FrostCloud Forums  

Go Back   FrostCloud Forums > Philosophy > Ethics and Morality

Greetings!

Ethics and Morality What's right and what's wrong? Discuss issues on ethics, morality, and justice.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 07-19-2006, 05:32 PM
mgcw mgcw is offline
Advanced
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 66
An Inconvenient Truth

It seems to me that after seeing this film, the evidence becomes quite clear, in fact undeniable that global warming is indeed happening due to human activity. I wonder why it is so difficult for people to simply do the right thing and make change where necessary. Exactly how uninvolved have people become in their own lives. Surely we are not like the frog that just sits in the water until death wins over, or are we. I would argue this is exactly the case and where the underlying problem regarding the lethargy that currently pervades human society is.

Last edited by mgcw; 07-19-2006 at 05:37 PM.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2  
Old 07-19-2006, 08:19 PM
Phil's Avatar
Phil Phil is offline
Veteran
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by mgcw
It seems to me that after seeing this film, the evidence becomes quite clear, in fact undeniable that global warming is indeed happening due to human activity. I wonder why it is so difficult for people to simply do the right thing and make change where necessary. Exactly how uninvolved have people become in their own lives. Surely we are not like the frog that just sits in the water until death wins over, or are we. I would argue this is exactly the case and where the underlying problem regarding the lethargy that currently pervades human society is.

Well not everyone is fully aware of the seriousness of the current situation facing humanity, people just aren't being given the right education on global warming. Global warming is not a new phenomenom there are several references to it (soylent green) and others. Films like an inconvienient truth do help peoples awareness of such, but governments need to adress the issue more seriously they need to bring in legislations that create ways in which people are forced into purposeful participation in order to help cut carbon emmissions. Taxes however, I believe are not the solution. Government need to ensure that corporations also cut down on green house emmisions they need enforce very strict policies that severly penalise and punish corporations that fail to adhere to legislations. I also believe that their are alot of people who really do understand the severity of global warming many of which choose to ignore it or do nothing about it. you would have thought that with all these new eco friendly technologies we would have more of a sense of urgency to implement them but we have'nt.. and why? money and greed. there is still alot of money to be made from more harmful technologies and fuels. Its a shame that it takes the threat of such a catastrophie/ extinction level event to make us start to respect our home(of which there is indeed only one) we are selfish we take and take and take without giving back or acknowledging the immediate and future impact of our selfish actions. why didnt we think of producing enviromentaly friendly technologies etc in the first place? because we cant see past our own immediate self absorbtion and indulgence. I seriously can't fatham why we arnt take neccesary messures like restrictions on air travel and other environmentally damaging activities... why are we going to wait until the last minute possible of which by then the effects will be irreversable. how can we even begin to put a price on our mere existence when our shere existence is priceless... I haven't seen the movie yet ...I'm sure its a good watch...I cannot be bothered going into the kyoto treaty and the peripherals of that and countries which choose to abstain and refuse to do their bit because then i would go into some crazy rant about how the west destoyed planet earth and tried to pin it on developing countries which have only recently started to slightly measure up to the exploits and damaging practices of the west....shame on you china and india...why dont we the west share our knowledge of greener technologies and help the countries develop greener technologies instead of pointing the finger...(by the way just imagine the effects and damage that will be caused by these two giants that house nearly half of the worlds population, they will definately surpass anything achieve by america UK etc) the west has managed to cause enough damage to threaten all lifeforms existence on this planet....the actions and practices of india and china if continued will surely bring about our destruction alot quicker than expected if continued.

Man's murdered his earth,
he's like vermin but worse
a cancerous parasite,
that has paralysed his paradise,
as mother nature is vandalised.

