Yet another thing the States can brag about being the best at, elitist nation!!

if you watch this, pollution will stop automatically!11

.

?

how come SA is so low?

?????????????????????????????????

SA isn't on there, Africa is - I'd guess NA balances out SA.. :)

edit: unless you meant saudi arabia. yeah you probably did..

fuck me im blind

Archive.

you should give it a watch, al gore brings up the points you mention.

as he says himself, each time he finds an obstacle in the minds of the skeptics, he tries to iron it out and adds it to his show.

Archive.

the retarded hippy chick was in fact a spokeswoman of some environmental organization, which made the whole point funny and worth broadcasting

Archive.

You litter? Pretty scummy :/

Archive.

Archive.

his point stands though. it is exactly in the kind of disgusting propaganda style that will make me not watch the movie. oh well.

whatever facts may or may not be presented in the show, the presentation obviously targets an audience group that i choose not to be a part of

why is it propaganda?

maybe you should both watch it, then you'd know what you were talking about instead of arguing with blindfolds on.

it's like saying "dr. pepper tastes like shit" without having tasted it :D

Archive.

i agree tbh.

Is it an universal truth?

you are an idiot bro, you haven't even seen the movie yet your trying to justify how much it sucks. There are people in this world that will ignore all facts and scientific data so they can progress whatever idiotic idealogy they have, they refuse any credible data given to them on which millions if not billions of dollars have been spent researching. But alas, some uneducated hick sitting on a computer can refute anything and claim it to be all false on the pretense of nothing, because he says so...God Bless America when these kinds of idiots exist. Stop polluting the human genepool and castrate or kill yourself, id prefer the latter, that means less of my tax dollars go to supporting your worthless ass.

Archive.

i said propaganda style -- i don't know about the content of the full show, though i have my guess.

and ye, you're right, i might watch it with friends one time or another. but that will be for the thrill value as such and not because of how this trailer made me 'think about stuff' :)

So your objection is that you don't believe some points, but you aren't going to look at the evidence for or against those points, because you already know they're true?

I mean...

Archive.

seen it, it's interesting if you have no idea why these autumns are gettin hotter every year, go see if you care about your planet and don't feel like being part of the generational tyranny which has been goin on since the start of the industrial age

any manbearpigs?

Archive.

are you serial ?

i didnt watch it yet, but these problems are real right here, right now! but every person with a sane mind alread knows that we have to stop destroying our evironment ! the problem is that there are far too few people with sane minds on this planet right now any maybe this movie can contribute to that number.

Oh please. For once I agree with uepuejq. Al Gore is a retard who thinks he invented the internet and is now trying to gain attention through scaring people into thinking that we're going to drown from the ice caps melting. Tell me, does a glass of water overflow if the ice melts? I don't think so.

.

Physics my dear dird.

o_O

Ok, so let's say that all the glaciers AND land ice melted. The water level from the glaciers melting will not affect sea level. And if all the land ice melted, the sea level would rise around 70m (or 230ft). That's hardly a "Waterworld" senario.

reference

"The water level from the glaciers melting will not affect sea level."
Uh, even though noone was talking about glaciers in particular, why?
"And if all the land ice melted, the sea level would rise around 70m (or 230ft). That's hardly a "Waterworld" senario."
Oh okey. I guess that proves your analogy is right on the money!!!!111

When people talk about global warming, they most commonly refer to the ice caps melting or the ozone layer breaking down. They don't talk about the earth becoming a pressure cooker in regards to the greenhouse effect. When you talk about the ice caps melting, you can't ignore glaciers because thats the majority of the ice at the caps.

You obviously haven't ever looked at the average elevation of land above sea level, which is, on average (from what I have seen) is around 400-600ft. Now simple math would tell us that 400-230 still yields a positive sea level elevation, which means that we would probably lose shoreline and that's about it. You still didn't take into account that some locations currently exist below sea level (New Orleans anyone, and Florida is mostly marshlands (these are just examples btw)). So does that still sound like everyone will be living in boats at some point?

I didn't say a single word about boats, shorelines or glaciers. What in the world do any of those things have to do with the fact that there is ice that is not floating the water.

If you're not going to bother reading the post, then don't bother replying. You're an idiot plain and simple.

lol, I might be an idiot, but you're a fucking retard
There is ice that is not floating in the water. True or false?

