Wow. I'm stunned. Really. Can't believe it.

[Siji]

You cannot dim them.

Just an FYI, they do make dimmable versions. 99% of the bulbs in my house are now fluorescents and I've got several dimmer switches. I will say however that they're more expensive and they don't dim as well as normal lights.

Everything else you said I agree with. The warm-up period isn't bad unless you need to turn on a light to see something just for a minute.

[Xatrei]

I had to break out the film to verify what I was thinking when I initially read this crap this morning. The video clip in question was used to give the viewer an impression of what the ice sheet that was shown in the actual satellite images looked like up close, and to provide some context of it's actual size. It's obviously a computer animation to anyone that sees it. It's not at all portrayed as the real thing, but it was probably the best visual to use since there isn't a lot of actual film footage available showing a sweeping fly-by of the ice sheet that banks, swoops and climbs in such physics-defying glory. Frankly, it's a bit amusing to see the deniers latching onto this as if they've found the film's Achilles' heel that completely invalidates its larger point. Elsewhere in the film, there's "footage" of a poor polar bear at sea desperately trying climb onto a floating chunk of ice. Oh, and there's some "video" of the Sun's rays hitting the earth and reflecting back to space. Surprise, these too are animations being used to illustrate the point.

I'd say I'm stunned and that I can't believe that anyone would do this... really. I'm not, though, especially from this board's "usual suspects."


Edit to add: Check out the DVD and see for yourself if you want. If you don't want to watch the whole film, the bit in question occurs at about 55 minutes, 17 seconds into the documentary.

[Truant]

In 2012 you will be required by law to only buy florescents. Incandescents will go the way of the do-do. By Gov't mandate. As in, you use a light'bulb' you goto jail.... well maybe not that bad, and I can still get them in Tiajuana, but the rest of you mooleys are fxxked.


Florescents suck ass because;

The light quality blows, make the bags under my eyes as black as death.

You cannot dim them. That fancy dimmer switch you bought to impress the ladies. Useless.

They have a warm up period. When you stumble into the baño in the middle of the night, you stub your toe because it took 2 - 3 seconds for the light to come on.

They fill them with deadly mercury, wich even though it's fun to play with, it'll burn a hole in your brain.

Quit making shit up.

The only place I don't use flourescents is at my desk. Because flourescents cause 60 cycle hum when used near single coil guitar pickups.

[Funkmasterr]

I had to break out the film to verify what I was thinking when I initially read this crap this morning. The video clip in question was used to give the viewer an impression of what the ice sheet that was shown in the actual satellite images looked like up close, and to provide some context of it's actual size. It's obviously a computer animation to anyone that sees it. It's not at all portrayed as the real thing, but it was probably the best visual to use since there isn't a lot of actual film footage available showing a sweeping fly-by of the ice sheet that banks, swoops and climbs in such physics-defying glory. Frankly, it's a bit amusing to see the deniers latching onto this as if they've found the film's Achilles' heel that completely invalidates its larger point. Elsewhere in the film, there's "footage" of a poor polar bear at sea desperately trying climb onto a floating chunk of ice. Oh, and there's some "video" of the Sun's rays hitting the earth and reflecting back to space. Surprise, these too are animations being used to illustrate the point.

I'd say I'm stunned and that I can't believe that anyone would do this... really. I'm not, though, especially from this board's "usual suspects."


Edit to add: Check out the DVD and see for yourself if you want. If you don't want to watch the whole film, the bit in question occurs at about 55 minutes, 17 seconds into the documentary.

At no point did I or anyone else claim that this footage being used in a misleading fashion invalidated anything. What it does show is just another example of how information and data is being manipulated to mislead people into getting behind gore single file.

Not that I'm surprised you couldn't figure that out without being told.

[Sueven]

I don't think that's true. I'm not saying you're a liar, I'm sure you feel that way. But I don't think there's a single person in the western world (the developed world, let's say) who has never - consciously or subconsciously - bought a product or an idea because of marketing strategy. I consider myself to be of above average intellect and education and like to believe I possess decent insight into the tools that marketing uses as well as a good analytical sense - and I know for a fact that I've still been swayed by commercials to choose one product over another.