Sorry didnt mean to right that much.....and yes my grammar isunclear and untidy...my bad but surely that is insignificant......lol
__________________
I'm just a Philosophical Philosopher, Philosophying about Philosophy.............The Revolution will be televised


I Know more today than i did yesterday but less than i will know tommorow. and I still know very little

Its not how much you learn its how you apply what you have learned

before you judge others the mirror is a good place to start

Why are my thoughts so DEEP in a world so SHALLOW?
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 07-20-2006, 12:17 AM
luna333's Avatar
luna333 luna333 is offline
where the he** is Ben?
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 524
What about the lessening of the magentic pull of the earth and the slow flip of the poles? Would that not cause warming as well? I agree completely with you opinions, I am just wondering.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 07-20-2006, 01:08 AM
Phil's Avatar
Phil Phil is offline
Veteran
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by luna333
What about the lessening of the magentic pull of the earth and the slow flip of the poles? Would that not cause warming as well? I agree completely with you opinions, I am just wondering.

yeah I heard about the magnetic field flipping quite a few years back, but its a gradual process. a very slow process.thousands of years,its natural it flips from one pole to another back and forth like a very slow pendulumn....man has endured maybe 10 of these polaric switches over a million years. but what is actually happening at the moment is a rapid increase in tempretures due to mans actions such as vast pollution de-forrestation something that other wise would occur naturally ie forest fires but which would create rich soil for new trees to grow. however, we destroy forests for good and very rarley replace what is taken, how many countless species have been destroyed? the earth has its own natural balancing mechanisms, we are not one of them clearly, beacause our actions are unilaterly bad with no real positives to draw from our actions there's no balance. usually u get out wot u put in, we get out but dont put in. eventually mother nature WILL take back.
__________________
I'm just a Philosophical Philosopher, Philosophying about Philosophy.............The Revolution will be televised


I Know more today than i did yesterday but less than i will know tommorow. and I still know very little

Its not how much you learn its how you apply what you have learned

before you judge others the mirror is a good place to start

Why are my thoughts so DEEP in a world so SHALLOW?
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 07-26-2006, 05:41 AM
tao tao is offline
Advanced
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 65
I was a bit puzzled by the release of that film. If fossil fuels are causing global warming and we are running out of fossil fuels, then...
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 07-26-2006, 02:00 PM
mgcw mgcw is offline
Advanced
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by tao
I was a bit puzzled by the release of that film. If fossil fuels are causing global warming and we are running out of fossil fuels, then...
Then what's the point of having people run around the ship pluging holes with fingers when the ship is 30' high and the water is only 10' deep. In other words there is nothing to worry about. I don't buy it. That everything works out perfectly goes against the grain of human reality. Which is why work equalls things getting done. My question was speaking more to the dillema of nothing, or very little getting done. Lethergy in society as steming from something that is human, rather than environmental.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 07-27-2006, 05:25 AM
fredcai's Avatar
fredcai fredcai is offline
Destroyer of Worlds, G
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Atlanta, Georgia
Posts: 1,224
Send a message via MSN to fredcai
Hmm... I've heard a lot about global warming, and the only thing everyone agrees on is that no one agrees. For example, I read in Discover magazine a few months back that man has actually stifled the projected overheating of the earth. My view is that it was probably going to happen anyway, and whether we sped it up or slowed it down doesn't really change much. The earths climate changes all of the time (in a very broad manner of speaking). Societies come and go, as do species. The earth will survive. Misguided enviromentalists think we have the duty of keeping everything just like it is, but that isn't the natural order of things. Of course, don't try to wreck everything so it screws everything up for us, but that's where moderation comes in. As a species, we don't have any.
__________________
You can do anything you set your mind to if you have a vision, determination, and an endless supply of expendable labor.

The only thing we learn from history is that we don't learn from history.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 08-09-2006, 07:45 AM
mgcw mgcw is offline
Advanced
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 66
What about lethargy?
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 08-21-2006, 11:03 PM
Mister Agenda's Avatar
Mister Agenda Mister Agenda is offline
Veteran
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Columbia, South Carolina
Posts: 4,794
Quote:
Originally Posted by mgcw
What about lethargy?
More like cynicism born from experience. In the 60s it was water pollution, in the 70s it was global cooling, in the 80s it was global starvation, in the early 90s it was nuclear winter, and now it is global warming. All of these things were supposed to destroy our civilization and to date none of them has. Add to that the fact that average solar activity has increased every year since we started measuring it in the 70s and Mars is also experiencing warming AND greenhouse gasses like CO2, Methane, and Ozone together account for only about 10% of Earth's greenhouse effect altogether and the effects of increasing CO2 do not increase its greenhouse contribution geometrically OR linearly, and skepticism about the degree to which humans contribute to warming and our ability to curb it by tweaking atmospheric parameters seems fairly justified.

