Al Gore coming to Calgary [Archive] - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

Bunk

01-30-2007, 12:53 PM

Al Gore to face oil country crowd

http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/story.html?id=203e6d5c-7104-4a45-925b-ee86ae9b08dc&k=6731
----------------------------

Thank God. I swear we should FORCE all our energy executives to attend this event and tape their eyes open.

I just watched An Inconvenient Truth, it is a very, very pursuasive and impacting film.

As major players in the production of the greenhouse gases it is our ethical responsibilty to do everything we can to clean up the energy industry.

First, it starts with drastically reducing the impact of our current energy production, particularly oil sands.

The next step is to transform our economy in the long run to other forms of energy production that are clean. With the resources our companies and our government has from this industry we can and should be world leaders in change.

What happens if we don't lead that charge and make that transformation? The world will start demanding new energy sources - if it is not us that is on the leading edge, then our city and province will die.

Looger

01-30-2007, 12:54 PM

maybe someone should ask him why jupiter's surface temperatures are rising...

those damn jovian SUV's!

JimmytheT

01-30-2007, 12:55 PM

WE all know the real reason Al Gore is coming to Alberta is to continue his search for the elusive (and imaginary) ManBearPig.

Edit: [For maximum effect, pronounce the next phrase outloud with a slight lisp] I'm being so serial

TheyCallMeBruce

01-30-2007, 12:57 PM

He's gonna battle? Wow...I put my money on Gore with an uppercut KO.

Azure

01-30-2007, 12:59 PM

maybe someone should ask him why jupiter's surface temperatures are rising...

those damn jovian SUV's!

And Mars, and....oh wait....it must be that darn Mars Land Rover... :w00t:

kevman

01-30-2007, 01:00 PM

maybe someone should ask him why jupiter's surface temperatures are rising...

those damn jovian SUV's!

Links? I would love to read about this.

Burninator

01-30-2007, 01:03 PM

Whoa! Tickets are $159.00 at ticketmaster (http://www.ticketmaster.ca/event/11003E3ADEA9599E?artistid=1100841&majorcatid=10005&minorcatid=104), guess I won't be going.

Looger

01-30-2007, 01:04 PM

And Mars, and....oh wait....it must be that darn Mars Land Rover... :w00t:
yep... the sun is what, 99% the mass of the solar system?

so fluctuations in the output of the sun must therefore logically have zero effect on the earth's temperature when political hay can be made.

the agendas behind politicized environmentalism scare the hell out of me. and it DOES NOT end with al gore and a return to the white house for the tenessean. it has to do with global government, with per-mile taxes for driving, and the loss of much freedom for people everywhere.

Looger

01-30-2007, 01:04 PM

Links? I would love to read about this.
it just something i've been hearing... EVERYWHERE.

i'll get around to a thread sometime, it's been brewing in me for a bit.

Azure

01-30-2007, 01:07 PM

yep... the sun is what, 99% the mass of the solar system?

so fluctuations in the output of the sun must therefore logically have zero effect on the earth's temperature when political hay can be made.

the agendas behind politicized environmentalism scare the hell out of me. and it DOES NOT end with al gore and a return to the white house for the tenessean. it has to do with global government, with per-mile taxes for driving, and the loss of much freedom for people everywhere.

Hmmm, I actually agree with you too.

Global warming is a problem, but idiots like Gore have been turning the issue into a political agenda.

We don't even know for 'sure' that humans are directly the 'only' cause.

Another thing, we can't even properly predict the weather a week ahead of time, how the heck can they predict the weather 100 years down the road?

Bunk

01-30-2007, 01:12 PM

Hmmm, I actually agree with you too.

Global warming is a problem, but idiots like Gore have been turning the issue into a political agenda.

We don't even know for 'sure' that humans are directly the 'only' cause.

Another thing, we can't even properly predict the weather a week ahead of time, how the heck can they predict the weather 100 years down the road?

My guess is you haven't watched his film yet. There is no dispute in the scientific community as to whether global warming exists. That debate is long over.

In the film he points out that of 958 peer reviewed journals on global warming, not one single article disagrees with the scientific consensus.

It is a fact that Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere traps the sun's rays. Thereby heating up the atmosphere. Right now, Co2 levels are way higher than they have been in human history. Therefore, we have a warming of the earth.

Global warming is a problem, but idiots like Gore have been turning the issue into a political agenda.
Generally the role of government (and therefore politics) is to solve problems of society. So therefore isn't a political issue. How can the future health of the planet, the ecosystem and the health of humans not be a political issue? It is the political issue of our time.

Looger

01-30-2007, 01:13 PM

well us humans sure aren't helping, i read a sci-am article that outlined one scientist's theory based on ice core air bubble samples that we actually flattened out the bottom swing of a curve in the middle ages with our activity on the sine wave of CO2 fluctuation, thus actually stopping a minor ice age.

the equilibrium nature of CO2 and oxygen for one example is a funny one - more CO2 means stronger plant growth so it's not quite as simple as many would have us believe.

there's meandering back and forth of the trends on many things, there's something like 3 or 4 major solar cycles just in the last ~100 years of measurement and we're hitting the heights of a couple here in a few years.

we're not helping but at most we flatten out the huge swings, i mean one big forest fire easily beats the hell out of anything humans do for the entire year.

Calgaryborn

01-30-2007, 01:14 PM

I wonder if he is going to fly in?

kevman

01-30-2007, 01:15 PM

Another thing, we can't even properly predict the weather a week ahead of time, how the heck can they predict the weather 100 years down the road?

Easy. While the local weather guy is just taking a stab in the dark the government, and THEIR scientists, are always right. Didn't you know that?

Flame Of Liberty

01-30-2007, 01:18 PM

Julian Simon once called Gore the most dangerous and shallowest man in american politics, and I gotta agree with him.

Its quite hillarious how much credit these hypocritical environazis get.

Cowperson

01-30-2007, 01:20 PM

Bunk

01-30-2007, 01:23 PM

Julian Simon once called Gore the most dangerous and shallowest man in american politics, and I gotta agree with him.

Its quite hillarious how much credit these hypocritical environazis get.

Why is pointing out scientific fact dangerous? In my opinion it is dangerous to ignore people like him that are making the effort to warn about the effects of our human activities.

