The Lotus Cars Community banner

1 - 20 of 810 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,079 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I can't even remember how long I held that belief. I know a few people on this board (and a frightening number all over the world) still believe that is true. I think I can explain why.

For me, it was several things.

1) I didn't want it to be real
2) There appeared to be a lot of doubt among the experts
3) 1+2=3. Since I didn't want it to be real, I chose to believe the experts that doubted it.

But then I learned what the news doesn't want you to know. There is absolutely 0 doubt among the scientific community that global warming is real and man-made. But there is a strong bias toward skepticism in the media.

As of the time that Al Gore was "making it up" as some people put it, there were 928 peer reviewed scientific articles on the subject. All 928 said it existed and is man made. During the same time period, more than half of the news articles on the subject said that the scientific community is uncertain. That should make you mad and you should feel deceived by the media. Note, they're not saying that public officials have doubt. Or that the general public has doubt. They (the media) are saying that the scientists have doubt and that is a bold faced lie.

I'm not ambitious enough to think I can turn a republican into a liberal. I wouldn't even try. This really is not a partisan issue. It's not even about loss of liberty. The liberties we've grown accustomed to are fading and will one day be gone either through activism (God forbid) or through loss of resources.

My challenge to those that don't believe in global warming is simple. Watch "An Inconvenient Truth." I know - I know. It's all bogus so why bother? Because. If you can watch that documentary and still question the facts when they're laid out before you in plain english, more power to you.

To those that can't wait to rebut long enough to actually watch the movie, but rather just pass along the misleading and misused "facts" you've heard from your local news station...

Yes, it's true that most of the CO2 in the world is natural, not man made.
Yes, it's true that CO2 and global temperature are cyclical - both annually and over the course of history.

No, neither of those facts indicates that man made global warming is false or not critical to address. Again, please choose to educate yourself with both sides of the argument before trying to argue. It really makes a person appear unenlightened when he/she claims to know so much inherently that he/she doesn't need to listen to those that spend their lives studying a topic.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,166 Posts
My challenge to those that don't believe in global warming is simple. Watch "An Inconvenient Truth."
You almost had my attention until this part.
It's like saying, if you want to understand the healthcare system in America, watch "Sicko."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,221 Posts
I just did a presentation on global warming and was going to write a research paper. It's real.


Some people like to argue that the scope in which we are looking is merely a speck on the timeline of the earth, but consider that greenhouse gas levels are higher than they have been in over 650,000 years. Is that a big enough speck for you?



And yes, people like to watch news outlets that reinforce their preconceptions, even if those preconceptions are inaccurate. That's why I watch Fox news when I want to feel good :)
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
26,313 Posts
18 states sue EPA over greenhouse gas pollution
Thu Apr 3, 2008 1:41pm BST


By Deborah Zabarenko, Environment Correspondent

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Eighteen states sued the Environmental Protection Agency on Wednesday for failing to limit greenhouse gas emissions from new cars and trucks, one year after the Supreme Court ruled that the agency had the power to do so.

The suit seeks EPA's response to the high court's April 2, 2007, ruling, a landmark decision seen as a sharp defeat for the Bush administration's policy on climate change.

While acknowledging the reality of human-caused global warming, the administration has opposed across-the-board limits on carbon emissions that make the problem worse.

In addition to the states, officials from three cities and at 11 environmental groups signed the suit, which seeks action within 60 days. Environmental lawyers acknowledged a response is unlikely before President George W. Bush leaves office.

EPA chief Stephen Johnson, traveling in Australia, said after last year's ruling that the agency would respond by the end of 2007, but did not publicly do so.

The lawsuit said the environmental agency has determined that greenhouse gas emissions endanger public welfare, and once that judgment is made, the EPA must regulate these pollutants under the Clean Air Act.

Last week, Johnson announced a plan to seek public comment on how to limit these emissions, infuriating environmental advocates who noted in a conference call on Wednesday that more than 50,000 public comments had been received at the beginning of this process, nearly nine years ago.

"Once again the EPA has forced our hand, which has resulted in our taking this extraordinary measure to fight the dangers of climate change," Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley said in a statement. "The EPA's failure to act in the face of these incontestable dangers is a shameful dereliction of duty."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
478 Posts
Anyone with any kind of scientific/experimental background knows that correlation does not equal causation...

