Thanks for the brain tumor RIM

[avt123]

Originally Posted by Sidlexic

I'm sure he explained and gave credit to the scene.

I'm pretty sure he didn't, that's why people had to prove he stole the scene from The Day After Tomorrow. Funny how he tried to prove a theory, doesn't have the evidence to prove it (evidence that scene is trying to show), steals the "evidence" from another movie, and then claims it as his own.

Also, for a man who is trying to make the world a greener place, he used way more energy than he is suggesting others to use....
FOXNews.com - Gore's High Energy-Use Home Target of Critical Report - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum
Real Debate Wisconsin: Al Gore's house still an energy hog.

At least now he fixed it up.
Gore gets green kudos for home renovation - Environment- msnbc.com

He did invent the internet though!

[teal]

Shouldn't someone tell the President?

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[Quiara]

Originally Posted by avt123

I'm pretty sure he didn't, that's why people had to prove he stole the scene from The Day After Tomorrow. Funny how he tried to prove a theory, doesn't have the evidence to prove it (evidence that scene is trying to show), steals the "evidence" from another movie, and then claims it as his own.

Also, for a man who is trying to make the world a greener place, he used way more energy than he is suggesting others to use....
FOXNews.com - Gore's High Energy-Use Home Target of Critical Report - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum
Real Debate Wisconsin: Al Gore's house still an energy hog.

At least now he fixed it up.
Gore gets green kudos for home renovation - Environment- msnbc.com

He did invent the internet though!

If you look at the itemized bill, Al Gore pays a higher rate to assure that the energy he uses comes from green sources as often as possible.

[avt123]

Originally Posted by Quiara

If you look at the itemized bill, Al Gore pays a higher rate to assure that the energy he uses comes from green sources as often as possible.

That still doesn't negate the fact that after the renovations he used 10% more energy.

Energy Guzzled by Al Gore’s Home in Past Year Could Power 232 U.S. Homes for a Month Gore’s personal electricity consumption up 10%, despite “energy-efficient” home renovations

In the past year, Gore’s home burned through 213,210 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity, enough to power 232 average American households for a month.

[Sidlexic]

Originally Posted by avt123

I'm pretty sure he didn't, that's why people had to prove he stole the scene from The Day After Tomorrow. Funny how he tried to prove a theory, doesn't have the evidence to prove it (evidence that scene is trying to show), steals the "evidence" from another movie, and then claims it as his own.

Also, for a man who is trying to make the world a greener place, he used way more energy than he is suggesting others to use....
FOXNews.com - Gore's High Energy-Use Home Target of Critical Report - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum
Real Debate Wisconsin: Al Gore's house still an energy hog.

At least now he fixed it up.
Gore gets green kudos for home renovation - Environment- msnbc.com

He did invent the internet though!

He used the computer generated image from the opening credits of "the day after tomorrow". The scene does however reflect what the ice shelves look like. As the commentator states "uses fake shot to make a REAL point". Anyway, i don't understand why you are bashing him when he's trying to make the world a better place. And digging up dirt on his heating bill is a little low and absurd.
I just watched the movie and he uses REAL facts from REAL people who are REAL scientists. Most of his data is displayed on convincing line graphs with 30 or more years of data behind them. There were 928 peer-reviewed articles on global warming and none of them disagreed that it was real. He says in his video that there was a memo leaked from "a small group of people" (i'm guessing oil and auto industries along with the gov't) and it stated that their objective was to "reposition global warming as theory rather than fact". That scene can be found at 72:10- 73:15 of the linked video.

An Inconvenient Truth - TV Shack

Whether or not he borrowed a computer generated clip the point is still clear and the FACTS are there with supporting satellite images.
So seriously man, you're making me angry with your ignorance. If you still don't believe, watch the video and do some research on the names he gives near the beginning of the movie.

[Mamaluka]

Yeah but sidlexic. Al Gore is so "douchy". How can you respect such an environmentally politicin' pimp like this jeyk off?
On another note: I noticed a couple people, or maybe only one person, make a comment that this thread was so off topic that the mods should lock it. If the OP of a thread takes it off topic, is that still a message forum faux pas?
Anyway, remember the guy who ate McDonalds every day for a month? Morgan Sperlock (sp). He got liver failure. Same with the cell phone. Don't hold it to your head so much. Christ.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[jerry12]

Originally Posted by Sidlexic

I was curious about cell radiation today so i looked up the radiation output of common cell phones.

Cell phone radiation chart - CNET Reviews

RIM has some of the highest radiation of all the companies. The highest legal level of output in Canada and the US is 1.6W/Kg and most blackberries are around 1.5 and higher!
I think with the rising proof of cells causing brain tumors RIM should concentrate on cutting down this number a little.
Btw, i hate to compare but the iPhone is under 1W/Kg.
What do you guys think?

stop talking on a cell phone and you want have any thing to worry about or use a wired headset.

[madphone]

Originally Posted by Sidlexic

Anyway, i don't understand why you are bashing him when he's trying to make the world a better place. And digging up dirt on his heating bill is a little low and absurd.

Low and absurd, hmmmm, NOT

Originally Posted by Sidlexic

I just watched the movie and he uses REAL facts from REAL people who are REAL scientists. Most of his data is displayed on convincing line graphs with 30 or more years of data behind them. There were 928 peer-reviewed articles on global warming and none of them disagreed that it was real.

And the Michael Moore movies are sooo truthful that we should believe them too right???

Come on, as I said earlier, YES we are definitely seeing a warming trend. And in the (very) long run there will be a drastic change from our experience today. But in reality we are coming out of an ice age, and you can not sit back and say that there is enough data to convincingly conclude that human activity is the greater contributor to that trend. Then at the same time (here we are getting back on topic) say that there is not enough evidence to conclude that cell phone use causes any illness.

