curve.

I don't give a rats ass that we are going to kill ourselves because we can't see the writing on the wall, but it isn't fair that we are going to pull the rest of the species on this magnificent planet down with us.

Technology and conservation might prolong the inevitable, but until we hit ZPG (zero population growth), it's a given that we will run out of resources. You think gas prices are a problem? Wait until we're waging wars over water!

After the last animals are gone, and the air is so toxic we can't breathe naturally, and there isn't any uncontaminated water left, maybe we'll finally realize money isn't everything.

I hate to be such a cynic, but bring on a good influenza epidemic! Cull the herd, I say! (I'm not going to comment on the ludicrous trend of mega-millionaires trying to improve 'global health'. Are they trying to buy their way into heaven, or what?) In the meantime, enjoy every day you have. Make them count. Reduce your impact as much as you can for the sake of the critters that don't have a say in the fate we are foisting upon them, and accept the fact that every person dies. But not everybody truly lives.
 
#95
Mr. Snake -

Yr. the WORD. ZPG is the bottom line - and this goes back, at least for me, to the 1960's.
And water will be the mother of all wars, not oil...............

So how do we do this without mass voluntary suicide or murder on a grand scale?

You have proposed the problem - no escape until you throw your answer into the arena.

Otter
 

Snake

tryin' not to get too comfortable
#96
Jeez, Otter, the problem was proposed long before I ever thought about it, and there's no way I have an answer for it....

The best thing I can do is try to live large and keep my footprint small, and hope the balance somehow gets restored.

This is a great time to live. So much technology and knowledge, unprecedented freedom and wealth, but before the consequences come to bear. The next 20 years of human existence will be interesting.......
 

Nailknot

Active Member
#98
o mykiss said:
I have no idea if the Kyoto Protocol was worth a crap, but all we did was say "f*$% it" and whine about how we would lose gazillions of jobs if we signed on.
Those frickin EU clog hopper lutifisk eaters are making millions on off wind and deep drilling. Frickin risk taking innovators.
 
#99
gt said:
ok, so pretend al gore is your favorite personality delivering the same message. change anything for you????

i can't believe the 'true believers' simply want to dismiss the message because the messenger happens to be al gore.

lame, just totally lame.
Probably doesn't change much for people discussing in this thread, though I might actually go see the movie. But it would change a lot for the majority of people living in democratic states. Since statistics show that about 60-70 percent of voters simply vote along party lines regardless of the issues or who's running, having a political figure at the center of the film isn't a bright idea.... that is if delivering the message is what's important. So I definitely think the movie would make a bigger impact if it was Denzel Washington or Catherine Zeta-Jones. Or maybe Lindsay Lohan.
 

creekx

spent spinner
As stated before: Who gives a sh!t if it's cyclical, craused by man, or both.

Don't you want to do everything you possibly can to try and stop it or slow it down regardless?

It's petty simple to me: global warming (no matter what the cause) = bad.

I'm having a hard time understanding why the naysayers on this board are fighting this so hard. Is it because of Al Gore, political interests, religion? Because none of it makes sense to me, unless you want life on earth to end
nathanj, if you were paying attention you would understand that is exactly my point. I don't have to believe every doom-and-gloom scenario in the movie to be a good steward of the environment. Several posts here have the usual smugness you'd expect - you either believe everything Al Gore says, or you don't care about the environment.
 
Sloan Craven said:
Probably doesn't change much for people discussing in this thread, though I might actually go see the movie. But it would change a lot for the majority of people living in democratic states. Since statistics show that about 60-70 percent of voters simply vote along party lines regardless of the issues or who's running, having a political figure at the center of the film isn't a bright idea.... that is if delivering the message is what's important. So I definitely think the movie would make a bigger impact if it was Denzel Washington or Catherine Zeta-Jones. Or maybe Lindsay Lohan.
Hey only if Lindsay Lohan was Naked ! :rofl: :rofl:
 
nathanj said:
As stated before: Who gives a sh!t if it's cyclical, craused by man, or both.

Don't you want to do everything you possibly can to try and stop it or slow it down regardless?

It's petty simple to me: global warming (no matter what the cause) = bad.

I'm having a hard time understanding why the naysayers on this board are fighting this so hard. Is it because of Al Gore, political interests, religion? Because none of it makes sense to me, unless you want life on earth to end...
Dude, you hit the nail on the head.

Are we creating exhaust emissions? Yes. Are others (i.e. China and India and others) doint it? Yes. Does that justify exhaust emissions? No. Are exhaust emissions bad? Yes. If we have the power and ability to control and reduce exhaust emissions, should we? Yes.

The globe is warming. Is it part of a natural process? Maybe. Are human activities contributing to the warming? Maybe, and probably. How much? It depends on who you ask, but the consensus is that humans are contributing to environmental issues. Does this have anything to do with whether we or don't like Al Gore, whether we are or aren't liberal or conservative, or whether we are or aren't paid by entities that have interests in energy? Nope.

To me, it's all very elementary. If we are doing something that is making a negative impact, and we reasonably have in our power to effect some change or reduce those impacts, we should make reasonable efforts to do so.

Humans are net consumers of the environment. We use more than we contribute. Simple. However, does that mean we cease to exist or all kill ourselves? Not me. But, what these discussions about global warming has done is make me more aware of the impacts of humans and my impact, as well, and is going to help me try to make a difference.

I can't recall who it was that said "There are lies, damn lies, then statistics." Of course Al is going to use data and information that is supportive to his beliefs and perspectives. Is his information correct? Maybe, maybe not. But, consider that if it is accurate at all, we as humans should try to modify our behavior.

I try to recycle more, and I will be likely buying a more fuel efficient smaller car within the year, etc. Do I need my SUV that I believe I 'need' to have to pull my little boat and take me fishing? Nah, a little car with a Thule box tossed on top whenever I need the extra room makes more sense. Will that make a big difference? Heck, no. But, I can do my wee little part and hope that if we all tried, or even a measurable percentage tried, it could slow things down and could make some difference.

Pollyanna-ish perspective? Maybe. I can live with that. :thumb:
 

CovingtonFly

B.O.H.I.C.A. bend over here it comes again
What about the ice age? Were the Eskimos driving their SUV's too much chasing the wooly mamoths' around and thus destroying the land bridge? The earth is a fluid place and it's constantly changing. What did we learn from the dinosaurs? Be good and you'll end up dead anyways. I do think that we are having an impact but who know's what the natural state would have created.
 
All I have to say is proxy evidence. They can tell the earth has warmed one degree from the study of tree rings yeah f**king right.

If I were a climatologist I would be using scare tactics to keep my job too.
 
CovingtonFly said:
What about the ice age? Were the Eskimos driving their SUV's too much chasing the wooly mamoths' around and thus destroying the land bridge? The earth is a fluid place and it's constantly changing. What did we learn from the dinosaurs? Be good and you'll end up dead anyways. I do think that we are having an impact but who know's what the natural state would have created.
Its not that the climates don't naturally change.... they don't change naturally at the rate they are now. Part of my dissertation work deals with climate change at the end of the last Ice Age, and what happened then isn't half as bad as what's going on now.