ROFL! I'm not sure how this became a referendum on the Peoples' Republic either.

Death and taxes are no longer the only constants in the "Internets" age: jacked threads fits in there quite nicely.

 

As do I actually. The concept of the end of the world is human in its origin, and if we continue to live only for the next day and not the next decades, so will we enact our own end.

The arguments I have been making are not to defend this ball of rock because I think we'll blow it up; They're about defending our ability to survive, and being willing to recognize the signs nature is showing us we are screwing our sweet gig up.

 

My god are you deluded.


From Cheers, "What color is the sky in your world Cliff?"


Sorry.....Global warming.

 

Driving a car is a gift not a given.

The chinese and Indians shouldn't be allowed to have cars.

Should we pay because they kept f***inf like rabbits?

 

It seems to me like we should be more concerned about the amount of coal China burns rather than the fuel economy of an impossible # of cars. I don't think 3 billion Expeditions will ever be around, but China will always continue to burn coal...

 

Ummm, sanctioning China because the "f**ked like rabbits" would be a very hard sell from just about any angle. If we sanctioned them for using their genitals, why then couldn't they or a group of other countries sanction us for using up so many resources and being the biggest polluter? That sort of argument can cut more ways than a V12-powered turkey knife in the skillful hands of a samurai.

 

Anyone watch the Discovery Channel special last night with Tom Brokaw?

 

Anyone that has taken the time to watch the Gore movie owes it to themselves to watch this one.

Having both sides of the story is always more interesting and valuable.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6IPHmJWmDk


I know this is an old thread but this vid (over an hour long) is new this month from the UK.

 

I just finished watching this, in the interest of being open-minded and hearing the competing scientific angle. I'm glad that someone is at least explaining the core competing arguments, rather than summarily denouncing GW for the run-of-the-mill reasons such as:

- Humans are miniscule in capability to harm such a large system (although the film does throw a couple bones in this direction)
- The Earth is invincible to human interference
- etc.

That said, I've already found a couple articles calling aspects of the film and its claims into question, and one of the scientists that appears in the film says his views were misrepresented in such a way that he feels he is being made to say something he does not believe or agree with (as a scientist in the field).

I will post these items later on after I read through them to see how credible they may/may not be.


As a preliminary review, I appreciate that most of the tone of this film is even-handed, though they do use some explosive language to describe the opposition. Also, I believe the tone of the pro-GW arguement is exaggerated by them. The film's very title calls anything pro-GW into total question in a polemical way, which the director freely admitted in an interview.

But personally I've never felt accused of being a GW contributor personally by any politician or fellow citizen because I drive a car or live in a big city. I honestly think the film relies a lot on environmentalist zealotry as a target, rather than more even-handed voices (like Al Gore's). Nobody condones (save the very people committing the zealous acts), least of all me, environmentalist zealotry like that of the ELF, who burn down a company's buildings and commit acts of arson and theft in the name (indeed defaming otherwise good efforts) of protecting the earth. Are there hippies (not saying hippies are necessarily ELF candidates) that would rather ride bikes than drive cars? Of course. Are there anachronistic fools that denounce technology? Of course. This shouldn't surprise any memeber of the human race, in any culture modern or otherwise.

Additionally, the claim of developmental repression in Africa I find to be specious at best. There are a myriad of reasons why African nations are poor and undeveloped, and energy alone is not the only reason. To tie a large part of it to pro-GW sentiment is taking a pretty ballsy leap IMO. Also, it's not like oil-rich nations are bastions of democracy and freedom either. Middle Eastern oil rich states may be developed in some cases (the opposite in others), but their people are more often than not subjugated heavily by kings and tyrants, and divided by theocratic tribalism. The oil economy has most definitely not been good to them, so if you ask me, the charge of pro-GW sentiment contributing to poverty is at best true in a convoluted way, and is ignorant of oppression in states not restricted in their use and sale of oil. The short answer to who is responsible for poverty, in Africa or globally, can be rested on so many shoulders, no one group deserves all or even a majority of blame. Policies can be problematic, and I'd like to know more about the UN stipulations before I eat that part of this film with a fork.

There's more I have, but I'll post it later.

 

Only the complete morons (granted, there are plenty) would trade our government for the Chinese government...despite our shortcomings.