An Inconvenient Truth Premiere & Discussion Friday 6/16

[steven]

roughly 500 scientists from around the world signed the Heidleburg Appeal in 1992, just prior to the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, expressing their doubts and begging the delegates not to bind the world to any dire treaties based on global warming.......

Glad you mentioned that, Let me finsih this one for you buddy!

......its 72 Nobel laureates include 49 who also signed the "World Scientists' Warning to Humanity," which was circulated that same year by the liberal Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) and attracted the majority of the world's living Nobel laureates in science along with some 1,700 other leading scientists.

In contrast with the vagueness of the Heidelberg Appeal, the "World Scientists' Warning" is a very explicit environmental manifesto, stating that "human beings and the natural world are on a collision course" and citing ozone depletion, global climate change, air pollution, groundwater depletion, deforestation, overfishing, and species extinction among the trends that threaten to "so alter the living world that it will be unable to sustain life in the manner that we know." More recently, 110 Nobel Prize-winning scientists signed another UCS petition, the 1997 "Call to Action," which called specifically on world leaders to sign an effective global warming treaty at Kyoto.

Thanks for bringing that up I was looking for an excuse to throw that in the conversation.

Thumbs up!

[speaker]

Thanks, steven, for that.
What I can't believe is the total abandonment of responsibility for man's part in this, and for the unborn people of this world, our earth.
We clean up the world for ourselves, as well. Where is the crime there?
Oh, it'll cost.
We are not in the 19th century when burning coal for warmth, industry, was a thing for a much smaller population. And I use coal as an example, insert anything from insecticides to nuclear weapons to too many planes in the air.
Gotta put the brakes on. We HAVE to be contributing to the decay of the world.

[colossus27]

Please let me adress the obvious for you.

The obvious in Kyoto is omitting China and India from the agreement.

Forget the spin, forget the transparent logic in taking socialism and hammering it into environmentalism. This question has nothing to do with whether or not the logic is valid, if the earth is warming, or CO2 is the cause. Science has nothing to do with omitting these two countries- whose combined CO2 emissions exceeds the USA's emissions.

The lack of attention on this point reveals the underhanded purpose to this. Why were they omitted? Where was Mr Internet on this one, besides accepting underhanded campaign donations? Is it mentioned in this silly little shill for attention?

I don't need to see it to know it's not.

I hear all the time about how demand for Chinese demand for gas is raising US prices. Yet, for some reason, this very same increase in gasoline consumption is not an issue when Kyoto is discussed. Why?

Has China surreptitiously developed a car that emits 21% oxygen and 78% nitrogen? Maybe they've adapted Sharper Image's technology- that silly wire that "converts smog to pure oxygen"?

I have NEVER seen a scientific justification for omitting China and India. Supporters in forums just ignore the question. Pundits rip the thing apart just because of this. Yet nobody can defend the agreement. Because of this alone, Kyoto is not going to work.

[speaker]

OK, I agree, China and India should not be exempt so they can fill their quota of trashing the atmosphere.
They claim they will lose out in the race to become developed countries. This is garbage argument. They were poor because both countries overpopulated. This was one reason why they static development. And China was isolationist and India was occupied by England.
But these two countries are developing like lightening.

[speaker]

India's population is 1.3 billion people with China's being 967 million, and USA's at 295 million.
Projected populations for 2050 boggle the mind, for all counties but the British Isles and eastern Europe.

[steven]

The obvious in Kyoto is omitting China and India from the agreement.

I am talking about global warming, if you guys are talking about treatys that would seem to me to be an entire different discussion

[colossus27]

I am talking about global warming, if you guys are talking about treatys that would seem to me to be an entire different discussion

I have NEVER seen a scientific justification for omitting China and India. Supporters in forums just ignore the question. Pundits rip the thing apart just because of this. Yet nobody can defend the agreement. Because of this alone, Kyoto is not going to work.

See what I mean?

[steven]

See what I mean?

No I dont, politicians craft treatys not scientist.

I am talking about the scientific community not the political communitys reaction to the scientific community.