Global Warming is very convenient to the people who have ALWAYS wanted us to make less, consume less, reproduce less, and so forth. Nuclear Winter showed that skeptical scientists admitted that they didn't debunk that patchy hypothesis because they didn't want to say anything that could be interpreted as making nuclear war less threatening.

When scientists start talking about how many other scientists are on their side and using ad hominem attacks on their opposition (this scientist is a crank, that one gets her money from corporations) instead of debating evidence, they are trying to sell us something they can't sell with the evidence they've got.

I've been hearing alot lately about how severe weather like hurricanes is caused by global warming, but global warming predicts LESS severe weather: most warming occurs at the poles, leading to less dramatic differences between polar and equatorial tempuratures, but it is the DIFFERENCE between polar and equatorial temperatures that drives the heat engine of big storms, not the absolute/global temperature. Severe weather is not associated with global warming theoretically or historically.

The best thing to do with science that has policy implications that can affect the course of civilization is to set up an independent entity with a variety of funding for researchers who won't know where their money comes from and don't know who will be reviewing or trying to reproduce their findings. The scientists who propose an experiment should not be the ones who execute it. Climatology currently has nothing resembling double-blind studies, and individual climatologists routinely adjust measurements according to their personal judgements. Any scientist who wants the scientific questions of global climate change resolved should support such an endeavor.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 11-12-2006, 08:46 AM
Digit Digit is offline
Newb
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 9
http://www.dailymotion.com/0jam0/vid...th-part-1-of-2
http://www.dailymotion.com/0jam0/vid...th-part-2-of-2
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 11-23-2006, 12:36 AM
Mister Agenda's Avatar
Mister Agenda Mister Agenda is offline
Veteran
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Columbia, South Carolina
Posts: 4,794
I don't know what that was, but it's already gone: censored.
__________________
http://www.godisimaginary.com/
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 02-09-2007, 10:47 AM
jeskill's Avatar
jeskill jeskill is offline
I love peanut butter.
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Istanbul, Turkiye
Posts: 807
Just out of curiosity, given the IPCC Report, do you still believe that global warming is not significantly affected by carbon emissions?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mister Agenda
More like cynicism born from experience. In the 60s it was water pollution, in the 70s it was global cooling, in the 80s it was global starvation, in the early 90s it was nuclear winter, and now it is global warming. All of these things were supposed to destroy our civilization and to date none of them has. Add to that the fact that average solar activity has increased every year since we started measuring it in the 70s and Mars is also experiencing warming AND greenhouse gasses like CO2, Methane, and
Ozone together account for only about 10% of Earth's greenhouse effect altogether and the effects of increasing CO2 do not increase its greenhouse contribution geometrically OR linearly, and skepticism about the degree to which humans contribute to warming and our ability to curb it by tweaking atmospheric parameters seems fairly justified.
I think you're being a little over-the-top.

Water pollution: Won't necessarily destroy human civilization, especially since developed nations have a fairly good control over water quality. Example: NA phased out phosphates to deal with eutrophication.

Water pollution and scarcity was and still is a major concern in many countries. They affect the economy, mortality rates and quality of life in many countries including Bangladesh, India, China, the whole of Middle East, Azerbaijan (think Aral Sea), California...if California can be considered a country

Starvation: According to the UN, more than 800 million people are currently starving, 25 000 people die of starvation everyday. Not going to destroy our civilization, but it is still a major concern.

Global Cooling vs. CO2-dependent Climate Change: Global Cooling was a short-lived scientific theory based on short-term data. This theory was later shown to be false. Moreover, It should be noted that even in the 1960s, some scientists, such as Roger Revelle, showed that atm CO2 was rising and that this may cause affect climate. IOW, Climate Change is not a new theory. If you take a look at all of the scientific literature on carbon emissions, atmosphere and climate, no working scientist disputes this.

