Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest Tread

an inconvenient truth

Recommended Posts

Guest Tread

If this planet had perfectly consistent temperatures for hundreds of thousands of years, and then suddenly in the last 100 years things started warming up, I might raise an eyebrow,

 

 

wullllll, guess what... go see the movie, and this is exactly what you will see. Some scientists in the north pole or somewhere where it's all ice, found a way to actually track the co2 level and temperature of the atmosphere by analyzing the air caught in ice cut out from the depths of the masses of ice. It explains it all in the movie. And what it showed, and I think it went all the way back to 65000 years go, is that cyclical behavior. Very even, very consistent... until now. All the data shows that we've already exceeded that consistency on this upswing of the cycle, and we aren't even to the top of the upswing. Everyone owes it to everyone else to at least educate yourself alittle bit. Give the film the benefit of the doubt before casting it off as a 'political agenda'. As Faston said...

 

'I don't understand the resistance to learning more about something that affects all of us.'

 

I'm right there with you Faston.

 

The bottom line is, I am not convinced because as far as I can tell, the experts (as a group) are not convinced, despite all the claims of "global warming consensus."

 

that was addressed too... and apparently they are all in agreement that it's real, and it's happening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Sao_Bento

I'm sure I've heard it before, but what political gain is supposed to be in this for it's proponents?

I already know who benefits from dismissing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest scott frizzle

wullllll, guess what... go see the movie, and this is exactly what you will see. Some scientists in the north pole or somewhere where it's all ice, found a way to actually track the co2 level and temperature of the atmosphere by analyzing the air caught in ice cut out from the depths of the masses of ice. It explains it all in the movie. And what it showed, and I think it went all the way back to 65000 years go, is that cyclical behavior. Very even, very consistent... until now. All the data shows that we've already exceeded that consistency on this upswing of the cycle, and we aren't even to the top of the upswing. Everyone owes it to everyone else to at least educate yourself alittle bit. Give the film the benefit of the doubt before casting it off as a 'political agenda'. As Faston said...

 

'I don't understand the resistance to learning more about something that affects all of us.'

 

I'm right there with you Faston.

that was addressed too... and apparently they are all in agreement that it's real, and it's happening.

 

Ok, like I said, I haven't seen the movie, so I don't want to go down the rabbit hole of debating its particular merits as a film. I assume that it makes a fabulous case that humans are having a significant negative impact on the climate. I have also read numerous papers and articles, including some direct rebuttals of this film, that do not come to the same conclusion. Why should this movie be valued any more or less than those accounts?

 

Resistance to learning more? It sounds to me like you guys are way more resistent to alternative views on this subject than I am.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest carniceria

I assume that it makes a fabulous case that humans are having a significant negative impact on the climate. I have also read numerous papers and articles, including some direct rebuttals of this film, that do not come to the same conclusion. Why should this movie be valued any more or less than those accounts?

 

Do you have any links to something online? I'm interested actually. I haven't yet heard any intelligent rebuttals of the film.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest jaan

Ok, like I said, I haven't seen the movie, so I don't want to go down the rabbit hole of debating its particular merits as a film. I assume that it makes a fabulous case that humans are having a significant negative impact on the climate. I have also read numerous papers and articles, including some direct rebuttals of this film, that do not come to the same conclusion. Why should this movie be valued any more or less than those accounts?

 

Resistance to learning more? It sounds to me like you guys are way more resistent to alternative views on this subject than I am.

 

if you look at the whole issue from a purely logical standpoint (not even scientifically), then i think we can agree that the petroleum industry, without question the most powerful economic force in the world, has much to lose by governmental and personal action taken to respond to global warming. and they obviously are to gain more by a complete lack of response. logically, it is highly likely that the petroleum industry would invest considerable resources into preventing such governmental and personal responses. these investments would undoubtedly be organized and well-funded, thus likely to be effective. this would result in successful repression of global warming education.

 

any economic forces that stand to gain from governmental and personal response to global warming would be dwarfed by that of the petroleum industry, thus meaning any pro-change forces would be less organized and less funded than its anti-change counterpart.

 

when you take these factors into consideration, while also noting that there is substantial momentum on the pro-change side despite the inequity in resources and economic imperative, it shows that it is likely that the pro-change perspective is accurate, since it is unlikely that such momentum could ever exist if it were not actually right.