Are you seriously asking me this question? Go back and read comments #29 and #40. It's entirely possible that I'm wrong on the points that I've made, however you have yet to even provide an intelligent response with or without any references.

lol
Are there significant amounts of water in the form of ice above the sea level or not?

Wow, it's just simply amazing that you're still asking questions that I've already answered and provided a means of discussion with. Please stop wasting my time and get with the program.

lol!

the sea level would rise around 70m (or 230ft). That's hardly a "Waterworld" senario.

tell that to the dutchies

yeah but they're dutch...

As I'm currently living close to the dutch border, I really wouldn't mind ;)
Who wouldn't want a beach in front of his house?

Or an ocean in it!

Venice! ;>

Look, it's a website made by the US government....

btw. how is a rise of 70 m not a worldwide catastrophe?

Well you have to consider that not all worldwide locations are at the same elevation. Secondly, if all the ice on earth were to melt, it will do so at a relatively gradual rate. If it were hot enough to melt all at once, then the planet would essentially be a pressure cooker, and we would have more problems than just some extra water everywhere. I would imagine that the process would take several years and that several years would be enough to realize the problem as we are now, and make adjustments to living situations and/or consumption practices.

Do you know how many big cities will be underwater if the sea rises 70m? London and New York are a couple of places to start with.

In any case, the point of global warming is not that the world will explode. The point is that it'll cost TRILLIONS to live with, it'll likely kill millions indirectly, if not billions (lack of drinking water, huge relocation requirements, disease, lack of food due to losing agricultural land).

Very true, which is why I've said in my other posts that we either need to take steps now to either prepare for what's coming, or come up with cleaner and more efficient energy usage.

hate to break it to you, but Antarctica sits on land =(

Please refer to comment #29 immediately above you, just posted it.

Please refer to common sense before making analogies.

Please at least do basic research before making retarded flame posts.

Thanks.

"Please at least do basic research before making retarded flame postss"
Are you blind or just can't admit you've made a stupid mistake? Who's making retarded flame posts?
You state the obvious: water level in a glassdoesn't change when floating ice cubes melt. It's simple physics.
Everyone else points out even more obvious: but following the analogy, there is ice being held above the water, a lot of it is not floating in the water, isn't displacing it, and therefore the analogy is useless.
You then go on a freaky tangent about glaciers and other irrelevant crap.
Retarded flame postss indeed.

When water freezes and turns into ice it gains volume so the answer is no. But if we were to introduce more ice to the glass from outside source then it would eventually overflow.

Archive.

haha, did you expect this thread to become a heaven to some informative environmentally sound discussion? As if people who make an amazing break through applying 2nd grade knowledge to world oceans and then suddenly scramble to google up something cohesive are gonna be taken seriously ?

Archive.

Surprised that punee hasn't given us a taste of his infinite wisdom on this matter.

i did a ctrl+f punee just wanting to troll

The ice that isn't floating in water at the moment would make the sea level rise upon its melting. I know that it's obvious to most people here. It being irrelevant or not doesn't really matter but thanks for your reply.

Archive.

No, I'm not.

Archive.

So you're saying that if I answered YES you wouldn't tell me to shut up?

Archive.

the question is not about the Arctic Ocean, which is nothing but water, but of the Antarctic, whos ice rests upon rock, out of the water. remember there is also a hole in the ozone layer above antarctica.

go new zealand!

Ha, even if it contrubtes hardly anything to global warming, they're the ones that have to suffer with the huge hole in the ozone layer close to them :P

Yeah, and South Africa :(

LAFF! Biggest Lie EVER told to the World.

did your president said so?

You not heard of Christianity then?

Liefje.. you realize that a few years back scientist realized that the ozone layer was actually a GOOD and normal thing right?

Are you implying ozone layer *holes* are GOOD? Or you just cant read?

Moron.

No, do you have any links with further information about this?

I don't think it's a very good thing considering the last time I was in New Zealand, the average "burn time" in the sun was 5 minutes and I can lie all day on a beach in Italy and not get burned :P

Did you know that 2 years ago the NZ government imposed a "fart tax" for farmers, who had to pay for the amount of methane that their cows released into the ozone layer because methane gas contributes to the growing hole? If the hole was so good and normal, would they bother with such a rediculous sounding tax? Why was I always hearing constant warnings about it when I was living in New Zealand? :s You could even get sunburned in winter :x

Only in NZ

Miss it much? <3

i miss my queenstown lifestyle and friends ye :(

Your mistake was applying logic to his post.

lol my bad

i saw it a while ago, it's really a wake up call

too late tbh, i hope we all die

Second.

