Al Gore ?
Any chance Al Gore was in the mind of the creative team that picked Val Kilmer?---just a hap-hazard(ous) bemusing :)
share:) hehe
share
MovieChat Forums > The Steam Experiment (2009) Discussion > Al Gore ?
No.
sharemore mainstream media rubbish peddling the huge politically backed lie of global warming in order to tax us all massively. oh is that the huge antartic ice sheet expanding i see? hmmmmm, oh so it was warmer in the middle ages when humans werent producing co2 hmmmmm - curious that.
shareDown with Al Gore, and his money-stealing idea.
Thinking of taxing us for the co2... What an all-gory bastard!
Of course global warming must be man made!
I wonder if with HAARP...
Al Gore does indeed make money on his "save the planet" scheme. But isn't that nice? He's a successful capitalist.
If you don't want people like him to succeed, you have to be a communist, and there isn't anything wrong in that at all. Somehow I just doubt that you consider you as one... and I may be completely wrong on that account.
I don't think that humans have come to the point where the planet might be knocked off the ecological balance, but we are surely heading that way. I am all FOR reduction of the use of fossile fuels and energy that pollute. Why? simply because I would like my children and grand children to be able to breath fresh air in the inner cities when they grow up and get old. Right now, all cities are polluted, millions die world wide every year, due to petrol (and gasoline) engine particles that cause cancer. Maybe good for population reduction, but not so good for the people who die, and their families and friends.
Fresh water is already a commodity, and BILLIONS of people don't get fresh water most of their lives.
How about forgetting all about the global scare tactics of global warming, and rather work towards a future where air, food and water is not contaminated and filled with all kinds of hormones, preservatives, colorants, taste enhancers, medicine, sugar, pesticides etc. etc. etc. ?
Of course the politicians want to introduce CO2 taxes... that's THEIR JOB. Anyone who thinks that politicians are legal representatives of the people (where ever that "people" live), must be out of his/her mind. Politicians are the ELECTED DICTATORS... elected by their very own slaves, who give their voices and rights to said dictators. Whatever the politicians do, is THEIR business, and the people have no right to complain. The people have elected them, and the power is in the hand of the elected... and the people are playing the game as they are supposed to.
Democracy is nothing but voluntary dictatorship. Same pyramid structure is used for a "democracy" as is used in a "dictatorship". One person on the top (president/dictator) Next come the "representatives" of the people (congress/parliament/generals), then there come the big businesses, and at the bottom of the pyramid we have the people... powerless and so stupid that they don't understand that they are living in dictatorships. Mindless sheep.
... but that's just how it is.
Now I will watch the movie.
Yes, I don't know who to believe. Over 3,000 earth scientists or steveetienne2006.
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.
How about 31000 scientists (over 9000 with PhDs, meme not intentional)?
http://www.petitionproject.org/
and this isn't an online petition btw, so it's not just anyone who signs it.
You know what the problem with that list is? It should include where they went to school,peer review. Also it should include what organization,non-profit,etc they belong too.Also maybe some contact information for the public. Instead of a bunch of names with Ph.d on the side. All scientists probably agree that global warming is fact. But there won't be any 100% proof thats its human made until you pump a bunch of CO2 in the air and study the results. We could just start creating hundreds of coal fired plants a year.
And then if we aren't crispy critters by then that would prove its not human made.While we're at maybe start up thousands of nuclear reactors and throw the radioactive waste in the ocean. Because humans have no negative influences on the environment.
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.
You know what the problem with that list is? It should include where they went to school,peer review. Also it should include what organization,non-profit,etc they belong too.Also maybe some contact information for the public. Instead of a bunch of names with Ph.d on the side.
Well only 5% of names have been sent in directly without prompting. The rest have been returned from direct mailings out to scientists and university institutions. But yes maybe it would be better to have more details but I think it's quite significant.
All scientists probably agree that global warming is fact.
I am a scientist and I would agree if it hadn't been getting colder for the last 8 years or so.
But there won't be any 100% proof thats its human made until you pump a bunch of CO2 in the air and study the results.
Yes, you're right, except at the moment there is 0% proof.
We could just start creating hundreds of coal fired plants a year.
