Topic: An inconvenient truth.

[Pugnate]

Just saw this documentary and thought it was excellent. It was scary as well. All those who debunk global warming, should at least watch it. All those who say his documentary is full of shit and haven't seen it yet, should probably see it first.

[Quemaqua]

Don't even get me started.

[Pugnate]

Gore's basic claim—that global warming is real and largely human-caused—is supported by current research.

Gore presents specific data that supports the film's thesis, including:

    * The retreat of numerous glaciers is shown in before-and-after photographs (see Retreat of glaciers since 1850).
    * A study by researchers at the Physics Institute at the University of Bern and the European Project for Ice Coring in Antarctic presenting data from Antarctic ice cores showing carbon dioxide concentrations higher than at any time during the past 650,000 years.[8]
    * A 2004 survey by Dr. Naomi Oreskes of 928 peer-reviewed scientific articles on global climate change published between 1993 and 2003. The survey, published as an editorial in the journal Science, claimed that every article either supported the human-caused global warming consensus or did not comment on it.[9]

The Associated Press contacted more than 100 top climate researchers and questioned them about the film's veracity. Because this was at the time before the film's general release many of those surveyed had neither seen the movie nor read the book, but all 19 climate scientists who had done so said that Gore conveyed the science correctly.[10] The U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, chaired by Sen. Jim Inhofe, a global warming skeptic, issued a press release criticizing this article.[11] Inhofe's statement that "global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people" appears in the film.

RealClimate, a group blog maintained by eleven climate scientists, lauded the film's science as "remarkably up to date, with reference to some of the very latest research."[12]

Michael Shermer, science historian and founder of The Skeptics Society, wrote in Scientific American that An Inconvenient Truth "shocked me out of my doubting stance".[13]

However, in a June 26, 2006 editorial in the Wall Street Journal, climatologist and global warming skeptic Richard Lindzen criticized the movie and questioned its claims.[14] A response to Lindzen's piece disputes the basis for his claims as allegedly not supported by currently available data.[15]

Gore discusses the possibility of a sudden rise in sea level of 6 meters (20 ft) if a major polar ice sheet collapsed. This should not be confused with the more certain, gradual and moderate rise due to non-catastrophic ice melting and the thermal expansion of water. The IPCC's Third Assessment Summary estimates the latter as between 0.1 to 0.85 meters (0.3 to 2.8 feet) by the year 2100, but notes that "this range does not allow for uncertainty relating to ice dynamical changes in the West Antarctic ice sheet."[16] The Antarctic as a whole contains enough ice to raise sea level by an estimated 60 m (200 ft) if it were to melt entirely[17] and the collapse of the grounded interior reservoir of the West Antarctic ice sheet alone would raise sea level by 5-6 m (16-20 ft).[18]

Source:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Inconvenient_Truth

But I am sure you will find some obscure source trying to debunk everything.

[Quemaqua]

No, there's a large and growing number of scientists fully convinced that there are warming trends currently happening because of the fact that the earth goes through warming cycles, and there's plenty of evidence to suggest it.  Try doing some research instead of just watching a movie produced by an idiot with nothing but political agendas on his mind.  Just because the majority believes something doesn't make it true.  Most scientific upsets in history came when the majority believed one thing and someone showed that belief to be without merit.  Does that mean I'm 100% convinced on the issue?  No.  Does it mean that I don't think people are contributing to the destruction of the environment?  No.  It means I don't think there's enough evidence to come to these kinds of conclusions with the degree of certainty a lot of people have.  This isn't fact.  None of the other stuff I've been reading has been sufficiently refuted.  Or at all refuted, in some cases.  I am quite sure that people are harming the environment and contributing to bad stuff, but at this point I see more evidence pointing at global warming cycles that have repeated throughout history.

[ender]

I enjoyed it also. Al definitely is a good speaker and I enjoyed how he made his lecture entertaining.

[angrykeebler]

My thoughts on global warming are that if its real then we are fucked anyways because we aren't going to do anything about it and if its not real then they will watch this movie like a  hundred years from now and laugh.

[ender]

Long live American Apathy.   

[angrykeebler]

i would say something in response



but i dont care

[Ghandi]

The fact is, no matter what your stance on global warming, nothing significant is going to be done about it for years to come. The fact that the number one country in emissions (China) is backed the the sole superpower in the world (U.S.A) means that we are fucked until both the U.S. and China do something about it. Keeb wasn't expressing "American Apathy", its the reality of the situation. The "American Apathy" lies in voting a stubborn president rather than one who is conscious of the concerns of the citizens around the globe.

[idolminds]

Well thats....inconvenient.

