Article - Media Shows Irrational Hysteria on Global Warming
- 12-07-2006, 11:14 AM
Article - Media Shows Irrational Hysteria on Global Warming
I have found the constant concern of global warming to be a rather odd phenomenom based on fear and conjecture. Contrastly, as some may remember, in the 1970s and early 1980s the fear was global cooling.
Here is a brief statement from the article:
"There is an overwhelming bias today in the media regarding the issue of global warming. In the past two years, this bias has bloomed into an irrational hysteria. Every natural disaster that occurs is now linked with global warming, no matter how tenuous or impossible the connection. As a result, the public has become vastly misinformed."
- 12-07-2006, 11:49 AM
I read a thing about how Al Gore went to one of his speeches in a Toyota Echo or Prius, something like that, and had a motorcade of like 3 or 4 SUVS, a couple limos, and a large pickup truck.
12-07-2006, 11:52 AM
Well it may be false hype , but on the other hand look at the changes this world has made to adapt to mankind, on a lesser note i do believe we are doing damage just on an immesurable scale.
12-07-2006, 01:13 PM
It's simply because neither the media, nor the general public can digest the fact that this is a subject of ONGOING scientific research. Everyone wants to draw conclusions from that, be the first one to predict the outcome...and you cannot, simply cannot until we know more.
That said, there are alarming trends in climate data and it IS healthy to talk about them and perhaps prepare for certain outcomes, but no, hysteria is not warranted.
12-08-2006, 06:47 AM
The members of the media feed their family by writing stories. There is no such thing as a day without news. If nothing of interest happens, then they just make up an interesting possiblity. The best stories are the ones that self-perpetuate, they create further dialog, which can be written about more extensively. This is job protection and is a necassary evil in the media. Stories about eviromental holocausts tend to miss the point by seperating humans from the rest of the planet.
Ultimately we are the world
12-30-2006, 02:42 PM
I don't profess to know anything, or be an ecologist...but didn't the scientist who came up with the concept of global warming later change his mind?
E-Pharm Nutrition Representative
12-30-2006, 03:00 PM
Maybe we don't impact anything on a global scale yet but we sure as hell do on a semi-locally scale. Ever been to DC or New York city on a hot summer day? There's ntohing wrong with trying to make things cleaner and the earlier we start the easier it will be to make any changes if it ever comes out one day that we do indeed make global changes.
12-30-2006, 05:07 PM
ANyone stop to think for a minute that this has been going on throughout time? We go though ice ages, then it melts, then another ice age, then it melts completly again and so on. It's a never ending cycle, and right now it just so happens that we are in a drying out phase. In a few hundred years we will most likely go through another ice age as we will be further away from the sun again. Right now we are drawing closer to the sun. So in 200 or so years will we be blaming Bush for the ice age?
12-30-2006, 05:22 PM
I don't think it's the blame game on any one person but people saying things like you just did are just as guilty as those screaming the sky is falling. There are levels of impact and action that do not have to be an extreme. "ice ages" did not change in just a few years.
The over all message shouldn't be overlooked here. We are growing and constantly using up more resources. Looking into alternate fuels and cleaner ways of living will make a difference one day. Why not start now and slowly work our way in that direction?
12-30-2006, 11:15 PM
We'll move in to the arena of alternative fuels when it is economic.
Unfortuneatly - it won't be a true free market response - the government will see to it that won't happen.
12-31-2006, 11:53 AM
If he or one of his clones is still in office and the world is still using hydrocarbons as a fuel system? then, yes!!!Originally Posted by TheMyth
there are viable energy sources thjan can be developed to fruition.
Google or youtube; "free energy" or "zero point field" technology
the global warming hysteria is projected by corporate controlled
alphabet organizations like EPA and corporate owned politicians like Al Gore. The help perpetuate the illusion that the world's resurces are scarce and need to be rationed(sold to the highest bidder!) The green movement is part of the "problem" in the problem/ reaction/ solution control matrix
12-31-2006, 02:14 PM
Bush ain't got sh*t to do with petroleum based products ruling the transportation sector.Originally Posted by anabolicrhino
Companies are spending lots of $$$ researching alternative transportation fuels - it is just too damn expensive right now. A hydrogen based car would cost like 200 to 300 grand.
Do you want to pay that sort of money for a car? I sure as hell don't.
When something becomes cheaper - the market will move towards it.
12-31-2006, 02:31 PM
Extremes on either side do nothing but harm the actual movement to a better environment. No "one" person is responsible or able to influence something as big as global fuel.
12-31-2006, 03:57 PM
Anyone ever seen this, it's a part you put into your engine that turns it into a hydrogen using engine and you can actually get twice as much gas milage from it. I just read about this, there is one guy here in Sonoma County that has his car running with it in it, he said it does work like it says, and its only a $40 piece.
Wondering if anyone else has heard of it.
12-31-2006, 04:24 PM
The market theory works best in a "free market" The oil market is the most artificial market ever concieved. The oil companies wield so much power,(distribution system) that only they can bring an alternative to the market. When they do it won't be cheaper. First oil prices will rise based upon the scarcity of the product. Then when the prices are at a market peak, the oil companies will release the new energy sources at an inflated price which they will justify as trying to recoup their development costs. Fuel will always cost more in the future because it is a means of control. We have been conditioned to expect certain price fluctuations, but ultimately the median price slowly rises. The price rises as inflation devalues your money, so we lose at both ends. So If we the end users are the losers who are the winners? Oil companies and banks. GWB is from oil money, just simple loyalty would lead me to believe he takes care of his own!Originally Posted by jmh80
01-01-2007, 01:22 AM
TORONTO, Ontario (AP) -- A giant ice shelf the size of 11,000 football fields has snapped free from Canada's Arctic, scientists said.