I think that this is probably true. Let's say that you need to buy something you've never bought before and haven't ever really thought about... let's say... you need a bucket of paint. You go to a store that you assume will have paint and there's a whole bunch of varieties, similar prices and features and appearances, and you don't know what to do. There's a pretty good chance that you buy, say, Sherman-Williams paint. You don't buy it because you think "oh, I saw this Sherman-Williams commercial and that smiling family looked so happy with their new living room color," you buy it simply because you've heard of it, you know it exists, and on some subconscious level, the fact that you've seen Sherman-Williams marketing makes you confident that it's an adequate product.

This certainly happens to me. I often make an explicit effort to avoid it-- insisting on buying the brand I've never heard of or whatever-- but that's not something I can do in all places at all times.

Alternately, when I'm buying, say, athletic clothing, I don't have a preference between the various popular brands, really. But it's likely that I'm going to purchase clothing from SOME popular brand, regardless of whether it's Adidas or Nike or Under Armour or whatever, simply because I feel confident in the quality of these brands, which is partially due to their ubiquity and popularity, which is partially due to marketing. I also know that pro athletes wear these brands, thanks largely to marketing, and while I don't think that Kobe can jump higher because he wears Nikes, the fact that Nikes are good enough for Kobe means that they're likely good enough for me. I don't want to do the legwork to determine if some unknown brand is good enough or not.

Finally, there are times-- especially with food-- where a particular commercial explicitly gets me to go buy a particular product. I'll see a Burger King commercial or whatever, and think "Chicken fries?!? Brilliant! And they look delicious!" And then I go buy them.

Maybe others are a lot better at resisting marketing than I am, but I think that just about everyone falls prey to at least the first two of those scenarios at times.

Edit: Also, people who are very anti-marketing, especially in particular contexts, are very susceptible to counter-marketing. For instance, many women are big fans of sex toys and other sex products, but are uncomfortable with buying them because of the male-centric view that the industry often employs with respect to marketing, presentation, and the products themselves. So when sex-positive, female-run sex toy shops open up and begin advertising, this particular niche responds like crazy and brings their business to the new place. This (probably) isn't because they were tricked by the marketing, but because the marketing provided them with useful information that helped them make a decision... but the provision of information is a legitimate function of marketing.

Perhaps the most brilliant example of this is the popularity of Pabst Blue Ribbon among hipsters. Hipsters would never drink a traditional American shitty beer, like a Bud or a Miller or a Coors, but LOVE drinking PBR. Why? Because, in response to the disdain in which hipsters, among others, held the marketing campaigns of Bud and Miller and Coors, PBR began employing a very loud anti-marketing strategy, in which they don't buy advertisements but make sure to trumpet the fact that they don't advertise whenever possible. In response, hipsters started drinking PBR in droves, despite the fact that it's the same price and the same quality as all the other shit beer available. This one pisses me off because I live in DC, a city full of hipsters, and PBR is the only damn cheap beer I can find at half the bars I go to. And PBR is one of my least favorite cheap beers. But their anti-marketing marketing campaign has been so successful that it's been adopted as the cheap beer of choice all over the place.

So I just spent a whole lot of words repeating what Drolgin said, but less articulately.

[Noysyrump]

I don't think that's true. I'm not saying you're a liar, I'm sure you feel that way. But I don't think there's a single person in the western world (the developed world, let's say) who has never - consciously or subconsciously - bought a product or an idea because of marketing strategy. I consider myself to be of above average intellect and education and like to believe I possess decent insight into the tools that marketing uses as well as a good analytical sense - and I know for a fact that I've still been swayed by commercials to choose one product over another.

I think that this is probably true. Let's say that you need to buy something you've never bought before and haven't ever really thought about... let's say... you need a bucket of paint. You go to a store that you assume will have paint and there's a whole bunch of varieties, similar prices and features and appearances, and you don't know what to do. There's a pretty good chance that you buy, say, Sherman-Williams paint. You don't buy it because you think "oh, I saw this Sherman-Williams commercial and that smiling family looked so happy with their new living room color," you buy it simply because you've heard of it, you know it exists, and on some subconscious level, the fact that you've seen Sherman-Williams marketing makes you confident that it's an adequate product.

This certainly happens to me. I often make an explicit effort to avoid it-- insisting on buying the brand I've never heard of or whatever-- but that's not something I can do in all places at all times.