[Pugnate]

No, there's a large and growing number of scientists fully convinced that there are warming trends currently happening because of the fact that the earth goes through warming cycles, and there's plenty of evidence to suggest it.  Try doing some research instead of just watching a movie produced by an idiot with nothing but political agendas on his mind.  Just because the majority believes something doesn't make it true.  Most scientific upsets in history came when the majority believed one thing and someone showed that belief to be without merit.  Does that mean I'm 100% convinced on the issue?  No.  Does it mean that I don't think people are contributing to the destruction of the environment?  No.  It means I don't think there's enough evidence to come to these kinds of conclusions with the degree of certainty a lot of people have.  This isn't fact.  None of the other stuff I've been reading has been sufficiently refuted.  Or at all refuted, in some cases.  I am quite sure that people are harming the environment and contributing to bad stuff, but at this point I see more evidence pointing at global warming cycles that have repeated throughout history.

Actually I've always read on the subject when I've had the chance. I try to educate myself on issues every day instead of sitting at home and bitching. Stop making assumptions and judgments. But I am never surprised by your bullshit. You always set a rigid belief for yourself without any facts and then back it up with any obscure piece of research. Nothing anyone will say convince you otherwise once you've decided on something. I don't have a problem with that, its your life and who am I to say anything. I don't even have a problem with your opinions, and why should I? What I have a problem with is your arrogance and comments such as "go do your research."

I still remember your laughable view on the WMDs in Iraq. Aren't you still convinced that WMDs in Iraq were found on the basis of some small unknown article or another? Once other posters posted articles pointing in another direction you just quit the discussion.

Most scientific upsets in history came when the majority believed one thing and someone showed that belief to be without merit.  Does that mean I'm 100% convinced on the issue?

I think that's a brilliant way of thinking. So let's take all the theories we take for granted and throw them out of the window because some 'guy' will show us the other way.

No, there's a large and growing number of scientists fully convinced that there are warming trends currently happening because of the fact that the earth goes through warming cycles

What large and growing number? Please heed your own advise and do some research with an open mind. If evidence points in another direction then think about changing your opinion.

You won't even read the other side of the argument, and stop arguing against a documentary you haven't watched.

but at this point I see more evidence pointing at global warming cycles that have repeated throughout history

These aren't normal cycles.


Here are your scientists.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6321351.stm

http://www.starnewsonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070202/NEWS/702020337/1042/weather

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26065-2004Dec25.html

Undeniable Global Warming

By Naomi Oreskes
Sunday, December 26, 2004; Page B07

Many people have the impression that there is significant scientific disagreement about global climate change. It's time to lay that misapprehension to rest. There is a scientific consensus on the fact that Earth's climate is heating up and human activities are part of the reason. We need to stop repeating nonsense about the uncertainty of global warming and start talking seriously about the right approach to address it.

The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Program, the IPCC is charged with evaluating the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action. In its most recent assessment, the IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities . . . are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents . . . that absorb or scatter radiant energy. . . . [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations."
 
The IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. A National Academy of Sciences report begins unequivocally: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise." The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and it answers yes. Others agree. The American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union and the American Association for the Advancement of Science have all issued statements concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling.

Despite recent allegations to the contrary, these statements from the leadership of scientific societies and the IPCC accurately reflect the state of the art in climate science research. The Institute for Scientific Information keeps a database on published scientific articles, which my research assistants and I used to answer that question with respect to global climate change. We read 928 abstracts published in scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 and listed in the database with the keywords "global climate change." Seventy-five percent of the papers either explicitly or implicitly accepted the consensus view. The remaining 25 percent dealt with other facets of the subject, taking no position on whether current climate change is caused by human activity. None of the papers disagreed with the consensus position. There have been arguments to the contrary, but they are not to be found in scientific literature, which is where scientific debates are properly adjudicated. There, the message is clear and unambiguous.

To be sure, a handful of scientists have raised questions about the details of climate models, about the accuracy of methods for evaluating past global temperatures and about the wisdom of even attempting to predict the future. But this is quibbling about the details. The basic picture is clear, and some changes are already occurring. A new report by the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment -- a consortium of eight countries, including Russia and the United States -- now confirms that major changes are taking place in the Arctic, affecting both human and non-human communities, as predicted by climate models. This information was conveyed to the U.S. Senate last month not by a radical environmentalist, as was recently alleged on the Web, but by Robert Corell, a senior fellow of the American Meteorological Society and former assistant director for geosciences at the National Science Foundation.

So why does it seem as if there is major scientific disagreement? Because a few noisy skeptics -- most of whom are not even scientists -- have generated a lot of chatter in the mass media. At the National Press Club recently, Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor Richard Lindzen dismissed the consensus as "religious belief." To be sure, no scientific conclusion can ever be proven, absolutely, but it is no more a "belief" to say that Earth is heating up than it is to say that continents move, that germs cause disease, that DNA carries hereditary information or that quarks are the basic building blocks of subatomic matter. You can always find someone, somewhere, to disagree, but these conclusions represent our best available science, and therefore our best basis for reasoned action.