Solar Activity:
This is taken from "The Science of Climate Change: Radiative Forcing", published by Environment Canada. (CDN Government)

look at the size of solar contribution (the bar on the right) relative to anthropogenic contribution (GHGs and aerosols). Interesting too, notice that aerosols decrease global warming, but the GHGs far surpass aerosols in terms of effect, thus, the overall trend is warming.

Quote:
Global Warming is very convenient to the people who have ALWAYS wanted us to make less, consume less, reproduce less, and so forth. Nuclear Winter showed that skeptical scientists admitted that they didn't debunk that patchy hypothesis because they didn't want to say anything that could be interpreted as making nuclear war less threatening.
Why would people want you to consume less and reproduce less? What's the reasoning behind this?

Please show data to prove that a huge nuclear war would not result in a Nuclear Winter.

My easily mined source:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wikipedia
A study presented at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union in December 2006 found that even a small-scale, regional nuclear war could produce as many direct fatalities as all of World War II and disrupt the global climate for a decade or more. In a regional nuclear conflict scenario where two opposing nations in the subtropics would each use 50 Hiroshima-sized nuclear weapons (ca. 15 kiloton each) on major populated centres, the researchers estimated fatalities from 2.6 million to 16.7 million per country. Also, as much as five million tons of soot would be released, which would produce a cooling of several degrees over large areas of North America and Eurasia, including most of the grain-growing regions. The cooling would last for years and could be "catastrophic" according to the researchers. [5]
Quote:
When scientists start talking about how many other scientists are on their side and using ad hominem attacks on their opposition (this scientist is a crank, that one gets her money from corporations) instead of debating evidence, they are trying to sell us something they can't sell with the evidence they've got.
Scientists do not tend to engage in Ad Hominem attacks. For example, witness this: http://www.lomborg-errors.dk/
Kare Fog discusses in major detail the discrepancies and errors in Lomborg's book, and backs up her arguments. She debates with a ton of evidence.
It is not an ad hominem attack to say that a scientist is being paid by oil companies. It shows that the person in question may have ulterior motives.

Quote:
I've been hearing alot lately about how severe weather like hurricanes is caused by global warming, but global warming predicts LESS severe weather: most warming occurs at the poles, leading to less dramatic differences between polar and equatorial tempuratures, but it is the DIFFERENCE between polar and equatorial temperatures that drives the heat engine of big storms, not the absolute/global temperature. Severe weather is not associated with global warming theoretically or historically.
Where do you get the idea that climate change predicts less severe weather? Please show your sources on this because it sounds like bad science.
The issue is that during the time of change, the time during which the poles warm up, there's some intense weather.

There is a correlation (i.e. an association) between the rise of CO2 and an increase in severe weather patterns -- especially weather patterns related to drought, flooding and storms. There is good evidence that shows that warming the sea results in more intense storms. Basic physics: warm water has more energy. Hurricane Katrina was so intense because it moved over the warm water of the gulf.

Quote:
The best thing to do with science that has policy implications that can affect the course of civilization is to set up an independent entity with a variety of funding for researchers who won't know where their money comes from and don't know who will be reviewing or trying to reproduce their findings.
The independent entities are: NSERC and NSF
They are as independent as you can get.
Researchers in climate change have been persecuted for their findings time and time again. They have been silenced by the American government and sometimes their jobs have been jeopardized because of the data they've produced. This data shows that climate change IS occurring.

Question: Who has an ulterior motive to fund someone that says we should reduce our carbon output? There's more of an ulterior motive to pay scientists to refute climate change -- hence why there are so many oil-funded lobby groups such as "Friends of Science".

Quote:
The scientists who propose an experiment should not be the ones who execute it.
How will this solve any problems? Some experiments are highly technical and can only be done properly by people in that field. I Experiments that seem fishy are often redone by other scientists. Moreover, multiple studies on biodiversity, atmospheric CO2, soil CO2, marine biology, antarctic soil cores... all show the same trend.
Quote:
Climatology currently has nothing resembling double-blind studies, and individual climatologists routinely adjust measurements according to their personal judgements. Any scientist who wants the scientific questions of global climate change resolved should support such an endeavor.
[/quote]
A double-blind cannot measure what is currently occuring in the atmosphere, soil or water. It can only experiment, or study, the effects of different situations. This is because a double-blind can only be done when you can repeat the test on different individuals. There's only one earth. Obviously, you can't repeat a experimental test using many earths. Nor would you really want to.

