French scientist calls Gore a 'crook' and... - Page 4 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 01-02-2008, 10:55 AM   #46
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
2861U2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: watching the Cubs
Posts: 4,255
Local Time: 11:45 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar

Yeah, I must have slept through the whole global cooling scare.
No kidding.

Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar
funny that you get up in arms about this comparison, but are fine with comparing Gore to Hitler, very telling.
And you must have missed the multiple times when I stated that Beck said a stupid thing and shouldn't have said it. Do you only read every other word I post, or something? I don't get how you are missing all this stuff.

Look, I'm glad Al Gore is making the earth an issue again. I really am. I'm still wondering how a movie so full of alarmism, exaggerations and lies creating some skeptics is a suddenly viewed as such a terrible and unfathomable thing. Again, his message of helping the earth is fine, but the means of doing it are dishonest, which lead me to question the whole global warming movement, and no one here seems to care.
__________________

__________________
2861U2 is offline  
Old 01-02-2008, 11:16 AM   #47
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 10:45 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 2861U2


No kidding.
Do a little research, global cooling never had significant scientific support, that's why I said I must have slept through the "scare". So your bringing it up is absurd.


Quote:
Originally posted by 2861U2

And you must have missed the multiple times when I stated that Beck said a stupid thing and shouldn't have said it. Do you only read every other word I post, or something? I don't get how you are missing all this stuff.
No you wrote it off as a dumb thing he said, but continued to make the comparison yourself. Reread your own post.


Quote:
Originally posted by 2861U2

Look, I'm glad Al Gore is making the earth an issue again. I really am. I'm still wondering how a movie so full of alarmism, exaggerations and lies creating some skeptics is a suddenly viewed as such a terrible and unfathomable thing. Again, his message of helping the earth is fine, but the means of doing it are dishonest, which lead me to question the whole global warming movement, and no one here seems to care.
Your logic is astounding. So because someone pointed out some exagerations to you, you question the whole thing?

I haven't seen the movie. I knew about global warming before Gore came along. I think it's funny that the right think Gore invented global warming. He's just been the most outspoken person with a voice to talk about it.

So just forget about the movie and research it youself without any political talking heads telling you how to think.
__________________

__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 01-02-2008, 11:56 AM   #48
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,615
Local Time: 05:45 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by 2861U2

Again, his message of helping the earth is fine, but the means of doing it are dishonest, which lead me to question the whole global warming movement, and no one here seems to care.
It's like questioning the whole animal rights movement only because one organisation, PETA, is screwing up.

It's not rational.
__________________
Vincent Vega is offline  
Old 01-02-2008, 12:39 PM   #49
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,338
Local Time: 08:45 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 2861U2
but the means of doing it are dishonest, which lead me to question the whole global warming movement,
How convenient for you. You get to dismiss an entire scientific theory because you don't like one of the messengers. Do you do that in your college papers too? Dismiss an entire school of thought because one of the adherents does something you think may be dishonest?
__________________
martha is online now  
Old 01-02-2008, 01:32 PM   #50
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
2861U2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: watching the Cubs
Posts: 4,255
Local Time: 11:45 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar

Do a little research, global cooling never had significant scientific support, that's why I said I must have slept through the "scare". So your bringing it up is absurd.
I wouldn't be surprised at all if in 20 years, everyone is talking about global cooling. From Newsweek, 1975: "The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it."



Quote:
Originally posted by martha

Dismiss an entire school of thought because one of the adherents does something you think may be dishonest?
It's not just Gore. Scientists have said things that I've seen challenged and/or proven false entirely. Unlike most issues though, when it comes to global warming, I rarely hear honest questioning, which is never good.

The idea of phasing out incandescent light bulbs, and ideas like them are completely laughable and pointless. The hypocrisy among the global warming crowd is also laughable. Not only does Gore and his friends fly in jets, I bet they eat meat, too. And we all know how much worse methane is than CO2, right?
__________________
2861U2 is offline  
Old 01-02-2008, 01:36 PM   #51
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,297
Local Time: 11:45 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 2861U2

The idea of phasing out incandescent light bulbs, and ideas like them are completely laughable and pointless.
Why?
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 01-02-2008, 01:45 PM   #52
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
2861U2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: watching the Cubs
Posts: 4,255
Local Time: 11:45 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram


Why?

"Australia has implemented one of the most aggressive campaigns in the world, and they expect old-style incandescent lightbulbs to be completely phased out by 2010. The Australian government bragged that the program will save an average of 800,000 metric tons of CO2 per year for the next four years. Wow! That must make a huge difference, right? Wrong. What they left out is that the savings equate to a paltry 0.21 percent of Australian emissions. To put it another way, an entire continent being forced to use fluorescent lightbulbs will reduce world emissions by 0.003 percent. Of course, increases in other sectors would nullify the entire cut in approximately five hours."