The chatter of skeptics is distracting us from the real issue: how best to respond to the threats that global warming presents.

[Pugnate]

The fact is, no matter what your stance on global warming, nothing significant is going to be done about it for years to come. The fact that the number one country in emissions (China) is backed the the sole superpower in the world (U.S.A) means that we are fucked until both the U.S. and China do something about it. Keeb wasn't expressing "American Apathy", its the reality of the situation. The "American Apathy" lies in voting a stubborn president rather than one who is conscious of the concerns of the citizens around the globe.

http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s64212.htm

Australians are biggest greenhouse polluters
 Thursday, 4 November 1999
 

 
pic - CSIRO
Australians produce more greenhouse gases per person than any other nation in the world, according to a just released report.

The Australia Institute's report to the Senate Reference Committee on the Environment by the Australia Institute says that each Australian produced 26.7 tonnes of greehouse gases in 1995 - 25 per cent more than the USA and double that of Europeans. This high rate is mainly due to Australia's dependence on coal-fired power, it's excessive land clearing (especially in Queensland) and livestock.

While the USA had higher emissions per capita from energy, and higher overall emissions, Australia had much higher levels of emissions from agriculture and land-use change.

Australia's high greenhouse gas production is likely to be raised at this week's meeting of the signatories to the Kyoto protocol in Bonn. The meeting aims for consensus on a timetable for implementing cuts agreed to in Kyoto in 1997.

The Kyoto conference permitted Australia to increase greenhouse emissions by 8 per cent, one of only three countries allowed to increase emissions. Yet energy emissions alone have increased 11 per cent.

After Australia, the next highest greenhouse gas producers were Luxembourg (24.2 - mainly from a large steel plant), USA (21.2), Canada (20.6), and New Zealand (17.3 - mainly from sheep).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3143798.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3143798.stm

Climate change: The big emitters 
The future of the Kyoto Protocol on climate change is largely in the hands of the world's biggest contributors to greenhouse gas emissions. BBC News Online looks at how much they emit, what are they doing about it and where they stand on Kyoto.





 

US
The US emits more, absolutely and per head, than any other country - although it also produces more wealth. When Kyoto was agreed, the US signed and committed to reducing its emissions by 6%. But since then it has pulled out of the agreement and its carbon dioxide emissions have increased to more than 15% above 1990 levels.

For the agreement to become a legally binding treaty, it had to be ratified by countries which together were responsible for at least 55% of the total 1990 emissions reported by the industrialised countries and emerging economies which made commitments to reduce their emissions under the protocol.

As the US accounted for 36.1% of those emissions, this 55% target was much harder to achieve without its participation.

But 141 countries banded together and the protocol came into force in February 2005.

President George W Bush said in March 2001 that the US would not ratify Kyoto because he thought it would damage the US economy and because it did not yet require developing countries to cut their emissions.

He says he backs improvements in energy efficiency through voluntary emissions reductions - rather than imposed targets - and through the development of cleaner technologies.



Return to top
European Union

All 15 European Union states ratified the Kyoto deal in May 2002. The protocol's most enthusiastic supporter, the EU has pressured countries such as Russia, Japan and Canada to ratify Kyoto so that it could come into force without the commitment of the US.

The EU has continually argued for a rigorous application of Kyoto, wanting to limit the use of so-called "flexibility mechanisms" which allow countries to partially meet their emissions reduction targets by paying for improvements in other countries.

The EU has also opposed widespread use of forests and other carbon "sinks" to absorb pollution - but gave substantial ground on the issue at talks in Bonn in 2001.

However, despite its tough stance on Kyoto, the EU is some way off its own target. It pledged to bring total greenhouse gas emissions to 8% below 1990s levels by 2008-2012, but by 2002 they had dropped only 2.9% - and CO2 emissions had risen slightly. Only four EU countries are on track to achieve their own targets.


Return to top
China

China is the world's second biggest emitter of greenhouse gases, but as a developing country is not yet required to reduce its emissions.

With China accounting for a fifth of the world's population, increases in its emissions could dwarf any cuts made by the industrialised countries.

The average Chinese person consumes only 10-15% of the energy an average US citizen uses, but with the economy developing at high speed many analysts expect China's total emissions to overtake America's by mid-century.

Fossil fuels play a major role - China is the world's biggest coal producer and oil consumption has doubled in the last 20 years. The country faced power cuts in 2004 as soaring growth outstripped electricity generation.

However, although no UN figures are available, analysts say there is evidence to back up Chinese claims of a reduction in emissions during the late 1990s, largely due to increased efficiency and slower economic growth.

China's leaders recognise that climate change could devastate their society and ratified the Kyoto Protocol in 2002. In 2004 Beijing announced plans to generate 10% of its power from renewable sources by 2010.

But it is far from clear whether the country would ever agree to internationally-imposed emissions restrictions.



