• Welcome to the Off-Topic/Schweb's Lounge

    In addition to the Mac-Forums Community Guidelines, there are a few things you should pay attention to while in The Lounge.

    Lounge Rules
    • If your post belongs in a different forum, please post it there.
    • While this area is for off-topic conversations, that doesn't mean that every conversation will be permitted. The moderators will, at their sole discretion, close or delete any threads which do not serve a beneficial purpose to the community.

    Understand that while The Lounge is here as a place to relax and discuss random topics, that doesn't mean we will allow any topic. Topics which are inflammatory, hurtful, or otherwise clash with our Mac-Forums Community Guidelines will be removed.

Anti global warming

Joined
Jul 18, 2006
Messages
2,180
Reaction score
92
Points
48
Location
Florida
Whether you agree or disagree I find it refreshing to get another point of view about this (and one that is not laced with panic):

John Stossel Exposes Global Warming Myths


Wednesday, October 17, 2007 8:58 PM

By: Newsmax Staff Article Font Size

"20/20” co-anchor John Stossel is going on the attack against “experts” who warn about manmade global warming – along the way berating Al Gore for saying the debate over climate change is over.

In a release from ABC previewing Stossel’s report on Friday’s “20/20,” the veteran newsman and Newsmax pundit – who won 19 Emmys exposing scammers and con artists – says:

“This week on ‘20/20’ (in our new 8 p.m. Eastern time slot) I say ‘Give Me a Break!’ to our Nobel Prize-winning Vice President.

“Mr. Gore says ‘The debate is over,’ and those who disagree with his take on global warming have been ‘purchased’ in order to create ‘the illusion of a debate.’ Nonsense. It's as if the Vice President and his allies in the environmental movement plan to win the debate through intimidation. I interview some scientists who won't be intimidated, even though one has had his life threatened for speaking up.

“The Vice President's much-applauded movie, ‘An Inconvenient Truth,’ claims warming is man’s fault and a coming crisis! While the earth has certainly warmed over the last century, plenty of independent scientists say scientists cannot be sure that man caused the warming or that warming will be a crisis.

“They say the computer models that are used to predict the disasters don’t include important variables because scientists don’t fully understand them. For example, warming may cause cloud formations that reflect sun and cool the earth. The computer models cannot know. These scientists call global warming activism more of a religious movement than science.”

Gore's film is filled with “misleading messages,” says Stossel.

“It suggests polar bears are disappearing and that ‘sea levels worldwide would go up 20 feet.’ I interview children who are scared. They believe the polar bears are already going extinct and that the oceans will soon rise even higher than 20 feet, drowning them and their parents.

“But polar bear populations appear to be steady or increasing, and a 20-foot rise is a theoretical possibility that wouldn't happen for millennia. The IPCC, the group that shared last week’s Nobel Prize with the Vice President, says in 100 years the oceans might rise 7 to 24 inches, not 20 feet. Now a British judge has ruled that British schools must disclose to students nine inaccuracies in ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ if they play the movie in class.”

Stossel said it’s “nonsense” for Gore to suggest that we can stop global warming by doing things like changing light bulbs and driving less.

“The only practical thing we can do today that would make a difference in CO2 output is to launch a major shift toward nuclear energy. But the environmental movement rarely utters the word nuclear.

“I suspect that next year's government boondoggle will be massive spending on carbon-reducing technology.

“It reminds me of George Mason University Economics Department Chairman Don Boudreax's suggestion that such schemes really mean ‘government seizing enormous amounts of additional power in order to embark upon schemes of social engineering - schemes whose pursuit gratifies the abstract fantasies of the theory class and, simultaneously, lines the very real pockets of politically powerful corporations, organizations, and “experts."’

“He is so right. The abstract fantasies of the theory class will soon send huge chunks of your money to politicians, friends, activist scientists, and politically savvy corporations.

“The debate is over? That makes me say GIVE ME A BREAK!”
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
77
Reaction score
1
Points
8
Location
New York City
Your Mac's Specs
Current iPhone and iPod owner, Future Mac Owner
Oh, please. Newsmax is a right-wing "news" organization with a long history of slanted, slanderous, and flat-out false news stories. They make Fox News look almost respectable.
 