Last one.

i hope to see that

unsurprisingly, the majority of the opposition to this movie/thread is coming from citizens of the US.

and it doesn't seem like anyone of the ones opposing it has actually watched it :-(

the US is too big, it's either the United States of Canada, or the United States of Jesusland.

http://respublica.typepad.com/respublica/imag...-thumb.jpg

Blue = USoC
Red = USoJL

GG on creating a thread based on anti-American undertones. Next thing you know, way2ez will be in here posting about how we're all fat.

I think you guys helped turn it into an anti-american thread :x

Most of you demonstrate a semmelweis reflex* when presented with the problem of global warming - and this exactly is why al gore still has such a long way ahead of him.

* just learned about this yesterday, so I've been dying to include it somehow, somewhere

I'm not outright punishing or blindly denouncing any important scientific fact. I've provided references to the points that I've made in this thread thus far and have not gone on any flame rampages in the process. I'd also like to see where any of my fellow Americans have demonstrated this behavior in this thread. You can't use broad generalizations here because none of us represent the rest of our respective countries, so you can just cut that bullshit out right there.

Having gotten that out of the way you start the thread out with "two seemingly random pictures from the movie". Then you sit there and tell us we have a Semmelweis reflex towards the situation. So not only are you outright showing everyone that we are the dirtiest country out there, but then you tell us that we're retarded primates calling blasphemy on the whole situation. I think it is you who needs to refocus your view on America because I could just as easily go on telling you about how Europe is almost just as dirty and you're just a bunch of stuck up pricks about it who whine and just blame America for the problem. But you know what, I didn't, and I don't think that way either. *Sigh* But what do I know, I'm just a dumb American that doesn't know what he's talking about blindly trying to disprove undisputed fact while I sit here and be more wasteful.

BTW, I'm done with this thread.

seeing as you're "done with the thread" any reply I make will be a waste of time.

You seemed to be making your points in a rational enough manner earlier on and now you've just lost it and reverted to some kind of us/we/my country bullshit when the thread itself was about the issue of global warming, it wasn't titled "FUCK AMERICA FOR BEING SO DIRTY AND CAUSING ALL THE GLOBAL WARMING". Stop taking things so personally, if people were being anti-American you wouldn't need to say it since it would be pretty evident in and of itself.

I got frustrated because not only because of the original post, but because of posts #43 and #125. I apologize if I was taking things too personally, but it just gets to me sometimes. I guess I'll try to ignore it better in the future. I should probably just stop listening to people who are short-minded enough to make such associations.

Or try being open-minded.

btw weren't you done with the thread..

Quiet you! ;p

Hey, weren't you done with this thread?

;p

The weather sucks in the UK so global warming FTW!

In coralation to this you should see the "Global Dimming" documentary. They explain via experiments why a sudden change in the CO2 emissions would be as catastrophic as if we'd continue poluting the way we do now.

The polution have to stop of course, but in manner so mother nature can follow up :)

link: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=10278...al+dimming

Hehe, we do what we can, but i guess if you go all radical for the environment you stop the technology advancement that would most likely be able to save us from what is already eminently upon us.. Where is the race anyways? Seems like technology is our savior and its fuel is what it's fighting to reduce ;D

Might as well be moderate with reductions and not let the economy screw itself over and in turn fuck up the advent of saving technologies, radical overfocus on reductions will only bring forth negative consequences in the long run by averting attention from the problems we must eventually face anyways. Instead of stopping, why not adapt? Why not make *appropriate* changes to fit the solution, instead of vainly try to scratch away the huge problem with fear and propaganda as tools?

I'm wondering quite a few things tho; in light of the last hundred years emissions, how much are we letting out now in comparison each year? How much are we responsible for co2 in the air in comparison to what is already there? Is there a certain point where the level in the atmosphere is critical or is it all gradual? How much would it be possible to reduce emissions without halting the economy too much? Does carbon in itself become co2 if released into the air? Would it make more sense to chop wood and save it as paper, or whatever, somewhere to reduce co2 in the air instead of letting the trees rot and re-release their carbon-content? great if someone answers these, i cba to figure it out, but i guess if someone is genuinely interested in it they should know and be willing to answer, hint* ;D

yeah. who cares about the stupid planet? humans are what's important, unless you're a fag, and they will keep on surviving for quite some time, I'm sure..

seems like accelerating technology is superimposed on evolution now though

technology > humans

apples > oranges?

ye i know, he might have meant humans as such, but who knows? mankind can be defined as whatever, so i just thought i'd focus the blur :]

what exactly is so blurry?
humans are humans, we are technocratic.