Return to top
Russia

Russia ratified the Kyoto Protocol in November 2004 - the crucial moment making the treaty legally binding.

Russia's entry was vital, because the protocol had to be ratified by nations accounting for at least 55% of greenhouse gas emissions to become valid.

This target was only met after Russia joined.

Russia's economy has shrunk so drastically since 1990 that industrial activity has dropped, leaving emissions reduced by about 35% and well below the level allowed under Kyoto.

In the short-term, Russia stands to gain billions of dollars through emissions trading - selling its unused emissions entitlement to developed countries which want to emit more than the protocol allows them to.

It says the money would be used for energy efficiency projects. Committing to keep emissions low could, however, bring Russia economic costs in the longer term.


Return to top
Japan

A major world economic power, Japan is a leading member of Kyoto, committed to cutting emissions. It was responsible for 8.5% of emissions in 1990 and its support for the agreement has been critical in the absence of US participation.

Although previously reluctant to ratify the protocol unless the US also committed, Japan ratified it in June 2002.

It committed to reduce emissions by 6% from 1990 levels, but 2002 figures showed total greenhouse gas emissions had risen 11% above the baseline figure.

The country recognises that its economy could benefit from the Kyoto agreement, as Japanese companies could capture markets for new, clean technology.



Return to top
India

Developing countries like India are not obliged to make any cuts in greenhouse emissions under Kyoto. But as they raise living standards their emissions will increase. India's emissions are estimated to have risen by more than 50% in the 1990s, although the country has only submitted emissions figures to the UN for one year, 1994.

India recognises that many of its one billion people will be vulnerable to the effects of climate change and ratified the Kyoto Protocol in August 2002.

But with India's economy and population, like China's, continuing to grow, it is clear that the thorny issue of developing country emissions commitments will have to be tackled soon in future rounds of negotiations.
 

[Pugnate]

If anyone has been watching the news they may have heard of the IPCC making much bolder comments than they have ever been:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6321351.stm

   
IPCC PROJECTIONS
Probable temperature rise between 1.8C and 4C
Possible temperature rise between 1.1C and 6.4C
Sea level most likely to rise by 28-43cm
Arctic summer sea ice disappears in second half of century
Increase in heatwaves very likely
Increase in tropical storm intensity likely

The Doomsday clock was also recently moved closer to midnight recently. Part of it was because of the nuclear ambitions of Korea and Iran and part of it was because of the climate changes.

[Quemaqua]

Whatever, mate.  You just love to yell at me for everything.  Go right ahead if it makes you feel better to bolster your own opinion by attempting to tell anyone with an opposing viewpoint that they're wrong.  I don't see why my opinions get up your ass so much, but I guess that's really your problem, not mine.

[Ghandi]

I retract my statement that China is the number one country in emissions. Every credible source that I looked into after Pug's post said that while the U.S. is number one in emissions, China will surpass the U.S. by ~2009 (estimates vary, give or take a year). I am more that willing to provide links to such evidence if needed. While the graph provided is an excellent example of 2002 emissions, China has since passed the EU in terms of global emissions. In any case, my original argument still stands that until the U.S. and China act, little will be done in terms of the problem at hand.

Also the link regarding Australian emissions is per capita. The fact that the title of the article is "Australians are biggest greenhouse polluters" is misleading in itself.

[Pugnate]

Go right ahead if it makes you feel better to bolster your own opinion by attempting to tell anyone with an opposing viewpoint that they're wrong.

Well 'mate' that's exactly what you do and then you are accusing me of doing it. I love it.

I don't see why my opinions get up your ass so much, but I guess that's really your problem, not mine.

If you think I go around telling people that their opinion is wrong, then maybe you need to open your eyes a little. And no your opinions have little to do with anything. If that's what you are taking from this then I am afraid nothing has gotten across to you.

[Pugnate]

I retract my statement that China is the number one country in emissions. Every credible source that I looked into after Pug's post said that while the U.S. is number one in emissions, China will surpass the U.S. by ~2009 (estimates vary, give or take a year). I am more that willing to provide links to such evidence if needed. While the graph provided is an excellent example of 2002 emissions, China has since passed the EU in terms of global emissions. In any case, my original argument still stands that until the U.S. and China act, little will be done in terms of the problem at hand.

Also the link regarding Australian emissions is per capita. The fact that the title of the article is "Australians are biggest greenhouse polluters" is misleading in itself.

No you were right. I was just posting some articles. As for China, if not looked at per capita and just per country then it is a leader.

Yes the Australian article is misleading, but then again Australia is a really small country. Even if it doubled its per capita emissions it wouldn't be able to go ahead of USA or China I think. But I think per capita is just as important a reading.

