DN watches Al Gore's movie and makes major life changes....

[NCAces]

[ QUOTE ]
And the hate rolls on.

[/ QUOTE ]

What are you babbling about? There is no hate here. Is it hypocritical for Gore to be flying all over the place? Yes ... because the measures that they are advocating will have to mean less travel for everyone, by car and air, including Gore.

Look at what Prince Charles did ... he recently cancelled a trip to the US and used technology to accept an environmental award ... I think it was a meaningless gesture, but at least he practiced what he preached and is trying not to be a hypocrit. How about that for hate?

NCAces

[YoungGifted]

Now do you see why it's important that Al Gore is flying all over the place promoting his message?

[NCAces]

[ QUOTE ]
Slinging mud at Daniel for being naive and overly idealistic without even offering up the slightest of counterpoints to the points espoused by Gore in his film is mitigated ignorance and stupidity.

If I was in a better mood you people would be making me laugh instead of just sickening me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey, Nube ... google the movie and get all the counterpoints you want. Go to Politics here and get all the counterproints you want.

DN fanboy, DN is being naive. Live with it.

NCAces

[NCAces]

[ QUOTE ]
Now do you see why it's important that Al Gore is flying all over the place promoting his message?

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

NCAces

[sirio11]

[ QUOTE ]
google the movie and get all the counterpoints you want Go to Politics here and get all the counterproints you want.


[/ QUOTE ]

Probably some of us don't like to read all kind of crap, or don't like to hear the Russ Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly of the world or any of the other lemmings stuff.

But if you cite a scientific article about the issue by a PEER-REVIEWED journal with counterpoints to the Gore documentary, I'll be happy to read it.

[NCAces]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
google the movie and get all the counterpoints you want Go to Politics here and get all the counterproints you want.


[/ QUOTE ]


Probably some of us don't like to read all kind of crap, or don't like to hear the Russ Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly of the world or any of the other lemmings stuff.

But if you cite a scientific article about the issue by a PEER-REVIEWED journal with counterpoints to the Gore documentary, I'll be happy to read it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Waste your own time.

NCAces

[ApeAttack]

[ QUOTE ]
Science is wrong many times. Science is not always the truth. Science can not agree on this issue. Even if they did it wouldn't mean much. The Earth goes through cycles that are far larger than 100 years. Do a search on earth timeline. For huge amounts of time you need to break it down in millions of year piece. 100 years no pattern can be determined that has any value.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm a graduate student and am in close contact with many scientists who work in atmospheric chemistry. One of my professors last quarter is an author in a section of the IPCC report that just came out (also in 2001).

The atmospheric scientists are looking at the concentration of CO2 and other greenhouse gases over hundreds of thousands of years, not 100. Global warming is not just some hypothesis a couple of scientists thought of... it is FUNDAMENTAL science. The debate among an OVERWHELMING majority of scientists who have spent their entire careers dealing with these concepts is that global warming IS happening. Now, the only debate is over the speed of temperature rise.

Once again, global warming is based on FUNDAMENTAL, BASIC scientific concepts that any 2rd year undergraduate student in the physical sciences could understand.

[ApeAttack]

[ QUOTE ]
The sky is falling science scare tactics have been proven to be false in so many instances.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since they are so numerous, name 3 in the last 30 years.

I can name 2 major discoveries by atmospheric chemists that lead to very positive changes in society off the top of my head.

(1) The link between CFCs and the ozone hole. Now CFCs are banned and the ozone hole is making a recovery.

(2) The link between NOx (tailpipe) emissions and ozone (smog) formation. Los Angeles has much cleaner air now, although it is still pretty bad due to geographical reasons.

In both these cases, interested industries (such as DuPont with CFCs) lead a smear campaign full of lies and distortions to cast doubt on the science... as you are doing now.

[pig4bill]

[ QUOTE ]
Did DN/Gore say the over under was 50 years? I'll take the over for 2 million.

[/ QUOTE ]

He won't bet you now. After all, he's going to buy two Prius' and save the world.

[pig4bill]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Science is wrong many times. Science is not always the truth. Science can not agree on this issue. Even if they did it wouldn't mean much. The Earth goes through cycles that are far larger than 100 years. Do a search on earth timeline. For huge amounts of time you need to break it down in millions of year piece. 100 years no pattern can be determined that has any value.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm a graduate student and am in close contact with many scientists who work in atmospheric chemistry. One of my professors last quarter is an author in a section of the IPCC report that just came out (also in 2001).

The atmospheric scientists are looking at the concentration of CO2 and other greenhouse gases over hundreds of thousands of years, not 100. Global warming is not just some hypothesis a couple of scientists thought of... it is FUNDAMENTAL science. The debate among an OVERWHELMING majority of scientists who have spent their entire careers dealing with these concepts is that global warming IS happening. Now, the only debate is over the speed of temperature rise.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, that is NOT the only debate. There is debate over what the cause is. Seeing an effect, and choosing a convenient cause that you like without any proof, is junk science.