 

when you couple that with all the scientific data, it looks pretty damn obvious. but who cares, we in the richest countries will still get through any water-level related global changes... it'll take at least a few generations for things to substantially fall apart.

 

also, following along the lines of logic, the only reason we are seeing any real momentum in the global warming issue is because the petroleum industry knows that they are kinda out of cards (thus somewhat allowing the momentum to occur) and there is evidence of internal struggles within the big oil corporations... because peak oil is very real, and they know it. there's also the fact that automakers are moving away from petroleum fuels (they know what's up and are not going to be left in the cold), and the fact that the US invaded the world's second largest oil reserve primarily to secure a few decades' worth of petroleum supply in order to secure our economic strength (an oil shortage would screw the US more than any other country, by far). not mention that bush is even starting to push alternative energy initiatives... they know that the age of oil is ending and thus the incentive to oppose global warming education is gradually diminishing.

Edited by jaan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest superegophobia

if you look at the whole issue from a purely logical standpoint (not even scientifically), then i think we can agree that the petroleum industry, without question the most powerful economic force in the world, has much to lose by governmental and personal action taken to respond to global warming. and they obviously are to gain more by a complete lack of response. logically, it is highly likely that the petroleum industry would invest considerable resources into preventing such governmental and personal responses. these investments would undoubtedly be organized and well-funded, thus likely to be effective. this would result in successful repression of global warming education.

http://www.apple.com/trailers/sony/whokill...riccar/trailer/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Sao_Bento

if you look at the whole issue from a purely logical standpoint (not even scientifically), then i think we can agree that the petroleum industry, without question the most powerful economic force in the world, has much to lose by governmental and personal action taken to respond to global warming. and they obviously are to gain more by a complete lack of response. logically, it is highly likely that the petroleum industry would invest considerable resources into preventing such governmental and personal responses. these investments would undoubtedly be organized and well-funded, thus likely to be effective. this would result in successful repression of global warming education.

 

any economic forces that stand to gain from governmental and personal response to global warming would be dwarfed by that of the petroleum industry, thus meaning any pro-change forces would be less organized and less funded than its anti-change counterpart.

 

when you take these factors into consideration, while also noting that there is substantial momentum on the pro-change side despite the inequity in resources and economic imperative, it shows that it is likely that the pro-change perspective is accurate, since it is unlikely that such momentum could ever exist if it were not actually right.

 

when you couple that with all the scientific data, it looks pretty damn obvious. but who cares, we in the richest countries will still get through any water-level related global changes... it'll take at least a few generations for things to substantially fall apart.

 

also, following along the lines of logic, the only reason we are seeing any real momentum in the global warming issue is because the petroleum industry knows that they are kinda out of cards (thus somewhat allowing the momentum to occur) and there is evidence of internal struggles within the big oil corporations... because peak oil is very real, and they know it. there's also the fact that automakers are moving away from petroleum fuels (they know what's up and are not going to be left in the cold), and the fact that the US invaded the world's second largest oil reserve primarily to secure a few decades' worth of petroleum supply in order to secure our economic strength (an oil shortage would screw the US more than any other country, by far). not mention that bush is even starting to push alternative energy initiatives... they know that the age of oil is ending and thus the incentive to oppose global warming education is gradually diminishing.

Once again, Jaan types what the rest of us are getting at but are too lazy to type.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest parallax

A few things:

 

Fred is gay. Don't trust anyone working on a glow-in-the-dark keyboard :H

 

he best scientists in the world can't tell me what the weather will be in my town in two weeks. I'm supposed to believe in some climate model that is predicting global temperature changes 50 years out? Please.

 

This is the poorest argument i've seen to date. Try again scott. It's about trends, not about day-to-day localized weath patterns. General consensus based on 60 years of research, including boatloads of drilled icecores show a grim picture, the burden of proof does lie with the 'treehuggers', but they provide a massive amount of data to work with. The opposition so far has nothing other then "i don't believe you"

You are led to believe that the scientific community is divided into 2 camps in the global warming case, wich is very much NOT the case. There is a very small but loudmouthed camp of people that opposes global warming because they have problems properly interpreting facts (data). In the US specifically, even the government secretly believes global warming is a catastrophy waiting to happen. Not to mention ie. Lord Oxburgh Chairman of Shell, and other people who have absolutely no political gain.

