I am the Lorax.
I am the Lorax. I speak for the trees.
(Al Gore)
picture: Ladypolitik. lol caption:
Show Only: Democrats | Republicans | Media | Military
« Previous What do you mean… | HUMANITY FAIL Next »
» 143 comments
-
Recent Comments
walking chrome toast… on GOVERNATOR froofrou the fierce … on Let’s imagine the look o… Nucky, the Official … on GOVERNATOR Eddiepscetti on GOVERNATOR shortright the ivani… on WOOPS Nucky, the Official … on WOOPS pittypat on GOVERNATOR Rando the Filthiest,… on WOOPS Nucky, the Official … on GOVERNATOR Nucky, the Official … on WOOPS 
Cheezburger Network Blog
He may not have invented the internet, but it is a good thing he discovered global warming!
He wouldn’t know humility if it bit him in the butt. I love that photo.
How can you discover something that doesn’t exist?
Back in the 80s all they talked about was the coming second ice age. How the earth was slowly getting colder and we would soon all die a frozen death.
Now it’s this global warming lie.
Look, my father is a scientist who specializes in finding ways to make fuels more economical and enviromentally safe. I know for a fact that the earth goes in cycles. It gets cold, then it gets hot, then cold again. What humans do is a drop in the bucket. We neither cause nor can stop what is part of the natural cycles God set for the earth.
Plus he knows many of the scientist preaching these lies – and like Al Gore, they don’t care about the truth. They’re just in it for the money. Global warming is a big business. It makes people rich. Period.
So Al, you don’t speak for the trees, just your wallet.
you are an idiet globel warming causes an ice age ass the poler ice caps melt learn to reserch before you post something stupid
How can the ice age happen if the ice is MELTING?
Understanding Basic Science FAIL
As the ice melts, it lowers the salinity of the ocean water around the ice caps. Now, several major currents (such as the one that keeps europe warmish, and is the reason it rains to damned much) are in the zone that would be affected by the drop in salinity. these currents would be shut down by the influx of fresh water, thus reducing the heat going north, and the cold going south.
To the equator gets hotter, the poles get colder. most of the north and south freeze, and nothing can grow on the equator.
Learn to spell before you post something stupid
Wouldn’t it be good to know how to spell “idiet” before you say it?
I’m charro and I approve this timely.. Spelling correction.
yea good thing I…HE! invented…i mean DISCOVERED global warming
it was definitly not a scheme to sell electric cars to the world nope!
jk it is really a srs thing
Yes he discovered global warming in a classroom, when his professor told him about it.
GLOBAL WARMING IS A MYTH.
Yet you buy car insurance not knowing you’re getting into an accident? … You should look at Global Climate Destabilization with risk management. You only get to play this game once, how lucky do you feel?
if its a myth explain this
home.earthlink.net/~ponderthemaunderg/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/gorehockstick.jpg
home.earthlink.net/~ponderthemaunderg
/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/gorehockstick.jpg
The caps are melting because we’re going through the Earth’s hot stage.
This is just a Goddamn ploy to get money. They’re making BILLIONS off a (not so creative) public scam! Your more likely to see pigs fly or experience Armageddon than this.
brilliant caption. global warming does not exist.
You’re right… Global CLIMATE Change, on the other hand….
global climate change happened in the past. It occoured aroundn a time we call the Rennaisance
Hmm… odd you should mention that. That was also when the scientific method was developed. Look into it, and then use it to evaluate the research on global climate change and the human causes of it.
Yes, yes… and neither does evolution, the sun revolves around the earth, and the Earth is a few thousand years old. How dare people use this “science” business to prove us wrong. I choose to only believe things that I have absolutely no evidence for, but I feels it in my center place where you fools think the heart is! Take that scientists! You can never prove me wrong because I refuse to believe your “science” is better than my opinions!
u b dum!
Do some actual research there Mr. Knowledgeable, did you know much of Antarctica is actually colder than it was 10 years ago?
Do you remember the global cooling scare? The new ice age?….
And as for the glaciers…the outlying parts break off because the glaciers are too BIG!!!!
The Earth goes through natural periods of cooling and warming.
I have… read above cites. Check the patterns of “natural cooling and warming” and see how they compare with past changes. The global cooling scare was a small group of scientists for a short time in the early 70’s. Follow up showed it wasn’t true. Good peer reviewed science corrects its own mistakes. Global warming studies have been peer reviewed and has used many modeling techniques that consistently show a trend across many studies. The change in temperature and the theory that glaciers are “too large” and therefore breaking off is not supported by fact. Yes, I have done the research Mr. Sarcastic.
Also, if you would like to stop “b-ing dum” please read some actual peer reviewed papers linked below.
peer reviewed papers are exactly that “peer reviewed and approved.” the popular consensus is always accepted, even if it’s dead wrong. Never base your logic and resoning on what othe rpeople say, always go to the raw facts.