Alternately, when I'm buying, say, athletic clothing, I don't have a preference between the various popular brands, really. But it's likely that I'm going to purchase clothing from SOME popular brand, regardless of whether it's Adidas or Nike or Under Armour or whatever, simply because I feel confident in the quality of these brands, which is partially due to their ubiquity and popularity, which is partially due to marketing. I also know that pro athletes wear these brands, thanks largely to marketing, and while I don't think that Kobe can jump higher because he wears Nikes, the fact that Nikes are good enough for Kobe means that they're likely good enough for me. I don't want to do the legwork to determine if some unknown brand is good enough or not.

Finally, there are times-- especially with food-- where a particular commercial explicitly gets me to go buy a particular product. I'll see a Burger King commercial or whatever, and think "Chicken fries?!? Brilliant! And they look delicious!" And then I go buy them.

Maybe others are a lot better at resisting marketing than I am, but I think that just about everyone falls prey to at least the first two of those scenarios at times.

Edit: Also, people who are very anti-marketing, especially in particular contexts, are very susceptible to counter-marketing. For instance, many women are big fans of sex toys and other sex products, but are uncomfortable with buying them because of the male-centric view that the industry often employs with respect to marketing, presentation, and the products themselves. So when sex-positive, female-run sex toy shops open up and begin advertising, this particular niche responds like crazy and brings their business to the new place. This (probably) isn't because they were tricked by the marketing, but because the marketing provided them with useful information that helped them make a decision... but the provision of information is a legitimate function of marketing.

Perhaps the most brilliant example of this is the popularity of Pabst Blue Ribbon among hipsters. Hipsters would never drink a traditional American shitty beer, like a Bud or a Miller or a Coors, but LOVE drinking PBR. Why? Because, in response to the disdain in which hipsters, among others, held the marketing campaigns of Bud and Miller and Coors, PBR began employing a very loud anti-marketing strategy, in which they don't buy advertisements but make sure to trumpet the fact that they don't advertise whenever possible. In response, hipsters started drinking PBR in droves, despite the fact that it's the same price and the same quality as all the other shit beer available. This one pisses me off because I live in DC, a city full of hipsters, and PBR is the only damn cheap beer I can find at half the bars I go to. And PBR is one of my least favorite cheap beers. But their anti-marketing marketing campaign has been so successful that it's been adopted as the cheap beer of choice all over the place.

So I just spent a whole lot of words repeating what Drolgin said, but less articulately.

Old Spice did a few comercials where some guy was pissing off his girlfriend until he got close enough that she smelled him, and she was so anamoured all over again. I loved those comercials, and specifically bought the product just from them... and was very pleased with the results...


PBR is hipp here too in SD, but it's also half the price of Buttwieper. Wich is why I figured it was doing so well. They all taste like pisswater to me. Can I have some Gin plz, kthxbye.

[Funkmasterr]

Some stuff

A lot of stuff

I definitely agree that the different things you mention are possibilities, and are very likely the case for most or all people, myself included.

It was an overreaction to say I have NEVER bought something because of marketing. I can say I never have on a conscious level, I take my time to research whatever product is the best choice and this is always what makes the final decision. I am sure on a subconscious level I have at some point fell for a marketing or reverse marketing tactic, but the times have probably been few and far between because I make a conscious effort to NOT pay them any mind.

I don't mind advertisement. To be honest the most effective way to market something to me is to just tell me about it. Don't tell me why it's better than other products like it, don't try and put women/use sex in the ad to get me to buy it, don't try and be funny, don't try and come up with some stupid mascot, just tell me what it is and what it does. After that I will do the research and choose accordingly.

[Spang]

Companies typically only have 30 seconds to tell you about their product. The best way a company can get an average person to buy their product, within a 30 second commercial, is through humor.

[Sylvus]

Perhaps the most brilliant example of this is the popularity of Pabst Blue Ribbon among hipsters. Hipsters would never drink a traditional American shitty beer, like a Bud or a Miller or a Coors, but LOVE drinking PBR. Why? Because, in response to the disdain in which hipsters, among others, held the marketing campaigns of Bud and Miller and Coors, PBR began employing a very loud anti-marketing strategy, in which they don't buy advertisements but make sure to trumpet the fact that they don't advertise whenever possible. In response, hipsters started drinking PBR in droves, despite the fact that it's the same price and the same quality as all the other shit beer available. This one pisses me off because I live in DC, a city full of hipsters, and PBR is the only damn cheap beer I can find at half the bars I go to. And PBR is one of my least favorite cheap beers. But their anti-marketing marketing campaign has been so successful that it's been adopted as the cheap beer of choice all over the place.