Agamemnon

01-30-2007, 01:23 PM

Global Warming isn't a politicized issue, it is a political issue... I'm surprised anyone could see Global Warming as being apolitical... there are clear sides/factions that stand to gain/lose economically based on how we go about adressing the problem (or not).

Looger

01-30-2007, 01:23 PM

I wonder if he is going to fly in?
hey man, i know what you're thinking, but i have it on good authority that private planes owned by environmentalists run on pure good will.

it's true, david suzuki told me while he filmed the famous stein valley logging site right outside lillooet (which is a valley away...), thus exposing me at a young age to the possibility that just because someone is saying all the right things, doesn't mean that they don't have some other agendas...

mykalberta

01-30-2007, 01:23 PM

Congrats to a former VP who has found an issue he can exploit and make money at it. Why the hell is the Calgary Chamber of Commerce subsidizing his visit? They better not be a tax payer funded group.

MYK

Flame Of Liberty

01-30-2007, 01:24 PM

About 100% of these scientists in Paris are about to agree there is a 90% probability mankind is responsible - at least partly - for global warming.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/30/world/30climate.html?em&ex=1170306000&en=79269959f64a30ce&ei=5087%0A

Cowperson

I wonder what is the probability that 100% of these scientists and their studies are funded by governments.

My bet is 90%.

Bunk

01-30-2007, 01:27 PM

Cowperson

01-30-2007, 01:28 PM

I wonder what is the probability that 100% of these scientists and their studies are funded by governments.

My bet is 90%.

And the obvious answer to that would be this, also from today:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/30/politics/main2413400.shtml

Still, I would agree that anyone jumping in with both feet onto the "mankind is responsible" bandwagon has to concede that the globe has warmed and gone frigid in dramatic fashion all on its own many times through millennia without humans helping it . . . . . and we have to understand why that is as well.

Cowperson

Bunk

01-30-2007, 01:32 PM

Lanny_MacDonald

01-30-2007, 01:34 PM

maybe someone should ask him why jupiter's surface temperatures are rising...

those damn jovian SUV's!

Hmmm, I thought Jupiter was a gas giant and that it had little to no surface to speak of. I think your information is incorrect about the temperature of the surface spiking.

http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/jupiter_worldbook.html

Looger

01-30-2007, 01:34 PM

Hmmm, I thought Jupiter was a gas giant and that it had little to no surface to speak of. I think your information is incorrect about the temperature of the surface spiking.

http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/jupiter_worldbook.html
oops you're correct sir.

jupiter has no surface.

EDIT: i remember reading in a 'space believe it or not' book that jupiter has a density something like 0.68 of water, or around milkshake level! pretty wierd.

Bunk

01-30-2007, 01:39 PM

oops you're correct sir.

jupiter has no surface.

EDIT: i remember reading in a 'space believe it or not' book that jupiter has a density something like 0.68 of water, or around milkshake level! pretty wierd.

But how could you possibly believe the word of these 'government scientists' that say that Jupiter has no surface? That clearly is not a fact. :bag:

Looger

01-30-2007, 01:40 PM

But how could you possibly believe the word of these 'government scientists' that say that Jupiter has no surface? That clearly is not a fact. :bag:
wow, brilliant.

Igottago

01-30-2007, 01:43 PM

I find it disturbing that people dismiss him out of hand without ever having heard his argument. Setting up a straw man argument to support their pathetically IGNORANT position.

Is this willfull ignorance out of a desire not wanting to believe that the evidence he broadcasts from the world's scientists is correct? Why?

Because no one wants to look in the mirror. Especially in an economy that lives and breathes oil and gas. Its much easier to dismiss the science, and keep driving our massive SUV's to work and back every day, and enjoying the luxuries that the oil boom has brought. No one wants to hear that there is problems associated with it.

And then they make shallow arguments like "Al Gore will get here by plane"...yeah, so what? I'm sure Al Gore isn't implying that people should immediately stop using vehicles of any type. But we need to acknowledge the problem. And even if he himself came in on horse and carriage, that wouldn't help, it has to be a societal change that we all make together, to develop more envirofriendly technology, etc.

People choose to hear what they want to hear, and there's those who can dismiss global warming just like there are those who can dismiss evolution. Evidence has nothing to do with it.

MarchHare

01-30-2007, 01:45 PM

And the obvious answer to that would be this, also from today:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/30/politics/main2413400.shtml

Still, I would agree that anyone jumping in with both feet onto the "mankind is responsible" bandwagon has to concede that the globe has warmed and gone frigid in dramatic fashion all on its own many times through millennia without humans helping it . . . . . and we have to understand why that is as well.

Cowperson

You really ought to watch Gore's film, as he goes into great depth on that very subject, showing a graph of the average temperature of the earth going back hundreds of thousands of years, including multiple ice ages. He then overlays another graph of CO2 levels in the atmosphere during that same time-frame, and it's impossible to argue that there's a direct correlation between CO2 and temperature. He then shows another graph that projects near-future CO2 levels to be far and away higher than anything seen before over thousands of years.

As was noted above, the myth that global climate change is a "controversial theory" is one put forward by the media. He notes in his film that of 900+ articles about global warming published in peer-reviewed scientific journals, not one contested the fact that it was real and worsened by human activity. At the same time, a sampling of an equal number of media stories showed something like 58% of them referring to global climate change having much doubt within the scientific community.

Looger

01-30-2007, 01:51 PM

just for the record i have NO PROBLEM admitting that we aren't helping matters with our MASSIVE and UNNECESSARY overindulgence of resources.

the problem i have is that the idea that immediate and drastic change is needed to the SYMPTOMS (tax global tax control tax globalist tax loss of sovereignty tax) and not the CAUSES (the same bankers and oil company owners and financiers behind all the environmental causes AND the supression of decent green technology, meanwhile forcing BS down our throats like hydrogen fuel cells which are merely storage not fuel so that we unknowingly use more energy to be 'green', or electric cars that are charged somehow magically by fairy power and not by electricity generated by burning oil and losing 2/3 of the juice in the lines).

the agendas, the programs, the plans, are VERY BAD.

we need to change but WE need to change. the people. and if we are stupid enough to be convinced that immediate and drastic change is required, god help us all.

kevman

01-30-2007, 01:51 PM

Because no one wants to look in the mirror. Especially in an economy that lives and breathes oil and gas. Its much easier to dismiss the science, and keep driving our massive SUV's to work and back every day, and enjoying the luxuries that the oil boom has brought. No one wants to hear that there is problems associated with it.