…which show that there is no global warmig or global climate change. the earthis actually cooling down. there are no rises in sea levels (how do they measure that exactly? by sticking a ruler on the beach?), tides don’t allow proper measurement. ice melts during certain seasons, then RE-FREEZES. ice shelfs break off to make room for the new ice.
how can these huge generallizations be made after measuring things for only 100 years or so?
the media has latched onto global warming, as have the politicians running for office, because it’s the latest thing, not because they do the damn research.
so, tom, do your research with the raw data, not from the sites that obviously support you opinions.
What research have you personally done, pray tell? Also, Science and Nature are peer reviewed scientific journals. The most respected of the US and the UK. I do research on raw data therefore I am able to read scientific articles and understand them. Where is your personal research that follows standard scientific methods or peer reviewed journals that support your claims? I agree that rulers on a beach do not make science. Read some articles and see if you find any flaw with their logic. I find gaping holes in yours. Especially the fact that you have NO idea how these studies are done, because you refuse to read them and have no idea how to critique them based on the methods. I gave you citations from actual scientific journals and you are citing Christian Science Monitor. Having science in the title does not make it a scientific journal.
seconded.
Hard to debunk the evidence when you don’t even understand how it is measured or gathered.
Of course… global warming is all made up. That’s why the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), using a report with data from hundreds of scientists in countries all over the world, in 2007 confirmed that it’s a reality. And why they are now pushing to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 20% by 2020 and 80% by 2050 to avoid the worst of what may be to come.
Let me guess, it’s all one big conspiracy? If so, is the environment in on it too? Is that why glaciers and ice sheets all over the world are melting at such a rapid rate that we may see enough sea level rise in our lifetime to drastically change the world map?
I’m sorry, I thought we were supposed to take care of this planet so future generations will be able to live here too, not be so selfish as to destroy it so no one else can enjoy it.
/rant
*claps* Nice well-intentioned speech.
Yes, global warming exists. However, the reason for global warming is still inconclusive. Our planet goes through cycles every 10,000 years or so. This is yet another one of these climatic cycles. Humans might have had a small role to play in this, but rest assured… our planet will be around until our sun supernovas and dies out.
This is not about taking care of our planet. Our planet has survived billions of years and seen several million species come and go. Some of these species have helped, some of these species have hurt. But the planet remains.
This is about taking care of ourselves. Let’s be clear here. This is about humanity thinking it is the center of the Universe again and that our species really matters. When in reality, our Universe, our planet, our everything will be just fine millions of years after our species is barely a memory.
Except for the fact that our sun is too small to supernova. As it runs out of fuel, it will expand, encompassing the first few planets, then shrink into a white dwarf.
I just hate the fact that there are people out there who say global warming doesn’t exist and think they can continue doing whatever the hell they want.
We DO have a role in helping/hurting the planet. All the toxic junk we dump into the water or ground, the acres of forests we cut down, the fact that humans will hunt species into near extinction…. these are all things we can make a decision to not do. Many ecosystems are fragile enough as it is, we shouldn’t be what tips the scale and causes them to collapse in the name of “progress”.
Apparently, you have yet to read Darwin. This is what species do. This is how the biological kingdom works. Yes, we should conserve for our own benefit. But I am sick of people getting all bent out of shape and pretending to give a damn about the spotted owl. The spotted owl has done fine on its own. If anything, we need to get out of other species way and let nature take care of its own.
Natural selection is not equal to survival of the fittest. A lot of people confuse Darwin’s writings with others though, so don’t feel bad. Just don’t claim to have read Darwin when you haven’t. And, if you actually have read anything by Darwin, you obviously didn’t understand it and should probably read some more.
lol PWNED!
Where exactly did Darwin say that species make the planet nearly UNINHABITABLE for other species in order to gain an advantage in survival?
Where have we made the planet uninhabitable? Give me specific examples where we humans have made the planet uninhabitable for other species to survive?
I was implying that we are in the process of making it uninhabitable, via deforestation, destroying their natural food sources, etc.
Yet they still adapt and survive.
Exactly! Which is why polar bears are drowning! Wait….
Um actually those very few polar bears Mr. Gore used as a heart wrenching reason to stop global warming drowned in a storm, not because the glaciers they stood upon decided to disappear. Actually a native tribe in northern Canada has urged that polar bear hunting be encouraged due to the increase of attacks on humans. Polar bears are just fine.
They’re attacking humans because their normal food, ringed seals, are dying off because of global warming, therefore the bears go looking for other sources of food. Like human settlements. Polar bears are NOT “just fine.”
wow, that’s a big fat generalization completely unsupported by fact. nice try mark.
I was just following Jessie’s lead.
Fact? I’m surprised you even know that word, entropy. You haven’t used one yet.
You sure are a friendly person.
Obviously, no one is going to change anyone’s mind over the internet. Glo
Global Warming is a big hooplah. Period.
I would go with all those chunks of rainforest and other deforested areas. Survival of the fittest has nothing to do with a mini-mall and the like.
He looks like Nathan Lane in this picture. Anyone else see that?
I see it too o_O
I didn’t realize it until you pointed it out, though–but there is a resemblance. Maybe it’s the lighting?