Joined
Jan 5, 2007
Messages
1,480
Reaction score
124
Points
63
Location
Where the old Baker farm used to be.
Your Mac's Specs
Apple Black MacBook 2 GB RAM, 2.0 GHZ Intel Core 2 Duo Proecessor, 120 GB HD. 30 GB Black iPod Video
I agree, Newsmax is kind of crazy. Global warming is real and the best thing to do about global warming is get the best team of scientists from every relevant field; biology, environmental science, oceanography, geology, economics, meteorology, etc. and let them decide what is best to do about the problem and allow no government figures to be present. Then, let them see if they can think of a non-invasive private solution to the problem. Face it, being green is profitable now, so a private solution to global warming may not be some crazy dream I have, but if some government intervention is necessary, so be it. Of course, this idea is too non-partisan for cons or libs so I doubt the aforementioned meeting would ever actually be able to take place. The problems for both sides are as follows:

For Libs - They don't like the idea of private solutions to problems, and some even think that no environmental problems can be solved privately. In the liberal mind, hardly any good can happen in a boardroom.

For Cons - Allowing a private solution would mean admitting that global warming is real. So, pigs will be flying before Cons like this idea.
 
Joined
May 29, 2007
Messages
748
Reaction score
32
Points
28
Your Mac's Specs
2.16 Core 2 Duo, 160GB HD, 2gb RAM, Black Macbook | iPhone | OS X Leopard
I'm currently writing a paper about media bias. I'm using newsmax as an example of right wing bias.
 
Joined
Jan 5, 2007
Messages
1,480
Reaction score
124
Points
63
Location
Where the old Baker farm used to be.
Your Mac's Specs
Apple Black MacBook 2 GB RAM, 2.0 GHZ Intel Core 2 Duo Proecessor, 120 GB HD. 30 GB Black iPod Video
I'm currently writing a paper about media bias. I'm using newsmax as an example of right wing bias.

I'd probably use Newsmax as well. Of course, they don't pretend to cover up their biases. They'll gladly admit that they're conservative. Who is your example of left-wing bias?
 
Joined
Sep 4, 2007
Messages
807
Reaction score
39
Points
28
Location
Brandon, MS, USA
Your Mac's Specs
24" iMac 3.06GHz 8GB of RAM 2TB HDD, 13" Aluminum MacBook 2.0GHz 4GB of RAM 500GB HDD
I'd probably use Newsmax as well. Of course, they don't pretend to cover up their biases. They'll gladly admit that they're conservative. Who is your example of left-wing bias?

CNN would be good.
 
Joined
Sep 12, 2006
Messages
1,224
Reaction score
62
Points
48
Location
Twin Cities, MN
Your Mac's Specs
Macbook 2.0ghz coeduo 1GB RAM 80 GB HD SuperDrive
so have we really gotten to a point in america when we read news and instead of debating what it says we just attack its source?

i wasn't aware that politically charged news was automatically disregarded or not...

this article appears to have interviews with actual scientists who say actual things, these actual things are being reported in this article...so...take it or leave it, this is news
 
OP
PapaNoHair
Joined
Jul 18, 2006
Messages
2,180
Reaction score
92
Points
48
Location
Florida
so have we really gotten to a point in america when we read news and instead of debating what it says we just attack its source?

i wasn't aware that politically charged news was automatically disregarded or not...

this article appears to have interviews with actual scientists who say actual things, these actual things are being reported in this article...so...take it or leave it, this is news

Amen!!!! I could not have worded it better myself. I don't care where the source is - I try hard to examine the evidence presented for it's own value and then weigh all the accumulated facts together. There are some very prominent scientists who actually work in this field (some estimates say up to 60%) who say humans are not causing global warming that it is a natural event occurring every so many thousands of years. There was an interesting point brought out by a prominent personality that caught my attention the other day. He asked: why are we so arrogant as to assume that the weather we have right now is the "perfect" weather? What difference would it matter if the temperature would shoot up 1 or 2 degrees - why do we assume that would be negative. I still remember Rachael Ward saying (back in the 80's) that the world would end in 15-20 years because of pollution. It has now been nearly 30 years - looks like she panicked for no reason.
 
