This thread has been up for a couple of weeks. Two days ago, all I wanted to say was the movie did an excellent job of making a case for Global Warming - needing political action. The movie did not go into what kind of action to keep from being overly partisan (I don't dismiss any possible Presidential ambitions). Got to start slowly with the public: this is a big problem - get over denial. Gov Schwartzenegger is serious about it - I hope politicans across the board do the same. It seemed at this late date, the hottest discussions would have cooled off by the time I posted.

worthywads, you have painstakingly searched for flame-bait from a variety of members on this thread, trying to provoke a response, typically popping in this thread only very late in the evening. Your recent responses in this thread have this predictable pattern of inciting an arguement at any cost indefinitely. I may have witnessed it in other threads as well.

I am kind of curious as to what brought you to GH six months ago. All three of your vehicles get under 28mpg and none of them are hybrid. Your passion seems to be what you are doing on this thread rather than discussing clean or fuel-efficient vehicles. Endless arguements are not what the rest of us are here for...

 

Here we go again. Watch the movie one good quote came were he states "It's hard to get a man to understand if his wallet depends on him not understanding it". One day everyone will undestand that business is politics and politics is business. I've always believed that the actual people that could do our country the most good can't not get the funding to run for office. Why because they are not good for business.

 

It proves a majority of scientists believe it exists and the cause is anthropogenic. If look look at it like 5 is probably not, 6 is most likely not, and 7 is definately not then realy you only have 9.7% of the people that absolutely think that the results are not anhtropgenic. Thats more than 90% that think it is possible. So if it is possible shouldn't we at least do what we can to make things better? Do any of the fixes for global warming actualy hurt us? I think not.

Lets err on the side of caution instead of waiting to "make sure" it is a problem.

Personaly, I'm still on the fence as far as the issue goes (I'm slow what can I say). But I say lets at least do the right thing and eliminate some of the things that have the potential to cause global warming.

 

There are extremist views on both sides. Here's what the "other" (radically opposite Gore's Inconvenient Truth) side is saying:
"Carbon dioxide. They call it pollution. {dramatic pause} We call it life."

Videos here.

Do people actually buy the "Hey, everything is natural, so relax!" line that this extreme viewpoint seems to hold dear?

 

I'll try once again...
Please go see the movie. I am referring to "An Inconvenient Truth", as the thread is titled. It opens wide July 4th. In the movie, Al Gore samples 928 scientific journals of climatology, which all state that human beings create global warming and climate change. Period. It's our carbon emissions, like it or not. This is the "inconvenient truth" our current policy makers are trying to confuse with pseudo-science speak.

(I've heard that "We call it life" campaign, too, Geek Gal. Hilarious.) The research quoted by worthywads (A dyslexic poet, perhaps?) was compiled by German oceanographers, not climatologists, and was certainly not conclusive. And if someone is not a hybrid owner and hanging out on the boards, I'd wonder too....

So, deep breath, (don't exhale!) and go see the movie.

 

Just wondering....

Would burning Anne Coulter to death release more CO2 than allowing her to continue to breathe for the rest of her natural life?

 

Please avoid posts that could lock this thread. Of course I'm not a moderator - just that somebody else will decide to get upset over it.

Can't we all just take a day break from this thread, then if we choose, go at this in a slower, dispassionate, flame-bait free manner?

 

I'll have to agree with Tom regarding siding on error, and also not sure of the science either way.

What is the proposed solution?

I'll have to agree with Chuck, that we can continue a civil and respectful conversation free from things like death wishes.

 

Sorry if I'm flame-baiting here, but Naomi Oreskes who compiled the 928 study is an "Associate Professor in the Department of History and the Program in Science Studies at the University of California, San Diego. Having started her professional career as a field geologist, her research now focuses on the historical development of scientific knowledge, methods, and practices in the earth and environmental sciences."

I conceded that the "german oceanographer's" study was not GW science in my original post, and by your compiler logic, you should abandon the Oreskes study on the grounds that it was compiled by a Historian. Al Gore sampled no one, and isn't a climatologist, and I don't dispute that co2 is a greenhouse gas and responsible for some of the recent warming. I'm probably a 3 in the oceanographer's study, even though 43.2% of Climatologists surveyed don't agree with me.

I've seen the CEI "we call it life" ads and find it just as stupid as you.

Edit and Sorry to Joan and All. The above statement was meant to read I've seen the CEI "we call it life" ads and find it just as stupid as you Do/Did etc. I was simply agreeing with you Joan using poor grammar.

I will see the movie soon, I've been busy, this isn't the only site I troll.

 

Some part of stay civil that people find hard to understand?