[Quemaqua]

What has come across to me is that you have a problem with me for expressing an opinion different from yours.  That's the only thing that's come across to me.  You've insulted me numerous times, and not only in this thread but plenty of others lately, which I don't recall having done to you with the small exception of earlier here which was more or less in direct response to your lovely little tidbit about me coming up with some obscure differing viewpoint just to be an asshole.  You can tell me I'm stupid all you like, but what you fail to understand is that you don't ever research the opposing viewpoint.  You always research your own viewpoint, providing more and more evidence of your own line of thinking without ever bothering to *really* look at the other side.  I've always said (and did so earlier in this thread) that I have no firm resolution on this argument, I just think there's scientific evidence to suggest that our current understanding of the whole ordeal is shaky.  And I happen to think that Al Gore is one of the biggest morons to ever walk the face of the earth and that his fucking movie has nothing to do with anything but his own personal aims, even if there *is* such a thing as true catastrophic global warming.  My guess is he'd be the last motherfucker to actually get out there and do anything of note about it.  My comments were more toward him and his stupid movie than global warming overall.  Either way, there is evidence to suggest both sides of the argument, and I don't think things are quite so cut and dry as everyone makes them out to be.  So sue me.  And fuck, I've also already admitted that I think people are harming the environment.  And I consider myself an environmentalist.  So again, I don't know what the fuck crawled up your ass, but I continue to believe it entirely *your* problem.  I'm sorry you find me so abrasive, but I don't know what to tell you.  It's not like I'm any different now than I was when I first started posting here.

[Ghandi]

The reason that per capita is a bullshit statistic is that it has nothing to do with global emissions. I could have a country of two people emitting two billion tonnes of CO2 a year and they would lead per capita emissions by a margin, but it wouldn't mean anything in terms of global consumption. The bottom line is, nobody gives a shit about Australia in terms of CO2. Everyone is looking at China. The fact that they have a population of 1.3 billion people means their per capita emissions are low, but nationally they are increasing exponentially.

Edit: In response to Pugs last post

[Pugnate]

The reason that per capita is a bullshit statistic is that it has nothing to do with global emissions. I could have a country of two people emitting two billion tonnes of CO2 a year and they would lead per capita emissions by a margin, but it wouldn't mean anything in terms of global consumption. The bottom line is, nobody gives a shit about Australia in terms of CO2. Everyone is looking at China. The fact that they have a population of 1.3 billion people means their per capita emissions are low, but nationally they are increasing exponentially.

Yes it has little place against total emissions, and yes Australia's emissions are nothing compared to China's or the US of A's. I wouldn't call it a bullshit statistic, because at the very least it gives a nation an idea of where it stands and its responsibilities no matter how small it is. Obviously comparatively a small country with a massive per capita pollution rate is nothing, but it is much easier to lower your pollution rates if you look at it per capita.

Let's take an extreme example. Say China's population is 5000 and the USA's population is 1000 yet in terms of pollution the USA is near equal to China. Don't you see something seriously wrong with that? The country with the smaller population is polluting much more per person.

For both the USA and China to lower their per capita pollution to an acceptable level, the USA would have to make a much bigger effort per person. Yes China pollutes more in total, but that's because there are a lot more people there. In the end the environment doesn't care which country is polluting more, but which people are polluting more. In the end per captia for me is definitely a very important stat.

What do you think Ghandi?

edit:

Just thought of another example why I was in the shower. Say you divide the world into two parts. One is one third the size of the planet and the other is two thirds. Now the one that is bigger is naturally going to emit more pollution because it has more people, right? So how do you differentiate? By looking at it per capita.

If the smaller country makes say 5% less pollution, you can't just blame the larger country for that 5% more. You should be worried by a smaller country that is one third smaller than the larger one is making almost as much pollution. 

What has come across to me is that you have a problem with me for expressing an opinion different from yours.  That's the only thing that's come across to me.  You've insulted me numerous times, and not only in this thread but plenty of others lately, which I don't recall having done to you with the small exception of earlier here which was more or less in direct response to your lovely little tidbit about me coming up with some obscure differing viewpoint just to be an asshole.  You can tell me I'm stupid all you like, but what you fail to understand is that you don't ever research the opposing viewpoint.  You always research your own viewpoint, providing more and more evidence of your own line of thinking without ever bothering to *really* look at the other side.

And what other subject other than global warming are we talking about where I've apparently not done research on the opposing viewpoint? Yes I've read a few arguments against it, but none are convincing to me. We get the Hindustan Times here from India:

The fact that they have a population of 1.3 billion people means their per capita emissions are low, but nationally they are increasing exponentially.

That's exactly it. As it stands their per capita is lower because they have a much bigger country. If the per capita rates are lower, then  what else can you do to decrease the emissions? Did you know that cars in China are nearly 40% less pollutive than the ones in the USA?

I am not biased against Americans, so please don't think so. I am just pointing out a fact. That's all.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_1925164,0008.htm

direct response to your lovely little tidbit about me coming up with some obscure differing viewpoint just to be an asshole.