Yes, but if humans are so important, would we let scenario "the technology takes over in the form of superintelligent robots and eliminates homo sapiens sapiens (or w/e we are)" occur? that's the blur we rid ourselves of when making the distinction between if technology or humans are what is important. When i said technology is superimposed on evolution i only made an arbitrary distinction signifying that technology is now more powerful than the good old evolution.

Stop watching sci-fi movies before going to bed.

THE BATTLE IS UPON US:

TERRANS VS COSMISTS!!

Muahahaha.. I never liked sci-fi tho.. I probably take it too seriously to bother with fairy-tales, so i look for something equivilant within the scientific community instead ;)

I especially like this part, as I also recall Feynman talking about:

"De Garis compares his plight with that of nuclear physicists in the 1930s, like the eccentric Leo Szilard who worked with Albert Einstein on the Manhattan Project, who were considered maniacs for suggesting that a single bomb could annihilate an entire city."

Isn't that the guy from the Discovery Channel spot?

who? who? :]

I mean those short presentations about different people and their work or memories that are shown very often (at least here where I live). I forgot his name but what he said was very similar to what you've linked and his(?) picture looks familiar.

I saw a movie about this @ google, didn't I?

Yup <3 I had a thread way back concerning this that I didn't particulary feel like digging up ;D

Yea, too bad it's people who write "fairy tales" that have the best grasp of the "problem" of technology.

then they probably are scientific*, as some sci-fi probably is.. i've'nt seen much, but everything i've seen is random unlikely crap trying to hook you to their universe like the avg. shitty tv-soap.. perhaps you can point me to one you think is philosophically pleasing yet not a mock against science?

*as in, knows alot of science so as to predict better what the future might look like and contain, at least as far as technology goes.

I would say most science fiction writers are scientists by your definition. What you call "unlikely" just shows you've overlooked the possiblity of unpredicted paradigm changes that would make most of those stories possible in theory. What's so wrong with mocking science or avoiding certain restrictions anyway? Keep in mind not all of science fiction belongs to the subgenre of anticipation.
Since you seem to require writers to have a strong scientific background, I guess you'd enjoy Asimov and Clarke. Brave New World is obviously an anticipation classic too. Another personal favorite is Lem, who's also written a collection of essays on technology titled Summa Technologiae that is very interesting if you can read polish/german.
Non-fiction, deeper and more theoretical works of value on the subject you seem to be interested in also include Anders's and Ellul's.
I would refer to scientists and futurologists in very few cases as they're mostly just techno-utopianists unable to develop any kind of real thesis on the subject instead of just making predictions.
Have fun reading!

I just ordered A Brave New World a week ago.. So at least i got that soon, and i've considered reading Asimov and Clarke for quite some time, just hadn't had the time ;)

I read this one book tho, when i was younger, that made an impact on me, it was called "Phase Space". A collection of smaller essays with different scenarios of the future; that was a nice mix of fairytales and science i thought.. For me I think it has something to do with how the "unlikely" is presented. When it is presented in a way unconfusable with the likely, it is more appealing to me.. Sometimes they just try to fit in all the details so neatly that you can hardly tell where they become illogical, instead of just giving it up as such right away.. hrmph.. i don't know how to set words to it :\

Anyways.. I'll check out those other people, thanks :)

The Dune series is filled with a lot of interesting observations on humanity, especially once you get to God emperor of Dune. I'd recommend you look into those if you like sci-fi which gives you things to think about.

oki, thanks

BINGO

This is where you stopped being observant and started being completely subjective. Perhaps, now I understand, by blur you mean "my whimsical genius" that doesn't have to make any logical sense because it is uuuh utterly disconnected from reality. Philosophy major, humph.
When you consider why only humans are important you have to consider that it is us who is considering the very question, our point of view. This is trivial egoism, whereupon we consider the value of things, for us. Technology on the other hand is just an extension of humanity, wherever technology has anything to do with nature, or evolution, is not even the question. Those are unrelated terms that aren't compatible in any way on equal terms. If you make what is created by some biological entity a product of evolution, that will certainly encompass a lot of things, but make a word which used to stand for a certain theory rather pointless, as is the whole exercise. The whole notion of how technology is "more powerful" is just nonsense. Like, is it ten gigahertz per fourty years more powerful, or just five robots per three kilowatts per ten chromosomes ?!