Is that even worth it? 0.003 percent? Talk about baby steps, that's quite the baby step.
__________________
2861U2 is offline  
Old 01-02-2008, 01:49 PM   #53
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
ntalwar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 4,900
Local Time: 11:45 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 2861U2

The idea of phasing out incandescent light bulbs, and ideas like them are completely laughable and pointless.
In 2002, crude oil was $20 a barrel and today it hit $100 for the first time and it's forecast to go higher. Ask yourself - is a lifestyle based heavily on nonrenewable sources of energy (fossil fuels) sustainable over the long term (or even medium term)?
__________________
ntalwar is offline  
Old 01-02-2008, 01:52 PM   #54
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,297
Local Time: 11:45 PM
Why are you looking at 0.003? Should we criticize Australia because the other countries are doing nothing? That's the essence of your argument.

0.21% is a better number to consider. Is it huge? No. But it's a bloody start. Considering how much people love the status quo and how much energy people like you will devote to adamantly fighting every progressive idea when it comes to energy savings, you have to start with baby steps.

I am going on 2 years without a car because I felt I could make the sacrifice and walk and take the bus and the train. I also pay more per month to live in a perfectly energy efficient building (doesn't hurt that it was built in 2006). I use reusable bags at the grocery store. My efforts reduce world emissions by something like 0.000000000000000000000000001 of a 0.000001 percent. Does that mean it's better for me to do absolutely nothing? Well I guess if I were you, it would be.

If we all had your attitude, there would never be any progress. After all, the first vaccines were largely ineffective, so why bother.
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 01-02-2008, 03:48 PM   #55
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 10:45 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 2861U2


I wouldn't be surprised at all if in 20 years, everyone is talking about global cooling. From Newsweek, 1975: "The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it."
Seriously, do some research!!!
It NEVER had a significant backing!




Quote:
Originally posted by 2861U2

It's not just Gore. Scientists have said things that I've seen challenged and/or proven false entirely. Unlike most issues though, when it comes to global warming, I rarely hear honest questioning, which is never good.
Really, what have scientists said that you've seen "proven false entirely"? Just show me one.

Quote:
Originally posted by 2861U2

The idea of phasing out incandescent light bulbs, and ideas like them are completely laughable and pointless. The hypocrisy among the global warming crowd is also laughable. Not only does Gore and his friends fly in jets, I bet they eat meat, too. And we all know how much worse methane is than CO2, right?
This is laughable.


You can't even debate the real science. You just attack Gore and talk about obsolete theories.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 01-02-2008, 04:38 PM   #56
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
2861U2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: watching the Cubs
Posts: 4,255
Local Time: 11:45 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar

Seriously, do some research!!!
It NEVER had a significant backing!
Then explain why it was such a scare in the 1930s and 70s? First off, we didn't know hardly anything about greenhouse gases back in the 70s, but it's not just that. It's not simply that science has gotten better or that we may have more evidence. What is also happening is that scientists say they are more certain than before, they use more colorful language to scare people, and they get more hostile towards dissenting voices.


Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar
Really, what have scientists said that you've seen "proven false entirely"? Just show me one.
Well, how about the statement I brought up earlier. Helen Caldicott of the Union of Concerned Scientists: "Everytime you turn on an electric light, you are making another brainless baby." I don't think I have to do much research to determine that that's a boneheaded statement. I could give you others, though. Here's a good start- http://www.sitewave.net/news/s49p1354.htm



Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar
You just attack Gore and talk about obsolete theories.
Right. Obsolete theories, like the fact that an entire continent switching lightbulbs results in a microscopic difference in emission. How about the fact that nitrous oxide warms the planet much, much more than does CO2, and the fact that methane cycles out of the atmosphere much quicker than does CO2. Therefore, not eating meat is a much more effective way to create change. Based on that, I could argue that any global warming activist who isn't a vegan is a hypocrite. Or how about your beloved Kyoto? Yeah, that's such a good idea. Even if everything the global warming people say is true (which it isnt) and Kyoto is totally successful (which is a long, long way off), the effect would still be unbelievably small. You really think Kyoto will work? Right. The same country that provided an incompetent response to a hurricane surely will be able to competently manage a nationwide system of caps of an invisible gas.
__________________
2861U2 is offline  
Old 01-02-2008, 04:47 PM   #57
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,297
Local Time: 11:45 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 2861U2

Well, how about the statement I brought up earlier. Helen Caldicott of the Union of Concerned Scientists: "Everytime you turn on an electric light, you are making another brainless baby." I don't think I have to do much research to determine that that's a boneheaded statement.
How is this a disproven scientific theory or data?
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 01-02-2008, 04:53 PM   #58
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,338
Local Time: 08:45 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 2861U2