Yes, yes… On the off chance that the increases which closely mirror industrial changes are just big cowinky dinks lets ignore 80+% of scientists who feel that they are not (that’s if you include people who call themselves “scientists” but have no credentials, otherwise closer to 90+… check the list of the 500 scientists who don’t beleive in global warning, specifically the ones who did not come out in outrage to say that their data had been misrepresented by this group and they actually *DO* believe that global warming exists and is a problem). Pollution is just way too fun to give up if only the vast majority of scientists believe it. Scientists haven’t been able to prove the existence of gravity either… That must also be a myth.
then you have those 90% approving eachother’s theories and papers, gladly patting eachother on the back for agreeing with eachother and criticizing anyone who does not use their “peer-reviewed” research.
All of science is corrupt… You’re right. ANARCHY RULES!!!!!! You don’t even have to know anything and you’re right. Also, generally, review boards specifically look for people who have opposing viewpoints because this is what strengthens science. Not doing this is antithetical to science. Just because this is what YOU would do to prove your point does not mean you know anything about peer reviewed science. Way to make another one up. Nice try, but wrong.
you know, Tom Foolery, 500 years ago, 80+% of scientists based their astronomy on the Ptolemaic model of the universe and celestial motion. Then came Copernicus who argued that perhaps Ptolemy’s assumptions were wrong – maybe celestial bodies move in ellipses instead…and the rest is history.
I’m not actually weighing in on this global warming or not argument – as no human being has anything more than hypothesis and reasoned conclusions based on some fraction of the true big picture.
All I’m saying is that just because a vast majority of scientists believe one thing doesn’t make their consensus “the truth.” And if you recall your science history, Galileo was considered a crazy (and his ideas discredited) for not accepting the scientifically-proven consensus of geocentrism
I think religion’s stranglehold on… um… everything in Galileo’s time probably had something to do with it.
Arguing that scientists 500 years ago weren’t especially scientific isn’t a strong argument. There’s a little thing called the Renaissance that happened in the interim, where religion took a back seat (kind of) and scientists developed their methods.
that Galileo analogy is a crock. Other scientists thought Galileo was onto something, it was the CHURCH locked him up. Plus, your Ptolemy thing kind of proves the other side’s point – science is based on increasing understanding, not blindly backing each other up.
PWNED
wow.
way to all take yourselves way too seriously.
it’s a pic with a funny comment, not a platform for debate.
dude, it’s the internet. everythign is a platform for debate because everyone’s an expert on teh intertubes…that al gore invented…
just check wikipedia!!!1!eleventy!!shift1
yep, that’s why you think you know something with ABSOLUTELY no proof!
And don’t know the difference between wiki and CSM and journal articles
LOL, what a tool. Wasn’t it back in the 80’s when they were crying about gobal cooling? The whole global warming scare just hurts business. Car manufacturers have to jump through hoops the gov’t has put in place. Emission levels and gas mileage stats that are just not possible at the moment. Coal burning power plants have to spend millions to get the air quality to their standards. That money is taken care of by the customer. Don’t get me wrong, I prefer clean air. I don’t mind cleaning up our act. Just don’t shove it down my throat. Oh and carbon credits….WTF..dumb idea. Bread and circuses……
Thank you! These same environmentalists were wanting us to dump toxic sewage at the poles to melt the icecaps to prevent the next Ice Age. Yet, we didn’t and the planet has taken care of itself. Our planet has been around a long time before humanity and will be around a long time after. It is only a self-important nitwit who thinks that one species has the power of life and death. There are forces in our Universe that could wipe us out tomorrow with no warning and they are worried about the whining of some scientists who desperately need research grants, recognition, and celebrity.
This whole thing stinks of humanity’s psychotic pursuit for self-importance.
I get your point. Nihilism is cool and caring about disasters that can be prevented not cool. We’re all going to die anyway so there is no point of trying to slow it. By the same logic, we shouldn’t eat because we’re going to die anyways. If that’s your point, at least you’re internally consistent. If not, then acknowledge that we do a lot of things to prevent the elimination of the species and pretending global warning is just a selfish justification for not doing anything about it until it’s too late.
No, my point is… we humans have done enough. Time to let nature make balance out of chaos like it always does. That may mean natural disasters and stronger storms, drought, etc. But then again, if you know this and still by a house on the edge of the water… I am not going to feel sorry for you.
Yes, there is destruction. It is our job to limit that destruction of property, people, and other valuable interests. But this is not about saving our planet. Our planet does not need saving. It is doing just fine trying to balance things out. It will take awhile and the process will not be pretty or convenient. But I have faith that Mother Nature is a big girl and can take care of herself.
Way to not know the meaning of bread and circuses while completely ignoring the purpose of our argument. WTF is not an argument. Obscure references only make you look cool if no one points out you’re using them wrong.
lol, what is “bread and circuses?”
Again, failure of knowledge. Goodness, it’s so easy to look up sources or to have gone to school and learned something.