Politics is the problem of this debate. You should leave politics out of it, and only gather as much data as you can, only then can you try and form an opinion on the issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest scott frizzle

A few things:

 

I don't see this as a two camp issue in the sense that one side believes something is happening and the other does not. It seems virtually everyone believes something is happening; the argument lies in just how much humans are causing the changes versus all the other potential factors.

 

I also am not of the mind that we are having no effect on our climate. From a scientific standpoint this is a silly position. Just by existing each and every one of us exhales carbon dioxide, so to imply that humans have no effect on the climate of the earth is bogus.

 

My position is simply that I am not convinced that the current 1 degree temperature rise over the last 100 year period A) represents a looming catastrophe and B) Has been caused mostly by human beings. I am not close minded on the issue, and I'm open to any additional information (including Gore's film) on this topic that I've followed pretty closely for many years.

 

My analogy about the inaccuracy of weather prediction was meant to point out the inherent unpredictability in certain realms of science. This is not to say that I do not respect climatologists or think we should not listen to them, but I do not believe that the field has advanced to the point of being able to accurately predict climate patterns 50 to 100 years out. As I mentioned, there was a large and respected group of climatologists in the 70's that were certain that we were causing an ice age, and they got it wrong. At the time, people, who doubted their data were being treated exactly as I am in this discussion. ;)

 

Anyway, I'm just saying that there IS some disagreement on this subject from the experts, and that all views need to be taken into consideration. I think that we can all agree that this is too important to base our actions on partial or faulty information.

 

Unfortunately I don't keep a database of the articles I've read, so much of what I've refered to is coming out of my head. But, I realize it doesn't amount to shit unless I can provide a reference, so I've searched out a few random articles that touch on some of the points I've made. Again, none of these articles seem to be saying that global warming isn't happening or that we're having no effect on the climate, they are simply (to varying degrees) questioning the conventional wisdom that we are causing the majority of the climate change, and this it represents a major threat to humanity. Before you respond with a deluge of articles to refute the ones below, keep in mind I'm just pointing out that there is a legitimate opposing view here; I am aware of and have read much of the other side of this.

 

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/

 

http://www.americanscientist.org/template/...9261;_f5BEi_EFM

 

http://www.mpg.de/english/illustrationsDoc...elease20041028/

 

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page...T20040915c.html

 

http://ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/20050919.pdf

 

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Library/SORCE/sorce_04.html

 

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadA...le.asp?ID=18526

 

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2...14/161152.shtml

 

http://www.reason.com/0205/fe.rb.green.shtml

 

http://www.reason.com/rb/rb111004.shtml

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Tread

Reading through some of this material that scott posted, I can see where he is coming from. There are just sooooo many factors to consider, it does seem a little daunting, and maybe it's rash to point the finger at CO2 levels.

 

So maybe it's just because the sun is more active. Great. We can't do anything about that.

 

The only thing we can do is decrease the strain we put on the earth by decreasing our emissions. It's not natural. I think the argument that the earth needs CO2 is pretty stupid. Of course it needs it, but does it need all the extra we put into it? No. So why are we doing it. Look at the sky. It's disgusting most everywhere you go. Pollution sucks, and making these changes could change that.

 

Ever stood on top of a mountain and been told that 50 years ago you could see twice the distance you can now? It's depressing.

 

Or seen a patch of fir tree skeletons, dead and dying because acid rain has weakened their natural defenses against insects that feed on them.

 

All you dudes in LA... you like that big dark cloud that looms over your city all the time? That's the one reason I'm not out there and in NY instead. I don't care to see it, or much less breath it.

 

global warming or not, we can all do something to maintain our home. If global warming still occurs, well, at least we know it's supposed to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest parallax

@ Scott

 

I can agree with most of your post. A single degree celsius change does indeed seem little, but it might be significant in science terms.

Much of the data supporting the global warming theory (as being accelerated by humans) is also obtained from the change of the atmosphere, as can be seen in icecores. Very comparable to tree growth lines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest mamurphy

Thanks to Scott and Ted for recognizing that both viewpoints exist and can coexist peacefully.

 

I think their comments and willingness to at least entertain another argument typifies the ambivalence I feel (and I'm sure many others) about the scientific data and subsequent dogma/demagoguery from both sides of this hot-button issue.