Joined
Mar 30, 2004
Messages
4,744
Reaction score
381
Points
83
Location
USA
Your Mac's Specs
12" Apple PowerBook G4 (1.5GHz)
so have we really gotten to a point in america when we read news and instead of debating what it says we just attack its source?

Yes, and this is how it should be.

For the first time in history, in front of you, right now, you have a machine that can bring you the papers published by actual scientists, their academic credentials, and the sources of their funding. Or, since that's probably more work than you care to do, you can at least find more complete summaries than any news organization could ever compile.

Why let some talking head with an obvious agenda tell you what to think?
 
Joined
Oct 10, 2004
Messages
10,345
Reaction score
597
Points
113
Location
Margaritaville
Your Mac's Specs
3.4 Ghz i7 MacBook Pro (2015), iPad Pro (2014), iPhone Xs Max. Apple TV 4K
Newsmax may be right wing, but ABC is FAR from it. The fact that this is airing on ABC is rather interesting.
 
Joined
Sep 4, 2007
Messages
807
Reaction score
39
Points
28
Location
Brandon, MS, USA
Your Mac's Specs
24" iMac 3.06GHz 8GB of RAM 2TB HDD, 13" Aluminum MacBook 2.0GHz 4GB of RAM 500GB HDD
so have we really gotten to a point in america when we read news and instead of debating what it says we just attack its source?

i wasn't aware that politically charged news was automatically disregarded or not...

this article appears to have interviews with actual scientists who say actual things, these actual things are being reported in this article...so...take it or leave it, this is news

Amen!!!! I could not have worded it better myself. I don't care where the source is - I try hard to examine the evidence presented for it's own value and then weigh all the accumulated facts together. There are some very prominent scientists who actually work in this field (some estimates say up to 60%) who say humans are not causing global warming that it is a natural event occurring every so many thousands of years. There was an interesting point brought out by a prominent personality that caught my attention the other day. He asked: why are we so arrogant as to assume that the weather we have right now is the "perfect" weather? What difference would it matter if the temperature would shoot up 1 or 2 degrees - why do we assume that would be negative. I still remember Rachael Ward saying (back in the 80's) that the world would end in 15-20 years because of pollution. It has now been nearly 30 years - looks like she panicked for no reason.

These are excellent posts.

I also find it interesting that global warming is even a political issue. The bottom line is we will all be better off if there is less pollution in the air, regardless if it causing global warming or not. Steps should be taken to take care of the environment and conserve our resources but turning it into a political issue and forcing people to take sides just hinders the progress of getting things done. Why are we concentrating on the term "global warming" when we could be using that energy to develop new technologies to reduce pollution and conserve our resources, back in the 70's people where concerned with global cooling and thinking we were headed towards another ice age. Things change on this planet everyday, we can't predict what things will change tomorrow, next month, or in one hundred years, lets take the steps necessary to clean the air and reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and everyone will benefit. Anyway thats my rant for the day, thanks for listening.
 
OP
PapaNoHair
Joined
Jul 18, 2006
Messages
2,180
Reaction score
92
Points
48
Location
Florida
Newsmax may be right wing, but ABC is FAR from it. The fact that this is airing on ABC is rather interesting.

Interesting observation - actually I did not pay attention to who aired it - Newsmax or ABC, I just was intrigued by what it said. The fact that ABC aired it does amaze me. Apparently Newsmax just reported on the ABC story. I should have recognized the name. As mentioned in another post - I get the majority of my news off the internet. Who airs something does not really concern me that much - it has been my experience all people lean one way or another and it is practically impossible to keep individual bias out of things.
 
Joined
May 20, 2005
Messages
205
Reaction score
5
Points
18
Location
New York / Oklahoma
Newsmax may be right wing, but ABC is FAR from it. The fact that this is airing on ABC is rather interesting.

Very true baggss. I am surprised ABC did air this story. Interesting indeed.
 
Joined
Oct 22, 2007
Messages
8,967
Reaction score
287
Points
83
Location
London
Your Mac's Specs
Mac Mini Core i7 2012 | White 2009 MacBook 2 Ghz | 733 Mhz G4 Quicksilver
I think I will stick to the info I get from New Scientist and Scientific American on this one.

