|
Post by {joy the hideous new girl} on Jan 27, 2007 18:20:22 GMT -5
T_T Thank you Tori. Very mature.
|
|
|
Post by Swoosh on Jan 27, 2007 20:47:03 GMT -5
Yeah, I just recently watched An Inconvenient Truth. Based on the evidence in that movie, global warming is getting ready to screw the world over. Al Gore made me a believer...
The part that freaked me out the most was that if the rate of melting in Greenland and Antarctica continues at the rate it is, Manhattan is going to be completely covered in water! MANHATTAN!
|
|
|
Post by tyler on Jan 28, 2007 8:28:35 GMT -5
I'd like to see this movie. I hope it isn't exhaggerated or one sided, like Michael Moore's Farenheit 911....
|
|
|
Post by Swoosh on Jan 28, 2007 9:40:54 GMT -5
It is kind of onesided (sometimes the movie become more about Gore's 2000 election than global warming, and all the politicians shown ignoring or burshing aside the issue of global warming are Republicans), but its still worth seeing because it does really open your eyes to this issue...
|
|
maria
New Member
Posts: 1
|
Post by maria on Jan 29, 2007 23:08:57 GMT -5
Watch the Al Gore movie then come debate. Ok? Well when you look for certain things and find certain facts excluding the ones that prove it wrong, it's easy to make a movie to support anything
|
|
|
Post by {joy the hideous new girl} on Jan 30, 2007 7:28:11 GMT -5
ouch.
ice ain't gonna do you no good, tori.
|
|
|
Post by theallan on Jan 31, 2007 18:28:22 GMT -5
Okay, first of all, studies have confirmed that the earth, reacting to changes in the sun, goes through cycles of warming and cooling. Several centuries ago, it was MUCH warmer than it is today. The rate of warming also has NOT increased since the widespread use of fossil fuels. Add onto that the fact that glaciers are REFREEZING elsewhere, and it casts considerable doubt on the theory. Swoosh, you of all people should know better than to be so easily persuaded by simple filmmaking. The key thing to note is "IF" temperatures continue to rise at the same rate. Just because there has been a net increase in temperature over the past few decades does not mean that this represents any warming trend. We have no reason to believe that the ONE DEGREE DIFFERENCE in temperature will increase in future years.
|
|
|
Post by TORI! (is so hyper it's scary) on Jan 31, 2007 21:19:37 GMT -5
I love you Swoosh. And Allan, I'm not saying a word. Because I value your friendship. And might commit murder. O.o Ok.... maybye not murder... per say..... <3
|
|
|
Post by Swoosh on Jan 31, 2007 21:35:13 GMT -5
Okay, first of all, studies have confirmed that the earth, reacting to changes in the sun, goes through cycles of warming and cooling. Several centuries ago, it was MUCH warmer than it is today. The rate of warming also has NOT increased since the widespread use of fossil fuels. Add onto that the fact that glaciers are REFREEZING elsewhere, and it casts considerable doubt on the theory. Swoosh, you of all people should know better than to be so easily persuaded by simple filmmaking. The key thing to note is "IF" temperatures continue to rise at the same rate. Just because there has been a net increase in temperature over the past few decades does not mean that this represents any warming trend. We have no reason to believe that the ONE DEGREE DIFFERENCE in temperature will increase in future years. It has been proven recently (and this is not some wacked-up conspiracy theory, we read an article from CNN.com about it in History class today) that, with the release of the Sceitific Journal in the coming week, many scientists are beginning to speak out about how officials from the Bush administration (not necesarrily Bush himself, but people workign for him) pretty much forced scientists to edit their research concerning global warming and climate changes. In other words, any charts or reports concerning climate change that you've been looking at right now is pretty much Republican propaganda to keep people thinking that global warming is not a big issue. Why do they want us to think this? Because taking courses of action against global warming would hurt the oil companies, the main distributors of producst that release CO2 int othe environment. So, basically, oil lobbyists pay these Republican leaders to edit findings and downplay global warming - pretty scary when you think about it. I've usually sided with the Republican side of things, but if a Democrat as president would mean increased prevention against global warming, I'm all for it.
|
|
|
Post by TORI! (is so hyper it's scary) on Jan 31, 2007 22:35:59 GMT -5
<3 I. Love. Swoosh. OMG. HOLD ME.
..... wait
|
|
|
Post by tyler on Jan 31, 2007 22:52:03 GMT -5
I hate lobbyists....
|
|
|
Post by TORI! (is so hyper it's scary) on Jan 31, 2007 22:55:02 GMT -5
I love Swoosh....
|
|
maria
New Member
Posts: 1
|
Post by maria on Jan 31, 2007 23:00:27 GMT -5
lol... unless they're lobbying for something like... banana-nut muffins...
|
|
|
Post by tyler on Feb 1, 2007 10:58:15 GMT -5
I hate banana-nut muffins as well....
|
|
|
Post by Nina ♥ on Feb 1, 2007 20:05:47 GMT -5
I agree with Allan for once...or at least understand him this time. Sure we can try and prevent it but its not like the republicans take their hairspray and spray it out the window and laugh maniacally.
|
|