Carbon credits..hmm. Just another way to tax and pull more money out of everyone. And Obama wants this in place. Tax everyone for how much co2 they produce. Umm yeah. No thanks, the gov’t already takes a toll on my paycheck. As for bread and circuses, WHY is congress trying to pass all these bills about windfall taxes for the oil companies, laws that make it damn near impossible for any business not to make a profit. Why? IMO, I think it’s just another way for them to push buy ethanol drive lame hybrid cars, etc… All they have done is feed us crap. They have done nothing to help anyone. If they wanted to help, they’d stay the hell out of the stock market, oil industry, and housing market. Sometimes it helps to take a risk, sometimes people need to fail.
Yes, because unregulated unfettered capitalism has worked so well in the past! The Great Depression, various industrial accidents (i.e. Bhopal, Texas City, etc), Enron…
Yes, clearly what we need is a total lack of government intervention! Anarchy! That will fix everything!
I guess I don’t understand why everyone’s so afraid of taxes, when they’re the only actual way to fix things. I get that taxes suck. I hate spending money as much as/more than the next person. But Christ. We must be reasonable.
Even if global warming weren’t real, driving hybrid cars would still be a reasonable idea, especially from the perspective of someone complaining about the money they have to spend on the government. More to the government, less to Irving. It should work out.
Can you please stay on the same train of thought for more than a second and explain why this means that Global warming is a myth, which was the only point that was made originally.
I’m sorry you’d rather your tax money go to a short term war than long term solutions to problems. But, this does not change the fact that global warming exists. I also think it’s interesting that you seem to both be against new technologies and reducing carbon release and asking the government to stay out of the oil industry. If that’s what you want, then you’ll eventually be forced to prevent global warming because you won’t be able to afford the money it takes to fill up a car. Not that I’m saying that’s bad. I know I’d rather have the option of reasonably affordable modes of long distance travel. Not going to happen any time soon with oil, so why are you so against efforts to reduce reliance on oil which would SAVE you money in the long run. I really think you just like to think all things supported by Democrats are bad and then try to find reasons to believe that, even if your arguments make no sense and cost you money.
you do realize that every single issue or crusade in histroy has been “short term?” it’s over when the media says it’s over…and don’t you forget it.
Not every one… Just the ones that come to mind. It’s called the distinctiveness bias. When something is rare, like complete reversals in science, people remember them better. Read a book.
Ok. Lets try this again. Sorry got off on a rant. Global climate change exists, but man made climate change is a hoax. Do you honestly think that the short time the human race has been on this world has made a difference. The earth is been here for a LONG time compared to us. So from the time of the Industrial revolution to now, we’ve managed to royally screw our selves? No. Maybe 1% of the change is our fault. We are but just a blip on the radar compared to the time scale we’re talking about. Besides, if we keep blowing ourselves up, we might not last another 100 years.
And I’m not against alternate fuels, I’d welcome them if they worked worth a crap. But I don’t want the gov’t to limit my options on a car to only a few, or tax me for driving. But right now, they don’t. I’d use ethanol is it was here. I just saw something about petro algae, very interesting idea. Algae that makes oil and eats its own co2. My deal with oil is, that yes we need off of it, but it just isn’t feasible for the next 25-50 years or until they get the kinks worked out of the hybrids/electrics/whatever they think of next. Go ahead and drill and refine what we can. Put it on the market. I don’t know why DC isn’t doing this, they make more money per gallon that the oil companies anyway. In the mean time, think of better ways to make fuel.
I know my tax money is going to the war. I proud to know that my tax dollars are (hopefully, cuz DC is full of crooks, all of them) going to pay the fine men and women serving this country. I have friends over there right now.
Anything else that I missed?
Multiple failure points, if you look at the science the “earth cycles” are NOT the
cause, same goes with the heat from the sun, there is even a recent report that
links conclusively humans to global climate destabilization. Also on a credibility
spectrum we have AAAS, NAS, Exxon, BP, etc. All saying that this is REAL and is
caused by humans burning fossil fuels. The Pentagon even released a report
stating that this issue was more of a threat to our National security than Terrorism.
And is backed up by NASA GISS… the magic number is 350 parts-per-million of CO2
in the atmosphere, we’re currently at 387 ppm (which is higher than the levels predicted in 2000) … “Global Cooling” happened in the 1970-80s due to CFC’s and Sulfur-dioxide (acid rain anyone?) which was regulated and banned, causing the cooling effect to end. Now get informed before you start spouting off details given to you by the think-tanks. We only get to play this game once, how lucky do you feel?
well put jaime. and nice fail, kk. references please. where is this wondrous report of which you speak?
Already posted. I know you don’t read “science” but at least read a post you’re trying to dispute. I’m surprised you know how to write (with a lot of spelling and punctuation errors, but writing no less) without knowing how to read.
Whats with the either or? In all likelihood, human activity has greatly augmented climatic patterns that were already on course, which means there are things we can do to at least mitigate our own contribution to this pattern.
That said, the moral obligation to do something is an entirely different proposition. Let’s face it, Nature does not give a shit about humans. nature does not give a shit about trees, birds, koalas, kangaroos, blue algae, etc. Nature just iterates, adapts, and is always striving towards homeostatic equilibirum. Which means that in the long run, it is capable of compensating for the impact that humans have had on the chemical makeup of the biosphere, regardless of what we do.