Global warming IS going to happen, just how much. The scientific communnity agree that the sceptics should be allowed their say, but get 1000 random scienstists in a room and you can safely bet over 95% will agree that warming is occuring.

Unless they all work for the oil industry that is ;D
 
Joined
Apr 4, 2007
Messages
2,641
Reaction score
134
Points
63
Location
Durtburg, WV
Your Mac's Specs
Sooper Fast!
The have been ice ages an such...and I don't think cavemen and campfires had anything to do with that...

And the Sahara and Death Valley used to be plains and not deserts. I don't think man's invention of the wheel had much to do with that other. In fact, major industrialisation and dependency on coal and oil haven't been around for more than 100 years. This planet is billions of years old.

It's like that old song, I think it's called "You're so Vain".

And yes, pollution is bad. Just look at health crisis they had because of some polluted cities, London being one of them. The smog was so bad there at one point that it was killing people. Does that mean it created enough smog to eat a hole in the Ozone layer? Not necessarily. If poloticians were really worried about decreasing CO2 and helping the Ozone and such, they'd work on a way from keeping volcanoes from erupting.
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
77
Reaction score
1
Points
8
Location
New York City
Your Mac's Specs
Current iPhone and iPod owner, Future Mac Owner
I think I will stick to the info I get from New Scientist and Scientific American on this one.

Global warming IS going to happen, just how much. The scientific communnity agree that the sceptics should be allowed their say, but get 1000 random scienstists in a room and you can safely bet over 95% will agree that warming is occuring.

Unless they all work for the oil industry that is ;D

Agreed... The remaining 5% are no different than the "scientists" who were paid off by the tobacco industry for years to say smoking doesn't cause cancer, despite all evidence to the contrary. They all knew very well cigarettes cause cancer, but they also know it could be considered a "debate" as long as some crackpot was willing to go on TV and spread misinformation.
 
Joined
Oct 5, 2007
Messages
56
Reaction score
1
Points
8
Your Mac's Specs
iMac - 24" - 2.8ghz - 2 Gig Ram - 500 Gig HD
Like I have said elsewhere to anyone that thinks Global Warming is a "crock" and blah blah blah.

Can you honestly sit there and tell me humans as a whole - have NO IMPACT on our earth what so ever? Can you actually still sit there and say we are not causing any problems even though we are SPEWING massive amounts of pollution from our cars, factories, power plants, sewage and everything else? Again, can you sit there and say we have DONE NOTHING to upset the balance as we destroy and teardown forests to make way for more malls and a bigger suburbia? Really? No impact? Global Warming is just a "theory" and not really happening?

Uh huh. Granted some of the information might be a bit "tactical" - however most of it is true. Sea level rise does not scare anyone here? Heatwaves, hurricanes? Were not talking apocalyptic here - were talking increased problems.

Then on the other hand after 8 years of debating if it's true - we are now just acknowledging it and trying to scramble to change it by - here is the kicker - changing out light bulbs. Who the heck thought this one up? Lets all hold hands and change out LIGHT BULBS to stave off Global Warming - How cool is that!!! Sorry, but it's a little too late for that. You can change every light bulb in the world to LED or CFL and it would not make a darn bit of difference at this point. None.

Then - we have car manufacturers that REFUSE to increas their fuel efficiency. They REFUSE! Then, when someone who wants and really needs an SUV - they get hazed for buying a gas guzzler - excuse me - what is my alternative? A prius to haul around a family of 5/6 ? Yeah right. It's not MY FAULT I have NO OPTIONS. Give me the option of a fuel cell (hydrogen) and I will buy it in a heartbeat.

Hybrids? A waste and nothing but a stop gap measure. An illusion of doing something good. Yes, lets use BATTERIES to offset blah blah blah.

Then to top it all off - someone in the White House gave the president a phrase I will never understand - "CLEAN BURNING COAL". What kinda crud is that? Clean burning COAL? Excuse me? Coal burns clean? Huh? You mean, the black stuff that puts CO2 in the air no matter how you burn it? That's Clean?

