pyonchit
Well-known member
(Note no.1) I am Californian. So I'm in the state of the 'wackos' leading the woefully behind USA in environmental technology. (A broad statement, however I believe a fitting one.)
(Note no.2) I choose this post to use not because I want to rip up an argument, but because it is possilbly the best argument in this entire thread. I do not want to deal with the unintellegent posts in this thread, and I aim for the best. Give yourself a pat on the back, Mahinva.
(Note no.3) I personally believe in global warming, so I did not see 'an inconvient truth.' I don't feel the need to be preached about something I accept as fact. That's overkill, in my oppinion.
"... to highlight a problem that humans could not have caused over the 100-200 span of.."
You were going good in the first paragraph, (most likely since everything in there can be found in a 6th grade textbook) even though I could easily recite that. However, where is your proof that humans could not have caused partial damage?
I've known since I was ten that the Earth naturally warms and cools, but I don't find that as an excuse of any sort.
Yes, ice ages occured in the past. Scientists know why they occured. The rate of change is much greater then in those earlier warming periods. Scientists also know that CO2 levels have increased dramatically in the last 200 years. It's easy to understand why.
"... the issue of "global warming" is an industry - you have people pushing new lightbulbs, windows, cars, and other energy/enviromentally "friendly" products, and a lot of people go off and buy them. Therefore, there is a lot of money to make. "
This is a good point. But, you are using these products and only picking the selective ones that suit your case. Environmentally friendly things are not limited to global warming. Dolphin safe tuna, for one. The industry is also being pushed to create things like biodegrateable plastic. The gold mining industry is using bacteria to eat away the harmful components in cyanide, and not dumping into rivers or other. Also, last I checked, paying less for your energy bill using floruescent lights wasn't a bad thing.
There's also a lot of money to be made in the industrial industry in India and China. Big gas guzzling cars, and people clinging to their energy wasteful way of life.
"I do not think that Al Gore's documentary should be taught as if it were law. I do think that unbiased scientific work should be shown to students."
I believe that it's convienent. People watch mythbusters as entertainment and scientific fact- although most of the things they prove or disprove a scientist could tell you without thinking about it. What's more entertaining to students- raw material or a movie?
It is important to care about the enviroment, but "global warming" is not our fault - but Al Gore puts it that way. He was a politician, never a scientist.
Who said that this oppinion of his was entirely his own? He didn't formulate this on his own ground- neither did anyone here. They used preexisting facts to help make their case. As did you, as did I. Someone feels the need to take action against something they believe is wrong, which anyone applauds now. I don't think it is up to you to decide how well educated he is in the subject. He has done enough to make you think about the subject- enough to frown upon it, but it's attention grabbing still.
As a side note to that person who said global warming is nothing more then a hot day, please do more research before you come back to a political topic like this again.
(Note no.2) I choose this post to use not because I want to rip up an argument, but because it is possilbly the best argument in this entire thread. I do not want to deal with the unintellegent posts in this thread, and I aim for the best. Give yourself a pat on the back, Mahinva.
(Note no.3) I personally believe in global warming, so I did not see 'an inconvient truth.' I don't feel the need to be preached about something I accept as fact. That's overkill, in my oppinion.
"... to highlight a problem that humans could not have caused over the 100-200 span of.."
You were going good in the first paragraph, (most likely since everything in there can be found in a 6th grade textbook) even though I could easily recite that. However, where is your proof that humans could not have caused partial damage?
I've known since I was ten that the Earth naturally warms and cools, but I don't find that as an excuse of any sort.
Yes, ice ages occured in the past. Scientists know why they occured. The rate of change is much greater then in those earlier warming periods. Scientists also know that CO2 levels have increased dramatically in the last 200 years. It's easy to understand why.
"... the issue of "global warming" is an industry - you have people pushing new lightbulbs, windows, cars, and other energy/enviromentally "friendly" products, and a lot of people go off and buy them. Therefore, there is a lot of money to make. "
This is a good point. But, you are using these products and only picking the selective ones that suit your case. Environmentally friendly things are not limited to global warming. Dolphin safe tuna, for one. The industry is also being pushed to create things like biodegrateable plastic. The gold mining industry is using bacteria to eat away the harmful components in cyanide, and not dumping into rivers or other. Also, last I checked, paying less for your energy bill using floruescent lights wasn't a bad thing.
There's also a lot of money to be made in the industrial industry in India and China. Big gas guzzling cars, and people clinging to their energy wasteful way of life.
"I do not think that Al Gore's documentary should be taught as if it were law. I do think that unbiased scientific work should be shown to students."
I believe that it's convienent. People watch mythbusters as entertainment and scientific fact- although most of the things they prove or disprove a scientist could tell you without thinking about it. What's more entertaining to students- raw material or a movie?
It is important to care about the enviroment, but "global warming" is not our fault - but Al Gore puts it that way. He was a politician, never a scientist.
Who said that this oppinion of his was entirely his own? He didn't formulate this on his own ground- neither did anyone here. They used preexisting facts to help make their case. As did you, as did I. Someone feels the need to take action against something they believe is wrong, which anyone applauds now. I don't think it is up to you to decide how well educated he is in the subject. He has done enough to make you think about the subject- enough to frown upon it, but it's attention grabbing still.
As a side note to that person who said global warming is nothing more then a hot day, please do more research before you come back to a political topic like this again.