I can definitely see where you are coming from, and i might have explained myself wrong or said something stupid. So i'll just try to explain myself.

I agree technology is an extension of humanity. But i'm really just trying to point out the obvious. It would be silly to always make a new word for evolution, but try to think of it more as something currently guiding evolution. Like you could say religion, economics or ideology guided evolution before, i was merely trying to point out that technology is the current drivingforce that is driving and controlling humanity. In addition, this time it may be something that may surpass us completely and take on a life on its own, like a deadly seed with *power* to kill us that we have just become aware of.

Also, as some people think humans are more important than humans augmented by technology, or robots with higher intelligence, i feel compelled to make the point that humans have less power than technology in this sense: We have no power to stop technology. It is more powerful than humans in the sense that we can not control it, contain it. The ones trying to hinder technology will no longer be the fittest, they will die.. It is stronger than us in the sense that cancer can be stronger than us (if cancer were to continue to evolve:p)

Anyways I don't think everyone thinks of us as "cognitive batteries" processing along to archive greater technology to become the fittest.. And they much less see ape to humans as humans to "trans-humans" or "superhumans", so i think it's something for them to think about; that it's inevitable from a perspective that is essentially evolution that we be surpassed by something "greater".

Why are you talking about technology as a separate movement. It really isn't. Even though there are so many extremely complicated man-made things, none of them are part/product of the evolutionary chaos. They are things, each one of which has a particular use in accordence to the human design. I guess you don't have to trust me, but AI surpassing human self-consciousnesses is NOT going to happen by itself. At the very least, it will take great effort and a long, long, time to even scratch the surface of the big question of intelligence. Again, by effort, not by "chance". Because such is the nature of technology. So what we have is just very powerful tools. Which need more effort to yield the more powerful they get. Of course they are dangerous, but consider causality. All the same things could be said when a man picked up a heavy stone to kill a mamoth, which could have rolled down the hill and killed the man.
Anyway, by making a big deal out of complexity of things in material world, you keep ignoring the humanity! The only thing thats been driving humanity is itself. Human whim, greed, ambition, imagination. Geopolitics. And yes, we control the technology. Technology evolving like cancer, existing without us is pure science fiction. I really don't know where you get those notions.
edit: note that you also have to understand the underlying principles of umm the real evolution, which is chance! [human ] technology is utterly deterministic!

I see it in effect of survival of the fittest, that's where i get that notion. As we arn't particulary united as a whole us humans, and the ones with the better technology wins out in the end, the better technology is always advancing, like an infection that is not going away. So when you speak of chance that might correlate to the randomness in which side develops what kind of technology, e.g. which side has the geniuses that develops the atomic bomb. And then when i imagine technology eventually breaking out and free from humanity. well.. you can see where that leads me. It's not a perfect nor very certain analogy i'm sure, but it kinda fits the way i look at it.

And when you say it's only level of danger i disagree because of this, because it seems the cause of future higher intelligence totally seperate from humans. Which bring us to the issue of wether mind in the machine will arise anytime soon.. Again you see this not occuring by itself, but if you like i see technology as a kind of viruz it need not be alive in itself to directly be the cause of something. I'd say if humans continue to evolve, so will mind in the machine.. e.g. if "we" humans won't do it, "they" will do it and if they don't, the others will.. So it's not really up to anyone in particular. But then again this is the question of how united mankind really is. *bed*<3

Perhaps it's because i see technology as something which inevitably will produce life that is different from humans but stronger. So i generally see the word technology as equating to "superintelligent continously evolving robots" and contrast that to humans. But you have to understand that from my perspective that distinction drawn out in time is trivial, because i feel it is so inevitable.. Does that make sense? xD

No. But it's forgivable, considering your major.*
edit: *hint:disconnect from reality

major? like b.a? what? :p

subject of studies

well yeah, it becomes seemingly absurd after a while, quite awesome ;)

If you want to ignore time, I actually see us, humans, becoming more and more god-like powerful due to technology, rather then any AI happening.

i see evolution as a whole moving towards what i consider to be godlike qualities as well, but i'm more inclined to belive the future of this process be carried on by something beyond humans, perhaps first a slight merge and then all machine or whatever you wanna call it.