 

I would like to see the film. It may or may not change my mind. I do go in with a certain level of skepticism, but if the purpose of this discussion and many others like it is to get people to watch then...Well done!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest kinojay33

I've always thought this was the best argument--you can always find facts & fear tactics to back up arguments for or against the existence of global warming, but you can't argue against what people see with their own eyes and smell with their own noses. Whenever I go to a large city, I'm always amazed by how disgusting the air looks & smells & by how poor my breathing is. Clean oxygen and water are two very necessary things for human beings--economic interests should never take priority over human life essentials; it's a no-brainer.

 

As Tread said, if there's any iota of possibility that we are doing irrevocable harm to our environment & ourselves by the practices of industry, that's enough evidence for me to support efforts to stop it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Tread

yes, and this is where people stop arguing, because there is nothing to argue about. I predict this thread begins to die at this point.

 

everyone knows they need step out of their apathy and start changing things. Everyone has to contribute in order to start a change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest pixelmonk

yes, and this is where people stop arguing, because there is nothing to argue about. I predict this thread begins to die at this point.

 

everyone knows they need step out of their apathy and start changing things. Everyone has to contribute in order to start a change.

 

 

can I pee in your bushes. They need the nutrients.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest fredcamino

Reading through some of this material that scott posted, I can see where he is coming from. There are just sooooo many factors to consider, it does seem a little daunting, and maybe it's rash to point the finger at CO2 levels.

 

aha! so maybe it is alarmism that mr. gore is presenting for political gain. what better way to gain support than to claim you're saving the world for inevitable and immenent destruction. mr bush is trying the same depserate thing in trying to save the large christian contigency from the scourge of the end times - gays.

 

So maybe it's just because the sun is more active. Great. We can't do anything about that.

 

The only thing we can do is decrease the strain we put on the earth by decreasing our emissions. It's not natural. I think the argument that the earth needs CO2 is pretty stupid. Of course it needs it, but does it need all the extra we put into it? No. So why are we doing it. Look at the sky. It's disgusting most everywhere you go. Pollution sucks, and making these changes could change that.

 

very little related to the the success of human society is natural. civillization represents the human defeat of an oppressive natural world. does the earth need the extra CO2 we put in it? no. but does humanity? of course. like it or not, the burning of fuels has lead to a time when more humans on earth are living more comfortable lives than ever before. before, EVERYONE used to be poor. like... they had no electricity. they couldn't even get wireless service at the coffee shop. they had to walk to san francisco from new york if they wanted to visit to look for a new job. i'm not saying that we should be content with the current waste produced by our fuel burning, but technology will inevitably lead us towards cleaner burning fuels/energy source simply because they are less wasteful and more effecient... perhaps not now, but as oil reserves run out and as technology continues to grow exponentially. and i do think there should be policy in place to help governments and corporations make energy more effeciently, but NOT alarmist reactionary policies with a poor cost-benefit ratio that is not thought through and becomes a boondoggle with little effect on the environment and negative effects on economies.

 

 

Ever stood on top of a mountain and been told that 50 years ago you could see twice the distance you can now? It's depressing.

 

Or seen a patch of fir tree skeletons, dead and dying because acid rain has weakened their natural defenses against insects that feed on them.

 

no captain planet, but you have, and what are you doing about it? and what is al gore doing about it? according the "carbon footprint calculator" (http://www.fightglobalwarming.com/carboncalculator.cfm) i release 1.3 tons of carbon just by living. but when i fly home to flowing, just a single flight ups my carbon emission by 2.6 tons. so one flight is double my total carbon emission from just living (without a car and in a dense apartment building) in LA. as i recall you just took a nice long flight from NY to SF and back, probably not too good for those acid soaked trees. plus, mr. gore has made a world airplane tour promoting his film... seems a bit hypocritical doesn't it? perhaps he thinks his film will be so powerful the number of people who stop flying all together will offset all his plane flights (which im sure were in private jets, which to me seem like the equivelant of an SUV being driven by a single perosn). oh yeah, take note that my emission would go up to 1.6 if i lived in New York because...

 

All you dudes in LA... you like that big dark cloud that looms over your city all the time? That's the one reason I'm not out there and in NY instead. I don't care to see it, or much less breath it.

 

New York has Dirty ASs Air!!

 

Yes indeed it turns out your choice to live in such a clean city like New York may have been a mistake young Tread. If New York happened to be situated in a hot dry valley, where rain didn't often pour away and wind didn't blow away the visibile pollution, you'd probably "see" a lot of shitty air, just like in LA.

