Go to bed, Ultra.
You too, Bat, you're all cranky and whiny.
You too SX. You're all pessimistic about the Wii. j/p 
You too, SVD, shaking your face back and forth like that's gonna wear you out.
Ultra, you do know that that documentary's been at the centre of a storm of controversy here in the UK ever since, due to using manipulated facts, misrepresented visuals, "experts" who're famous for fabricating evidence previously and contributors who swear blind they've been edited to manipulate their viewpoint and were lied to about the slant of the whole thing to start with... right?
The broadcaster's actually gotten into trouble with the authorities over here for broadcasting something that was so obviously unchecked and full of holes.
Although I suspected that Fox News might not've been as keen on reporting that side of it.
The celluloid it was made on is worth considerably more than the opinions expressed therein.
This reminds me of the story where there was a team of Fox News reporters who refused to lie in their story even when threatened and bribed and they ended up getting fired because of it. Then they took it to court but in the end it was found out that there was nothing in the law that said you can't lie in a news story so they lost the case.
What a wonderful country we live in.
if global warming exists or not, i don't find that an issue.. but i do have an issue with the government using it as an excuse to tax us even more.
*throttles various minsters, starting with gordan brown, retires to mutter* ;-@;
and no, i didn't watch the link, have a feeling i saw a programe like it on tv a while back.
The celluloid it was made on is worth considerably more than the opinions expressed therein.
QFT
I give this 'documentary' the same leeway I give "An Inconvenient Truth" meaning not much.
No matter where you go or where you get your information there is always bias. I simply think of "An Inconvenient Truth" as garbage because Al Gore was a career politician and politicians lie.
So if a politician says that the Earth is round it's a lie? You can't just dismiss what somebody says because of who they are (even Fox News tells some truths). It's about the arguments. Ad hominem and so on.
Ultra, let me tell you why your argument is unwinnable. When somebody has a gun to your head, and a bunch of gun experts tell you so, while numerous criminal psychologists have told you that this particular mugger was going to show up where you are based on their analysis, people around you are screaming, you feel something gun-like, and the mugger has hired a few people to tell you that the mugger isn't there, who do you listen to? Scientific consensus, even if you say that consensus is less than 90%, is not proof, but it's more than enough evidence to convince me that arguing against global warming regulation is EXTREMELY ^%$#ING RIDICULOUS in the nicest way I can say it. Let's look at this logically:
Risk of not regulating wrongly: Zero quality of life for humanity and many other species.
Risk of regulating wrongly: Some minor shakeups in business that will simply create opportunities for other businesses. Big business lobbies would see this as a bad thing, but it would likely help the economy. That money they have to spend on conforming to regulations isn't exactly going nowhere, and the faster a country can get in on this, the more likely they are to grow that industry themselves so that the money isn't outsourced. Even if humans aren't causing global warming, those pollution regulations would probably be good for the environment. There isn't actually any downside to global warming regulation that I have heard yet, just a bunch of attempts to confuse the issue or have a token scientist dissent here or there.
Quote:
Ultra, you do know that that documentary's been at the centre of a storm of controversy here in the UK ever since, due to using manipulated facts, misrepresented visuals, "experts" who're famous for fabricating evidence previously and contributors who swear blind they've been edited to manipulate their viewpoint and were lied to about the slant of the whole thing to start with... right?
Unfortunately, I didn't. Any links to articles about this controversy (so I can see what facts they claim are manipulated, what charts are innacurate, etc.)?
Quote:
Ultra, let me tell you why your argument is unwinnable. When somebody has a gun to your head, and a bunch of gun experts tell you so, while numerous criminal psychologists have told you that this particular mugger was going to show up where you are based on their analysis, people around you are screaming, you feel something gun-like, and the mugger has hired a few people to tell you that the mugger isn't there, who do you listen to? Scientific consensus, even if you say that consensus is less than 90%, is not proof, but it's more than enough evidence to convince me that arguing against global warming regulation is EXTREMELY ^%$#ING RIDICULOUS in the nicest way I can say it.
This is an interesting analogy, but an odd one. The gun to your head is something immediately observable; the idea that humans are the primary cause of global warming (and not, you know, the SUN) is not as immediately observable. I mean, thirty years ago, it was global cooling. Then it was global warming. Now I've seen news referring to just "climate change," as if it's the most horrible thing in the world. That's why so many are skeptical...it's just downright ludicrous to suggest that humans have a greater responsibility for the warming of the planet than the Sun. Heck, the US has worked at curtailing its emissions without even signing up for the Kyoto Protocol. As for India and China...well, just look.