And then they make shallow arguments like "Al Gore will get here by plane"...yeah, so what? I'm sure Al Gore isn't implying that people should immediately stop using vehicles of any type. But we need to acknowledge the problem. And even if he came in on horse and carriage, that wouldn't help, it has to be a societal change that we all make together, do develop more envirofriendly technology, etc.

What are you doing to make the world a better place?

I sure hope you don't drive an SUV or truck or minivan for that matter. Lets no forget thigns like plastics that also rely on this devil oil. Before you play the same SUV card that everyone plays to make themselves feel better about the situation when was the last time YOU looked in the mirror?

I didn't dismiss global warming. I dismissed Al Gore's propaghanda. I especially like all the work that HIS scientists did and the 100% consensus among the scientific comunity that we are the cause, and nothing else, of global warming.

Bunk

01-30-2007, 01:53 PM

Because no one wants to look in the mirror. Especially in an economy that lives and breathes oil and gas. Its much easier to dismiss the science, and keep driving our massive SUV's to work and back every day, and enjoying the luxuries that the oil boom has brought. No one wants to hear that there is problems associated with it.

Yes, exactly. But change does not have to mean the destruction our our city's and our province's economy.

In the short term while fossil fuels will continue to be used, we need to clean up its production. We are the producers, so it is our responsibility. We can be leaders in creating carbon capture technology and other technology that cleans of the industry. Sell that to the rest of the world and make money from it.

When perhaps the environmental effects become too difficult to ignore and people demand a transformation to another energy source, there is NO Reason why Alberta can't be at the leading edge at developing that new energy source's production as oil declines. Energy companies will not simply fold up their pup tents and go out of business, they will evolve and be the companies that continue to produce energy in whatever form it takes. The fortunate thing is that we have unprecedented resources we are reaping from Oil and Natural gas to INVEST in developing new technology for that transformation.

See, you don't have to be scared of believing in the fact of global warming. We have the opportunity to be a leader in doing something about it. That to me is exciting.

Displaced Flames fan

01-30-2007, 01:54 PM

Bottom line....without Al Gore we wouldn't have this wonderful medium to express oursleves in.

RougeUnderoos

01-30-2007, 01:55 PM

yep... the sun is what, 99% the mass of the solar system?

so fluctuations in the output of the sun must therefore logically have zero effect on the earth's temperature when political hay can be made.

the agendas behind politicized environmentalism scare the hell out of me. and it DOES NOT end with al gore and a return to the white house for the tenessean. it has to do with global government, with per-mile taxes for driving, and the loss of much freedom for people everywhere.

Is there an issue that doesn't end in a one-world government? Is there any issue that can be taken at face value?

I mean come on, do you really believe that David Suzuki and Al Gore and the scientific community have a global government agenda? Really?

mykalberta

01-30-2007, 01:57 PM

I find it disturbing that people dismiss him out of hand without ever having heard his argument. Setting up a straw man argument to support their pathetically IGNORANT position.

Is this willfull ignorance out of a desire not wanting to believe that the evidence he broadcasts from the world's scientists is correct? Why?

How many have seen the movie?

What is he saying that is any different than what anyone else is saying?

Is he bringing something new to the table, everyone knows that carbon emissions are bad the for the environment, i dont need some "lockbox" windbag to come to my province and say it. Go back to your own country, we have enough here with Layton, Dion, etc etc.

No one is ignorant to his position, but we are ignorant to someone who charges 154 bucks a ticket to listen to him rehash things everyone already has heard. He was a VP, so he cant come to Calgary to talk about international policy or relations with the ME like other former PRESIDENTS have, this is his money rangle.

MYK

Bunk

01-30-2007, 01:57 PM

I didn't dismiss global warming. I dismissed Al Gore's propaghanda. I especially like all the work that HIS scientists did and the 100% consensus among the scientific comunity that we are the cause, and nothing else, of global warming.

Al Gore does not have scientists. He quotes from the hundreds of scientists from different countries around the world, who have consunsus because they all find the same results!

Bunk

01-30-2007, 01:58 PM

Bottom line....without Al Gore we wouldn't have this wonderful medium to express oursleves in.
:lol: nice!

Slava

01-30-2007, 02:00 PM

Bottom line....without Al Gore we wouldn't have this wonderful medium to express oursleves in.

Awesome!!! Thanks Al, for all that you have done for humanity!

Looger

01-30-2007, 02:02 PM

Is there an issue that doesn't end in a one-world government? Is there any issue that can be taken at face value?
unfortunately... not really.
I mean come on, do you really believe that David Suzuki and Al Gore and the scientific community have a global government agenda? Really?
i don't think morons like suzuki have to be 'in on it' - but they do have to secure funding.

check out the ford foundation in the excited states for example, a major financial force behind chomsky and amy goodman and many environmental causes... and who exactly owns that. controlled opposition.

meanwhile clear-thinking god-fearing meat-eaters realize the leaders of the environmental movement for what they are - idiots - and they dismiss everything they say, unfortunately, because reduced usage is not a bad thing. i'd even go so far as to say that suzuki-types do major harm to the causes that they probably do hold dear, unwittingly, because they do not secure the MASSIVE airtime by any factual merit - that's for sure.

there's a HUGE difference between 'everyone being in on it' and a few strings pulled to redirect the well-meaning simple-minded into pouring their effort and passion into one more road to global government.

Bunk

01-30-2007, 02:02 PM

What is he saying that is any different than what anyone else is saying?

Is he bringing something new to the table, everyone knows that carbon emissions are bad the for the environment, i dont need some "lockbox" windbag to come to my province and say it. Go back to your own country, we have enough here with Layton, Dion, etc etc.

No one is ignorant to his position, but we are ignorant to someone who charges 154 bucks a ticket to listen to him rehash things everyone already has heard. He was a VP, so he cant come to Calgary to talk about international policy or relations with the ME like other former PRESIDENTS have, this is his money rangle.

MYK

I don't know about that. There are a lot of things in his presentation that I did not previously know. And he presents in a very effective, pursuasive way that will cause people to change their mind.