Amen to that, sister. Ann Arbor is full of snobby hipsters (though I'm not sure if that's an oxymoron or a redundancy) and I'm always appalled that there are bars where a pint of PBR costs $5-6, often the same as a delicious microbrew. Blows my mind.

[Canelek]

Perhaps the most brilliant example of this is the popularity of Pabst Blue Ribbon among hipsters. Hipsters would never drink a traditional American shitty beer, like a Bud or a Miller or a Coors, but LOVE drinking PBR. Why? Because, in response to the disdain in which hipsters, among others, held the marketing campaigns of Bud and Miller and Coors, PBR began employing a very loud anti-marketing strategy, in which they don't buy advertisements but make sure to trumpet the fact that they don't advertise whenever possible. In response, hipsters started drinking PBR in droves, despite the fact that it's the same price and the same quality as all the other shit beer available. This one pisses me off because I live in DC, a city full of hipsters, and PBR is the only damn cheap beer I can find at half the bars I go to. And PBR is one of my least favorite cheap beers. But their anti-marketing marketing campaign has been so successful that it's been adopted as the cheap beer of choice all over the place.

Amen to that, sister. Ann Arbor is full of snobby hipsters (though I'm not sure if that's an oxymoron or a redundancy) and I'm always appalled that there are bars where a pint of PBR costs $5-6, often the same as a delicious microbrew. Blows my mind.

Indeed, girlfriends.

However, I am a bit aghast that you would have to pay 5-6 bucks for a pint of Peeber(new hipster term for PBR(old hipster term)). Portland is a metro-sexual mecca, what with all the dance clubs and vegan-friendly crap. At least the cheap beer is priced accordingly @ aboat $1-2/pint...


Hipsters are those dudes with pointy, gelled hair, right--like wall street interns?

[Tristinn]

I know this is your game, mid and funk, but you guys are acting like children.

Do you guys never get tired of your own bullshit?

[Sueven]

First result for "hipster" in google image search:

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

I know this is your game, mid and funk, but you guys are acting like children.

Do you guys never get tired of your own bullshit?

Your bullshit is that of disregarding other people whos opinions differ from yours. You mark it as bullshit outloud and to yourself so you don't have to think about it. It is not equal to your opinion. Your opinion is right and all others are just stupid and ignorant. You live your life atop this big wonderful tree overlooking the peons that surround you. Luckily for you there are plenty others who share your elitist tree, so you don't get lonely. Do you ever get tired of being so perfect and all knowing?

[Spang]

What's your opinion on this matter? I don't see you discussing the issue. I see you summarizing an article, and providing a link to said article. That's not an opinion. After that, you're just analyzing other people's posts.

[Zaelath]

I know this is your game, mid and funk, but you guys are acting like children.

Do you guys never get tired of your own bullshit?

Your bullshit is that of disregarding other people whos opinions differ from yours. You mark it as bullshit outloud and to yourself so you don't have to think about it. It is not equal to your opinion. Your opinion is right and all others are just stupid and ignorant. You live your life atop this big wonderful tree overlooking the peons that surround you. Luckily for you there are plenty others who share your elitist tree, so you don't get lonely. Do you ever get tired of being so perfect and all knowing?

So your position is that no one is ignorant, they just have opposing views? What kind of bleeding heart liberal are you?

[Nick]

oh snap!

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

What's your opinion on this matter? I don't see you discussing the issue. I see you summarizing an article, and providing a link to said article. That's not an opinion. After that, you're just analyzing other people's posts.

I've stated my opinion numerous times. I think it is wonderful for us to progress as a world and continue to improve on the way we do things. I think it's wonderful that we continue to strive for more energy efficient ways of doing things. I think it is fantastic that we try to improve upon the way we treat our planet, so it lessens the chances of it coming back and killing us. I don't however, subscribe to alarmist guilt-ridden media blitzes, law making, government intrusion, etc. based on something we do not truly have the answers to. There are plenty of facts and science to support both sides of the MAN-MADE global climate change argument. There is no definitive science saying we as humans are causing anything that will cause emminant danger. What they are doing is wrong. The only reason big companies are now behind it, is not because they now believe it, but because they have figured a way to profit from it. I post these little tid bits hoping some of you will notice them and maybe rethink your positions. I don't wish you to stop wanting to do better by yourselves and your environment, just stop with the craziness and buying into the hype.