That being said, you can perform small-scale controlled experiments that show potential effects of particular situations. These are designed with the number of repeats necessary to determine if there's a significant difference.
For example: http://www.climaite.dk/uk/Basics/wp1/1.3_UK.htm
__________________
Colbert's take on Jesse Jackson:
"Very interesting and challenging interview. You can ask him anything, but he's going to say what he wants, at the pace that he wants. It's like boxing a glacier. Enjoy that metaphor, by the way, because your grandchildren will have no idea what a glacier is."
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 02-09-2007, 10:52 AM
jeskill's Avatar
jeskill jeskill is offline
I love peanut butter.
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Istanbul, Turkiye
Posts: 807
I saw the movie, finally.
It was OK, except I felt that he reduced the impact of his movie by turning it into a biography. Instead of listening to him talk about his life, I would have rather listened to stories about people who have been affected by climate change, both in America and abroad.

As well, I thought that the movie did not carry itself over international waters very well. I think there should have been an alternative ending for an international audience. It's offensive to hear stuff like "the americans brought down communism".
__________________
Colbert's take on Jesse Jackson:
"Very interesting and challenging interview. You can ask him anything, but he's going to say what he wants, at the pace that he wants. It's like boxing a glacier. Enjoy that metaphor, by the way, because your grandchildren will have no idea what a glacier is."
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 02-10-2007, 04:25 AM
auto_snooze's Avatar
auto_snooze auto_snooze is offline
If I knew, I'd share.
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Speedway, IN USA
Posts: 47
Send a message via AIM to auto_snooze Send a message via Yahoo to auto_snooze
oh my gawd. in my h.s. ap bio class, we're studying ecology. we had to watch this "movie". and i loved it. usually i don't believe in things like global warming, but al gore definately convinced me that this is a major problem. and that's about all i have to say about that. for now anyways. cause i'm going to go have a snowball fight in the five degree weather. fun!!!!!!!!!!!!11
__________________
Life is but a dream. Only in death are we truely awakened to the true feelings we have. Nothing.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 02-11-2007, 10:26 PM
eiselg eiselg is offline
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,764
The truth is that there is to many people in the world and it is increasing. At the same time we will be living longer with genetic engineering and such by improving our genes. I think this is worst of the inconvenient truths. We are having a devolution problem with the worlds people. How nieve for any government to stop people from using contraceptives. With fewer offspring there will be less consumption of raw materials, less polution and more freedom.

We must learn to consume less and make a better life. Of course we are doing this in some case... just look at how TV's are changing in thickness... much less material is used. We can do this with homes, transportation, recycling and fuel use. By moving homes closer together in communities we could reduced the need for all those roads and replace 100 cars with one bus. There wouldn't be a need for telephone lines with homes placed in compact communities. If we could find a way to convert cellulose from trees into protein and sugar and food we could leave the land to grow trees instead of human food stock. If we used hydrogen blimps to haul cargo between cities we wouldn't need roads. All those car and truck noises could be eliminate. If we consumed less there wouldn't be so many millionairs and there a fair distribution of wealth. Go green and we will live better.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
YHWH was a powerful alien/doesn't add up... Mike Dubbeld Religion 135 06-06-2008 04:23 AM
Can the truth set you free? vicente General Philosophy 24 02-04-2008 03:43 PM
UN ANTISEMITISM BLASTED BY UN WATCH. IamJoseph Religion 4 03-31-2007 01:21 AM
Universal truths V.I.T.R.E.O.L General Philosophy 19 05-24-2006 01:29 PM
Meaning of Life....finally answered? Then what? ClericPreston General Philosophy 30 07-09-2004 05:12 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:19 AM.



Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright 2000-2008 Jelsoft Enterprises Limited
Hosted and Maintained by The IceStorm Network