Beldaran wrote:The problem with global warming is not that it will be 2 degrees warmer in Philly. The problem is that it will be 3-4 degrees warmer in the arctic circle, causing massive glaciers to melt and raise the water levels. Imagine 1/2 of Florida underwater. (pretend this is a bad thing, just for arguments sake.) Southeast Asia underwater. Imagine 50 million people starving to death because of crops that are no longer adapted to shifting climates.
These changes would not happen overnight as seen in schlock like
The Day After Tomorrow. Necessity is the mother of invention. I'm sure we'd be able to figure something out in time. Most of Holland is below sea level. They built dikes to keep the water out. Most of New Orleans is below sea level. They built levees to... eh, let's stay away from that one...
Beldaran wrote:1) C02, Methane, and other such hydro-carbon gases produce a greenhouse effect on the earth. This has been directly observed, verified with both theoretical and experimental calculations. It is not debatable by rational people.
Agreed. Anybody who doubts this should take a look at the planet Venus.
Beldaran wrote:2) Humans produce a LOT of C02, Methane, and other such hydro-carbon gases. This has been directly observed and calculated. It is not debatable by rational people.
Agreed. My only contention is when people call CO2 a "pollutant." How can something we exhale be considered a "pollutant?"
Beldaran wrote:1) Humans produce enough greenhouse gases to affect the global climate.
This is probably our only disagreement.
rock_nog wrote:Like I said, that connection hadn't occurred to me when I came up with that title.
I realize that. You're not the first one to use the term "global warming deniers." Those who have, such as Algore, High Priest of the Church of Anthropogenic Global Warming, undoubtedly wish to make that connection.
rock_nog wrote:EDIT: Though Beldaran is right, that the number crunching and simulation running we've done so far does lean toward the notion that yes, it's likely.
Just remember, when it comes to climate models, garbage in... garbage out. For some strange reason I doubt the validity of temperature readings from 200 or even 100 years ago. I also doubt the ability of these models to predict the climate 50
years from now accurately when they can't even predict the weather 5
days from now with any accuracy.
As I pointed out, even the best model has flaws, but it's all we really have to go on in terms of concrete data, short of just waiting and seeing. I wouldn't just dismiss the concept off-hand, though. It's easier to model long-term climate change than it is short-term weather patterns because things tend to average out over the long term - I mean, I can't predict what the temperature will be on July 17th, but I can say with a fair amount of confidence that it's probably going to be hot.
And yes, of course humans will adapt, but in the meantime, it'll result in a huge blow to the economy. Only in the most extreme of scenarios is anyone talking about the end of humanity or anything. The concern is over how adapting to the upcoming changes will affect people's lives and livelihoods. I mean, look at the Little Ice Age. Nowhere near being a threat to humanity or anything - nonetheless, it did make life incredibly hard for a lot of people, and resulted in quite a few deaths. And that, too, was only a minor change in temperature, by the way.
I just want to mention that I had to write an academic essay on global warming in AP English Language today. This thread helped me out a lot. 😊
AlphaDawg wrote:These changes would not happen overnight as seen in schlock like The Day After Tomorrow.
Wait, there are people who take The Day After Tomorrow seriously as evidence of how global warming works? I suppose that really shouldn't surprise me, but sometimes even I'm still surprised by how dumb people can get. I mean, I understand someone taking Inconvenient Truth as actually being truth. It's a bit careless, after all you should never take one source to be all that reliable, but at least it's a documentary, rather than an action movie.
Next thing you know, people will start taking movies/books like The DaVinci Code and Harry Potter as serious attacks against their beliefs. Pff, like that'll ever happen.
AlphaDawg wrote:
This is probably our only disagreement.
We don't necessarily disagree. I want to make clear that the answer to whether we produce enough greenhouse gases to affect climate is not conclusive. I'm just making the argument that by the time we find out the answer, we may have already done the damage.
It's all highly open to speculation and research though; it's not nearly ( or even at all) as concrete as Al Gore wants us to think. He's definitely playing an angle here.
