Leading Global Warming Skeptic changes mind after watching Al Gore Speak - P2P-Zone

Mazer · 12-10-07, 09:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by multi

You can see the predictions don't match reality very well.

The reality is much, MUCH worse than the scientific consensus predicted.

No, the reality is simply more dramatic than predicted. The data doesn't support the kind of qualitative reasoning being used here. Environmentalists aren't lamenting global warming because they think arctic sea ice and glaciers are good, it's because they think change is bad.

Change isn't bad, not on its own, and it should not be feared.

All this really means is that our collective ability to predict the future is for shit.

Nicobie · 14-10-07, 07:38 PM

All this really means is that our collective ability to predict the future is for shit.

YEP

albed · 15-10-07, 06:41 PM

9 Inconvenient Lies

A british school official objected to the indoctrination of students with classroom showings of An Inconvenient Truth and took the matter to court. A judge allowed the showings but found 9 significant "errors" in the facts that must be disclosed before each showing.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/e...on/7037671.stm

Mr Gore's assertion that a sea-level rise of up to 20 feet would be in the near future.

Mr Gore's assertion that the disappearance of snow on Mount Kilimanjaro in East Africa was expressly attributable to global warming.

Mr Gore's reference that polar bears had actually drowned swimming long distances to find the ice when they were known to have been drowned by a storm.

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/to...cle2633838.ece

A claim that atolls in the Pacific had already been evacuated was supported by “no evidence”, while to suggest that two graphs showing carbon dioxide levels and temperatures over the last 650,000 years were an “exact fit” overstated the case.

Mr Gore’s suggestion that the Gulf Stream, that warms up the Atlantic ocean, would shut down was contradicted by the International Panel on Climate Change’s assessment that it was “very unlikely” to happen.

The drying of Lake Chad, the loss of Mount Kilimanjaro’s snows and Hurricane Katrina were all blamed by Mr Gore on climate change but the judge said the scientific community had been unable to find evidence to prove there was a direct link.

The drying of Lake Chad, the judge said, was “far more likely to result from other factors, such as population increase and overgrazing, and regional climate variability”. Similarly, the judge took issue with the former Vice-President of the United States for attributing coral bleaching to climate change. Separating the direct impacts of climate change and other factors was difficult, the judgment concluded

multi · 15-10-07, 10:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mazer

Environmentalists aren't lamenting global warming because they think arctic sea ice and glaciers are good, it's because they think change is bad.

Change isn't bad, not on its own, and it should not be feared..

for what it is worth.. the 'environmentalists' are pushing for a change in our output of pollutants that are helping to drive this climate change ...its the big corporations that invest millions into reinforcing the idea that it was all going to happen anyway that want to avoid change in our usage and consumption of fossil fuels ,plastics...etc

Mazer · 15-10-07, 11:22 PM

Change isn't necessarily inconvenient, multi, but environmentalists base their claims on the assumption that it is. By avoiding discussions on the positive effects of climate change they get away with telling us that we must bear minor changes to our lifestyles to avert major changes to our climate. They fear the changes they have no direct control over, multi, and they're reacting out of that fear. They do so by forcing change, by taking control. To say the least, it's a stupid way of handling this situation.

albed · 16-10-07, 02:44 AM

I think you have it backwards Mazer; the environmental movement has long been attempting to grab power by grossly exaggerating environmental causes and they finally found one that resonates with the ignorant majority. Their leaders personal disreguard for their proclaimed beliefs demonstrates that even they don't buy into the bullshit but are simply using the rhetoric to gain political support from the frightened simpletons.

People like multi are eager recruits because they already envy people who are successful enough to actually burn fossil fuels and they enjoy having a weapon against them, and of course they're completely ignorant of scientific principals.

multi · 17-10-07, 07:45 PM

your anal presumptions are laughably wrong as usual, there is a whole spectrum of 'scientific principals' outside your pathetic egotistical mindset.

I envy 'people who are successful' ?
get a fucking clue you moron..

multi · 19-10-07, 11:04 AM

Quote:

It is what it is, and neither Mother Nature nor the Laws of Physics are open to negotiation.

http://www.paulchefurka.ca/WEAP/WEAP.html

Quote:

In any event, if the conclusions of this model are anywhere close to correct all these arguments are moot. Energy constraints will trigger a reduction in population starting within 20 years, and the impact of those constraints will far exceed anything that such humanitarian measures could accomplish. In fact, if the model is correct, there will be no ongoing overpopulation problem at all, as natural processes intervene to bring our numbers back in line with our resource base.