 

in the end, i'd like to say that i do support a cleaner more effecient way of life. but i don't appreciate propaganda veiled as TRUTH, i don't appreciate being implied that I am immoral for not doing one thing or another, and i don't like that smug look on al gores fucking face. it's eye pollution. tell me, if this movie is so important, why wasn't it released for free on the internet, where everyone could download it, share it, discuss it in the largest public forum we have. why do we have to drive our cars to movie theaters (which never seemed like the most energy effecient places... power lights, projectors, sound systems, a/c, etc) and give al gore our money for something so morally importanat. it should be public domain, right? it's like charging for church!

 

<3,

 

fred camino (lives in LA, without a car, in an dense apartment complex, splits a 1br apartment, takes public tranist, rides a bike, hates the idea of "an inconvenienet truth", LA people check out my new blog: MetroRiderLA)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Tread

does the earth need the extra CO2 we put in it? no. but does humanity? of course.

 

no they don't. co2 is a by product of our wasteful energy sources. You are implying that we need it because we need those energy sources. All I'm saying is we need a big push towards renewable energy so we can offset the amount of pollution, whether it really is causing global warming or not. What's so wrong with wanting that? I don't really understand why you have to take personal shots at me for wanting a better earth.

 

You are so caught up in everything that is happening now, all the ways we contribute to global warming now, but that's not the point. Yeah, I just flew across country and helped release tons of co2 in the air, but that's not the point. That CAN change. We have technology that can make it different. The point isn't for us to just stop what we are doing all together. I know that's impossible of course, you think I'm an idiot? The changes won't be made unless a voice is made. It's great you do what you do by not driving and la la la. But couldn't we all do more? I'm gonna try. I'm not sure how right now, but Im gonna look into it.

 

I don't think it's fair to judge Al Gore the way you do. Yeah, I can see your point that the money involved may not be right, but think about how receptive people are to certain things. If there was a 1.5 hour film on the internet, how likely would it be that it would get the impact that we are seeing with it now? Alot of internet is crap because it is public domain, so alot of it is just passed off and not payed attention to. Taking it to a setting such as a movie theater is much more impactful. It just makes it a bigger deal, and that's what is needed! Maybe they could have done a discounted admission or something, I dunno, there is room to argue. But the money made off the film isn't all going into pockets. Alot of it is being used for relevant causes. So I think it's unfair to judge the personal agendas so quickly. I'm sure alot of factors played into the 'business' of making this movement work, so I don't think it's fair to say what you are saying, and I'm not saying you are wrong, OK?

 

And as far as Al taking all those flights, yeah I saw that cute little commercial thing about it. In reality he wasn't promoting his film, he was just delivering his message to audiences about what is going on. Maybe recently he did do alot of flying to promote his film, but he had to... how else could he get it to impact anyone? I'm sure the hope was that the trade off would be worth the sacrifice. I doubt they were hoping for a trade off of getting tons of people to stop flying... again, that's not the point(and that's a really stupid assumption to make, to think that they want that). You know what the point is, so stop making rash assumptions based on something you can't totally say is true. You haven't seen the film, and I think there is alot in there that addresses alot of your concerns of what the solution really is, and how hopeful it really could be.

 

What am I doing about it? I started this thread. I'm asking people to at least think about it. Research it. See what they can do. Alot of people read this. Maybe it will make a difference, that's all I can do, just talk about it.

 

I never intended to insult you. I never said you were the cause, Fred. So why you trying to make me out as a bad guy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest fredcamino

i'm not trying to make you out as a bad guy. you are a good guy. i do like calling you captain planet though. because it's funny.

 

CaptainPlanet.jpg

Edited by fredcamino

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Tread

I'm not as ripped as him though... and I don't have green hair.

 

I do have the outfit... in pajama form.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest jaan

A few things:

 

I don't see this as a two camp issue in the sense that...

 

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/

 

dude, after i took a look at that first link, you immediately discredited yourself. it actually has a part saying we should be thankful for the "greenhouse" effect, otherwise, our planet would have no life. an excerpt...

 

"Forgetting about the unfortunate-but-commonly-used terminology for a moment, is the so-called 'greenhouse effect' bad?