yaw to making things up about the future =)

what can i say, i'm a futurist by heart. some people like to dig up history, i like to speculate about the future ;D

First things first tho; figuring out how mind arises from matter, how "qualia"/consciousness fits in with everything :]

and not only by philosophy mind you, i'm one of the more scientifically minded people in my group - although i guess that does not count for much ;D

right because you are an expert on evolution and ecology now eh, let me guess you saw "The Matrix" on TBS the other night and pulled this theory out of your ass. Philosophy major indeed...pull shit out their asses in thin air and think it actually holds any credible value...but thats philosophy majors for you...useless and annoying

You don't think humans will be surpassed? We have to evolve and adapt to continue existing indefinitely, that's almost a fact from the evolutionary perspective..

And now then, do you think this will take shape in the normal "biological" evolution when we have technology as advanced as we currently have? Or do you think technology plays a major role in all of this? Exactly. This is all i'm saying: Man will evolve beyond man with technology.

But perhaps your anger comes from convictions of your own? If we are not wiped out and if we keep perpetuating these things are going to happen.

reread that second paragraph, it makes no sense at all, you are using circular reasoning to justify whatever it is that you are trying to justify, And what could surpass humans...technology, let me guess AI and ZOMG MARTIX and terminator. Im sorry you lack a decent science background to even understand how thats not even remotely possible.

So what's wrong, i don't see any circularity? How can i do that with only questions? What am i missing? Tell me please.

Anyways, talking about reasoning here..

"You lack knowledge to know how IT IS NOT EVEN REMOTELY POSSIBLE"

All of this unless maybe you just meant matrix and terminator by that quoted statment, but well.. if so, you can ignore post :(

Great one. I guess all those people who think it is possible should bow before your superawesome theory that cracks it all open. Tell you what, if you know a reason as to why that would NOT be possible you could possibly become the most famous man on earth, but i guess you'll keep it to yourself only hinting it on public forums.

I am by no means certain in my claim, but by all means, technology taking on a form of its own and developing past us is not really something exclusively reserved for crackpots now as it was some 100 years ago. If it is, please do enlighten me on that, and i will willingly accept defeat.

The funny thing is that while we have terminator and matrix here, in japan and southkorea, they are fruitfully embracing what they see coming - movies addressing the problem ect. You see we here in the western part of the world have something called soul that has now been exclusively adapted to only fit humans as was not originally intended, while in japan and southkorea and probably most parts of asia, that idea is almost nonexistent, and everything has a lifeforce of its own. Buddah saw that there was no room in the world for a self, "actions exist and also their consequences, but the person that acts does not".

Anyways, give me the devastating blow quick if you can as i like it here in my fantasy and my roots are getting deeper by the minute :)

Silence before I order robots to rape you to death!

scream

a lot of your questions are answered in the film ;-)

I saw his TED* presentation, he didn't seem too serious :c

*technology education development

i care about this planet about as much as i care about this film.

that leaves a lot of space for interpretation....

That's good since nobody gives a shit about you.

i wouldn't expect them to.

fyi spiN, if you saw this film you would know that gore has been involved with this research since he was grad or undergrad at harvard (cant remember). either way its been over 30 years. sample size isn't an arguement. propaganda isn't stuff that makes you buy smarter, consume and waste less and generally make your personal living environment healthier mentally and physically for not only you and yours but a greater whole, as in foreigners!!!! (neighbors to some, strangers to others).

americans are fucking stubborn. stay the course. dont enter kyoto treaty cause my big fat prideful lifestyle isn't negotiable. yeah. we're not going to have the luxury of choice pretty soon on so many levels. good thing we'll still have all those guns around so we can off ourselves if our infrastructure decays to the point of no return.

very unamerican of u :-/
where's ur AMERICAN PRIDE??

in escrow

This word always makes me smile somehow : it's pronounced quite like "escroc", which is the french for "crook". :)

u understand the metaphor at least, no?

[USAeconomymode]OH NOES .... signing kyoto or caring about the nature would kill american jobs!!11111111 [/USAeconomymode]

Anti-American American bastard currently living in America and of American nationality! People like you make me and spiN sick with your bullshit posts.