If his primary motivation was money, I am sure there are a lot better ways for former VP to become ultra-rich - like sit on the board of a few major corporations.

Igottago

01-30-2007, 02:03 PM

What are you doing to make the world a better place?

I sure hope you don't drive an SUV or truck or minivan for that matter. Lets no forget thigns like plastics that also rely on this devil oil. Before you play the same SUV card that everyone plays to make themselves feel better about the situation when was the last time YOU looked in the mirror?

I didn't dismiss global warming. I dismissed Al Gore's propaghanda. I especially like all the work that HIS scientists did and the 100% consensus among the scientific comunity that we are the cause, and nothing else, of global warming.

See, there you go..taking it personally, let me guess, you have an SUV? Don't worry, I don't consider you the devil. I did say it has to be a societal change. Last time I checked, I was part of society. I admit that I'm part of the problem as well, I rely on oil as much as anyone. We just can't keep going around with blinders on though, and slinging mud at people like Gore, Suzuki, or whoever, just because it makes us feel bad about ourselves.

TheDragon

01-30-2007, 02:03 PM

The way I see it - Global Warming is happening whether or not we as a society/species are responsible for it. If we don't start preparing for it, like, right now, it's going to get ugly. They're already saying we may have a water shortage in Calgary within the next 50 years.

Imagine what places like India, China, the Middle East, and Africa are going to go through.

Personally, I don't understand why - in a province with such high quality grain (which is one of the primary ingredients in synthetic diesel fuel) that is mostly sitting in fields rotting because nobody is buying it, doesn't hop on that bandwagon right now, and start developing some kind of alternate fuel source. It still pollutes, but not nearly as badly as fossil fuel. It's the step in the right direction, at least.

Azure

01-30-2007, 02:03 PM

My guess is you haven't watched his film yet. There is no dispute in the scientific community as to whether global warming exists. That debate is long over.

In the film he points out that of 958 peer reviewed journals on global warming, not one single article disagrees with the scientific consensus.

It is a fact that Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere traps the sun's rays. Thereby heating up the atmosphere. Right now, Co2 levels are way higher than they have been in human history. Therefore, we have a warming of the earth.

And that explains why the surface temperature of Mars has gone up too?

I don't disagree that the earth is heating up, but is it a natural occurance, or something that we as humans are causing?

Al Gore seems hellbent on proving that humans are causing it.

And how do you know that CO2 levels are higher then they have ever been? Do we have all those stats recorded back to the start of time?

Didn't think so.

Generally the role of government (and therefore politics) is to solve problems of society. So therefore isn't a political issue. How can the future health of the planet, the ecosystem and the health of humans not be a political issue? It is the political issue of our time.

I said political agenda, not issue.

There is a difference you know. Gore is making money from selling his product, which does nothing but give an extremist viewpoint on what global warming is.

He is doing 'nothing' to solve the problem.

FLAMESBURNOIL

01-30-2007, 02:04 PM

How much fossil fuel is Gore gonna burn on this trip to calgary and back? How much fuel will be burned by the people attending...

I understand where he is coming from and dont subscribe to his typical left wing scare tatics, but noone on any side of this debate has come up with a reasonable plan to kick our fossil fuel addiction...

Not only do omissions have to be reduced, but there also has to be an easy ecomomic transition to protect jobs and such...

Still even in the the self proclaimed enviromental city such as Vancouver where i live, there were almost 100,000 new cars on the streets last year . City planners and residents in the 70s didnt want a city that would promote driving but promote transit and bikes ect....boy were they wrong..transit system is sub par and the city is torminted by 12 hr rushhour everywhere in the area

People will bitch all they want about the enviroment and then they all get into there cars and go home..

I ditched more car 5 years ago, and i have been doing fine without it..its not that hard people

RougeUnderoos

01-30-2007, 02:10 PM

I don't disagree that the earth is heating up, but is it a natural occurance, or something that we as humans are causing?

It is something that we humans are at the very least contributing too. That is what the evidence says. That's what the majority of the experts, not Al Gore, say. Your real beef is with science, not Al Gore, but we all know how fun it is to shoot the messenger.

Azure

01-30-2007, 02:11 PM

Bunk

01-30-2007, 02:12 PM

And how do you know that CO2 levels are higher then they have ever been? Do we have all those stats recorded back to the start of time?

Didn't think so.

Not the beginning of time, only hundreds of thousands of years and several cycles of ice ages. (refer to previous page). We have a tremendous thing called science that can figure these things out from evidence.

Azure

01-30-2007, 02:13 PM

It is something that we humans are at the very least contributing too. That is what the evidence says. That's what the majority of the experts, not Al Gore, say.

Yes I realize that. I'm asking whether or not humans are causing the brunt of the problem.

Azure

01-30-2007, 02:14 PM

Not the beginning of time, only hundreds of thousands of years and several cycles of ice ages. (refer to previous page). We have a tremendous thing called science that can figure these things out from evidence.

And that tremendous thing called science allows us to accurately predict the temperature a week in advance. Right... :bag:

I wonder how the heck we went through several ice ages without having an extreme warming period.

FLAMESBURNOIL

01-30-2007, 02:15 PM

Yes I realize that. I'm asking whether or not humans are causing the brunt of the problem.

when it comes down to it, they really dont know...logical states that yes, but at the same time a massive volcano can dump more CO2 in the air than humans can in a 1000 years..

Bunk

01-30-2007, 02:15 PM

Yes I realize that. I'm asking whether or not humans are causing the brunt of the problem.

Unquestionably. We burn a lot of fossil fuels, that produces Co2. The trend is as clear as day. That Co2 produces a warmer atmosphere. Levels are higher in the last 50 years than in any time in recordable history.

Azure

01-30-2007, 02:17 PM

Unquestionably. We burn a lot of fossil fuels, that produces Co2. The trend is as clear as day. That Co2 produces a warmer atmosphere. Levels are higher in the last 50 years than in any time in recordable history.

So by burning fossil fuels, we humans produce more Co2 then any forest fire, or volcanic eruption combined will do in a year?

Hard to believe...especially knowing how many forest fires there are each year in the Rocky Mountains alone.

