An Inconvenient Truth - Moved From The Motion Picture Forum

[Baron Kurtz]

On the other current issue: You don't know the gas leak is going to cause an explosion until the explosion happens. Wait and you're dead ...

bk

 

[Shaul-Ike Cohen]

You don't know the gas leak is going to cause an explosion until the explosion happens. Wait and you're dead ...

… or run the risk of being called a hypocrit.

 

[Marc Chevalier]

"Preemptive" action-taking can be a dangerous, and highly abusive, thing. One of the U.S.'s "justifications" for invading Iraq was to stop Saddam Hussein from using WMDs in the future, even though:



a.) the "supporting evidence" was not believed by some notable experts; and

b.) at the time, the U.S. didn't have much of a plan, if any, for the rebuilding of Iraq.

.

 

["Doc" Devereux]

There are certain things we can do that we know will have a beneficial effect on our environment (lower the speed limit, encourage flexfuels and hybrid/alternative energy cehicles, work to create a more cohesive, comprehensive public transportation system, etc). To say that until we know exactly how bad it is, and exactly what specifically we have to do to completely fix the problem, we shouldn't do anything is like saying until we know exactly how bad blowing cigarette smoke in the faces of our children is for them and what we can do to fix the heath effects of doing that, we should keep on doing it. I think that's ridiculous.

-Jake

I'm not saying that at all Jake. I agree entirely, and support measures to slow down or stop causing damage. But there's a difference between resetting a broken nose and just not hitting oneself in the face any more. I was attempting (badly) to point out the difference between amelioration and solution.

I personally believe that things are going badly wrong with the climate, and will continue to do so until everyone starts taking measures in their own life to reduce the contribution to that damage. I'm also pretty sure that we don't know exactly how badly we've broken the planet and repairing the damage can only start when we understand it, otherwise it's just more meddling with a very complex and finely-balanced system that could come back to bite us in a hundred years. I feel much the same about GMOs, to be honest. We as a species are very bad tenants, and need to stop urinating in the corner of the front room before we worry about repainting the place.

 

[Katt in Hat]

Where are we going, and why am I in this handbasket?

To a picnic. You are :arated: a bottle of clarity...

 

[Baron Kurtz]

[QUOTE="Doc" Devereux] We as a species are very bad tenants, and need to stop urinating in the corner of the front room before we worry about repainting the place.[/QUOTE]

Couldn't have put it better, myself.

And this is what credible people in the public eye are saying.

Even the Gaia hypothesists i have encountered are saying this (in different words ).

For example, if everyone were simply to pay some attention to how much electricity they use, the effects might be nice - Indiana, for example, has a large number of coal-fired power stations, and Indiana coal is notoriously filthy with sulphur. Hence i try to reduce to a minimum the electricity i use (no air conditioner, turn the lights off, etc.) to reduce my contribution to the pollution. I'm not trying to be self righteous; simply an example.

bk

 

[Joe Bagofdonuts]

Are you saying that this part of Snopes is unreliable? Can you show evidence for that? Because if not, you are just blowing smoke. Find a quote where he said it, or stop repeating the lie. It is as simple as that. Snopes is just a convenient resource because I know that it generally has well sourced facts, and most people who cared to check knew that this canard about Al Gore and the internet was horsesh*t when it first plopped into public consciousness during the 2000 election campaign.

Personally, I am sick of the partisan hypocrites on both sides who will say anything to score points or "win" an argument. In this case, the truth is that the pompous and bloated Gore, for all his faults, never claimed to have invented the internet. Now that you know that, if you insist on repeating it then you are just repeating dishonest election year propaganda.

So Joe, what do you have to gain by repeating and then defending this lie?

Pablo, Dude take it easy. I don't check Snopes every time I want to comment on something that I think is common knowledge. Ok, he said he created the internet.

cre·ate (kr-t) KEY

TRANSITIVE VERB:
cre·at·ed , cre·at·ing , cre·ates
To cause to exist; bring into being. See Synonyms at found 1.
To give rise to; produce: That remark created a stir.
To invest with an office or title; appoint.
To produce through artistic or imaginative effort: create a poem; create a role.

That is even stronger wording than 'invent'.

in·vent (n-vnt) KEY

TRANSITIVE VERB:
in·vent·ed , in·vent·ing , in·vents
To produce or contrive (something previously unknown) by the use of ingenuity or imagination.
To make up; fabricate: invent a likely excuse

Look dude, you don't know me. I got a total of 9 posts, so give a new guy a break, will you. If I was talking to you in a restaurant or club somewhere, I'd move to another table. Because it's clear that you're trying to start something.

So Gore said 'create' instead of 'invent', makes no difference to me. He's still a fat, egocentric, whining, loser. Who can't get over losing to Dubya.

 

[Marc Chevalier]

Ah, linguistics.

You guys are really making my (and Saussure's, and Chomsky's) morning!