Industrialization and modernization of Third World countries will result in a surge of pollution, but the only way to prevent more pollution would be to simply not industrialize at all. What are the positives or negatives of such an action, and which one outweighs the other?
And I just have a quick question for you Vec; if the current spell of global warming is a purely manmade phenomenon, then why is Mars warming up?
Isn't Mars' atmosphere mostly made of CO2? 
Remember Folks: The same people preaching on gobal warming are the same ones that preached Global Cooling 30 odd years ago.
That's funny, I wasn't alive then, and many of the scientists talking about the issue were not involved in global cooling.
BTW, it's possible that some of the global cooling ideas were correct and that they have been masking global warming. In fact, Ultra's chart supposes this exact argument. However, whether global cooling was true or not is irrelevant, as is the Mars data. Whether other non-human factors are involved or not, any controllable factors should be addressed. Duh, climate involves many factors. Any arguments that other factors are involved are irrelevant distractions.
So far the only argument you've shown against global warming regulation is that other countries will pick up the pollution. That reminds me of an argument I referenced in the slavery topic. Even if they do, it doesn't make it a bad idea, and if the currently industralized countries take on such regulations, they will have considerable ability to make the other countries do so as well.
Remember Folks: The same people preaching on gobal warming are the same ones that preached Global Cooling 30 odd years ago.
Salmon for lies.
That could have been worded better. Both are political tools, and from a political stand point, (and of course I can go only on books and other references. Plus that statement was for the most part sarcastic Now to the meat and potatoes: Is global warming happening? Well yes, but to what degree. Then, you have the politicians going on about global warming. Okay lets see some pictures of you and your Prius then. And what about your burning through 22,619 kilowatt-hours a month? Well Al?
Am I saying we shouldn't try to be cleaning? No, by all means I think we should try to clean up, but have people gone off the deep end? Hell yes.
Ahhh global warming...hmmm...I'm still undecided on this when I notice nature can do a fine job of screwing things over in a short amount of time (Hello 1816, year without a summer) or El Chichon of 1985 or Mount Pinatubo in the early 90's. Should we try to take better care of the Earth, yeah. Should we lose our heads and suggest the lower lying regions of the Earth are totally screwed? Well...nature will take care of that (Hello New Orleans. Hello Bangladesh) so I doubt we'll have to worry about that...
Quote:
So far the only argument you've shown against global warming regulation is that other countries will pick up the pollution.
I could also say that I dislike how politicized the entire movement has been, resulting in fudged reports and faulty science. Science is not done by consensus, as you have said; however, the question is how many are not in agreement with "Global Warming = Manmade"? (Note that not every one who dissents is a secret operative for ExxonMobil. That would be the equivalent of me saying that everyone who supports the Manmade Global Warming theory is a secret operative of Al Gore and Greenpeace, which is ludicrous.) However, I do give France credit for getting nuclear power as a viable alternative to oil and coal, which I wholeheartedly agree with.
Quote:
That reminds me of an argument I referenced in the slavery topic. Even if they do, it doesn't make it a bad idea, and if the currently industralized countries take on such regulations, they will have considerable ability to make the other countries do so as well.
The question is, how much? Going too far in that direction can cripple an economy, and Third World nations that have yet to industrialize won't be able to meet the needs of their populace (most of whom will likely jump at the chance for obtaining some modern luxuries) with such inefficient measures as solar and wind power. Maybe that can come later, but a nation can't start out like that. Unless you're a tiny country that happens to be in the middle of the desert (then you'd just have to worry about sand getting on the solar panels and in the mechanisms of the wind turbines, but hey).
And I have a small question; the last segment of GGWS focused on a burgeoning Africa. Do you disagree with his opinion that "Wind and Solar" energy solutions are inadequate at this point in time?
Duh.
Ultra "Archie Bunker" Sonic 007
I'll be Archie Bunker if you'll be Meathead. :3
Everyone knows that the sun is expanding, thus of course its going to get warmer here... geez. How about we just stop talking? It couldnt be the fact that we generate so much heat with technology and the fact that our mouthes are always yapping letting hot air escape... oh no...
Well, according to Amazing Grace, pirates solve everything.
Arguments, not people. That hit my flame tolerance level.
I know some dissenters are not paid, but I suspect political motives in many of them.
Those countries may be a potential disadvantage to global regulations. You have made a point there. However, even if the argument for anthropological global warming was only 50/50, the risk vs. reward of the choices is still overwhelmingly one-sided.