This turn this thread took was becoming somewhat depressing until you posted.

hey another fyi...

met a truck driver a couple nights ago, big rigs not local delivery. traveled over 240,000 miles last year hauling caustic waste. he doesn't own his rig but the company he works for does and they spent over $60,000 alone on diesel, avg. 6.1 mpg in summer and 4.8 in winter. this is just one driver who has been doing it for 17 years. company has 70 drivers.

what an insane situation.

yeah the future doesn't look to bright, saw the movie week ago, i didn't knew it was so dramatic :(. I guess it's time we all start looking at our selfs and try to be smart with our energy and stuff.

i know i will in the future (solar ftw!)

mans influence on the wider environment and climate is unproven, and uncertain. the climate and planet have changed many times of its own accord, there is nothing to show that it is not simply doing the same.

there's no evidence if you choose to ignore it
(or are just ignorant of it)

evidence is one thing

action is another

action should only be taken once we are certain something is even happening. global warming is unproven, and climate change is natural. human impact on the atmosphere is very minimal, and that is proven. nonetheless, wastage and pollution are a problem regardless of its effect on the environment.

we already have tons of proven fact pointing in the same direction... should we just sit idly by until it's already too late to do anything?

how can polluting the environment ever be a good thing?

edit: just read your post again.. you're wrong, global warming has already been proven - you just don't know it or won't believe it for some reason. papers are misleading you.

global warming is not the problem dude, its whether its been caused by man or not. the planet has changed temperature dramatically hundreds of times in the last millions of years....

if it was going to happen, it was going to happen. recylcing more and signing treaties that dont change anything wont suddenly cool the planet down.

would you agree that mankind is responsible for the dramatically heightened CO2 emissions?

we've killed loads of trees so it balances out

omfg...

dude,,,, unconfortable truth it should be.

Trees create O2 not CO2. So destroying trees would NOT balance it out.

Nothing changes simply of it's own accord.

but things have changed with out human interference sooo many times....

Those changes usually take thousands of years. Here we're talking decades. It's a slight difference.

I understand your point. But it's like saying:

"Because a car can crash for a multitude of mechanical reasons. It's not my fault that I ran into a tree while drink driving."

Because the environment has changed dramatically in the past should scare us not make us feel secure. If it has happened for reason x or y, it can happen again. Especially if we're artificially simulating reasons x and y.

If the planet had been identical for the past 200 billion years, i'd probably agree with oil tycoons when they say how arrogant it is to think that we could fuck it up.

if its going to happen, for any reason, they should do something about it, instead of trying to put the blame on someone.

Well i don't know enough about the power structure of governments to know about blame and 'doing something' etc.

Arizona bay sounds nice to me anyway.

"I've got something to keep you all occupied... learn to swim."

if "you" want "they" to do all the work and find solutions for "you" then "they" can blame "you" all night long for lack of effort when "they" present their solutions and "you" just aren't interested in compromising like the rest of "us" are willing to.

well why are 'we' all trying to put the blame on someone. this film rather than put forward realistic solutions to the problem set out to blame industry for it.

thats the point ... someone should do something ... -> everyone can do something even if its not much for each person the masses could make the difference.

most goverments wont act as long as the driving force tells them not do because they fear the loss of profits!

wish I could say the people that should know about global warming do, but that's obviously not the case!

so if you don't care about environment degradation, or just don't believe in global warming, then just buy energy efficient shit to save $ on your electricity bill, and leave the rest to the scientists and law makers (hopefully they'll accept global warming before evolution so something actually gets done).

there's a stat presented in the film, one that i actually read prior and independent of seeing the film, that talks of peer group reviews, totalling somewhere around 600+, that do not in any way refute that global warming exists. these are accredited scientific reviews, not posturing special interest "experts".

what do those that believe that global warming is AT LEAST an issue that have effective power to create legislation for lower pollution tolerances stand to gain from making sure that GM (or the like) and it's conglomerates set international standards for eco-friendly production of goods while promoting responsible consumption of their product?

yeah I found that fact very interesting..

out of 968 peer-reviewed articles, absolutely 0 refuted global warming and the problem it presents.

but out of 638 news paper articles, the number was 53%....

global warming is a small gold mine for academics.

the flipside is where the truth somewherein lies. how much money would mobilexxon (who's suing greenpeace btw for calling them on and making public their corrupt practices) stand to lose if people just simply cut their automobile use by 25% in major US cities in the next 5 years? billions upon billions of dollars. those are the 900-some-odd people (shareholders) and 'small gold mine' we should be concerned about.

as far as you're concerned...wtf is wrong or misleading about showing people ways to become conciencious and aware consumers? education is a bad thing? since when? i can only think of a couple reasons so help me out. one being the base christian anne coultier bullshit about god creating the earth for humans to rape and do with whatever they please. the other being the prideful unwillingness to adapt and change to new ideas and insights, something that is so uniquely american. prideful ignorance. i dont get it.

mobilexxon produces a good, academics think they provide a service.