New nuclear power plants is a big answer to many of our problems. Encouraging private companies to create new ways of powering vehicles that is cheaper, cleaner and even more efficient is important. Doing it by government force is wrong.

I don't want the government to take care of me. I want my government to provide me safety and an OPPORTUNITY to suceed. Give the private minds a chance to create great new things.

Unable to let go of all that angst? Direct it toward the real problem the past couple decades....China. They are pumping out shit into the air like we were 20 years ago before all of the regulations.

[Funkmasterr]

I know this is your game, mid and funk, but you guys are acting like children.

Do you guys never get tired of your own bullshit?

Who are you? I'm starting to think bagar~ has multiple personalities and you are one of slightly less obnoxious ones.

The stance I've had on this issue from the start is really my stance, as anyone who is not completely retarded would deduct from my tendency to defend it at every turn....

[Nick]

He/she is someone with a substantially fucking larger brain than you, that at least we know.

You, and others like Mid, are soundbyte addicts, incapable of discussing anything outside the boundaries of the left/right Ameri-central popular media idiocy. Hence why you are treated (rightly) as the buffoons you so consistently prove yourselves to be

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

He/she is someone with a substantially fucking larger brain than you, that at least we know.

You, and others like Mid, are soundbyte addicts, incapable of discussing anything outside the boundaries of the left/right Ameri-central popular media idiocy. Hence why you are treated (rightly) as the buffoons you so consistently prove yourselves to be

This is the very reason why much of what you say is so easily dismissable. You have no fucking clue what you are talking about. Ameri-central popular media? Ummm, hate to tell you, but they are all-in with man-made global climate insanity. And, you are the sound bite addict. You are the one who won't take a moment to look past the media driven sound bites. You are a piece of work kid. A piece of work.

[Spang]

I've stated my opinion numerous times. I think it is wonderful for us to progress as a world and continue to improve on the way we do things. I think it's wonderful that we continue to strive for more energy efficient ways of doing things. I think it is fantastic that we try to improve upon the way we treat our planet, so it lessens the chances of it coming back and killing us. I don't however, subscribe to alarmist guilt-ridden media blitzes, law making, government intrusion, etc. based on something we do not truly have the answers to. There are plenty of facts and science to support both sides of the MAN-MADE global climate change argument. There is no definitive science saying we as humans are causing anything that will cause emminant danger. What they are doing is wrong. The only reason big companies are now behind it, is not because they now believe it, but because they have figured a way to profit from it. I post these little tid bits hoping some of you will notice them and maybe rethink your positions. I don't wish you to stop wanting to do better by yourselves and your environment, just stop with the craziness and buying into the hype.

New nuclear power plants is a big answer to many of our problems. Encouraging private companies to create new ways of powering vehicles that is cheaper, cleaner and even more efficient is important. Doing it by government force is wrong.

I don't want the government to take care of me. I want my government to provide me safety and an OPPORTUNITY to suceed. Give the private minds a chance to create great new things.

Unable to let go of all that angst? Direct it toward the real problem the past couple decades....China. They are pumping out shit into the air like we were 20 years ago before all of the regulations.

I was more interested in your opinion on this specific thread - Al Gore using footage from a movie to illustrate what he's talking about. Why is that so bad? Why are you stunned?

Also, you need to blame Wal-Mart for all the shit China pumps into the air; Sam Walton specifically.

[Funkmasterr]

I've stated my opinion numerous times. I think it is wonderful for us to progress as a world and continue to improve on the way we do things. I think it's wonderful that we continue to strive for more energy efficient ways of doing things. I think it is fantastic that we try to improve upon the way we treat our planet, so it lessens the chances of it coming back and killing us. I don't however, subscribe to alarmist guilt-ridden media blitzes, law making, government intrusion, etc. based on something we do not truly have the answers to. There are plenty of facts and science to support both sides of the MAN-MADE global climate change argument. There is no definitive science saying we as humans are causing anything that will cause emminant danger. What they are doing is wrong. The only reason big companies are now behind it, is not because they now believe it, but because they have figured a way to profit from it. I post these little tid bits hoping some of you will notice them and maybe rethink your positions. I don't wish you to stop wanting to do better by yourselves and your environment, just stop with the craziness and buying into the hype.

New nuclear power plants is a big answer to many of our problems. Encouraging private companies to create new ways of powering vehicles that is cheaper, cleaner and even more efficient is important. Doing it by government force is wrong.