Those are nasty and release loads of horrible pollutants into the air. CO2 is not dirty and isn't a pollutant. CO2 is the giver of life to this planet.
And then if we aren't crispy critters by then that would prove its not human made.While we're at maybe start up thousands of nuclear reactors and throw the radioactive waste in the ocean. Because humans have no negative influences on the environment.
Nuclear power is the cleanest form of energy, and if you're so worried about CO2 then you should be going FOR nuclear which has no CO2 emissions at all.
Apart from CO2, how do you like your polluting waste? In neat cubes that you can dispose of as best you can, or in the atmosphere damaging everything.
Oh and dumping stuff into the oceans would probably kill some animals needlessly, and potentially make fish more dangerous to eat, but I don't think you quite have the respect for the size of the oceans. We couldn't do significant damage to "the environment" by dumping the tiny amount of radioactive waste into the oceans... Guess where that radioactive material was before we used up a large proportion of the energy in it? In the ground! Yes, that's right, it may come as a shock but the radioactive material WAS ALREADY THERE. it doesn't just come out of thin air. share
The problem is I don't know who signed any of that. Real information would be helpful. Sending things to universities and scientists doesn't always get directly to that person.
CO2 is good in small concentrations. It comes naturally and from industry. Once the world was full of it. But lets say we were able to burn most of the fossil fuels in the earth. Do you think that much CO2 in the air would be good for us? Like take a look at Venus. The atmosphere is mostly carbon dioxide. That planet has no way to convert carbon dioxide. Man made carbon dioxide we be no problem if we can also make a way to convert it.
The environmental people can be annoying but they are right. Forests and plants are necessary to life. But if we destroy forests while adding onto the natural carbon dioxide with man made CO2. What would that do to us? Nature is about balance and for everything thats potentially harmful. There is something to counteract that.CO2 is necessary but it can kill us.It can also potentially kill us if plants can't get convert if fast enough.
Do you think that man-made CO2 will balance out the environment? Or do you think it might be too much on top of CO2 that occurs naturally? There are 10 or so possibilities that can lead to the earth heating up?Process of elimination will eventually narrow down the specific causes if you don't accept the present conclusion. But is it so bad to start lowering something that can potentially kill us?
Now on to nuclear reactors.The problem with environmental people is they don't like nuclear energy. And nuclear energy is the only way to replace coal,natural,fossil fuels for powering homes,running electronics,etc. And hydrogen through electrolysis using nuclear energy can power transportation. Nuclear waste is the only issue.Meltdowns are rare with the safeguards and constant maintenance. And radioactive waste from nuclear fission ins't the same as when they pulled it out of the ground.
I'm not a climatologist so I can't say what definitely causes global warming. But are fossil fuels bad for the environment?Yes,they are the worse when converted.
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.
The problem is I don't know who signed any of that. Real information would be helpful. Sending things to universities and scientists doesn't always get directly to that person.
That is a fair point and I cannot argue with it. We cannot lend too much trust to anything in particular, so we cannot know how much to trust the project's ability but it is stated: "Petition project volunteers evaluate each signers's credentials, verify signer identities, and, if appropriate, add the signer's name to the petition list." Are you perhaps willing to concede that a large percentage of the signatures are genuine?
CO2 is good in small concentrations. It comes naturally and from industry. Once the world was full of it.
Yep, and at those times the earth has been thriving with life, and has not burnt to a crisp. The natural feedback systems in place keeps the earth at a relatively stable temperature. While there is a relationship between CO2 and temperature the evidence suggests that the relationship is in the other direction, that the CO2 rise happens AFTER a temperature increase.
But lets say we were able to burn most of the fossil fuels in the earth. Do you think that much CO2 in the air would be good for us?
Yes, it would allow more plants to grow, helping us to feed the population of the planet. I'd be far more worried about the pollutants in the fossil fuels that would be released into the atmosphere.
Like take a look at Venus. The atmosphere is mostly carbon dioxide. That planet has no way to convert carbon dioxide. Man made carbon dioxide we be no problem if we can also make a way to convert it.
As I stated above, the links between temperature and CO2 are very tenuous. The feedback systems in place on the earth are far too complex for us to understand, and the arrogance associated with thinking that by changing one factor we can make the earth behave as we want it to are astounding to me.
