/Thread

i would think it would not be far out of the realm of reason to argue that we do in fact have an exponential growth in access to resources. at least to a certain degree. we may not have an infinite source of coal, but that does not mean we do not have "exponential growth in access" to other energy resources. access to solar power is only limited by the expense of solar panels. basically you can make the argument 'where there is the will there is a way'

i don't think the aversion to "alternate energy sources" that is present in the typical conservative is really a matter of what the energy source is. it is more likely an aversion to the perception of being forcibly dragged along for the "transitional ride" and asked to pay for the expenses.

granted this example only really works with resources as in energy resources. not so much food.

Let's go back a step:

Britain's judges are less tolerant of dissent of views such as Al Gore's? Less tolerant than whose views? Yours?

What in the blue **** is that supposed to mean anyway?

I disregard YOUR views of British judges because you're talking bollocks.

ITT: film major complaining about films

(I kid, I kid)

Well, since you're so clearly aware of the scientific method, the fact that there is a scientific consensus on the subject should speak volumes to you then.

But of course you're too stubborn to acknowledge that there actually is a consensus. (Something you could easily discover for yourself with a minimum amount of research)

It's just sad that you're so black and white. You are constantly polarizing, dividing everything into 'socialist mumbo jumbo' and Conservative Wisdom. Even in the debate on global warming you start hanging political labels on everything. Try and rise above that.

The way you view things makes you seem like a dinosaur. Newsflash: the red scare was half a century ago.

I'm fully capable of interpreting something without agreeing with it. I didn't read the paper the line about exponential resources was from.

If you ask me it would be better for them to research the true history before seeing the film seeing as people are generally lazy and will just take the film as gospel if they can avoid doing work.

Well in this case the resources in question are not crude ore, but rather the material in it's usable form, which we do have greater access to.

You're right. I kind of glanced at the URL at the bottom of my internet browsing thingy but since your sentence is slightly beyond my reading ability I figured there was no way I could understand the article.



Generally my opinion is founded on a belief that if we intended to cause specific change to the climate we likely couldn't. Carrying that further, I believe that when we observe change we don't have the ability to understand how our activity interacts with such a complex and vast system. I have absolutely no problem with scientists studying the issue and expressing theories. I have a huge problem with national and global taxation and wealth distribution schemes disguised as being necessary to "protect the environment". Considering that the Earth has gone through inumerable cycles of warming and cooling before human activity ever entered the equation I find the immediacy of the situation questionable.

Are global warming advocates influenced by people like Al Gore that profit directly from the industry the create to deal with global warming?

Also, there once was a fringe group of scientists that weren't "flat earthers".



I should have been clearer. It is that regionally the judges are located in an area where it is just accepted as fact that Al Gore's views are correct so of course the judge has to save some face by praising the movie before ruling that it contains significant errors. I wonder if Jon'C made a significant error when he omitted that fact from his post which implies the judge made a positive ruling towards the film.

Elaborate.

Which judges, what area? Which of Al Gore's views? Are you saying that ALL of his views are INcorrect?

You're saying a load of vague things that make no coherent sense - why don't you just get to the point?

You don't know where British judges tend to be located?

My father-in-law is a circuit judge, I've got a pretty good idea. I want to know which areas you suppose to be Al Gore biased, and why.

Yeah, but what is your evidence for THAT? What science is THAT based off of? Saying, "oh the Earth is huge and we couldn't screw it up if we tried" is a cop out. You haven't bothered to actually learn anything about the issue, you're just dismissing it out of doubt.



Same as above. YOU don't understand these things, so they must not be true?

Are you sure about that?

The environmental impacts of agriculture are fairly easy to demonstrate. For example, slash-and-burn in South America and the global depletion of aquifers causes desertification. The Dust Bowl in the 1930s (ergo the "Dirty Thirties") was this sort of man-made ecological disaster.

Without commenting on your conclusion, your logic is bad.

I don't have to write about this because the internet already has.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_Flat_Earth

I agree, but it's pretty tough to force people to care no matter what order in which you try to do it. I tend to think that if you teach them first, it all goes flying over their heads, then you have them watch the dramatization and suddenly they think "oh now it all makes sense" and remember the movie version.

Alternately, I'd think showing the movie and giving them a much more approachable and entertaining introduction to the subject which piques their interest will yield better results as far as further research and retention is concerned.

That's just my experience anyway, personally as well as observationally. To simplify into examples pertaining to...let's just say Saving Private Ryan, since that was mentioned.

If someone learns about WWII, they get a whole lot of information, maybe some context, and probably remember very little about it. Then they watch Saving Private Ryan and place that narrative into whatever framework they have managed to create, and it fills in the details for them (some of which are incorrect, inaccurate, or speculation, etc.) and then that is what they remember.

However, if they watch the movie, they may be intrigued enough by the drama and the history to then go research the actual events surrounding the movie plot, and in so doing discover the inaccuracies, and fill in all the blanks and inaccuracies with the real information....but with the movie as a sort of "memory framework" that they base all the research on.

This is all, like I said, just how it works for me. The end result is that the better a movie was, the more I tend to know about the actual history of the subject.

