<p>I'm not really sure where to post this, but it needs to be posted everywhere and shared with everyone you know. If you haven't seen Al Gore's movie, 'An Inconvenient Truth,' bike or walk to a theatre and see it right now. It's well done and it's horrifying, but more than anything, it's beyond important and time sensitive. Some of the charts he shows of recorded data of the linear correlation between carbon emissions, temperature and the ice ages that have occured over the past 650,000 years are staggering. It's easy to understand coming out of the movie that atmospheric catastrophes that would kill literally tens of millions of people are almost certain within the next 50-60 years if drastic measures aren't taken to reduce carbon emissions greatly.
I just saw it with some friends and we all felt a little numb leaving the theatre. No one really knew what to say. We're all riding bikes and walking anywhere we can. I'm actually shutting down my computer tonight. I don't really know what to say, other than that this is so, so important, and it says very bad things about our culture, our education system, our media and our values that this isn't at the forefront of everyone's conciousness.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.crisisclimate.net%5B/url%5D">www.crisisclimate.net</a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/%5B/url%5D">http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/</a> - THE REAL Inconvenient Truth.</p>
<p>I'll be leaving my computer on overnight. And I'll be sure to drive my SUV the long way to work tomorrow.</p>
<p>i never turn off my computer. it only costs like $2/mo to leave it on all the time. i have been looking at getting another car though. maybe when the hybrids aren't as small and dumb looking.</p>
<p>Did you google 'dellusional, dangerous bullsh-t" to come up with that website, Chris? Cigarette companies also produced media after the 1964 surgeon general's warning on smoking came out saying things like "Doctors choose to smoke Camels!" This is far more insidious because unlike smoking, it doesn't affect just you.<br>
And yes, a website called junkscience.com certainly has more scientific validity than thousands of the worlds leading scientists. If bird flu were scientifically proven to be mutating unstopably and coming to America within six months and someone told you you better get yourself to a doctor to get a vaccine (if such a vaccine existed) would you? Or would you go chill with poultry all day and try to provoke them to bite you? It's exactly like that, only with a longer time frame.</p>
<p>
[quote]
<a href="http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/%5B/url%5D">http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/</a> - THE REAL Inconvenient Truth.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>im sorry, that doesn't cut it with me.</p>
<p>i have already researched the topic extensively myself. my position will not be changed.</p>
<p>in addition, the only really credible site you present is the national geographic, whose article doesn't even support your argument. </p>
<p>your other sites present fatally flawed arguments, not to mention that most of them are run by interest groups. i would suggest looking into more netural, scientific sites such as scientific american.</p>
<p>Considering there is no definitive proof either way, it's foolish to have an unchangable opinion on the matter.</p>
<p>my position will not be changed by a bunch of sites run by interest groups who attempt to dispel scientific fact.</p>
<p>oh, and there IS definitive proof. you simply choose not to see it.</p>
<p>
[quote]
oh, and there IS definitive proof. you simply choose not to see it.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>*<strong><em>, dude... If you have definitive proof of global warming, what the *</em></strong> are you doing toiling on a forum? You should be working on your Nobel prize acceptance speech.</p>
<p>OK, Chris. You cited junkscience.com, a National Georgraphic article that says the majority of the movie is correct and compelling, a MANUFACTURING COMPANY (which is exactly like a cigarette company saying cigarettes aren't dangerous...) a Republican blog (global warming, for the record, is science and is only politics to the detriment of our children and our grandchildren) an article not about the scientific validity of the film but about Al Gore personally and a technology company's website with a banner across the top touting unfettered free markets.<br>
Please, try citing those sources on any serious paper or dissertation. You did not present the other side of the story, all you presented was ignorant, pedestrian, non academic garbage. Oh, wait...</p>
<p>chris, tell me your address and i will send you ten bucks in the mail to see this movie. i'm completely serious. you have to prove to me that you've seen it afterwards, but i will pay for your ticket. and yes, typically one would look at scientific journals for scientific evidence...</p>
<p>You're right... In less than 100 years, we've single handedly altered the Earth's climate. It makes no sense that the Earth goes through phases. Oh no!!! THE SNOWS ON MOUNT KILAMANJARO ARE MELTING!!! IGNORE THAT THEY'VE BEEN MELTING FOR HUNDREDS AND HUNDREDS OF YEARS!!!</p>
<p>Shag - All I'm saying is that it's stupid to be so adamently on one side or the other.</p>
<p>I've actually seen the movie. Gore makes some good points, but, to me, it felt like sensationalism.</p>
<p>I personally think that "global warming" is neither a phase of Earth nor our own doing. I think it's a combination. I think it's a phase slightly fueled by us.</p>
<p>Even if "global warming" is entirely a geo-climatogical phase, we should probably cut back on fossil fuel-burning.</p>
<p>"All I'm saying is that it's stupid to be so adamently on one side or another." </p>
<p>on moral issues, sometimes it is stupid. in scientific issues, it is not. science is not a "side" it's based on facts. and since there is a direct linear relationship between carbon emisssions, temperature and melting ice caps... how could we not have singlehandedly altered the earth's climate in the past hundred years?</p>
<p>well, ok, i just read your post 15, which i didn't see before i made mine. i wish you'd posted that instead of what you first posted. for someone who does believe credible science, it was a pretty jarring movie to watch and to have not only apathy but actually detrimental promises thrown at you right after posting about it is downright scary.</p>
<p>
[quote]
*<strong><em>, dude... If you have definitive proof of global warming, what the *</em></strong> are you doing toiling on a forum? You should be working on your Nobel prize acceptance speech.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>lol. wow.</p>
<p>
[quote]
on moral issues, sometimes it is stupid. in scientific issues, it is not. science is not a "side" it's based on facts. and since there is a direct linear relationship between carbon emisssions, temperature and melting ice caps... how could we not have singlehandedly altered the earth's climate in the past hundred years?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>There's also a direct linear relationship between the number of pirates in the world's seas and temperature, and melting ice caps.</p>
<p>Who do you think funds these kinds of movies and studies?</p>
<p>are you a chemist? why would you refute the relationship?<br>
who funded the movie is irrelivent, although i would imagine paramount did. who funded the studies is important, although i'm not sure what you could be getting at. if you're even trying to suggest that the alternate fuel source industry or the liberal independent film industry funds those kinds of studies, I'm going to have to disagree again.
Since my mother is a scientist, I'll take a guess and say most of the funding for the studies probably came from where her funds come from--grants from the government and funds from the university.
it's sort of hard to argue science with someone who doesn't believe in science, and i'm going to bed anyway...</p>