Then we must conclude that we do not have enough data to make a sound statement as to whether global warming is more than our distance from the last ice age. Right? If the ice receded from Missouri to the very far north of Canada after the Wisconsin ice age then why must it be stopping, maybe it should not be, and that this warming trend is no more than a continuation of that same process. We also know that parts of the world that are the very driest, arid, barren land was once a tropical rain forest, what changed that, was it some form of human intervention that caused this massive change.

What we as humans must face is the fact that we are not greater than our planet. We can not stop the process of its evolution, and that our time here is a mere speck in time.


*edit* this is not staying on topic, but I find interest in the debate, so if we want we could continue in "off topic" and post a link here for those that also find interest?? Pm me if you want

[Kronk]

Originally Posted by Sidlexic

You know those "opinionated articles" are published by doctors and scientists right?

But you're right, most of them say "possible link".
Proof of mobile health risk| News | This is London

Scientists debate possible cell phone link to brain cancer - CNN.com

CNN'S LARRY KING DISCUSSES THE DANGERS OF CELL PHONES

You do realize that The Evening Standard, CNN.com and Larry King are not "doctors and scientists", right? They are media sources, which of course, are never biased and never spin stories to boost sales or readership. Send me a link from the New England Journal of Medicene with conclusive evidence that does not include the words "could" or "might" or "maybe" and you'll have a case.

[avt123]

Originally Posted by Sidlexic

He used the computer generated image from the opening credits of "the day after tomorrow". The scene does however reflect what the ice shelves look like. As the commentator states "uses fake shot to make a REAL point". Anyway, i don't understand why you are bashing him when he's trying to make the world a better place. And digging up dirt on his heating bill is a little low and absurd.
I just watched the movie and he uses REAL facts from REAL people who are REAL scientists. Most of his data is displayed on convincing line graphs with 30 or more years of data behind them. There were 928 peer-reviewed articles on global warming and none of them disagreed that it was real. He says in his video that there was a memo leaked from "a small group of people" (i'm guessing oil and auto industries along with the gov't) and it stated that their objective was to "reposition global warming as theory rather than fact". That scene can be found at 72:10- 73:15 of the linked video.

An Inconvenient Truth - TV Shack

Whether or not he borrowed a computer generated clip the point is still clear and the FACTS are there with supporting satellite images.
So seriously man, you're making me angry with your ignorance. If you still don't believe, watch the video and do some research on the names he gives near the beginning of the movie.

I didn't say I didn't believe in global warming. I was just pointing out the irony of a man trying to tell the world to use less energy, when he was using an absurd amount himself. If you think that is low and absurd than so be it. I just find it pretty funny.

[Ponderous]

Originally Posted by madphone

Back on topic, if it was not cancer killing us it would be something else. Buy a phone and talk as long as you want, you may only live to be 50.

Amen to that. It's like the old, "Don't take life to seriously, you'll never get out alive."

I think I will certainly die of a lot more things than using my cell phone too much.

[ScooterInMN]

Originally Posted by Sidlexic

Holy **** i give up. Think what you want! Your heads are so dense the radiation wouldn't affect you anyways lol.

Are we expected to believe that the same people who CAN'T tell us if it's going to rain three days from now CAN tell us that the ice cap is going to freeze in 20 YEARS??

I'm glad that you made this comparison. There is the EXACT same amount of proof that global warming exists as brain cancer from cell phone usage. No data but great for political campaigns and CNN. You need to read a bit more and stop listening to Paris Hilton!

[Sidlexic]

Originally Posted by ScooterInMN

Are we expected to believe that the same people who CAN'T tell us if it's going to rain three days from now CAN tell us that the ice cap is going to freeze in 20 YEARS??

I'm glad that you made this comparison. There is the EXACT same amount of proof that global warming exists as brain cancer from cell phone usage. No data but great for political campaigns and CNN. You need to read a bit more and stop listening to Paris Hilton!

Ok. I cant believe i'm the only one here who solidly believes Global Warming. The icecaps are melting not freezing. And no there is proof. Maybe you should open your mind to the outside world.
An Inconvenient Truth - TV Shack

[jdoc77]

Ok.. first off.. anyone that thinks microwaves are the same as ionizing radiation... stfu already. lol.

You are confusing microwave background radiation "noise" with electromagnetic MICROWAVES used for cooking. So stop already.

Sid... you will **** off the fanboys even if you occasionally support their position, so let that one roll off your back.

Global warming is a political tool. Period. They are already warning of ice ages. Scientists need funding so they project HUGE problems with small changes in observations. Politicians need FEAR to get regulations (taxes)... so they do the same.

And electromagnetic AND ionizing radiation are everywhere. I'm not saying that these cell phone/cancer links are baseless.. but you HAVE to look at how they controlled for bias.

For example... maybe it's type A personalities that USE cell phones that are more prone to brain cancer. If you can't answer confounders like that, you don't have an objective study.

In other words, global warming, cancer... it's all SPECULATION.

[AStranger]

Originally Posted by ScooterInMN

Are we expected to believe that the same people who CAN'T tell us if it's going to rain three days from now CAN tell us that the ice cap is going to freeze in 20 YEARS??

I'm glad that you made this comparison. There is the EXACT same amount of proof that global warming exists as brain cancer from cell phone usage. No data but great for political campaigns and CNN. You need to read a bit more and stop listening to Paris Hilton!

You don't understand the difference between short term predictions and the analysis of long term trends? It's no wonder you think anyone listens to Paris Hilton.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com