Al Gore has campaigned on this issue for over 30 years, far beyond his business interests in the last 9 years. One would expect him to make investments based on his values and beliefs, and if he didn't you would accuse him of being a hypocrite. It is essential for businesses to invest in renewable energy sources, both to curb global climate change and also for the long-term economic cost of investing in dwindling resources and the international instability that arises from it (such as the 2004 coup d'état attempt in Equatorial Guinea, lead by private mercenary Simon Mann and financed by Mark Thatcher, based soley on the financial gain of control over oil resources).

Any reasonable person with an appreciation of scientific evidence understands that Wookie's position that human activity cannot possibly influence global climate is utterly untenable and based on a neurological inability for large-scale, long-term thinking. It is unfortunate that Wookie can probably maintain this stubborn denial, and faith in fringe economists that claim to have rebel insight into climate science, as the detrimental and irreversible effects of climate change won't be observed until after his lifetime. This stubborn desire to perpetuate short-term thinking on a nationalist scale will only affect the lives of his children and their children.

However, I do have some sympathy for his fear over what solutions to climate change appear to entail. The problem is that the Green Movement has hijacked this issue and presents it as part of wider social issues regarding apparently 'green' politics, inseparable from support for 'organic foods', opposition to nuclear power, opposition to genetically modified foods, and in some cases a general trend for grassroots anti-globalist eco-anarchism. Politically, these are all separately important and complicated issues, but they distract from scientific issue of climate change and direct solutions for curbing it. It is damaging, because people like Wookie quite understandably oppose the wider political issues that appear to come with 'green politics' and seek to undermine the fundamental issue to prevent accompanying radical political change. It is also damaging in that some proponents of green politics refuse certain technological solutions to climate change because it circumvents the need for their particular political and lifestyle change.

And this lifestyle change is also important in the perception of climate change, as some people have taken the 'green movement' as a lifestyle guide with some sort of pseudoreligious purpose, taking 'being green' to a 'holier-than-thou' level that is, well, frankly just really ****ing annoying.

What Wookie, and many many others, don't understand is that there are solutions to climate change that don't involve the radical political and personal change that some environmentalists would want to adopt. What is possibly distasteful to them, however, is that this must be an international affair and foreigners will have to involve themselves with American politics. The US is the biggest polluter per person than any other nation, and it is vital that Copenhagen lays down an international framework that the US can follow, and that there is the domestic American support that eludes Kyoto. This sort of approach made a huge difference in curbing the damage to the ozone layer in the 80s, where a fundamental international framework was laid down after which Margaret Thatcher rallied support for protective measures with great success. This can be done again with global climate change.

Hahaha, what are foreign values?

For the record, Nuclear Power is better for the environment. Environmentalists who oppose it are morons.

BUT REMEMBER CHERNOBYL!

...which was of shoddy construction and run by soviet Russia.

The closest we have is 3 mile island, and that's actually a wonderful example of a near disaster being AVERTED.

I actually made a presentation to class once about nuclear power.
Good times being asked about Chernobyl by smug idiots.

And also, the accident at Chernobyl was caused because they were trying some new system experimentally and they turned off all of the safety systems that might interfere with the experiment. Even the shoddily built Soviet safety systems would have worked, if they weren't turned off.

Also, despite the accident, Chernobyl continued to operate as a power plant generating electricity until 2000. Even today, the power plant still employs over 3000 people.

With greatly shortened shifts and extreme safety measures I would presume.

I'd appreciate sources so I can use those facts in future arguments against stupid environmentalists.

I got all I need from the Wiki article. Not directly of course, I link hopped from there.

Yeah my knowledge about Chernobyl is from wikipedia as well, playing S.T.A.L.K.E.R. got me interested in it so I looked it up. There's links to sources used in that article that could be useful to you as well.

Well, it's the Ukraine, so probably not.

What's your problem with Ukraine?

(and it's not THE Ukraine, it's just Ukraine.)

Quoted because I'm still waiting for an answer.

Shifts are determined by exposure level. Workers have been known to tamper with their radiation badges so that they may work longer shifts, thus make more money.

Ukraine is the country. The Ukraine is the area. Both labels are appropriate.

I think he meant the whole UK, as in the whole UK is a region biased towards Al Gore.

I hope so, because that's comically wrong.

Wroang: http://www.speroforum.com/a/21799/Ukraine-vs-The-Ukraine

I don't trust that most schoolkids would do this, unless they had some kind of a Facebook quiz.

Also, whoa I'm turning old and bitter!

Yes.



As sad as it is, it'll get straightened out in College. If he doesn't go to college then he'll probably never need to know the difference.

Grade School is a free baby-sitting service for parents. Ironically, my 11th grade history teacher told me that. Generally, the first year of college is essentially a crash-course of your 4-years in High School. So, if he ops to take World History over American History as his 2-course history sequence, then he'll get all of this information again anyhow.

Good luck with that. College is hardly any better than public education unless you get real lucky.

Making blanket statements about public schools is pretty stupid. I went to a rather good public school system, and I would hardly have called grade school a baby sitting service for parents. Further, I learned a hell of a lot in high school, and it was even accurate, too.

I went to very well rated and nice schools, as well. A bunch of different ones even. And to be honest, I've learned way more stuff, and way more RELEVANT stuff, on my own than I ever did in school. And by looking around at my college peers, it sure seems like they had a similar experience.