Presumably Venus has a completely different set of feedback systems that did not allow for a temperate climate.
The environmental people can be annoying but they are right. Forests and plants are necessary to life. But if we destroy forests while adding onto the natural carbon dioxide with man made CO2. What would that do to us? Nature is about balance and for everything thats potentially harmful. There is something to counteract that.CO2 is necessary but it can kill us.It can also potentially kill us if plants can't get convert if fast enough.
I'd like to know where you get this idea that CO2 can kill us? BTW, trees consume the most CO2 while growing.. so the best thing to do is to chop trees down and bury them or turn them into useful products - this gives space and resources available for new trees to grow and take up more of the CO2, if that's your worry.
Do you think that man-made CO2 will balance out the environment? Or do you think it might be too much on top of CO2 that occurs naturally?
no, I think CO2 will have very very little effect on anything, and if it does, the environment will balance out the CO2. You keep saying man-made, but as you said before, there used to be a lot more CO2, and as I said, the temperature was stable back then.
There are 10 or so possibilities that can lead to the earth heating up?Process of elimination will eventually narrow down the specific causes if you don't accept the present conclusion. But is it so bad to start lowering something that can potentially kill us?
Again, I don't understand where this CO2 can kill us thing comes from. And yes, it is very bad if in your attempts to lower something, you end up damaging more peoples lives than the effects would in the first place, as would be the case with the massive global regulations that governments are attempting to put into place, disadvantaging the poor the most.
Now on to nuclear reactors.The problem with environmental people is they don't like nuclear energy. And nuclear energy is the only way to replace coal,natural,fossil fuels for powering homes,running electronics,etc. And hydrogen through electrolysis using nuclear energy can power transportation. Nuclear waste is the only issue.Meltdowns are rare with the safeguards and constant maintenance.
I'm glad you understand nuclear power :)
And radioactive waste from nuclear fission ins't the same as when they pulled it out of the ground.
No, but it necessarily has less power overall, as we have used some of it's energy. Granted, if the resultant elements have shorter half-lifes then it is more dangerous in the short run(shorter half life means more energy released in shorter time), but considering people complaining about nuclear waste lasting for 50,000 years or so, I don't think that's the case.
I'm not a climatologist so I can't say what definitely causes global warming. But are fossil fuels bad for the environment?Yes,they are the worse when converted.
Yes fossil fuels are bad, but we should focus on the bad substances in fossil fuels, the pollutants, not CO2 which does so so little. share
So why do you think all these earth scientists,nobel laureates,etc think global warming is happening? Global warming scientists go back to the 1800's.Are all these people just making crap up?Its become so political that getting useful information is problematic. Nothing can really be proven to 100% certainty. Yes, cutting fossil fuels will destroy various oil-based economies. But what if they're right?
What are your thoughts on this?
"The Earth required millions of years to sequester the CO2 that went into the plants and algaes that eventually turned into petroleum, coal, and natural gas. We've released those millions of years worth of stored CO2 in a little over a single century. We may not have caused the original cycles but we've certainly accelerated the process by adding additional greenhouse gases to the mix."
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.
from what I have read, I'm quite convinced that global warming is in fact happening but not due to a human factor.
The human annual Co2 "dump" accounts for only 3% of the total. The most Co2 is being released by natural events like volcanos which can dump the same amount in one eruption as it would take an entire human race a whole year.
The fact is, that we don't know if our planet simply enters into a regular cycle. Our history isn't recorded for that long. We may be entering a warmer cycle. We do know there was an Ice age right? So it is not something unrealistic. Once a temperature has risen a bit, the thawed out Ice is also releasing huge amounts of Co2. Besides Co2 isn't the worst one. The... god damn it... it popped out of my mind... *beep* it... There are other gases that are 3 times as bad as Co2. The gas I have in mind is the one created by natural break down of matter.
But , yes the same way as you do, I too question why so many scientist seem to support "human caused global warming" idea.
First, I can't find any information about who those scientist are and where their loyalties lie. But recently, I begun to wonder... what if it is a "white lie" designed for the greater good.
They would know that they couldn't just make people start using and inventing in green technologies.
Think about it... in the last few years there was more "green" technologies invented then through out entire industrial revolution period.
So what I'm saying is... maybe it is a justified white lie?