The mass of ice broke clear 16 months ago from the coast of Ellesmere Island, about 800 kilometers (497 miles) south of the North Pole, but no one was present to see it in Canada's remote north.
Scientists using satellite images later noticed that it became a newly formed ice island in just an hour and left a trail of icy boulders floating in its wake. (Watch the satellite images that clued in ice watchers)
Warwick Vincent of Laval University, who studies Arctic conditions, traveled to the newly formed ice island and could not believe what he saw.
"This is a dramatic and disturbing event. It shows that we are losing remarkable features of the Canadian North that have been in place for many thousands of years. We are crossing climate thresholds, and these may signal the onset of accelerated change ahead," Vincent said Thursday.
In 10 years of working in the region he has never seen such a dramatic loss of sea ice, he said.
The collapse was so powerful that earthquake monitors 250 kilometers (155 miles) away picked up tremors from it.
The Ayles Ice Shelf, roughly 66 square kilometers (41 square miles) in area, was one of six major ice shelves remaining in Canada's Arctic.
Scientists say it is the largest event of its kind in Canada in 30 years and point their fingers at climate change as a major contributing factor.
"It is consistent with climate change," Vincent said, adding that the remaining ice shelves are 90 percent smaller than when they were first discovered in 1906.
"We aren't able to connect all of the dots ... but unusually warm temperatures definitely played a major role."
Laurie Weir, who monitors ice conditions for the Canadian Ice Service, was poring over satellite images in 2005 when she noticed that the shelf had split and separated.
Weir notified Luke Copland, head of the new global ice lab at the University of Ottawa, who initiated an effort to find out what happened.
Using U.S. and Canadian satellite images, as well as data from seismic monitors, Copland discovered that the ice shelf collapsed in the early afternoon of August 13, 2005.
"What surprised us was how quickly it happened," Copland said. "It's pretty alarming.
"Even 10 years ago scientists assumed that when global warming changes occur that it would happen gradually so that perhaps we expected these ice shelves just to melt away quite slowly, but the big surprise is that for one they are going, but secondly that when they do go, they just go suddenly, it's all at once, in a span of an hour."
Within days, the floating ice shelf had drifted a few miles (kilometers) offshore. It traveled west for 50 kilometers (31 miles) until it finally froze into the sea ice in the early winter.
The Canadian ice shelves are packed with ancient ice that dates back over 3,000 years. They float on the sea but are connected to land.
Derek Mueller, a polar researcher with Vincent's team, said the ice shelves get weaker and weaker as the temperature rises. He visited Ellesmere's Ward Hunt Ice Shelf in 2002 and noticed it had cracked in half.
"We're losing our ice shelves, and this a feature of the landscape that is in danger of disappearing altogether from Canada," Mueller said. "In the global perspective Antarctica has many ice shelves bigger than this one, but then there is the idea that these are indicators of climate change."
The spring thaw may bring another concern as the warming temperatures could release the ice shelf from its Arctic grip. Prevailing winds could then send the ice island southwards, deep into the Beaufort Sea.
01-01-2007, 01:46 AM
The Euro and US oil companies don't control much of anything, relatively speaking - they are just the only ones average folks know about. The national oil cos. (i.e. Aramco or PdVSA) are the folks that control the majority of crude oil/natural gas and refined products worldwide - and they are only asserting more and more control as of late (see Gazprom's entrance into Shell's LNG project in the Russian arctic).Originally Posted by anabolicrhino
01-01-2007, 10:10 AM
Alternative fuels are REALLY cheap. Did you know the diesel engine was originally invented to run on peanut oil? The only reason we use 'diesel' fuel is because fossil fuels were more abundant at the time of the engine's creation.Originally Posted by jmh80
You can even run a diesel engine used on chip/vegetable fat! Afterall, it's all the same stuff- long chain hydrocarbons. (Although it does work best if it's 'thinned' out with an organic solvent).
These fuels are more environmentally friendly, cheap, renewable (just grow more crops) and there are vast swathes of empty land that could be used for growing the crops required.
01-01-2007, 10:40 AM
Diesel is a bit out of my realm of knowledge - but I thought it had a significant aromatic component - we wouldn't want that in our cooking oils/foods though?
Unless that is what you mean by adding a solvent - like varsol.
01-01-2007, 11:21 PM
I cannot put a value on the health of our world, the one and only home we know. I think the cost of new technology is irrelevant, its the cost of not using oil that keep the powers that be wealthy. Why would the richest people in the world with all the political clout allow this to happen unless they had their hands in the pot.
01-01-2007, 11:49 PM
01-02-2007, 08:33 AM
Originally Posted by jmh80
Unless sending the world into a recession some how fits into your plan for domination. Wealth is neither destroyed or created, it just changes hands. One man's recession is another man's boom!
01-02-2007, 05:49 PM
Theres always goona be expensive and cheap vehicles and the new technology will be no different. its a trade off do what you already do cause its easier, or do the right thing.Originally Posted by jmh80
Its alot easier for me not to workout and to not pay me bills but that means i cant kick the repo mans azz when he comes.
Similar Forum Threads
- By CHAPS in forum General ChatReplies: 80Last Post: 08-22-2006, 09:02 PM
- By yeahright in forum Nutrition / HealthReplies: 1Last Post: 05-26-2006, 04:26 PM
- By QUICKRYDE in forum PoliticsReplies: 70Last Post: 10-10-2005, 08:49 AM
- By kwyckemynd00 in forum PoliticsReplies: 29Last Post: 09-06-2005, 06:49 PM
- By darius in forum General ChatReplies: 16Last Post: 01-25-2005, 02:28 AM