.

 

[jake431]

[QUOTE="Doc" Devereux]I'm not saying that at all Jake. I agree entirely, and support measures to slow down or stop causing damage. But there's a difference between resetting a broken nose and just not hitting oneself in the face any more. I was attempting (badly) to point out the difference between amelioration and solution.

I personally believe that things are going badly wrong with the climate, and will continue to do so until everyone starts taking measures in their own life to reduce the contribution to that damage. I'm also pretty sure that we don't know exactly how badly we've broken the planet and repairing the damage can only start when we understand it, otherwise it's just more meddling with a very complex and finely-balanced system that could come back to bite us in a hundred years. I feel much the same about GMOs, to be honest. We as a species are very bad tenants, and need to stop urinating in the corner of the front room before we worry about repainting the place.[/QUOTE]


Sorry Doc, I was quoting you, but I didn't mean to imply you thought that way - I was just saying what I thought of that line of reasoning (the sentence as you parsed it). Sorry for the confusion.

-Jake

 

["Doc" Devereux]

Ah, linguistics.

You guys are really making my (and Saussure's, and Chomsky's) morning!

.

Gosh. Does Chomsky like hats? Saussure was obviously wearing vintage, though..

 

[Marc Chevalier]

lol lol

 

["Doc" Devereux]

Sorry Doc, I was quoting you, but I didn't mean to imply you thought that way - I was just saying what I thought of that line of reasoning (the sentence as you parsed it). Sorry for the confusion.

-Jake

No problem Jake. :cheers1:

But I do agree with it to a certain extent: I'm more than a little wary of Bright Shiny Ideas that leap into the unknown without a thought for the consequences. To my mind, our tendency to do just that is one of the big reasons that we're in our present predicament.

 

[Joe Bagofdonuts]

Pablo, my friend, I went back and reread your responses to my good natured post. I sincerely believed Gore made the statement. So I must apoligize for my ignorance. However, please don't go acusing me of helping to proliferate a lie. It ain't a lie. Invent and create can be interchanged, they mean virtually the same thing. So get off your stinking high horse. :rage:

 

[Marc Chevalier]

Doc and Jake, good exchange of ideas.


.

 

[Miss_Bella_Hell]

Hope this isn't redundant...

My thoughts on global warming are as follows:

Not everyone is going to believe the armegeddon-lite theories that come with the Global Warming phenomenon. (Global Warming in a man-made way, not the natural ebb and flow of global temperature.) So instead of packaging global warming as an "O NO DA ERTH WILL ASPLODE" issue, why not package it as "Hey, emissions can give you cancer, let's be responsible and control emissions" or "Hey, pollution can cause a rise in certain algaes which can result in zero oxygen areas of the ocean, which in turn makes your seafood prices go up".

Make the issue more personally accessible and maybe more people will show interest. [huh]

 

[scotrace]

So get off your stinking high horse. :rage:

Don't make me come back there, you two.

 

[PrettySquareGal]

There are certain things we can do that we know will have a beneficial effect on our environment (lower the speed limit, encourage flexfuels and hybrid/alternative energy cehicles, work to create a more cohesive, comprehensive public transportation system, etc). To say that until we know exactly how bad it is, and exactly what specifically we have to do to completely fix the problem, we shouldn't do anything is like saying until we know exactly how bad blowing cigarette smoke in the faces of our children is for them and what we can do to fix the heath effects of doing that, we should keep on doing it. I think that's ridiculous.

-Jake

I'm with you, Jake.

 

[Marc Chevalier]

Don't make me come back there, you two.

The best solution is to ignore the donut bag. Lack of attention will bore him.
.

 

[jake431]

Doc and Miss Bella:

In response to both of you - yes, I agree. Part of the problem is that it's easier to sell "big solutions" and this problem - environmental damage is a big problem, regardless how serious the effects (ie the world as we know it will explode vs by ignoring the mounting evidence we stand to imperil our children and grandchildren etc). Most people want to hear about the big solutions - the problem is that so complicated a problem doesn't usually have a big solution, and frankly, politicians don't seem to get elected by offering to chip away a big problems with small solutions. So - the debate about the environment has been framed as a big problem - big solution issue, which unfortunately seems to invite the other side of the coin "no problem, no solution".

-Jake

 

[Lincsong]

Pablo, my friend, I went back and reread your responses to my good natured post. I sincerely believed Gore made the statement. So I must apoligize for my ignorance. However, please don't go acusing me of helping to proliferate a lie. It ain't a lie. Invent and create can be interchanged, they mean virtually the same thing. So get off your stinking high horse. :rage:

Joey B;
It's like Clinton saying he didn't have "sex" with that woman; Miss Lewinsky.lol It's all in the meaning of the word. Al Gore has an agenda, what about all that stock in Occidental Petroleum he owns? Hmmmmm.