I don't want the government to take care of me. I want my government to provide me safety and an OPPORTUNITY to suceed. Give the private minds a chance to create great new things.

Unable to let go of all that angst? Direct it toward the real problem the past couple decades....China. They are pumping out shit into the air like we were 20 years ago before all of the regulations.

I was more interested in your opinion on this specific thread - Al Gore using footage from a movie to illustrate what he's talking about. Why is that so bad? Why are you stunned?

Also, you need to blame Wal-Mart for all the shit China pumps into the air; Sam Walton specifically.

I hate to speak for him.. but I think the problem isn't necessarily that the footage was used to illustrate what he was talking about, but with the fact that he used footage from a END OF THE WORLD movie and it was not clearly stated. You seriously can't see how someone would consider that misleading?

To me I rank that with Michael Moore's tactics of quoting half a sentence out of context to make something look completely different than it actually is in reality.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

LOL. Blame Wal-Mart. HAHAHA Oh man.

Ummm, I didn't think this really needed an explanantion. For such self-procliamed intelligent people, you sure need many things broken down for you. You should know damn well that they used that footage with an intentions of having it's viewers think that was real footage. It is really very simple. It is misleading, like much of this whole "crisis".

[Spang]

I hate to speak for him.. but I think the problem isn't necessarily that the footage was used to illustrate what he was talking about, but with the fact that he used footage from a END OF THE WORLD movie and it was not clearly stated. You seriously can't see how someone would consider that misleading?

To me I rank that with Michael Moore's tactics of quoting half a sentence out of context to make something look completely different than it actually is in reality.

I really don't care. Why you guys are arguing over who's at fault for Global Warming, it's happening. This isn't the first time, and it won't be the last. You don't need to read an IPCC report, or watch an Al Gore documentary to figure this out. You don't need to be an MIT graduate, or a science enthusiast.

Take the temperature of an empty room. Now fill that room up with a couple computers with monitors, a wide screen television, an X-Box 360, and a stereo. Power all that shit up, and then take another temperature of the room. I guarantee you it'll be a lot warmer!

[Spang]

LOL. Blame Wal-Mart. HAHAHA Oh man.

Ummm, I didn't think this really needed an explanantion. For such self-procliamed intelligent people, you sure need many things broken down for you. You should know damn well that they used that footage with an intentions of having it's viewers think that was real footage. It is really very simple. It is misleading, like much of this whole "crisis".

I've never claimed to be smart. But seriously, blame Wal-Mart.

[Funkmasterr]

I hate to speak for him.. but I think the problem isn't necessarily that the footage was used to illustrate what he was talking about, but with the fact that he used footage from a END OF THE WORLD movie and it was not clearly stated. You seriously can't see how someone would consider that misleading?

To me I rank that with Michael Moore's tactics of quoting half a sentence out of context to make something look completely different than it actually is in reality.

I really don't care. Why you guys are arguing over who's at fault for Global Warming, it's happening. This isn't the first time, and it won't be the last. You don't need to read an IPCC report, or watch an Al Gore documentary to figure this out. You don't need to be an MIT graduate, or a science enthusiast.

Take the temperature of an empty room. Now fill that room up with a couple computers with monitors, a wide screen television, an X-Box 360, and a stereo. Power all that shit up, and then take another temperature of the room. I guarantee you it'll be a lot warmer!

Way to completely ignore what I said and drastically oversimplify the issue.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

I really don't care. Why you guys are arguing over who's at fault for Global Warming, it's happening. This isn't the first time, and it won't be the last. You don't need to read an IPCC report, or watch an Al Gore documentary to figure this out. You don't need to be an MIT graduate, or a science enthusiast.

!

See this is exactly the point. If it is happening, you cannot prove we caused it or that we can stop it. The earth have gone through many warmings and coolings all by itself. Plus, this year cold winter wiped out any claims of recent global warming. That's why the religious nuts of global warming have changed the emphasis to global climate change. Convenient huh?

[Spang]

Way to completely ignore what I said and drastically oversimplify the issue.

So the documentary was misleading? I'll agree. Global Warming is still happening.

[Spang]

See this is exactly the point. If it is happening, you cannot prove we caused it or that we can stop it. The earth have gone through many warmings and coolings all by itself. Plus, this year cold winter wiped out any claims of recent global warming. That's why the religious nuts of global warming have changed the emphasis to global climate change. Convenient huh?