Then explain why it was such a scare in the 1930s and 70s?
You know, it really wasn't a "scare" in the 70s. It was a theory. I remember it. It wasn't a huge deal.
__________________
martha is online now  
Old 01-02-2008, 05:05 PM   #59
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 10:45 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 2861U2


Then explain why it was such a scare in the 1930s and 70s? First off, we didn't know hardly anything about greenhouse gases back in the 70s, but it's not just that. It's not simply that science has gotten better or that we may have more evidence. What is also happening is that scientists say they are more certain than before, they use more colorful language to scare people, and they get more hostile towards dissenting voices.
It was definately not a scare in the 70's. And from what I've seen the 30's weren't too worried about it either.



Quote:
Originally posted by 2861U2

Well, how about the statement I brought up earlier. Helen Caldicott of the Union of Concerned Scientists: "Everytime you turn on an electric light, you are making another brainless baby." I don't think I have to do much research to determine that that's a boneheaded statement.
That statement isn't scientific data. Come on man, you do know the difference, right?



Quote:
Originally posted by 2861U2

Right. Obsolete theories, like the fact that an entire continent switching lightbulbs results in a microscopic difference in emission. How about the fact that nitrous oxide warms the planet much, much more than does CO2, and the fact that methane cycles out of the atmosphere much quicker than does CO2. Therefore, not eating meat is a much more effective way to create change. Based on that, I could argue that any global warming activist who isn't a vegan is a hypocrite. Or how about your beloved Kyoto? Yeah, that's such a good idea. Even if everything the global warming people say is true (which it isnt) and Kyoto is totally successful (which is a long, long way off), the effect would still be unbelievably small. You really think Kyoto will work? Right. The same country that provided an incompetent response to a hurricane surely will be able to competently manage a nationwide system of caps of an invisible gas.
I was talking about global cooling being an obsolete theory. What you are talking about isn't obsolete...

See once again you start attacking people as hypocrites and you never get to the point of debating the data. You just make comments like whatever we do won't be enough. Until you start actually debating the data, I give up, it's useless.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 01-02-2008, 05:27 PM   #60
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 11:45 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 2861U2
Huh? When did I ever say it was made up? And when did I ever say we should ignore the issue, BVS? Sheesh, talk about exaggerations...
Well, what are you saying? All I've seen is you defend the people who attack global warming and attack every effort made to work on global warming.

Quote:
Originally posted by 2861U2
The condition that we leave this planet in is important, sure. I'm all for not polluting or littering and all that good stuff. But the alarmism out there, mixed with the lies and exaggerations of Al Gore's followers really make it hard for me to put global warming high on my list of important issues. What, all of a sudden, is so bad about there being skeptics who have facts to back them up and happen to point out some lies that everyone seems to not care about? Considering we've gone from worrying about global cooling to global warming back to cooling and now back to warming again, it's hard to take seriously and believe what is out there and presented to us. Is this not the same group of people in this forum who once told me to "challenge and question everything?"
Well, I'll ignore the global cooling thing for now.

Al Gore is not the end all, be all of this issue. The facts that I have seen, that have been verified many times over, are the ones that are important. I absolutely disagree with the exxagerations out there. But that shouldn't mean dismissal of the issue as a whole, which is all I've seen.

And your "challenge and question everything" comment is funny to me. You're more of a lover of the status quo than anything.

Quote:
Originally posted by 2861U2
And if you want to talk about bullshit logic, philly, how about martha's statement: If the global warming people are wrong, what has been lost in getting people to conserve and be more mindful of their impact on the environment? If the global warming people are right, what has been lost ignoring their warnings?"

Fair question, but that's like me saying, "Alright, I want all of you here to give me $1000. Now, I want you to pick a number 1-10. If you happen to pick the same number I was thinking of, I'll give you your money back. Assuming you don't pick the right number, I'll donate it all to charity."

Would you give me $1000? I don't think you would. And it's not because you don't like charity (just like how I'm not against helping the planet). What if the amount changed to $1 instead of $1000? I'd probably get a few more people willing to play along. The problem is the extremity of it, you see. I'm happy to not litter and to turn off lights when I leave a room. But telling me what cars to buy? Telling my what light bulbs I can and can't have? Telling me that global warming is as great a threat to me as radical Islamists? Telling me that Florida is going to be underwater WAY, WAY sooner than it actually ever would be? Sorry, those lies and irresponsible presentations just turns me off entirely.
So, you're combatting what you call "bullshit logic" and "exxagerations" with ... bullshit logic and exxagerations.

To compare global warming to picking a number between 1 and 10 makes your entire line of thinking not worth responding to.
__________________

__________________
phillyfan26 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:45 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com