Feasul wrote:Wait, there are people who take The Day After Tomorrow seriously as evidence of how global warming works? I suppose that really shouldn't surprise me, but sometimes even I'm still surprised by how dumb people can get. I mean, I understand someone taking Inconvenient Truth as actually being truth. It's a bit careless, after all you should never take one source to be all that reliable, but at least it's a documentary, rather than an action movie.
Reminds me of my cousin's friend after she saw Fahrenheit 9/11. "Bush is a moron." Because we all know that Michael Moore is the end all be all of truth.
But even that's understandable, albeit naive and kinda stupid. But taking The Day After Tomorrow seriously, that strikes me as similar to watching Terminator 3 and worrying about Skynet taking over the world.
If that's understandable then so is The Day After Tomorrow. It's supposed to be an apocalyptic prediction, or for the Global Warming crowd, the definite future. There wouldn't really be a difference between Moore's Movies and TDAT.
No it isn't - the Day After Tomorrow was never presented as even remotely realistic. It was an action movie, and presented as such. At least if anyone took Fahrenheit 9/11 seriously, they have the excuse that it was presented as a serious documentary.
Wow, you're letting your views on Bush get in the way of truth. IMDB classifies it as a documentary. If you don't trush IMDB, maybe you should look at the website for An Inconvenient Truth. http://www.climatecrisis.net/
Micheal Moore is just a liberal version of people like Rush Limbaugh... radical, rhetoric-spouting dipshits that only complete morons even pay attention to.
WTF? Where on IMDB does it classify it as a documentary?
phattonez wrote:Wow, you're letting your views on Bush get in the way of truth. IMDB classifies it as a documentary. If you don't trush IMDB, maybe you should look at the website for An Inconvenient Truth. http://www.climatecrisis.net/
First, we're talking about TDAT, not An Inconvenient Truth. Second, just because we say that we'd understand someone believing An Inconvenient Truth or Farenheit 9/11 does not mean we believe them. I'd be just as understanding of someone who believes Expelled, even though I think that movie's a fraud. TDAT is not presented as a documentary. It's an action movie, complete with CGI scenes of New York being flooded and a fictitious Vice President who looks suspiciously like Cheney.
Well hell I just don't know the difference anymore, the two pretty much just merged in my mind. Either way, The Day After Tomorrow is seen by many as a definite view of our future if we do not change.
I know they do, and it baffles my mind. It kinda makes me think way back to Reefer Madness. I just don't understand that kind of thinking. I mean, charts and graphs are persuasive, even if they're misleading, I get that. I just don't get people being persuaded by actors in work intended to be fiction. *sigh* Ah well, I guess some people are just dumb.
And remember: Soylent Green is people! 😊
(EDIT: Okay, this is more on topic than it seems. If anyones really confuse,d just say so)
Okay, now this is just getting absurd. We're discussing movies that complete morons take seriously. I'll bet there are some people who believe we can clone dinosaurs based on Jurassic Park, too. Nobody that stupid is worth talking about.
You really don't think that ignorant, misinformed people are led to believe that this is the definite future? Well you must be lucky to not be around people who are stupid enough to believe movies at face value.
Is it really any different than the Da Vinci Code? You can't help what idiots think, but anyone with a quarter of a brain's gonna figure out that real life isn't like that.
I think it's a little bit different in this case in that what people keep getting fed is scare-tactics and armageddon scenarios. This movie isn't far from what some Global Warming people are spreading around.
So wait... What, exactly, was the point of this whole TDAD tangent? Which, honestly, I really feel serves the anti-global-warming side just as much as it does the pro-global-warming side. I mean, think about it - to make global warming look like a silly concept, all you have to do is point at TDAD and say "Look, global warming people are all crazy - they believe this is real-life." It's all just politics, which is really sad, because this is, after all, a scientific issue.
phattonez wrote:You really don't think that ignorant, misinformed people are led to believe that this is the definite future? Well you must be lucky to not be around people who are stupid enough to believe movies at face value.
What kind of people are you hanging out with?... I have never met anyone who considered The Day After Tomorrow to be anything but a work of fiction. I really can't see why anyone would think it's realistic. It'd be like thinking the movie Armageddon is accurate (you know, the movie where the asteroid is going to crash into Earth).