Yea, i designed this computer myself. Fucking useless layabout academics.

Can you sort out global warming while you're up?

I'll redefine 'warming' as: The gross corpsification of post war regions. Problem solved.

let's just make a huge pipe and send alot of water in to space!!!!!!!!!!!!

Bongs to save humanity, news at ten.

Archive.

Too bad the guy that runs that site is paid by Exxonmobil and tobacco companies and can't be taken seriously by any thinking individual.

Archive.

No it's pretty much the same except it's less offensive since some admin had a hissy fit.

Archive.

Cry me a river brandan.

Cry me a river brandan.

5 words. If half of your new posts are stupid; 'me' and 'brandan' must be the 2 retards. While 'a' is somewhere in the middle.

Iusedscience

:o

aptly named

well done linking to a wellknown right-wing, propaganda-style exxon-mobil funded site - the guy writes for fox news for christ sakes :p

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Milloy
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=JunkScience.com
http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechan...62,00.html
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=95

Archive.

you're silly

You're not going to come any closer to reality unless you filter out the propaganda. From both sides.

Archive.

probably nothing, since that's not the comment I was replying to.

Archive.

Nope. Try again. You'll get it.

Archive.

That's a pity. You're more than welcome however. Any time.

Archive.

elevated discussion! LOL!!!

So, which floor do you want?

Oh wait, misread. Disregard.

just watched it now, and i have to say, it was quite good, it was definatly informative and interesting.

i was like a 'global warmings a myth' before i watched this, and i still have my doubts, but the frog in the hot water bit, really makes u think, and also the bit about fags before they knew they were dangerous.

i will definatly change the way i live as much as i can from now on (still gonna drive my car even tho it only gets 25mpg on a good day, because ive just bought it and i only do about 6k a year which aint much compaired to others)

every bit helps i guess, so il find ways to do my 'bit'

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6096084.stm

Mr Brown, who commissioned the report, has also recruited former US Vice-President Al Gore as an environment adviser.

So, non-believers.. who'd you rather trust - UK government or 'junkscience.com' ?

Neither?

A must see for sure. Global warming is no longer a myth the only scientists that expound this are non-peer reviewed lobbyists for the oil/gas industry... The disadvantages of doing nothing are enormous and the supposed disadvantages of doing the things the Mr. Gore and many others suggest are imagined or minimal, example the US motor companies that are referred to in the film.

There is much money to be made in the coming years in finding and utilizing renewable energy sources, not to mention the money that can already be made from protecting the environment and the savings that any individual can make by switching to energy saving devices. Even if you are a climate change skeptic buying a hybrid car will still save you money and decrease dependence on the Gulf region that is a sink hole for billions of dollars a year.

There is approximately 100 trillion barrels of known oil left in the earth with oil prices still expected to reach $100 a barrel (even with recent price drops) in the next couple of years, that's $100,000,000,000,000 still to be made by oil companies of course they want to protect their investments and keep people believing they are not destroying the world by using it.

Saving on energy cost by using renewable and efficient energy is good for everyone especially those who live near coastlines.

For those that didn't know Today (4th Nov) is the International Day for Action Against Climate Change... many major cities around the globe had ppl come in the streets to show their governments that the ppl want change and action on global warming... over 30,000 aussies went out in the streets even 7 odd thousand in Brisbane (funnily enough the first day with over 50mm of rain in over 1 year), many of you still have time to get out there so find a local organizer and do show your willingness

surely you mean:

universe #(one of 11+ that string theories posit) > observable universe > known universe > milky way galaxy > solar system > earth > europe > european union > denmark > funen > odense

indeed, but there was a character limit on it :(

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn4707

ok this is very drastic, but it's nothing new...the whole world knows about these problems. and most are willing to change it, slowly, but constant, with one exception: the USA, the only big industry nation not to sign the kyoto protocol (which is just a political and social brashness)

so this is mostly entertainment, but it's good if it helps to change the way of politics in the US. because, if voters do not demand protection of the environment, there will be no protection.