Igottago

01-30-2007, 02:18 PM

And it has nothing to do with taking it personal...if SUVs are a problem, everyone should quit driving them, no?

Obviously its not that easy..I never said it was. People aren't going to stop using the $45000 + vehicle they just bought. But maybe we can start steering the ship in the right direction by placing restrictions on the types/numbers of vehicles that car manufacturers are allowed to produce and sell? Or at least put pressure on them to reasearch and develop more environmentally friendly technology? Would that be such a bad thing?

Bobblehead

01-30-2007, 02:19 PM

And that tremendous thing called science allows us to accurately predict the temperature a week in advance. Right... :bag:

I wonder how the heck we went through several ice ages without having an extreme warming period.

You're comparing weather forecasting to determining CO2 levels by saying they are both "science" and then discounting it?

Bunk

01-30-2007, 02:20 PM

So by burning fossil fuels, we humans produce more Co2 then any forest fire, or volcanic eruption combined will do in a year?

Hard to believe...especially knowing how many forest fires there are each year in the Rocky Mountains alone.

Interestingly, something like 30% of CO2 emmissions globally are caused by human-set forest burning in places like the Amazon.

Winsor_Pilates

01-30-2007, 02:23 PM

Yes I realize that. I'm asking whether or not humans are causing the brunt of the problem.
Are you asking? It seems that you are just writing off all posible answers that don't fit with what you want.
Hundreads of scientists are trying to give us the answers and you're writing them off because the local meteorologist makes a few mistakes.

You're not looking for answers, you're hiding from them.

Azure

01-30-2007, 02:24 PM

You're comparing weather forecasting to determining CO2 levels by saying they are both "science" and then discounting it?

Well people are predicting that based on Co2 levels the temperature of the earth will rise x amount in a certain period of time.

Meanwhile, we can't properly predict the temperature going into next week.

:confused:

Azure

01-30-2007, 02:25 PM

Interestingly, something like 30% of CO2 emmissions globally are caused by human-set forest burning in places like the Amazon.

And not by burning up fossil fuels like you said in an earlier post?

You have a link for that, BTW?

Thanks.

kevman

01-30-2007, 02:25 PM

See, there you go..taking it personally, let me guess, you have an SUV? Don't worry, I don't consider you the devil. I did say it has to be a societal change. Last time I checked, I was part of society. I admit that I'm part of the problem as well, I rely on oil as much as anyone. We just can't keep going around with blinders on though, and slinging mud at people like Gore, Suzuki, or whoever, just because it makes us feel bad about ourselves.

I was actually trying to get a bigger reaction to give myself something to do...slow day :D

You're damn right I have an "SUV"! But by the time I walk to school, take the train to work, and ride my bike to get around I'm burning far less fossil fules than the suburban Civic commuter, but I suppose that's a different argument. Not that I'm trying to justify myself to a stranger.

I've never slung mud at loonatics like Gore or Suzuki because they make me feel bad about myself. I just question their real motives and fear the impact that they can have when people blindly follow what they preach. I have never once been caught arguing that nothing should be done about the enviroment but I'll routinely argue that buying into a plan like Kyoto so we can **** away billions to buy credits instead of solving the problem is not the way to go.

I have to agree with 'josh white' when he said "We have the opportunity to be a leader in doing something about it. That to me is exciting."

My previous post wasn't directed directly to you but I get a little tired of hearing the same Oil Industry/SUV card. You may not believe this but in business you get ahead by differentiating yourself and as a result the oil industry is actually working pretty hard on the enviroment issue to get a leg up on the competitor. Is the motiv slanted? Perhaps, but change is in the future.

Azure

01-30-2007, 02:27 PM

Are you asking? It seems that you are just writing off all posible answers that don't fit with what you want.
Hundreads of scientists are trying to give us the answers and you're writing them off because the local meteorologist makes a few mistakes.

You're not looking for answers, you're hiding from them.

You mean hundreds of scientists have told us that we're the cause of global warming?

I guess by questioning that exact statement, I'm hiding from the answers.

Strange.

TheDragon

01-30-2007, 02:28 PM

So by burning fossil fuels, we humans produce more Co2 then any forest fire, or volcanic eruption combined will do in a year?

Hard to believe...especially knowing how many forest fires there are each year in the Rocky Mountains alone.

Under those circumstances, nature has time to filter and clean itself. How often do major volcanic eruptions occur? The window for Forest Fires is only (usually) in the warmer months, as well.

We as people, though, pollute and produce CO2 gas, (and Methane) 24 hours a day, 7 days a week - particularily in places like India and China where they have massive amounts of oil and coal burning factories and plants, and have, at any given time, something like 400 million vehicles on the street. The gases that develop in our sewer systems are equally as bad.

That's a lot of constant pollution, and nature never gets a chance to recover and heal itself. It's constantly being challenged and barraged - and it's made even harder given the losses sustained to the Amazon rainforest.

Looger

01-30-2007, 02:28 PM

Burninator

01-30-2007, 02:29 PM

Alot of you people need to get your facts straight. Just because you don't know that we have ways of finding temperatures thousands of years ago doesn't mean these numbers don't exist. Also just because you don't know of a plan to help stop emission doesn't mean there isn't any theories out there.

If you want to know more about Global warming I recommend this book. The Weather Makers (http://www.amazon.ca/Weather-Makers-Tim-Flannery/dp/0002008319/sr=8-1/qid=1170191418/ref=pd_ka_1/701-8705057-6574705?ie=UTF8&s=books). Excellent book outlining global weather trends, past and present.

Also if you want some insight into stopping the warming. Heat: How to stop the planet from burning. (http://www.amazon.ca/Heat-How-Stop-Planet-Burning/dp/0385662211/sr=1-1/qid=1170191566/ref=sr_1_1/701-8705057-6574705?ie=UTF8&s=books)

This is one of those issues that is not based on "your feeling" or "your gut". Opinion has little merit against science, especially when ones opinion is coming from misinformation and political bias.

Azure

01-30-2007, 02:31 PM

Under those circumstances, nature has time to filter and clean itself. How often do major volcanic eruptions occur? The window for Forest Fires is only (usually) in the warmer months, as well.

We as people, though, pollute and produce CO2 gas, (and Methane) 24 hours a day, 7 days a week - particularily in places like India and China where they have massive amounts of oil and coal burning factories and plants, and have, at any given time, something like 400 million vehicles on the street.