[granpabob]

supreme court can only rule on if our laws are being followed they are not scientist what they rule is not science it is law as written by congress. none of them are scientist either.
I have no idea if we are seeing anything but my own observation of our weather is cooler and wetter. I remember long hot summers and cold snowy winters .now we have milder winters and cooler summers. we also have rain rain and more rain.
i have not believed any thing Gore has said since he tried to take credit for inventing the intranet. something about the man always made me feel like he thought he was better then everyone else. Not quite sure why but he just always seemed like he was hiding something . just me but when I dont trust some one its hard to change my mind.
numbers can be read to state whatever you want I have seen articalls proving global warmer and disproving it both made sense so not being a scientist I will keep my coat and heavy blankets ready just incase it gets cold

[colossus27]

No I dont, politicians craft treatys not scientist.

I am talking about the scientific community not the political communitys reaction to the scientific community.

You can seperate the two in this day and age?

Global warming is the latest example of a political ****-hammer wrapped in velvety junk-science.

Remember the hysteria over AIDS in America in the late 80s? Oprah Winfrey saying one in 10 will die from it. That very same one that blossomed into more federal spending for AIDS research than cancer? How many people here know more that have died from AIDS versus cancer? We all know the answer there, don't we?

Too bad though- you publicly try to funnel AIDS research money into cancer, you're anti-gay, anti-UN, anti-Africa, a selfish American prick, whatever. Bono, charging $350 for front-row seats, comes out and publicly calls you an evil coldhearted fascist for not spending your money on it or his concert.

Meanwhile, your mother dies of breast cancer at 42, you evil gay-basher. In your life, a quarter of all the other people you'll ever meet will die from cancer.

That's a profound example of how the politicians impact science. This is no different. The Kyoto treaty is global welfare, disguised as really really weak science.

And since these very same dupes from the UN, et. al., establish the very same laws under which we all must Submit, it really doesn't matter what the scientific community really thinks, now does it?

[LHardy]

Glad you mentioned that, Let me finsih this one for you buddy!

......its 72 Nobel laureates include 49 who also signed the "World Scientists' Warning to Humanity," which was circulated that same year by the liberal Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) and attracted the majority of the world's living Nobel laureates in science along with some 1,700 other leading scientists.

Thanks for bringing that up I was looking for an excuse to throw that in the conversation.

Thumbs up!

Steven I do give you credit for independent thought.
Also the reply is very nice,
Thought provoked and a classic retort.


Though missing the amplitude of providential evidence.

[steven]

Im going to hit you with a water ballon next time I see you lhardy.

[TheRightView]

supreme court can only rule on if our laws are being followed they are not scientist what they rule is not science it is law as written by congress. none of them are scientist either.
I have no idea if we are seeing anything but my own observation of our weather is cooler and wetter. I remember long hot summers and cold snowy winters .now we have milder winters and cooler summers. we also have rain rain and more rain.
i have not believed any thing Gore has said since he tried to take credit for inventing the intranet. something about the man always made me feel like he thought he was better then everyone else. Not quite sure why but he just always seemed like he was hiding something . just me but when I dont trust some one its hard to change my mind.
numbers can be read to state whatever you want I have seen articalls proving global warmer and disproving it both made sense so not being a scientist I will keep my coat and heavy blankets ready just incase it gets cold

I have also seen proof denying God's existence and proof supportting it and both make sense. Should I believe grandpabob that there is a God?

[TheRightView]

Weren't there also doctors/scienitists who said that smoking was good for you and they thousands of doctors agreeing to that fact? Didn't scientists/doctors recently also say there no harm from tobacco. You may get scientists to back these foolhardy ideals but I'll be they will be in the minority. These scientist also said that certain diseases were only relegated to particular population and would not affect any other only to be proved wrong. Just because you can get certain professionals who are in the minority to back you doesn't mean they are correct...otherwise I expect that all you against global warmings should get those doctor back and reccomeded pills, potion, lotions, etc, because how could they be wrong. They tell you of al the benefits, why wouldn't you want them?

[granpabob]

I have also seen proof denying God's existence and proof supportting it and both make sense. Should I believe grandpabob that there is a God?

why not i keep blankets and coat arround just incase global warming is wrong God is your own choice I pray just In case he is real, better safe then sorry. I,m not going to get rid of all my warm clothing just because someone thinks the world is getting warmer .I have not seen it my self and dont know enough to believe either side .as per God I dont want to pick the wrong side being left behind would not be fun.