They also know better than to make "absolute" statements. Pretty much ever. It's all about statistical probabilities, not absolutes. Just because 100% of patients given drug X get cancer, you can't say "Drug X causes cancer". Depending on the sample size, etc, you can make allegations such as "Patients given Drug X have a high statistical probability of developing cancer". But even then, science allows for the fact that just because they all developed cancer, any number of unknowns NOT being tested for and controlled could have actually caused the cancer.

In the case of global warming, just because CO2 levels have been rising in conjunction with global temperatures, does NOT mean that the temperature has risen because of the rising CO2 levels. It has been scientifically shown that a rise in temperature will increase the amount of CO2 present in the atmosphere though.

Likewise, please find us some statistical evidence regarding the percentage of global atmospheric CO2 that is contributed by man, rather than by nature.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,094 Posts
18 states sue EPA over greenhouse gas pollution
Thu Apr 3, 2008 1:41pm BST


By Deborah Zabarenko, Environment Correspondent

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Eighteen states sued the Environmental Protection Agency on Wednesday for failing to limit greenhouse gas emissions from new cars and trucks, one year after the Supreme Court ruled that the agency had the power to do so.

The suit seeks EPA's response to the high court's April 2, 2007, ruling, a landmark decision seen as a sharp defeat for the Bush administration's policy on climate change.

While acknowledging the reality of human-caused global warming, the administration has opposed across-the-board limits on carbon emissions that make the problem worse.

In addition to the states, officials from three cities and at 11 environmental groups signed the suit, which seeks action within 60 days. Environmental lawyers acknowledged a response is unlikely before President George W. Bush leaves office.

EPA chief Stephen Johnson, traveling in Australia, said after last year's ruling that the agency would respond by the end of 2007, but did not publicly do so.

The lawsuit said the environmental agency has determined that greenhouse gas emissions endanger public welfare, and once that judgment is made, the EPA must regulate these pollutants under the Clean Air Act.

Last week, Johnson announced a plan to seek public comment on how to limit these emissions, infuriating environmental advocates who noted in a conference call on Wednesday that more than 50,000 public comments had been received at the beginning of this process, nearly nine years ago.

"Once again the EPA has forced our hand, which has resulted in our taking this extraordinary measure to fight the dangers of climate change," Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley said in a statement. "The EPA's failure to act in the face of these incontestable dangers is a shameful dereliction of duty."
now i not only get a free weekends race fees, but i also get a $100 car part of my choosing. i think i should buy a lottery ticket today.
thank you!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,221 Posts
How about deforestation? How about the fact that the ocean, which absorbs much of the co2, does not absorb as effectively when it's warm? How about all of the co2 that is a by-product of burning fossil fuels for production?

Some correlations are just BS and manipulated statistics, yes, but you're just ignoring the blatant facts. :p
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,970 Posts
My challenge to those that don't believe in global warming is simple. Watch "An Inconvenient Truth." I know - I know. It's all bogus so why bother? Because. If you can watch that documentary and still question the facts when they're laid out before you in plain English, more power to you.
"An Inconvenient Truth" is a great sales pitch. The problem lies in your statement, "and still question the facts when they're laid out before you in plain English", assumes that the presentation contains complete facts, not selected ones. There is an extraordinary, scientific (yes, by scientists that you seemed to have missed) rebuttal that takes Al's facts (no disputing that they are facts) and points out why those facts do not, and cannot, lead to the conclusions that Al, scientist that he is, presents in "An Inconvenient Truth."

Personally, I don't know the degree to which man has added or altered the normal cycle of climate change. All of the facts, don't seem to support a major change, but it is certainly a complex situation that is not fully understood.

Oh, and I have a vested interest...I live about a foot above mean high tide. Less during El Niño. :eek:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,970 Posts
How about the fact that the ocean, which absorbs much of the co2, does not absorb as effectively when it's warm?
I think you just proved jesterbot's point. Natural warming of the Earth results in greater atmospheric CO2. The interesting fact is that when the facts Al Gore presented are examined more thoroughly, the very same studies he quotes, show that the warming preceded the increase in CO2.