 

Only if you think undesirable a habitable planet with relatively stable temperature. Our moon, lacking greenhouse effect, makes a kind of comparison even though lack of atmosphere makes it uninhabitable regardless of temperature. The moon's mean surface temperature by day is 107 °C (225 °F) and by night drops to -153 °C (-243 °F). The Lunar temperature increases about 260 °C from just before dawn to Lunar noon. So, if you fancy such a temperature range then a greenhouse effect-free world is for you, otherwise you might want to be pleased we have it here on Earth."

---

uh.... wow, that changes everything. how dare i be so ungrateful towards those precious CO2 molecules that have given us all LIFE!

 

and if you look at the base url, it becomes quite apparent that it has a political bias... http://www.junkscience.com. the owner of that site is steven milloy, an infamous "scientist for hire". i had even already heard of him before and saw his name when i WHOISed the url. according to him, global warming and secondhand smoke are totally kool and the gang. but i'm sure those checks from the oil and tobacco industries help with all his "research". here's some nice info on him... http://www.prwatch.org/node/4405.

 

maybe those other links are more reputable, but after that first one, you hit it out of the park. maybe i'll check the other links out later when i get a chance. i don't mean to come across as disrespectful or antagonizey, but i had to call you out on it.

 

not as a poke to scott (seriously, not at all), everyone should check out these two oil-industry funded ads. they are seriously unintentional comic genius...

http://interface.audiovideoweb.com/lnk/avw...gh.mov/play.qtl

http://interface.audiovideoweb.com/lnk/avw...gh.mov/play.qtl

 

my favorite is the rewind melting glacier and the doofus riding his bike in the snow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest scott frizzle

dude, after i took a look at that first link, you immediately discredited yourself. it actually has a part saying we should be thankful for the "greenhouse" effect, otherwise, our planet would have no life. an excerpt...

 

"Forgetting about the unfortunate-but-commonly-used terminology for a moment, is the so-called 'greenhouse effect' bad?

 

Only if you think undesirable a habitable planet with relatively stable temperature. Our moon, lacking greenhouse effect, makes a kind of comparison even though lack of atmosphere makes it uninhabitable regardless of temperature. The moon's mean surface temperature by day is 107 °C (225 °F) and by night drops to -153 °C (-243 °F). The Lunar temperature increases about 260 °C from just before dawn to Lunar noon. So, if you fancy such a temperature range then a greenhouse effect-free world is for you, otherwise you might want to be pleased we have it here on Earth."

---

uh.... wow, that changes everything. how dare i be so ungrateful towards those precious CO2 molecules that have given us all LIFE!

 

and if you look at the base url, it becomes quite apparent that it has a political bias... http://www.junkscience.com. the owner of that site is steven milloy, an infamous "scientist for hire". i had even already heard of him before and saw his name when i WHOISed the url. according to him, global warming and secondhand smoke are totally kool and the gang. but i'm sure those checks from the oil and tobacco industries help with all his "research". here's some nice info on him... http://www.prwatch.org/node/4405.

 

maybe those other links are more reputable, but after that first one, you hit it out of the park. maybe i'll check the other links out later when i get a chance. i don't mean to come across as disrespectful or antagonizey, but i had to call you out on it.

 

not as a poke to scott (seriously, not at all), everyone should check out these two oil-industry funded ads. they are seriously unintentional comic genius...

http://interface.audiovideoweb.com/lnk/avw...gh.mov/play.qtl

http://interface.audiovideoweb.com/lnk/avw...gh.mov/play.qtl

 

my favorite is the rewind melting glacier and the doofus riding his bike in the snow.

 

Jaan, so you don't think Milloy is a reputable source. Fair enough. It should be really easy for you then to disprove his points using your own reputable sources. You try to discredit him by linkng to the Center for Media and Democracy. Do you honestly not detect a political slant on that site?

 

We can argue all day about the relative quality and bias inherent in our sources, but let's just say that I don't consider Al Gore to be a bias free source either, if there is such a thing.

 

Once again, I stick by my point that there is legitimate skepticism from legitimate professionals regarding the global warming conventional wisdom. Not everyone questioning this stuff is in the pocket of "big oil." I personally stopped taking their calls 2 weeks ago.

 

Check out some of those other links if you have the time; there's good stuff in there from NASA and Scientific American, among others.

 

My clients are going to be very disappointed in my productivity today...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...