What Al Gore and co. are really propositioning is that we “stop” climate change to save ourselves, whether or not they know that. Because Nature can’t be saved – there is not thing to save it from, because Nature will always eventually return to equilibirum, no matter how out of whack it is at any given moment
I think the implicit assumption is that we should care about global climate change because we care about our future existence on this planet. I agree that the earth will go on just like it always has, with or without us. However, humanity has a vested interest in keeping ourselves alive and part of the earth. THAT is what we’re trying to achieve by dealing with global climate change now.
thankyou
I can’t be bothered to tackle individual idiotic comments about how it’s not actually humans causing global warming. But just the fact that you have enough intelligence to use a computer, and yet still choose NOT to believe what hundreds of scientists are saying, because you don’t like it….. basically you suck. Big time.
Grow up and accept some responsibility.
But just the fact that you have enough intelligence to use a computer.
I find that entertaining, considering that’s why I make my ridiculously high salary.
You’re so silly…
In the meantime, I’ll be out driving my carbon puking classic car and destroying the planet.
CAPTAIN PLANET’S GOINA GET YOU
i love my cadi with it’s 32 v v8 and my 30 mile each way commute. so far i’ve agreed with everything you’ve said.
discussing your salary, especially with strangers, is considered tasteless. but congrats on your privilege and your ability to pay for 4$/gallon gas.
OK, then. Give me direct citations of primary and secondary research sources that prove beyond a shadow of doubt that mankind if the sole or primary cause of global climate change.
Then we will talk about who is stupid and/or lazy.
Also, be sure to do some background research on how long these measurements have been made, who has made them, and what motive if any these people may/may not have for making said claims. Did they go out trying to prove global warming’s existence or did they just find it while doing normal research? That makes a big difference as far as bias.
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/96516162/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
http://www.jstor.org/sici?sici=0098-7921(199206)18%3A2%3C299%3APGAGW%3E2.0.CO%3B2-5&cookieSet=1
http://www.jstor.org/sici?sici=0012-9658(199410)75%3A7%3C1861%3ABGWEAG%3E2.0.CO%3B2-Q
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VJ1-40D626R-8&_user=5745&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000001358&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=5745&md5=1727ab993082a29d805eeb70cde68bb0
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/287/5461/2246
http://www.palgrave-journals.com/doifinder/10.1038%2F319109a0
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/170278997v1
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/278/5342/1416
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/301/5635/929
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/286/5446/1934
http://www.jstor.org/sici?sici=0013-0133(199107)101%3A407%3C938%3ATROCTI%3E2.0.CO%3B2-4
This one is a good one explaining why it is economically sound to prevent global warning, btw.
I know I shouldn’t have gone to the trouble. You’d learn a lot more if you did it yourself. Wow, I sound like I’m talking to my students. But, because I know that you will not go to the trouble, I will give you good sources to read. And, yes, it does make a difference in terms of bias how theories are postulated. The process of science uses both inductive and deductive inference. Patterns were found in data that suggested global warming. Later studies looked at patterns of change in composition of man made gases and patterns of changes in global climate. Without a shadow of a doubt is not a standard that any scientific enterprise can promise. However, having a shadow of a doubt is also not a reason to ignore scientific progress. There are a lot of things we do not fully understand. For example, as a mentioned before, gravity. However, we are still able to fly planes and even engage in space travel. Evolution is not fully proven because we have not been able to perform a full scale experiment. (Evolution has been simulated in many ways in the lab, but we don’t have millions of years). A number of pharmaceuticals work for unknown reasons, but we know enough to look in the right places because of a basic knowledge of chemistry for drugs that “might” work and then test to see if they do. Unfortunately, a true experiment cannot be performed. But many theories have used statistical control rather than true experiments with random assignment as proof. But, I’m pretty sure you don’t want us to perform a true experiment here and it would be pretty much impossible. I’m sorry if I’ve shattered your idea that science is the search for TRUTH, but if you ever took a college level science class (and probably high school) you would know that all science is looking for the best explanation. A shadow of a doubt is always present. So, if you don’t believe in global warming you need to come up with a theory that explains more of the variance in the change in climate that does not take human pollution into account and does not have an additive effect when pollution is added to the model. If you want to work outside the accepted framework of science, fine. But, then you can’t argue there is no scientific proof. You can only argue that you either don’t believe in science or value your gut feelings more than science. In this is the case, there’s no point in arguing since we do not operate under the same rules of logic.
Within these articles there is also an article in there about why laymen have such a hard time conceptualizing global warming. You might find that useful.
Laymen. How cute. You think I am a layman.
You think you’re an expert. Ok. Experts read sources and have proof.
I am no expert. But I am certainly not stupid.
Laymen just means non-expert. I am a laymen too in this field. I was not trying to be offensive in that sense.
Thanks Tom, awesome commenting skills! Sometimes I think there’s no point arguing with people on the net..but you gotta try right?