Facts are like statistics, you can make them say anything you want if you present them selectively and in a context of your own making, which is what Al Gore did, intentionally, or not.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
494 Posts
I generally discount any argument that involves claims that there's no doubt in the scientific community. The scientific community gives itself "outs" on statements that 2+2=4! Much less a concept as complex as global warming. Know the best way to get 10 opinions on something? Ask five scientists! :)

That doesn't mean we as a society shouldn't work on reducing CO2 emissions, making cars cleaner, etc. But let's not get crazy about it.

Steve
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
263 Posts
You had me until:

warming is real and man-made
Global warming is real. No one doubts or opposes that.

But what (if any) impact man has on the NATURAL warming of the Earth is guessing at best. No one, I don't care who they are, can predict micro-climate changes or cause/effect.

Meteorologists are highly trained and experienced individuals, and they have a hard time being correct a few days in advance with reliability.

The big problem is, there is no basis for comparison. Data for human impact on environment started long after industrialization, which gives us no control point. The accuracy and density of the data has changed dramatically as well, making it hard to correlate across the complete timespan we do have.

Then you have to contend with natural disasters, sun spots, solar flares, and the millions of natural variations that impact our weather and climate.

-----------------

Do I think we are causing or accelerating global warming? Doubt it.

Does that mean we shouldn't be environmentally conscious? Absolutely not. WE still live on the earth, and we should be making these changes for our OWN good, not the planet's. Better air quality, less waste, higher efficiency and renewable resources all help humankind in a plethora of ways.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,708 Posts
I can't even remember how long I held that belief. I know a few people on this board (and a frightening number all over the world) still believe that is true. I think I can explain why.

For me, it was several things.

1) I didn't want it to be real
2) There appeared to be a lot of doubt among the experts
3) 1+2=3. Since I didn't want it to be real, I chose to believe the experts that doubted it.

But then I learned what the news doesn't want you to know. There is absolutely 0 doubt among the scientific community that global warming is real and man-made. But there is a strong bias toward skepticism in the media.

As of the time that Al Gore was "making it up" as some people put it, there were 928 peer reviewed scientific articles on the subject. All 928 said it existed and is man made. During the same time period, more than half of the news articles on the subject said that the scientific community is uncertain. That should make you mad and you should feel deceived by the media. Note, they're not saying that public officials have doubt. Or that the general public has doubt. They (the media) are saying that the scientists have doubt and that is a bold faced lie.

I'm not ambitious enough to think I can turn a republican into a liberal. I wouldn't even try. This really is not a partisan issue. It's not even about loss of liberty. The liberties we've grown accustomed to are fading and will one day be gone either through activism (God forbid) or through loss of resources.

My challenge to those that don't believe in global warming is simple. Watch "An Inconvenient Truth." I know - I know. It's all bogus so why bother? Because. If you can watch that documentary and still question the facts when they're laid out before you in plain english, more power to you.

To those that can't wait to rebut long enough to actually watch the movie, but rather just pass along the misleading and misused "facts" you've heard from your local news station...

Yes, it's true that most of the CO2 in the world is natural, not man made.
Yes, it's true that CO2 and global temperature are cyclical - both annually and over the course of history.

No, neither of those facts indicates that man made global warming is false or not critical to address. Again, please choose to educate yourself with both sides of the argument before trying to argue. It really makes a person appear unenlightened when he/she claims to know so much inherently that he/she doesn't need to listen to those that spend their lives studying a topic.
you mean like the fact that mr gore showed us a dry lake bed but neglected to mention the river that fed the lake had been dammed?
like THOSE kind of facts??
yeah.
i wish special interest groups would just eat sh*t and die already.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,409 Posts
This tends to be a pretty engineering and scientifically-minded group. I'm not a climatologist, so I am most interested in hearing what scientists are determining. There is no room for politics in the scientific method, and it would seem that there must be scientists out there who have a pretty good understanding of the factors that influence climate change and who are studying the data.

I don't know who or how many of these scientists there are or where one would go to research their findings. But, I can tell you that I am not interested in listening to people who are hung up on the credibility of Al Gore or basing their opinions on their own personal deductive reasoning on the matter.
 
1 - 20 of 810 Posts
Top