An Inconvenient Thread

Discussion in 'Science & History' started by Mirage, Nov 25, 2008.

  1. Mirage

    Mirage Administrator Staff Member V.I.P.

    Do you think Al Gore is off his rocker or do you think he's on par with his global warming theories?

    My beef with him is that he flies around in a very expensive private jet while telling others that they shouldn't. :shifteyes:

    I think polluting the atmosphere is something that needs to be limited, because common sense tells me that pollution is bad, but will it necessarily lead to global warming? I'm not sure.

    I think the global warming idea has been stretched and manipulated as a scar tactic for political gain.

    What do you think about it?

  2. PretzelCorps

    PretzelCorps Registered Member

    Apparently a private jet puts out more pollution in one trip across America, than a family sedan does in an entire year.

    At least, that's what I've heard (I think I might've read it in Michael Crichton's State of Fear --> Real good book on seeing the other side of global warming)
  3. ysabel

    ysabel /ˈɪzəˌbɛl/ pink 5

    For sure, efforts to stop global warming have sometimes been used for personal gains rather than for environmental concern. However I don't think it makes the whole climate change theory bogus, just some people.
  4. ExpectantlyIronic

    ExpectantlyIronic e̳̳̺͕ͬ̓̑̂ͮͦͣ͒͒h̙ͦ̔͂?̅̂ ̾͗̑

    Gore bought carbon offsets for his flights.
    Last edited: Nov 27, 2008
  5. Clear_Note

    Clear_Note Demon King/Sith Warrior

    I think he's got the right idea, but exaggerates it.
  6. Mirage

    Mirage Administrator Staff Member V.I.P.

    I'm sure he did but how can he legitimately be concerned and tell other people to watch what they put into the atmosphere if he puts out more than a few families for an entire year in just a single flight?

    Plus, pay for it or not, unless every country in the world commits to a carbon emission allowance for everybody then all we are doing is cleaning one side of the pool, in the end at least.

    Companies will just move overseas to countries that don't regulate carbon emissions.
  7. Swiftstrike

    Swiftstrike Registered Member

    I think you are just being nit picky now.

    Global Warming is generally accepted by the science community a few years back it wasnt.

    To think its an elaborate political hoax I think is very naive and ignorant.

    You don't win a Nobel Peace prize for fabrication.
  8. Bjarki

    Bjarki Registered Member

    I think it's bogus. The climate is having some rough times, but not due to human interference. These changes are not unique in history, it's happened before.. and it's not something we can easily 'stabilize' to suit our needs. It's pretty much beyond our grasp, and that's the scary part.

    The global warming-thingy keeps on thriving though, due to the whole industry that profits from it. The politicians for being green (or cooperative in Obama's case), the companies for supplying 'green' power, 'green' cars, etc., the scientists use it for funds, the environmental clubs for subsidies, and the list goes on and on.
    The other day even some evangelists came by my door trying to scare the shit out of me, saying God would not let the earth go to ruin and stuff like that.. :blah:

    People just need something to be afraid of. Whether it's terrorists, comets, 2012, world war 3, global warming, aliens, etc.:spin:

    According to studies one out of three British people suffer from paranoia.
    Is it worth it?

    I say nay. :no:
    Last edited: Nov 30, 2008
  9. PretzelCorps

    PretzelCorps Registered Member

    It doesn't matter at all that he paid for anything --> Were his concerns truly for the environment, he'd find a better way to travel (at the VERY LEAST, plane-pool)

    The fact that he paid for Carbon-Whatevers just implies a system where the rich are free to pollute as much as they like, and the poor must once again suffer in the dust behind them.

    "Global Warming" and "Climate Change" ARE a hoax. Technically.

    Since there is absolutely no clear evidence that one or the other is actually happening (for Christ's sake, they can't predict the bloody weather TOMORROW, let alone what's going to happen in a hundred years!!), the attitude that is being taken toward this issue is very improper.

    Before we can identify ANY problem, we need to actually figure out how our actions are affecting the environment (you can find research data that goes in, quite literally, every direction possible)

    At the very least, it should be called "environmental responsibility", or something.

    So "Global Warming" is going to kill us all.... Thus, the government (Canada) wants to introduce a carbon-tax in response, such that you pay taxes every time you drive your car, or light a fire, or blah blah blah.

    But where are the alternate-fuel cars?? Where are these other environmentally-friendly "options" we're supposed to take?? Electric cars are simpler machines than gasoline cars..... And they don't exist!!! (Seriously, try to find one today [they were all over the place in 1910])

    This whole damned thing is all about money and power, now that Communism is out of the way.
    Last edited: Nov 30, 2008
  10. ExpectantlyIronic

    ExpectantlyIronic e̳̳̺͕ͬ̓̑̂ͮͦͣ͒͒h̙ͦ̔͂?̅̂ ̾͗̑

    The money he spends on carbon offsets reduces a proportional amount of carbon emissions by e.g. having methane combusted or contained. We can imagine that by promoting his cause (and flying around the world is part and parcel to that) reduces carbon emissions even more through education. If you think Gore preaches aestheticism and an end to modern convenience, you misunderstand.

    That depends on their situation. The cost of the move could offset the benefit in many if not most cases.

    The empirical evidence suggests otherwise. Experiments have shown carbon's heat-trapping effects, and studies have been done to determine if the amount put into the atmosphere by humans should have an appreciable effect. Other studies have been done to find whether natural causes can account for global warming. Yet more studies have been done to find if there is a correlation between atmospheric carbon levels and global heating/cooling periods. The theory that global warming is caused by people is absolutely not just the gibbering of panicked masses.

    Not at all, from a consequentialist perspective.

    Since global warming will devastate poorer peoples, and could perhaps benefit the rich, your line of reasoning makes no sense. Combating global warming is all about helping the poor.

    There is a ton of clear evidence.

    I'd like to see a study published in a reputable journal that shows our actions are doing something that contradicts what proponents of human-caused global warming suggest. A study done in the last decade would be preferable. The simple fact of the matter is, though, that the overwhelming bulk of research points to human-caused global warming.

Share This Page