That's a lot of constant pollution, and nature never gets a chance to recover and heal itself. It's constantly being challenged and destroyed.

Cows release Co2 into the atmosphere at a daily, continuous rate as well. Does that not also show some cause for concern? And they are part of nature as well.

That being said, I understand what you're saying, and I fully support an development in other, cleaner energy sources.

Bobblehead

01-30-2007, 02:32 PM

Well people are predicting that based on Co2 levels the temperature of the earth will rise x amount in a certain period of time.

Meanwhile, we can't properly predict the temperature going into next week.

:confused:

You're comparing 2 different processes. That's like saying we don't know what the Flames record was this year because we can't even figure out if they are going to win tonight.

They can take core samples from glaciers, frozen ground, pourous rock, and so and and measure what the levels were thousands of years ago. It is a science that figures out how what conditions were in certain periods. Forecasting is hugely difficult fluid dynamics issues that the biggest fastest computers in the world are designed to try and tackle. They are different skill sets.

BlackEleven

01-30-2007, 02:33 PM

And how do you know that CO2 levels are higher then they have ever been? Do we have all those stats recorded back to the start of time?

Didn't think so.

They can measure the levels in glaciers which have been freezing over thousands of years.

Azure

01-30-2007, 02:36 PM

I think a lot of you are taking this the wrong way. I am not saying the planet is 'not' burning up, but I question the belief that humans are causing the majority of it.

Is it a natural cycle, or something out of the ordinary. The planet earth has already recovered from several ice ages, which could only be accomplished by several periods of extreme warming. And I think the warming it would take to bring Earth out of an ice age, is far more devasting then the global warming we have at our hands today.

Also, I read a report somewhere that from 1998-2005, the temperature of the earth remained consistant.

Here...

Consider the simple fact, drawn from the official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, that for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase (there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero).

TheDragon

01-30-2007, 02:37 PM

Cows release Co2 into the atmosphere at a daily, continuous rate as well. Does that not also show some cause for concern? And they are part of nature as well.

That being said, I understand what you're saying, and I fully support an development in other, cleaner energy sources.

Well then there's the argument that people are responsible for domesticating the amount of cattle there are today. There certainly wouldn't be as many cattle on the world if we weren't involved in raising them for food.

Yeah, cows are natural - but how many of them would there be if we as people didn't eat them? Probably not a whole lot.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not blaming humanity for global warming - I'm just saying, we certainly aren't helping it, and if we don't take precaution to slow it down, at least, and prepare for the aftermath, then a lot of people are going to suffer.

RougeUnderoos

01-30-2007, 02:39 PM

Well people are predicting that based on Co2 levels the temperature of the earth will rise x amount in a certain period of time.

Meanwhile, we can't properly predict the temperature going into next week.

:confused:

Meanwhile, we are having this discussion over a medium that didn't exist 15 years ago. Stupid science again?

It's a funny way to go about things. I presume you trust science to make sure your food is safe and protect you from disease and come up with all sorts of nifty gadgets to save you time, but when it comes to this, they don't know what they are doing.

Do you have this same amount of skepticism about, say, what chemists, astronomers and geologists tell us?

Azure

01-30-2007, 02:40 PM

I don't think you can do anything about the amount of cattle needed to feed the world.

Unless you want to turn everyone into a vegetarian.

And I agree 100% with your last statement.

MarchHare

01-30-2007, 02:40 PM

MarchHare

01-30-2007, 02:42 PM

Well people are predicting that based on Co2 levels the temperature of the earth will rise x amount in a certain period of time.

Meanwhile, we can't properly predict the temperature going into next week.

Predicting what the daily high and low on a given day next week will be is a vastly different problem than predicting what the mean atmostpheric temperature of the Earth will be next year.

Burninator

01-30-2007, 02:44 PM

I think a lot of you are taking this the wrong way. I am not saying the planet is 'not' burning up, but I question the belief that humans are causing the majority of it.

Is it a natural cycle, or something out of the ordinary. The planet earth has already recovered from several ice ages, which could only be accomplished by several periods of extreme warming. And I think the warming it would take to bring Earth out of an ice age, is far more devasting then the global warming we have at our hands today.

Also, I read a report somewhere that from 1998-2005, the temperature of the earth remained consistant.

Here...
Where did you get that imformation? I just went to their website and found this on front page, says the opposite of what you just said:

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/gtc2005.gif

Link (http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/)

Bobblehead

01-30-2007, 02:45 PM

Also, I read a report somewhere that from 1998-2005, the temperature of the earth remained consistant.

Here...Consider the simple fact, drawn from the official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, that for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase (there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero).

You mean this University of East Anglia (http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/)?

That graph on their front page looks to be going up. (edit: Burninator posted it :))

Another article (http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/) (same site linked from the graph) Analyses of over 400 proxy climate series (from trees, corals, ice cores and historical records) show that the 1990s is the warmest decade of the millennium and the 20th century the warmest century. The warmest year of the millennium was likely 1998, and the coldest was probably (but with much greater uncertainty) 1601.

The Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change in its most recent report stated: 'most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations.'

kevman

01-30-2007, 02:48 PM

Before people bash Gore and the points he's making, could you at least watch his film first? He addresses most of the supposed arguments against global warming that people are bringing up in this thread. I was sceptical about global warming until I saw the film, but now I'm absolutely convinced the problem is very real and human activity is a major contributing factor. Also note that I say this as a political moderate who can't stand the ultra-left tree-hugging hippy crowd.

His movie is no more "liberal propaganda" than a documentary about the scientific evidence of evolution would be. Every point he makes is based on research published in peer-reviewed journals. If you want to question the facts, at least watch the film first so you know exactly what your'e debating.

Again it's been well over half a year since I watched his film but how many times does he give sound references with his facts? Alot of his facts, including his trapped gas CO2 levels, were done by a group of scientists working for him that were even funded by him wern't they? Then of course there is still his statement that 100% of scientists agree that we are 100% the cause with ZERO other factors of global warming.

But hey, I guess if you're now 100% convinced after watching the movie than I guess it's doing it's job... no need to read anything from the opposition right?