This leaves the question of what such a population decline would look and feel like. The details of such a profound experience are impossible to predict, but it's safe to say it will be catastrophic far beyond anything humanity has experienced. The loss of life alone beggars belief. In the most serious part of the decline, during the two or three decades spanning the middle of this century, even with a net birth rate of zero we might expect death rates between 100 million and 150 million per year. To put this in perspective, World War II caused 10 million excess deaths per year, and lasted a scant 6 years. This could be 50 times worse. Of course, a raw statement of excess deaths doesn't speak to the risk this will pose to the fabric of civilization itself.

albed · 19-10-07, 04:24 PM

Oh no! Quick multi, start running around in circles and shrieking hysterically.

Even though predictions of global catastrophe have been circulating for centuries there's never a shortage of gullible fools to believe them.

I'll bet multi was around when "The Population Bomb" came out, though he's probably long since forgotten about it.

14-10-07, 07:38 PM	#2
Nicobie Registered User Join Date: Mar 2000 Posts: 5,522	All this really means is that our collective ability to predict the future is for shit. YEP __________________ May your tote always stay tight and your edge eversharp :wink:

17-10-07, 07:45 PM	#7
multi Thanks for being with arse Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: The other side of the world Posts: 10,343	your anal presumptions are laughably wrong as usual, there is a whole spectrum of 'scientific principals' outside your pathetic egotistical mindset. I envy 'people who are successful' ? get a fucking clue you moron.. __________________ i beat the internet - the end boss is hard Secret Temple of It

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

15-10-07, 06:41 PM	#3
albed flippin 'em off Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: the real world Posts: 3,232	9 Inconvenient Lies A british school official objected to the indoctrination of students with classroom showings of An Inconvenient Truth and took the matter to court. A judge allowed the showings but found 9 significant "errors" in the facts that must be disclosed before each showing. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/e...on/7037671.stm Mr Gore's assertion that a sea-level rise of up to 20 feet would be in the near future. Mr Gore's assertion that the disappearance of snow on Mount Kilimanjaro in East Africa was expressly attributable to global warming. Mr Gore's reference that polar bears had actually drowned swimming long distances to find the ice when they were known to have been drowned by a storm. http://business.timesonline.co.uk/to...cle2633838.ece A claim that atolls in the Pacific had already been evacuated was supported by “no evidence”, while to suggest that two graphs showing carbon dioxide levels and temperatures over the last 650,000 years were an “exact fit” overstated the case. Mr Gore’s suggestion that the Gulf Stream, that warms up the Atlantic ocean, would shut down was contradicted by the International Panel on Climate Change’s assessment that it was “very unlikely” to happen. The drying of Lake Chad, the loss of Mount Kilimanjaro’s snows and Hurricane Katrina were all blamed by Mr Gore on climate change but the judge said the scientific community had been unable to find evidence to prove there was a direct link. The drying of Lake Chad, the judge said, was “far more likely to result from other factors, such as population increase and overgrazing, and regional climate variability”. Similarly, the judge took issue with the former Vice-President of the United States for attributing coral bleaching to climate change. Separating the direct impacts of climate change and other factors was difficult, the judgment concluded

15-10-07, 11:22 PM	#5
Mazer Earthbound misfit Join Date: May 2001 Location: Moses Lake, Washington Posts: 2,563	Change isn't necessarily inconvenient, multi, but environmentalists base their claims on the assumption that it is. By avoiding discussions on the positive effects of climate change they get away with telling us that we must bear minor changes to our lifestyles to avert major changes to our climate. They fear the changes they have no direct control over, multi, and they're reacting out of that fear. They do so by forcing change, by taking control. To say the least, it's a stupid way of handling this situation.

16-10-07, 02:44 AM	#6
albed flippin 'em off Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: the real world Posts: 3,232	I think you have it backwards Mazer; the environmental movement has long been attempting to grab power by grossly exaggerating environmental causes and they finally found one that resonates with the ignorant majority. Their leaders personal disreguard for their proclaimed beliefs demonstrates that even they don't buy into the bullshit but are simply using the rhetoric to gain political support from the frightened simpletons. People like multi are eager recruits because they already envy people who are successful enough to actually burn fossil fuels and they enjoy having a weapon against them, and of course they're completely ignorant of scientific principals.

19-10-07, 04:24 PM	#9
albed flippin 'em off Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: the real world Posts: 3,232	Oh no! Quick multi, start running around in circles and shrieking hysterically. Even though predictions of global catastrophe have been circulating for centuries there's never a shortage of gullible fools to believe them. I'll bet multi was around when "The Population Bomb" came out, though he's probably long since forgotten about it.