That was in response to 'don't even get me started'. When you posted that I was thinking oh god not again.

So again, I don't know what the fuck crawled up your ass, but I continue to believe it entirely *your* problem.  I'm sorry you find me so abrasive, but I don't know what to tell you.  It's not like I'm any different now than I was when I first started posting here.

This has nothing.. and I mean nothing to do with global warming. I would like nothing better than to discuss global warming with you on this thread and I am sure that you can teach me many things.

I am tired of trying to discuss anything and then you coming in, telling us it is all bullshit, and then slamming the door on your way out without explaining yourself.

You are one of the most talented people I know, and I don't exaggerate. I haven't met many people like you, you are an intelligent personality and you've probably reached all your decisions by reading informative material. Don't you think the rest of us could benefit from that?

I know you are tired of a hearing about the greenhouse gases all day, and the Muslims being tortured for information and all that, but this is the serious topics board. I want to know how you reach your conclusions, but you don't hang around for long enough to discuss anything, only to express how annoyed you are by it.

For example I made one joke about the USA a while back in that goats thread, and next think I hear you bitching about having to put up with these jokes all the time. It was one joke, but you didn't explain yourself. That was what was frustrating. I just wanted to know when I made more of those jokes and how I ticked you off.

Then I create a thread about a case where a Muslim was held and tortured by mistake. In that thread I told everyone about how my air traveling uncle and his family were made to sit separately, while he had to sit next to an air marshal. I also talked about my cousin who does business and was held for two weeks and tortured while on his first and only trip to the USA.

Next thing I know I got a typical this is bullshit response from you. It was just frustrating, and it is frustrating. I know I sound like a teenage girl, but I hate having to start a discussion on anything and then you giving your conclusion and leaving. I even felt like you were accusing me of lying or making stuff up on my uncles. I was even half seriously considering asking him to post here so you could cross examine him.

Like the WMDs discussion you insist that WMDs were found, but didn't discuss it.

I WANT TO HEAR FROM YOU!

I know that sounds weird, but in the end that's what it is. You reach conclusions like every other normal person, but don't take the time to express how you've reached them. I want to know, not to mock you, but because I want to know. Because I want to learn from you damnit!!!!!

So please discuss global warming here. I realize some of the stuff you hear about all day pisses you off and then you don't want to see it here where you come to relax. That's the same with most of us. I am sure you've discussed a lot of these things with a lot of people many times and have studied everything to reach any conclusion, but if you don't take the time to share how will I know why you are so skeptical?

So can we please discuss global warming, and could you explain your views? I just want to know. At the very least when you think something is bullshit, can you tell me why you think that is?

edit:

I just had another example. I believe in god, and I believe that there is a higher power. Now in that creationism thread you seemed to have the same view point while Beo, Nicklone, Windandconfusion and others were totally against it. You were starting to argue for your cause and I was thinking awesome! But then you left the discussion. I think in part it was because you already had a lengthy example with Cobra on it and I am sure you didn't want to debate again.

But I was disappointed, because again I feel the same as you. For that reason I wanted to see your point of view expressed, but you left the thread when it got interesting. Again I understand why, but I would have loved for you to have taken the time to express your views.

edit 2:

I wrote all this out to explain why I wrote "But I am sure you will find some obscure source trying to debunk everything." It is because I felt you would again give your opinions and then just leave. It isn't because I think you are an idiot, or that you just pick sides randomly. I realize you are frustrated by having to hear about the same crap all day and I can see why you don't want to post your thoughts, but I would really benefit if you did.

[Quemaqua]

Okay, obviously this whole thing has just gotten weird, and it's probably entirely my fault.  Thank you for explaining yourself, and allow me to briefly respond.

The reason I don't stick around these threads at all is because these subjects depress me like crazy.  I hate thinking about them because they make me feel miserable.  I used to like debate and serious stuff when I was younger, but I've come to loathe it.  The conflict no longer excites me or does anything for me, and the subjects themselves just eat away at me and make me feel lousy.  So because of the fact that I'm active here and try to be involved in everything, I just sort of show up, probably grumpily, state my side of things, then leave.  It's just sort of become my natural progression, I guess.  And with some stuff, like the WMD thing, it's just that I'm not that into it.  I seriously don't follow politics because there's nothing on earth that depresses me more, so I was more or less just reciting one of the last things that I'd read somewhere.  Given my loose grasp on the subject and natural aversion to it, my attempts to be part of the discussion were obviously fruitless, and at some point I probably just said something that made it sound like I believed something more strongly than I really did.  Anyway... I don't argue anything because I want to be a jerk, or because I think everybody is stupid, or because I just want to be negative and confrontational, but it probably comes across as all of those things.  I haven't been a very personable individual lately and I guess that's nobody's fault but my own.  The best solution would probably be for me to just not read the serious topics board or post on it.  All the subjects ever do is make me angry or depress me, and I can't deal with anything well enough lately to be articulate and expressive about it.  This thread is a prime example.  Had nobody addressed my stupid troll-like comment at the beginning which really boiled down to "Ugh, fucking Al Gore" more or less, I probably wouldn't have said anything else.  Yet it was stupid of me to say that in the first place, so I guess I should just learn how to shut the fuck up unless I actually intend to say something useful.