RougeUnderoos

01-30-2007, 02:51 PM

man, i sure can't wait.

the global mile tax goes in, vehicle usage goes WAY down, and then 2014 or 2020 or whatever the climate changes 'back' due to solar cycles and because this is all in the rememberable life experience of everyone, then we have a cause and effect!

thesis - antithesis - synthesis
problem - reaction - solution

ordo abo chao
oreder out of chaos

Okay saying this global mile tax does go in in 7 years and the climate "changes back", who benefits? What does the New World Order get out of us driving less? I'm positive that "big oil" and the neo-cons and Bilderbergers have something to do with the global government. Why would they want less money?

What do people like David Suzuki and Al Gore get out of it? They, and the vast majority of the scientific community must be in on the con. What's in it for them? These people are devoting their lives and reputations to this boondoggle so they must be expecting some sort of payoff. What do you think it is?

MarchHare

01-30-2007, 02:55 PM

Again it's been well over half a year since I watched his film but how many times does he give sound references with his facts?

IIRC, almost every slide he puts up has a footnote indicating the source of his data.

Then of course there is still his statement that 100% of scientists agree that we are 100% the cause with ZERO other factors of global warming.

I don't recall him ever making that claim.

In fact, he carefully points out that there is a natural cycle of periods of increased temperatures then periods of reduced temperatures and ice ages that have nothing to do with human activity. His main point though, which I challenge anyone here to prove wrong, is that over thousands of years, the average temperature of the Earth has been directly correlated to how much CO2 is in the atmosphere, and that for the past two hundred years or so humans have been putting far more CO2 into the air than has ever been there before in history.

But hey, I guess if you're now 100% convinced after watching the movie than I guess it's doing it's job... no need to read anything from the opposition right?

If you have links to articles published in peer-reviewed journals that contradict the scientific evidence of human-caused global climate change, I'd be happy to read them.

Looger

01-30-2007, 02:59 PM

Okay saying this global mile tax does go in in 7 years and the climate "changes back", who benefits? What does the New World Order get out of us driving less? I'm positive that "big oil" and the neo-cons and Bilderbergers have something to do with the global government. Why would they want less money?
...not sure how'd they'd get less money when they can always just spike the prices with a war, i've heard estimates as high as $250 / bbl from economists if iran retaliates by mining oil tanker pathways...

money... isn't really the endgame of any of these agendas, it's control. they print the money! the money is largely virtual anyway, it's probably more valuable as a means of monitoring and datamining to 'the elites' than actual cash that they can just crank out at will anyway.

it's the mechanism, the excuse, the idea that all this regulation is necessary. control.
What do people like David Suzuki and Al Gore get out of it? They, and the vast majority of the scientific community must be in on the con. What's in it for them? These people are devoting their lives and reputations to this boondoggle so they must be expecting some sort of payoff. What do you think it is?
i addressed this earlier in the thread, i think at the end of page 2. they can easily be unwknowing dupes and simply devoted to their cause. one wonders why guys such as suzuki, whom i've personally witnessed lying through his teeth, would have any credibility whatsoever were they not promoted by owned and controlled media.

as for gore he's a political player and he receives marching orders from the trilateral commission or the council on foreign relations or the bilderberg group or whatever, the top guys are members of at least two of those three.

Azure

01-30-2007, 03:03 PM

From the link..

The time series shows the combined global land and marine surface temperature record from 1850 to 2005. The year 2005 was equal second warmest on record, exceeded by 1998. This time series is being compiled jointly by the Climatic Research Unit and the UK Met. Office Hadley Centre. The record is being continually up-dated and improved (see Brohan et al., 2006). This paper includes a new and more thorough assessment of errors, recognizing that these differ on annual and decadal timescales. Increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere due to human activities are most likely the underlying cause of warming in the 20th century.

Doesn't that say that the earth cooled off a bit since 1998....since 1998 was the warmest year all around...and 2005, came only second to that?

Analyses of overall temperature trends in the low to mid-troposphere and near the surface since 1958 are in good agreement, with a warming of about 0.1°C per decade. Since the beginning of the satellite record (1979), however, low to mid-troposphere temperatures have warmed in both satellite and weather balloon records at a global rate of only 0.04 and 0.03°C/decade respectively. This is about 0.12°C/decade less than the rate of temperature increase near the surface since 1979. About half of this difference in warming rate is very likely to be due to the combination of differences in spatial coverage and the real physical affects of volcanoes and ENSO (Santer et al., 2000), see also Chapter 12 (http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/439.htm). The remaining difference remains unexplained, but is likely to be real. In the stratosphere, both satellites and weather balloons continue to show substantial cooling. The faster rate of recession of tropical mountain glaciers in the last twenty years than might have been expected from the MSU and radiosonde records remains unexplained, though some glaciers may still be responding to the warming indicated by radiosondes that occurred around 1976 to 1981.

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/048.htm

Calgaryborn

01-30-2007, 03:11 PM

Here's an article that mentions solar warming:

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50701

I would think one needs to minus the effect of of the sun's current
cycle of flairs up before you can determine the effect people are having on the planet.

RougeUnderoos

01-30-2007, 03:18 PM

...not sure how'd they'd get less money when they can always just spike the prices with a war, i've heard estimates as high as $250 / bbl from economists if iran retaliates by mining oil tanker pathways...

money... isn't really the endgame of any of these agendas, it's control. they print the money! the money is largely virtual anyway, it's probably more valuable as a means of monitoring and datamining to 'the elites' than actual cash that they can just crank out at will anyway.

it's the mechanism, the excuse, the idea that all this regulation is necessary. control.

i addressed this earlier in the thread, i think at the end of page 2. they can easily be unwknowing dupes and simply devoted to their cause. one wonders why guys such as suzuki, whom i've personally witnessed lying through his teeth, would have any credibility whatsoever were they not promoted by owned and controlled media.

as for gore he's a political player and he receives marching orders from the trilateral commission or the council on foreign relations or the bilderberg group or whatever, the top guys are members of at least two of those three.

Does different driving habits lead inevitably to "more control"? Why are so many "elites" against this form of control.

I can think of a few of these "elites" who have actively campaigned and fought against environmental regulations that are fell less severe than anything you are suggesting. Are they on the wrong page? Steven Harper and George Bush are clearly against this form of control. Either that or they are really good actors and they have a whole wack of powerful people really stumped.