Anyways, believe what you will :)
 
Joined
Oct 10, 2004
Messages
10,345
Reaction score
597
Points
113
Location
Margaritaville
Your Mac's Specs
3.4 Ghz i7 MacBook Pro (2015), iPad Pro (2014), iPhone Xs Max. Apple TV 4K
Can you honestly sit there and tell me humans as a whole - have NO IMPACT on our earth what so ever? Can you actually still sit there and say we are not causing any problems even though we are SPEWING massive amounts of pollution from our cars, factories, power plants, sewage and everything else? Again, can you sit there and say we have DONE NOTHING to upset the balance as we destroy and teardown forests to make way for more malls and a bigger suburbia? Really? No impact? Global Warming is just a "theory" and not really happening?

Yes I can...

The argument is not is global warming a reality, the argument is if we are the primary, secondary or any cause of it. Pollution in and of itself is a bad thing and anything that we create that harms us as a species should be taken care of. The planet has gone through cycles for millions of years in the past and will continue to do so, humans or no humans. To assume that we are the primary cause of what is happening around is is the height of conceit. To attempt to tackle a problem which we don't really understand the cause of is simply inviting more trouble. Were we to stick to the idea of cleaning up our environment because it is good for us and not run amok screaming that Hurricane Katrina was caused by global warming (as Mr Gore has already done and as many pro-golbal warming scientists have pointed out is wrong) we would likely get more peoples acceptance. Causing panic over an issue we don't really understand is simply silly and counterproductive in the long run.

I would also caution AbSoluTc to be wary of how he approaches this topic in this forum. Stooping to insulting, name calling or simple negative innuendo concerning those who you may disagree with is not particularly tolerated here and will land you in hot water. I'm not saying that you have done any of the above, but the condescending tone of you last post leads me to believe that things may degenerate rapidly, but I could be wrong. If you want to have a debate or discussion we need to keep it civil. These threads tend to end up badly and suddenly disappear and certain kinds of behavior are the cause of it. You don't have to agree with me and I don't have to agree with you, but like it or not we both have the right to express our opinions equally here as long as we keep it civil.
 
OP
PapaNoHair
Joined
Jul 18, 2006
Messages
2,180
Reaction score
92
Points
48
Location
Florida
Yes I can...

The argument is not is global warming a reality, the argument is if we are the primary, secondary or any cause of it. Pollution in and of itself is a bad thing and anything that we create that harms us as a species should be taken care of. The planet has gone through cycles for millions of years in the past and will continue to do so, humans or no humans. To assume that we are the primary cause of what is happening around is is the height of conceit. To attempt to tackle a problem which we don't really understand the cause of is simply inviting more trouble. Were we to stick to the idea of cleaning up our environment because it is good for us and not run amok screaming that Hurricane Katrina was caused by global warming (as Mr Gore has already done and as many pro-golbal warming scientists have pointed out is wrong) we would likely get more peoples acceptance. Causing panic over an issue we don't really understand is simply silly and counterproductive in the long run.

I would also caution AbSoluTc to be wary of how he approaches this topic in this forum. Stooping to insulting, name calling or simple negative innuendo concerning those who you may disagree with is not particularly tolerated here and will land you in hot water. I'm not saying that you have done any of the above, but the condescending tone of you last post leads me to believe that things may degenerate rapidly, but I could be wrong. If you want to have a debate or discussion we need to keep it civil. These threads tend to end up badly and suddenly disappear and certain kinds of behavior are the cause of it. You don't have to agree with me and I don't have to agree with you, but like it or not we both have the right to express our opinions equally here as long as we keep it civil.

Baggss I am getting worried - I am agreeing with you more and more! :D
You worded it great. I too am all for keeping the environment clean and it bothers me when someone who believes in man-made global warming paints with a broad brush indicating that I want to destroy the environment. This old planet will be around, live and kicking long after all of us are gone. I would just like to see civil discussion with both sides listening to each other and "junk" science being thrown out of the picture. Examples: 1) the polar bears are going to be wiped out. Actually at the current time it appears they are actually increasing. 2) Global warming is occurring (man made) because huge chunks of ice are breaking off of Antarctica. Hate to tell everyone but those same chunks were falling off when I was down there 1964-1968. It is an annual event. That is why there is permanent ice and annual ice.
 

Shop Amazon


Shop for your Apple, Mac, iPhone and other computer products on Amazon.
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon and affiliated sites.
Top