4/26/2006

An Inconvenient Manbearpig

Posted By Chris Crosby at 8:02 PM

* 9 comments

9 Comments:

Who should I believe? Al Gore or Michael Crichton?

You don't have to believe either of them. But if you believe Al Gore and he's wrong, the end result is a cleaner enviroment, or at least no harm done. If you believe Michael Crichton and HE'S wrong, the end result is... the end. Of the WORLD.

"Better safe than sorry" is a pretty smart saying, I think.

Hey, remember "Al Gore says he created the internet" (which never happened)? Well, Michael Crichton once PATENTED the concept of dinosaurs attacking humans. For REAL.

By Chris, at 11:09 PM

The fact that some of my colleagues on the logical right (*cough*trey Parker*cough*)refuse to beleive what is in front of their eyes is a sad reflection of the turn that policy has taken in the last half decade. When people start blinding themselves to the truth just because it inconveniently goes against their political ideology we know we're fucked.

By DarthNader, at 2:11 PM

Considering that compiled data over the last 30 years shows that it wasn`t possible for carbon gases to have caused so much damage in such a short amount of time, and rather that it's the solar cycle causing the Earth and other planets to recieve more energy, that there's pretty much no way of stopping it unless we want to invest in a giant space project to block part of the sun. So unless Al Gore's going to build an ark to bring everyone to the Internet, I doubt he has any real viable solution other than screaming until he's hoarse. What's the problem anyway, places like Canada and Syberia are going to become vast fertile areas for farmland and wilderness, if anything that`ll help the ecology of those areas.

As to the pollution aspect, sure you can say you want everything to be cleaner, but until you actually have viable solution which doesn`t involve simply goading companies out of their profits to invest back into a larger government system, I can`t really say I'd care to listen.

By Techus, at 10:28 PM

Lame 30 years ago they were talking about global cooling now its warming.
We are not doing any thing to make it happen it just part of how earth is.
The planet has cycles.Nothing more nothing less.
All these enviromental nut jobs do is make it harder for use to do things.

By Lord Strife, at 1:12 PM

Places like Canada and Siberia are NOT going to "become vast fertile areas for farmland and wilderness" because of global warming. On the contrary, they'll be fucked. Canada is ALREADY a vast fertile wilderness, not some barren iceland you may imagine. There are, however, problems resulting from the forestry industry because clearcut patches of land give way to massive soil erosion, and the runoff clogs rivers, plugging the drain causing the danger of flash floods. Global warming causes a heavy increase in rainfall, and melting snow. This equals flooding. Hugely. And Siberia, well, it would have other problems. Bad ones, I'm sure.

and all this "oh, it's no big deal, just cycles".... I'm sorry, but is that an educated opinion? Can you really claim to know what you are talking about, or are you SIMPLY GUESSING.......?

"Goading companies out of their profits", oh yeah, 'cos the companies are a) just so willing to contribute to globally beneficial ventures without any expected returns financially, and b) so hard-up for cash that it would kill them to spare it. The profit motive is part of the reason for the problem, and must be overcome in order to reach a solution.

For the price lesser than that of the budget for the Iraq war, America's dependance on oil could have been replaced with sustainable and domestically-produceable ethanol fuels. Farming crops for ethanol production would not only be better than the polluting processes of oil refinement, but the plants would actually help to clean the Co2 out of the air. Right now, we'd be well on our way to having it all set up and running smoothly, driving vehicles that run on a fuel which is less expensive, environmentally friendly, and worth skipping a war for. Too bad!

By differently, at 6:13 PM

Pardon me, however the video linked here does have valid points. No, i'm not a big fan of Al Gore, however if anyone of you would like to recieve actual data on what has been happening to our planet; i'd be happy to inform anyone willing to have an open mind. I'm graduating college as of this may with an environmental science concentration in biology and do have updated information and current books on facts based on data that have been through multiple science and peer reviews which isn't as easy as most people think it is.

We "environmental nut jobs' don't often come out with things that are trying to ruin everyones life. We're actually trying to do just the opposite and prevent things from happening. If the environmental field hadnt been created, take a moment to reflect on how many laws wouldn't be around. Let's say for example the clean water act, or perhaps the clean air act. Would you like to live in a hazy, smoggy, nearly nbreathable area with unhealthy water sources? I wouldn't and I know that for a fact.

Global warming is an issue now granted the earth DOES have its cycles, however since the time that we humans have gone past the industrial age and began affecting earth in ways that nature could not balance on its own we began to affect that natural cycle. Again I do have validated data by peer reviewed sources that I can provide.

Humbly yours,

By Serenarayn, at 8:59 PM

Sadly, the term "proof" here is a misnomer. Unless data provided is accepted 100%, especially by a complete peer review, what can be presented is only opinion, however strongly backed by data. It is a fact that there is not 100% agreement in the field of environmental scientists though.

Its using terms like "proof" that end up making the field be relegated to 'wacko eco-nuts'.

By Micon, at 9:30 PM

Who's statement are you referring to Micon? I know the term 'proof' was not stated in my responce I merely said I could provide peer reviewed data. Although yes you are right not all of us agree on everything all the time, however thats normal everyday life with everyone. With factual data that hass been tested over and over againon the other hand it begins to become clear on what is true and false data.

For instance in physics: Newton's law of gravitational pull. Would anyone like to argue that 'what goes up must come down'? This is exempt of course when you break through the energy required to pass the pull of gravity and go into space. Global warming does occur on a natural basis for the earth as a part of its natural cycle all i'm pointing out is that we screwed that cycle over and we contributed to multiple occurances that are reactions sustained from our handiwork.

By the way, good points i'm enjoying this debate thoroughly.

By Serenarayn, at 4:26 PM