It doesn't matter what you call it, or who you blame. It's still happening. That's my point.

[Funkmasterr]

Way to completely ignore what I said and drastically oversimplify the issue.

So the documentary was misleading? I'll agree. Global Warming is still happening.

Do you ignore most of what I say or do you like annoying me in the form of making me repeat myself constantly? I realize we have an environmental issue at hand. The extent of our involvement is the only thing I've ever questioned.

[Fash]

It happens every day, all day, all over the globe... the sun heats it up, the shade cools it down. duh? our orbit constantly changes the distance between the sun and us, and changes the amount of heat received from the sun each day. millions of years pass, with evidence of ice ages and drastic temperature shifts and extremes, and right now most of our planet is habitable.

The solution to keep it that way is obviously taxes.

The variations in the activity on the Sun during all 86,400 seconds a day, 365 days a year, can fry us or freeze us at any point in the future no matter how small our carbon footprint is. To analyze and predict the complex interactions of the Sun, Earth, and Moon coupled with the already complex environment on Earth and our limited data history is far beyond our scientific capabilities.

The government doesn't need to be involved in this and global rock-concerts need not be played. The market and our available resources will determine our outputs, our growth and prosperity should not be hindered, our ingenuity and passion should not be extinguished by red tape.

Spend every 'green' dollar on going to the 'red' planet and beyond.

[Animale]

See this is exactly the point. If it is happening, you cannot prove we caused it or that we can stop it. The earth have gone through many warmings and coolings all by itself. Plus, this year cold winter wiped out any claims of recent global warming. That's why the religious nuts of global warming have changed the emphasis to global climate change. Convenient huh?

The thing is you CAN run computer simulations that, controlling for the factors available, point to mankind's CO2 emissions being a major motivator in the changes in climate. Are these simulations 100% correct... no. Simulations can never be 100% correct, and there is quite a bit of spread in the simulations depending on how they factor the different things. But chapters 8-11 of the working group 1 report deal with this in detail. If you really want to know how the science works, go read the scientific reports. If you have direct evidence why the bulk of these simulations are wrong (other than anecdotal nonsense such as "they don't include water vapor" which is an outright lie) then discuss them. Otherwise, you are just shooting off hot air about "religious nuts of global warming" etc. etc.

Just because you don't want to read and/or understand "The Physical Science Basis" of global climate change, doesn't make it a religion... it just makes you ignorant. There is areas to quibble with in the report, and Gore's presentation was a bit over-the-top "marketing" wise, but it was a message geared for the audience he was trying to reach. If Gore came to UC Berkeley and gave that same talk, he would be kindly smiled but factually ignored because the people in the room are the ones who wrote many of the papers referenced in that report and actually understand it in scientific detail. Gore's presentation needed to translate that scientific detail into laymen terms - and translation always results in inaccuracy. If anything, the failure of our educational system to create a scientifically literate populace is to blame for these inaccuracies brought about by the necessity of translation.

[Noysyrump]

Wal-Mart isn't to blame. It is the consumer, who couldnt be bothered to look at a lable and choose "Hecho en Mexico" Instead of "Made in China".

Wal-Mart sells so much china crap because people just dont seem to care, and it's cheaper. Their goal is to provide the lowest possible prices, and it works. Wal-Mart is HUGE now because of it, and for that I applaud them. I curse the common man for continually buying products made in china.

I was hoping all these 'lead paint' and 'tainted dog food' problems would wake folks up, but unfortunatly, people don't care.

[Lynks]

Why spend thousands of dollars to rent a boat and pay an entire film crew to idle next to a glacier all day when you can spend 5 bucks at your local Blockbuster.

[Nick]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qslWsb25Sak

[Noysyrump]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qslWsb25Sak

Stooooooooop...eeed.

[Sueven]

I thought it was funny. The combination of his accent and his yelling "shut the fuck up" repeatedly got me laughing.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

I thought it was funny. The combination of his accent and his yelling "shut the fuck up" repeatedly got me laughing.

Not surprising that you and Nick found it funny. Seems about your level.

[Zaelath]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qslWsb25Sak

That guy needs a sound studio, or better yet to stop making videos

[Sueven]

If you're accusing me of having a juvenile sense of humor that is entertained by people with funny accents yelling obscenities, guilty as charged.