Anyway, I hope this hasn't been too disruptive, and I hope you aren't too pissed.  I guess at least there's an explanation for why I sometimes appear to just state something and leave.  You're right, it's fully intentional, just maybe not for the reasons you'd assume.  So... yeah.  Thread carry on, nothing to see here...

[Pugnate]

I am sorry it came to a stupid back and forth over something trivial. I apologize for my part.

I should have just asked you about a few of these things earlier instead of letting it boil. And then I think all you said "Don't get me started" and I blew up.

That wasn't nearly enough to warrant any aggression on my part. In fact it was just nothing at all, and I responded very unkindly. If I had taken the time to explain myself earlier it wouldn't have gotten ugly and stuff.

Anyway I apologize for this. I should have just said something earlier, and I am sorry these subjects depress you because they are depressing. 

OK now I have to go do something masculine. Feelings are teh gay.

[angrykeebler]

simma down now

[Quemaqua]

As long as we're cool, it's all good.  It's probably good that somebody reminds me of how I'm sounding sometimes in the first place.  This place is such an easy outlet sometimes I take that for granted and post awkwardly or stupidly.  I don't know that you really reacted wrongly.  I shouldn't have started things with a lame post like that.

[Ghandi]

pugs per capita statements

I shouldn't have called it a bullshit statistic, because it is relevant in some sense, in terms of measuring population vs pollution output, but I don't think that it has any bearing on the discussion. Pollution isn't handled at the individual level, but the state or national level. Regardless of per-capita output, the situation is still dealt with the same way - by placing regulations on companies that emit high levels of CO2. And in the case of China, the businesses literally are the government- it's not a matter of placing sanctions its a matter of China's desire to end global warming outweighing their desire for growth and profit. I know I've rambled a bit but the point is, when both the emissions and the ability to stop them are essentially coming from the government itself, looking at a per-capita basis, while interesting, has no relevance to the problem at hand.

[Pugnate]

I know what you are saying, but shouldn't a much larger population be given more room?

Say you have a population of 1000 and the acceptable level of pollution is 2 per capita. That would mean a level of 2000 which may seem a lot. On the other hand you have a population of 200 and its level of pollution is 8 per capita. That would mean a level of 1600, which is less than the larger population but you can see what my extreme example means heh.

Pollution isn't handled at the individual level, but the state or national level.

From what I understand state can control only so much. A massive bulk of that calculation is based on cars and electricity usage/efficiency.

In terms of cars if the USA takes drastic steps in ten years it will reach the efficiency of China as it stands today.

Regardless one thing is for sure, both countries have to take drastic measures to control pollution if it is a threat.

[Ghandi]

I agree completely and how are these drastic measures going to take place? Yes some individuals are activists and try and make a difference, but the bottom line is, people are going to keep driving their cars that pollute until the gov. steps in.

I understand your example, and think that we are looking at the same solution in two different ways. I am saying that if country x is letting out y amount of total CO2 per year, they can look at the total and figure out how much to reduce it. You are saying that country x should look at per capita and reduce it in a similar way. Both work, I guess.

[Quemaqua]

First thing to do?  Blow up all SUVs and the CO2-exhaling people who drive them.  It's called aggressive environmentalism, baby.  Yes, this post is as useless as most of my others, but I am attempting to add humor to the overly heavy vibe.  That, and I hate SUVs.

[sirean_syan]

I'd be happy to just see an SUV tax... a heavy one... like an arm.

[gpw11]

I think I'll chime in with my stance;

I don't care.  

It's not that I don't care at all, it's that I don't care enough.  I tell people this, and they look at me like I'm some sort of asshole.  That's far from the truth.  The fact is that I think it's currently a hot political topic.  It's an issue we need to look at, and the attention we get is good, but because of the headlines, new studies, and government discussions people put waaaaay too much emphasis on it - like the world is going to fucking explode tomorrow.  

Now, that's not to say we should be putting any less resources into trying to cut down on pollution, but it's more of a 'what the fuck do you want me to do about it?' kind of thing.  When I tell people this they're always full of ideas.

"Cut down on your footprint!"  How?  I have energy efficient lighting all over my house because it's cheaper in the long run, I don't leave electronics on because it costs me money, I only mow my lawn when the city threatens to fine me, and I drive one of the most fuel efficient conventional cars ever made.  I walk on most short trips because sometimes I just like to put in headphones and zone out.  I heat my house as little as possible to save money, and I don't burn tires.  What the fuck do you want me to do?