People are just jealous, because "voices" are talking only to me...
Are you talking about methane?Its worse than CO2 but dissipates faster.From what I read scientists are worried about the human created greenhouse gases on top of the natural gases. They think human created greenhouse gases are being released faster than earths natural processes can absorb them.
I don't know. If someone is really willing to do something as boring as climate science. Then I'm guessing they have to be passionate about their job. Otherwise they could have become a petroleum scientist which pays more.Otherwise they could just take money from oil companies and say greenhouse gas does nothing.I've met various scientists and they're extremely skeptical and try to find holes in each others work.So there has to be something more behind why they agree on global warming.
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.
From the rhetoric you're spewing forth, I assume that you would also have been one of the people claiming that there was no problem with CFCs in our atmosphere either. There wasn't 'really' a hole in the ozone layer. It was just fake science in order to promote a new way of dispersing aerosols that was patented by some elitist liberal. It was in such small quantities. It couldn't do any harm.
Tell me, when it comes to H2O, what's the difference in it from 32 degrees to 33 degrees. THAT's all it takes people. One Damn Degree change in the wrong place.
ALL prominent and respected scientists (I do NOT believe you are one) have agreed that the rising temperatures (yes, they are rising and creating abnormal weather conditions that include extreme cold waves), though they may be in a natural cycle also, are definitely affected by mankind's actions over the past millennium. The ONLY dissenters have been proven to be those with direct links to big oil and power producing companies, manufacturers of material with hazardous byproducts, and the Republican-led coalitions to falsify reports, including those produced by NASA.
Now tell me... Who Do YOU Think Has The Incentive To LIE?!?!?!
Well yes you are right, incentive is a name of the game, unfortunately this blade cuts both ways... those scientists that are proponents of the "human as a cause" idea, are usually deeply linked to the companies that are developing green technology. Bottom line is, wherever there are money to be made, there is a scientist that can be bought.
But me personally, whatever the truth may be, I'm just glad that the "green movement" is working. Even if it has nothing to do with a global warming, it sure can make a difference in the quality of the air we all breathe.
People are just jealous, because "voices" are talking only to me...
Really? ALL scientists?
These are the facts. No one knows if co2 causes global warming. We do know that the greenhouse effect does happen, however. We know that ir is indeed trapped by co2. however, there is just so much unknown that no real conclusions can be made. the IPCC, the intergovernmental panel on climate change, states that the expected increase in temperature over the next 10 or so years iwll only be about 1 degree C. Thats about 2-3 degrees F, not so bad. And also,contrary to popular belief, antartica is actually gaining ice rather than losing it. Also, over the past 10 years or so, average temperature has actually been declining. We just don't know what causes global warming or what other effects co2 will have. for example, maybe co2 will increase cloud cover. It i sshown that soemthing like a 3 percent increase in cloud cover equals 1 percent decrease in temperature ish.
you mean the 3000 scientists funded by gore's corporate buddies? or the petition of over 50,000 of the worlds scientists who dont agree with human created climate change who incidentally arent funded by gores corporate buddies and their brainwashing media. hmmmm who do i side with? not cretins like you that is for sure you brainwashed pleb. keep mooing with the rest of the herd.
shareThe petition was signed by all kinds of people that had no experience in climate science.Others didn't even know they were on the list.There was no screening involved and its not leading climate scientists. Round up climate scientists and see what they say.Gore's corporate buddies?Are you actually trying to say the green industry could out fund oil companies?Yea right.US is really the only country allowing oil companies and Republicans try to deny science. Whether its global warming or evolution.
The first country to actually have freedom of religion. But somehow has become one of the most religious influenced countries.I remember one Republican saying god promised Noah he wouldn't flood the world again. So of course there is no global warming. Remember when US lead in science,technology,etc. Now the nutjobs have taken over the nuthouse.
http://www.greenoptions.com/wiki/global-warming-skepticism
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.
I guess you haven't seen the movie...it has nothing to do with environmental issues...
But if you do see it, please explain me the end...I have rationalized it in a way, but i guess it could have another meaning
Sounds like a new Ulli Lommel film in which a scientist eats a really awful script curry and gets locked in the john.
"God put you here to test my faith,dude"-BILL HICKS
[deleted]