You’re on! … click on my name link for the direct link that shows humans are causing Climate Change.
Get informed and let it change you.
First of all, I do not wish to be changed by anyone or anything. Stop sounding like a fundmentalist.
As for your link, that is one report. One report does not a smoking gun make. There is little explanation of how exactly they arrived that humans are the sole or primary cause. I have not read the actual research article yet, so maybe it is in there. All I was able to find on the page you linked to was researchers patting themselves on the back for finding what they were looking for. There was little empirical evidence presented on the page you linked me to. Again, I need to read the .pdf that has the actual findings. Perhaps that will be more of what I am looking for.
May I ask what you do for a living? How much research have you done in your life? Are you familiar with research methods? Because one report is a good start to make your case, but without other sources to back up your claim, I tend to doubt the strength of your original claim.
Again, I will read the .pdf and see what I can find. However, even if it does prove to be a smoking gun. I still don’t see how socialist fixes like taxing the snot out of people and businesses is going to change anything. Seems to me like there is something more here than science.
Well… There is the answer. “First of all, I do not wish to be changed by anyone or anything. Stop sounding like a fundmentalist.” Not fact will change my mind. Nuh UH. Why even try to debate then? You’ve decided you’re right and science can’t change that, because science is for suckers. But, calling people socialists makes you right. Let’s agree to disagree on the validity of science, because you will not change MY mind on the validity of peer reviewed articles in Science and Nature. I think my sources are better than your “seems to me like there is something more here than science.” Yet, you don’t get the science, so maybe that’s the “something more” you’re not getting.
PS- You have provided no citations or sources… I think we’ve decided who is stupid and lazy.
The burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim. It is not up to me to prove that something does not exist when I am not the one who made the initial claim that is does.
As far as the first bit… I was responding to the condescending tone implied that by reading an article my life would be changed. At most, it would open my mind to a possibility and perhaps change my mind if convincing enough.
And for your information, I am a research historian. I know how research is done and how it is not done. I know how desperate some researchers can be to prove their hypothesis, because if they aren’t successful… they don’t eat that month. I am open to research and factual evidence. What I am not open to is people who let scientists do their thinking for them. I am not open to people just accepting something as fact because Dr. so-and-so from CERN said it was so. People need to do their own research and figure out where they stand on issues.
The natural sciences are not my strongest subject, but the social sciences are. I find it objectionable that so much propaganda is being funneled into living rooms, board rooms, etc. and being accepted without question. I have learned in my own studies and research that the truth is somewhere between what the alarmists would have us believe and those who would have us believe nothing is wrong.
I know global climate change exists. It is apparent to anyone who goes outside or listens to the weather. But the cause is not conclusive for me. Humans may have a significant role in the event, but to claim that it is all humanity’s fault smells suspicious to me. It smells of regulating socialism that seeks to nationalize business and control people’s actions.
Also, I don’t use the term “socialism” lightly. I used to be a champion of the far left in a former life, but realized that it was all sound and fury and not grounded in reality.
If you knew anything about science, you’d realize that it impossible to prove anything TRUE, only false. It’s the basis of hypothetico-deductive logic, the basis of all modern science. Therefore, you’re only argument is that you refuse to believe any research. Obviously, science in general is not your strong suit. The end. You refuse to acknowledge science, so you have no right to debate science.
your* Grr.. I hate bad spelling. Oops.
Amen.
What is this “reality” that you speak of that uses no rules of proof, either scientific or rational? What school teaches MAs to prove points without regard to any logic system, so I know where not to accept research assistants from? You ask for proof and then say you don’t accept scientific proof because it’s biased by a desire to publish? Does anything count as proof to you? Or do gut feelings outweigh everything. Honestly, give it up. I’m not asking you to “prove” your point. Just don’t try to make my scientifically sound point seem ridiculous with no proof by any logic system.
Oh… and by the way, I am a PhD student at a top research university and have a an article in press on research methods. So, that argument is a little weak here. Doubting evidence does not an argument make.
Good for you. I am working on my MA in European History.
I wish you all the best.
here is the root of the issue right here. “i am mighty phd, therefore i am superior”
I am also a PhD student at a better top research university and have a better article in press on research methods. +1 infinity, no more infinities allowed.
you’re on the internet, homie.
If you look back, Tom Foolery was responding to Herr Kub, who asked:
June 10th, 2008 at 4:12 pm
“May I ask what you do for a living? How much research have you done in your life? Are you familiar with research methods? Because one report is a good start to make your case, but without other sources to back up your claim, I tend to doubt the strength of your original claim.”
I think Tom Foolery was simply responding to this attack.
Although I agree that it is difficult to verify anyone’s claims about themselves on teh intartubes.
You do not need to ‘prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt’ – hardly anything can be proved to that degree of certainty – but it is BY FAR the best explanation we have, so that is what rational scientific minds are going with.
And I did not call you stupid or lazy. If you are going to take these things personally – I implied you were being immature and irresponsible.