"Bike, walk, or use public transportation to get to work"  Are you kidding me?  It's not at all convienent, nor is it even really viable considering what I do.  You're lucky I don't own a huge ass gas guzziling V6 truck.   I take the shortest route possible to wherever I'm going at that time, and as I said my car is very fuel efficient, not to mention the hydrocarbon and other emission levels detected at the aircare screenings I get every two years is below the average for my make and model.  We carpool whenever possible so I can get some money for gas.  Me taking my car off the road would be done purely as a cost saving measure for myself since I'm not niave enough to believe that the drop in the bucket that is my emissions makes one bit of difference, nor does the whole theory of if everyone thought that way we'd be up a creek....the world doesn't work like that.  The money I pay in hidden gas taxes also goes a long way towords public transportation so you're welcome.

"Buy a hybred" check your fucking math on that and tell me if me going out of my way, selling my car, and buying a brand new hybred when I otherwise would have been using my old car cuts down on emissions in any way.  It doesn't.  The new resources used and new emissions created making that hybred would never be recouped if I wasn't already in the market for a brand new car anyways.  And lets not even talk about cost effectiveness.

"Then vote for a government that is willing to tackle the issue." I'd have to be pretty sheltered and pretty spoiled to go out there and vote based entirely on this issue.  Look, there are far more pressing matters.  There's crime that doesn't need to exist, low standards of living in a very rich nation, education, economics, foreign affairs, world trade, resource extraction, fiscal responsibility, health care, research funding, and genocide in Africa.  Sure, if whatever canidate I decide has the best platform is also focused on cutting down on emissions, then all the better, but it's far from my number one priority.  Especially since pretty much every single canidate will focus on it to some extent (in some way) because it's such a hot issue.  Besides, this isn't necessarily something that can just be blanket-legislated, it'll be a long process involving the various levels of gov't, the academic community, and the private sector.  The less social and economic problems we have, the more attention and gov't resources can be put towords stopping climate change in the future.  The gov't has problems dealing with this itself in many ways.  For instance, hydroelectric dams are an excellent clean source of power.  Yet, it's very hard for a govn't to build one because of public backlash due to the ecological damage.  It's hard to legislate consumption rates in a free society and it's hard to tax the shit out of goods that consume because it'll be looked at as an opportunistic move on inelastic products as well as an unnecesary burden which harms mainly the lowest income earners more than any other group.  I wouldn't want to support a gov't that would be irresponsible enough to do that unless they absolutely had to.  Sure, climate change is a problem, but crippiling the economy isn't something that should be done to try and solve it when there are better ways.

Look, it's something we'll have to tackle, but it's something that we'll have to tackle responsibly and slowly.  Regulate automobile emissions, carefully find a way to regulate industry, build better public transportation, and fund research into new energy sources.  But guess what?  None of those are things that I have any control over (and like I said, I don't believe it's the most important issue in any government portfolio).

So seriously, unless you want to be completely unrealistic and go out and sell all my electronics, my car, and move into a grass hut, what the fuck do you want me to do?

That's my stance.

[idolminds]

I have a few solutions to the problem.

Guess which one as the largest chance of happening...

[Cobra951]

I think gpw got closest to the real events.  This is political, political to the core, political in the bad sense of the word.  It's all about power.  Whoever scares humanity the most gets it.  Power-hungry environmentalists love it.  Establishment-hating left wingers love it.  Could it be true, despite the huge cloud of doubt cast over it by the motivation of its most successful proponents?  Sure, it might be.  But I don't trust one bit of what they say.  So, who can I learn it from that I trust?  Good question.  Can't answer it.  Did that last penis-enlargement email you got propose something that really works?  Who knows?  You'd never trust the sender enough to read what he wrote, let alone convince you of anything.

[poomcgoo]

I saw this recently, and it was surprisingly better than I expected.  I went into it expecting to laugh at Al Gore for 2 hours, and I did, but I got more from the movie than I expected.  I'm in gpw and cobra's side in that global warming is all about politics right now.  Sure, it may be a threat, but I really don't care about it and whatever I do in my life that contributes to end global warming is all well and good, but I definitely wont go out of my way or put myself at a disadvantage to "help the environment."

I could pick out a few of his points that were irrelevant as I watched, and I don't know if there's a big debunking site out there (probably), but off the top of my head I could sense that a lot of what was said fell into the "scare tactics" category that cobra mentioned.  GM isn't doing poorly because their emissions are higher than Toyota's, they're doing poorly because of health care costs, just like every other American car company -- I thought everybody knew that.  Not to mention the fact that cars contribute to a fraction of an amount of the factors that contribute to global warming.  Slightly misleading, but he does seem to make a few solid points.

I'm not going to argue that global warming isn't an issue, because it definitely is, but I'm not worried about it in the least.  The environment can suck my very convenient truth.