Nope… You actually made a little sense that time. Good job. I guess you just need to focus a little in order to make an argument. The degree of change is disputed, but there was a definite impact of recent industrial changes. My argument is, ironically, very similar to yours. Slow progress toward better fuel sources which will slow the impact of man-made pollutants. I think this progress is severely impeded by people who adamantly refuse to acknowledge the rather vast data supporting human responsibility for some of the climate change. As for the war I, like many, am proud that my tax dollars are paying those who are serving my country. I wish we did a better job of taking care of them by making better fiscal and political choices while they are here and while they are in other countries so that they are seen by other countries in a more positive light and are less likely to be targets and have a better home life by reducing time on active duty and providing better medical care and educational opportunities. I have no problem funding the military and I too have good friends who are serving in the military, I do have a problem with the funding of the war in irresponsible ways that value “winning” over the safety of my friends and fellow countrymen.
Sorry about the order. I think in my own little tangents, only makes sense to me I guess. I’m trying, damn Mississippi public education…lol
Definitely a funny macro! Well done!
Though I personally prefer “I am the Gorax,” myself.
Absolutely! Best yet!
We could debate this for ages. We may never know. Besides, by the time we figure all this crap out, we’ll be hit my an asteroid and blown into oblivion. I call truce, we agree to disagree.
I agree to stop caring that you ignore science and prefer intuition as long as in no way you have an effect on policy decisions. I agree to disagree with your basic logic system that relies solely on conjecture while you disagree with the premise of scientific discovery. I hope you come up with a philosophy of science that allows ignorance of facts and methods of logical deduction and deduction, would make my job a lot easier. As Herr said, people have a hard time publishing because they have to prove the scientific merit of their discoveries. However, for some reason, Herr also believes that the scientific method is biased while intuition is not. Truces occur when both sides have an equally strong stance. You do not get to act as if our arguments are remotely equal. This is how we end up with opinions in science books and evolution deniers claiming victory because they appear on stage next to a real scientist.
never mind him, jamie, he’s a phd student. but i do agree with you.
Debate is one thing, talking down to someone just because you’re a PhD student is another. Your constant rants on how stupid I am has ended this little debate. That’s why I called truce, to be the better man. Not once in this entire thread, did I say anything negative about you. Great way to show that superior intelligence. Now with that said, calm the hell down.
You called truce so that your opinion seemed somewhat justified. I responded to someone’s weak point that they knew science and I didn’t. I didn’t talk down to someone because I’m a PhD student, I talked down to someone because they tried to prove my facts wrong with opinion. And, yes you did Jamie. But, now you’re high and mighty, huh?
“LOL, what a tool.” “WTF..dumb idea. Bread and circuses……”
Why is being educated a bad thing? Anyway, here’s an observation from my own life. It’s not peer reviewed and it’s not much on the media.
I spent last summer in the Indian himalayas. I was studying art in these mudbrick buildings that have lasted for 500-1000 years, in some cases longer. For the first time in that history the paintings, sculpture, etc. are starting to rot and crumble. It seems glacial melt in the mountains has shifted the monsoons up, and for the first time in thousands of years, relatively suddenly, rain is falling in these mountain deserts.
Something’s happening, and I don’t understand why it’s a bad thing to be more conservative with our consumption. Who or what will it hurt to pollute and use less?
Agreed. My example is less cool, but I currently live in New England. The weather’s been warmer all the time. I’ve never experienced a winter like the last one we had – warm and constantly snowing, storming. This summer is more full of ninety-degree days than I ever thought possible.
Obviously, not something to base domestic policy on. But I can’t imagine that global warming (as it is most popularly called) is not happening RIGHT NOW.
last
crap…my is supposed to be by.
After how long that nonsense went on, it’s good to hear about that macro at the top. And he certainly is the Gorax.
Although one thing I would like to know off topic is why global warming deniers feel a need to try it in the media. If they think we’re so wrong, why not do that sciency thing with math and measurements and stuff. I heard a rumor somewhere that you can find stuff out if you try and learn about it. Although maybe the enlightenment hasn’t happened everywhere yet.
same reason the IDers put all their money into media and none into actual research to prove creationism….
Now, I’m no scientist, but to the best of my knowledge humans are the only species to create harsh chemicals that did not previously exist in nature, so I think that gives us a slight edge over every other animal ever when it comes to destroying the planet and contributing to “Global Climate Change”.
I mean, yes, our planet has been around for a long freaking time, and species have come and gone, but you cannot suggest that humans are on the same level as all other animals, at least not now that we have toxic waste. Species before us have only been able to give what they’ve taken… there’s really no way for a spotted owl or polar bear to create complex plastics or bleach or a nuclear bomb.
Unless they’re keeping some pretty intense secrets…
My point here is simply that anyone who thinks humans have NO NEGATIVE IMPACT on this planet are idiots.
i am a polar bear and i know how to make plastic! we’re not supposed to tell, shhh.
jk.
i completely agree with you tho. even if global warming weren’t real (i believe it is real btw) i don’t see the harm in polluting less and being more conservative with our lifestyles. anyone who says the global climate change “scare” is hurting big oil and car companies should go look up how much profit big oil is still making on our $4/gallon gas and should tell the “struggling” car companies to keep researching alternatives. i suppose it’s my opinion but, i think the first company to make a good hybrid/alternative fuel car that is affordable to the general public and has a good design will likely see record profits- i’m talking like the modern day model-t here!
Long live the Gorax!! (The Lorax was one of my favorites when i was little, we had it on VHS… still have it somewhere… might have to pull it out for a little trip down memory lane ^_^)
I’m a global warming agnostic, but tend toward disbelief when the Gorax’s mansion uses so much fossil fuel (yes, yes, carbon indulgences make his footprint zero, but he’s still using it rather than alternative energy)
carbon offsets do not make his footprint zero – his consumption leads to increased demand for whatever commodities he purchases (fuel for his frequent jet rides, for example), which increases the price of said commodity, which creates incentives for its sustained production. So yes, his direct footprint is zero, but only on a mathematical technicality that does not consider the economic consequences of his consumption. But that is the reasoning of his class of people – the class that does everything it can to feel morally superior and more intelligent than the rest of us
what class? rich people?
they ARE the ones with the spotlight, dearie.
and when one of them chooses to be a teensy bit less selfish and deluded than the rest of ‘em, i for one am not going to spoil the moment by critiquing their every consumer choice. i’m going to say “good, keep it up”.
wow, we can talk about what we need to do to change, or we can actually do it. Honestly, that’s what I hate about academia…the only thing that every really gets done is talk
academia IS talk. don’t you mean politics?
In my opinion, the main concern for us is to try to cut our carbon emissions, pollution, deforestation, ect. all the things that are supposedly causing this problem, and hope it makes a difference. Science has proven that global warming exists, but we’re all still in disagreement as to what is causing it. And if it should turn out that we’re not causing it, what harm have we really done? All the supposed causes of global warming are harmful to the planet anyway, stopping, or just decreasing the widespreadness of these problems will be best in the long run anyway, no matter the conclusion on the cause of GB. Better safe than sorry, right?
well-put.
And how much do you pay for your “carbon offsets”? You know, the excuse to
commit environmental sin just by planting stupid trees. WMDs don’t exist yet
global warming does. Only in America
yay trees!
Wow.
Best thread ever.
-munches popcorn-
CONTINUE!
oh god, why must you corrupt my childhood with this scheming, twisted, sumbitch?
Long ago, most of the world’s scientists believed and could prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Earth was flat and that the Universe revolved around it. If you sailed too far you would fall off. No one ever seemed to question where you would fall to or what was underneath. Now, most of the world’s scientists believe and can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that we are turning up the heat on the world and we need to put the AC back on. 700 years from now, the population of Earth will laugh at the stupid ideas we had come up with (“Global Warming? People actually believed that?!”).
Normal logic says that this could just as easily work in reverse…that Global Warming will be proven true and that hundreds of years from now the unbelievers of today will be laughed at and ridiculed.
For myself, I will not believe it until I get sunburn in December while visiting family in Vermont. I might not believe even then, but that will be my folly, now won’t it? That is a choice I willingly make. You may call me a fool if you like; in fact, I encourage it. Get it out of your system. I guarantee someone wants to.
I must say that it would be nice to find ONE discussion or even open argument about topics like these that did not once feature the words “idiot”, “fool”, “moron”, “dumb”, etc. People being people however, I will be amazed if I ever do come across such a discussion.
Tom Foolery, You are obviously a very well educated individual. Unfortunately, it appears none of your teachers (academic and otherwise) ever taught you humility or respect for your fellow man. The fact that someone does not agree with your opinions does not make them any less intelligent or capable of logical reasoning than yourself. I would also like to point out to you (since it is apparent no one else bothered to) that when someone offers to “agree to disagree” it means that neither party is going to back down or change their mind, and it is wisest to end the argument rather than waste time “convincing” (or browbeating). Perhaps you should try it sometime. Surprisingly, people will actually respect you more for it.
The same could be said for many of you, but Tom caught my attention more.
Whatever happen to the hole in the ozone? Was that just another fad? Maybe the global warming will rise out of it
From what I understand, the widespread ban of CFCs has slowed or halted the growth of the “ozone hole,” and it’s slowly going back to its former state. By slowly I mean over then next 50 to 75 years. I found a link, since that seems to be popular on this thread
http://www.livescience.com/environment/060630_ozone_hole.html
And I think the Gorax is a great man. LOVE this lol!
Dude, guys, get a grip. It’s just supposed to make people laugh…not be a big political statement about the truthfulness or falicy of Al Gore’s political standpoints.
On a lighter note…I was roflmao when I saw this. OMG, his expression? Priceless!
I <3 Al Gore
Pfft! Global warming is just a bunch of crap scientists made up so we would stop polluting our air and water. Bastards trying to make sure we have breathable air and drinkable water, they make me sick.
more like the THORAX.
[...] href=”http://punditkitchen.com/2008/06/10/political-pictures-al-gore-lorax-speak-trees/”><img [...]
*stamp*