I still don't get it. Say your scenario goes exactly as you say it will and at the end everyone drives less or uses less gas -- then some shadowy figure says "ah ha, now we've really got 'em". So what? Like what's the difference? They have more control over me how? What for? That's a pretty goddamn elaborate scheme to get me to drive less. And for a crowd that controls everything and calls all the shots, if they want us to drive less so they have "more control", why bother with this whole charade? You say "it's the mechanism", well it's a pretty shabby mechanism as far as I can tell. It's been mechanising for twenty years and we still aren't anywhere near a global mile tax.

Looger

01-30-2007, 03:20 PM

as to CO2 there's also an intersting dynamic involving cause and effect...

there's been more than one scientist i've read in recent times saying that we're looking at CO2 in the incorrect context, that it's also a symptom. interesting.

i don't think we can single out one gas as the only factor, i'm glad to see people in this thread in general are acknowledging that there are multiple forces at work here.

Bobblehead

01-30-2007, 03:20 PM

From the link..

Doesn't that say that the earth cooled off a bit since 1998....since 1998 was the warmest year all around...and 2005, came only second to that?
No, it doesn't say that the world cooled off. It said one datapoint was significantly higher. If the Flames scored 2 goals a game every game, then score 10 goals in one game and after that score 4 goals a game it doesn't mean that they are worse goal scorers now than they were in that one game. It just means that game was out of the norm and should be identified. But overall the Flames scored more goals now on average than they did.

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/048.htm

So you grab the one section for the mid-troposhpere and totally ignore the rest of the summary? You know the part that deals with the globe as a whole (from your link):
"Global surface temperatures have increased between 0.4 and 0.8°C since the late 19th century, but most of this increase has occurred in two distinct periods, 1910 to 1945 and since 1976. The rate of temperature increase since 1976 has been over 0.15°C/decade."

Looger

01-30-2007, 03:27 PM

Does different driving habits lead inevitably to "more control"? Why are so many "elites" against this form of control.
it's not the habits - it's the infrastructure.

RFID tags on toll highways, tracking by overpass readers or satellites or whatever.

pretty quick we're tracked everywhere, all the time.
I can think of a few of these "elites" who have actively campaigned and fought against environmental regulations that are fell less severe than anything you are suggesting. Are they on the wrong page? Steven Harper and George Bush are clearly against this form of control. Either that or they are really good actors and they have a whole wack of powerful people really stumped.
you can't look at single actions by individual stooges - there is always a controlled opposition, interestingly enough the big questions are never tabled and the debate is often between 'more control' and 'slightly less more control'. frame the debate and present a false choice.

and the really powerful people know where the bread is buttered, we're just in general out of the loop here.

the agenda rolls on over time, if GWB was really 'against' all this stuff he wouldn't have signed the SPP document.
I still don't get it. Say your scenario goes exactly as you say it will and at the end everyone drives less or uses less gas -- then some shadowy figure says "ah ha, now we've really got 'em". So what? Like what's the difference? They have more control over me how? What for? That's a pretty goddamn elaborate scheme to get me to drive less. And for a crowd that controls everything and calls all the shots, if they want us to drive less so they have "more control", why bother with this whole charade? You say "it's the mechanism", well it's a pretty shabby mechanism as far as I can tell. It's been mechanising for twenty years and we still aren't anywhere near a global mile tax.
if you look at a global mile tax as the endgame, as the reason, then no wonder you're stumped. it's simply one more step towards complete and total tracking of everyone, which in turn is another step towards god knows what.

money - real wealth - is not the goal here.

Flame On

01-30-2007, 03:27 PM

Wow would love to go to this. Talk about preaching to the non converted.

20-12-22

01-30-2007, 03:33 PM

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=d0235a70-33f1-45b3-803b-829b1b3542ef&p=1

Interesting read

JimmytheT

01-30-2007, 03:49 PM

Like I said at the beginning of the thread, Al Gore's only real concern is the capture/killing of ManBearPig :D . This thread has blown up into a global warming debate. He is like, so serial about ManBearPig.

Can someone please acknowledge their understanding of this joke (it's a little inside I know).

20-12-22

01-30-2007, 03:50 PM

A russian scientist is predicting that global cooling will start in 2012 or 2013 as a result of a reduction in radiation from the sun.

According to Absudamatov, the global cooling will start in 2012 or 2013. By 2035 the Sun’s radiation will reach its minimum, and 15 years later a deep cooling of the Earth’s climate should be expected.

See the whole article here...http://www.mosnews.com/news/2006/02/06/globalcold.shtml

Expect David Suzukians to start whining about something else when we have 4 feet of snow hanging around in August.

FLAMESBURNOIL

01-30-2007, 03:51 PM

20-12-22

01-30-2007, 03:52 PM

Dang i had the link ready to paste, you beat me to it FLAMESBURNOIL!!!

RougeUnderoos

01-30-2007, 03:52 PM

it's not the habits - it's the infrastructure.

RFID tags on toll highways, tracking by overpass readers or satellites or whatever.

pretty quick we're tracked everywhere, all the time.

you can't look at single actions by individual stooges - there is always a controlled opposition, interestingly enough the big questions are never tabled and the debate is often between 'more control' and 'slightly less more control'. frame the debate and present a false choice.

and the really powerful people know where the bread is buttered, we're just in general out of the loop here.

the agenda rolls on over time, if GWB was really 'against' all this stuff he wouldn't have signed the SPP document.

if you look at a global mile tax as the endgame, as the reason, then no wonder you're stumped. it's simply one more step towards complete and total tracking of everyone, which in turn is another step towards god knows what.

money - real wealth - is not the goal here.

Sheesh. And around and it goes. Where it stops even you don't know.

If the real powerful people want to track us everywhere we go, why don't they just do it? Why bother with the fake political parties, the media control, the controlled opposition, the sham governments, the international treaties, the global warming farce and all the rest of it. If they are powerful enough to control the world like you say, why don't they just go ahead and enslave us, track us, kill us, do-whatever-they-want to us?

The way you have it, they run everything already, but they need this crazy global warming scheme just to keep on eye on us? Why not just put "RFID tags on toll highways, tracking by overpass readers or satellites or whatever". Who is going to stop 'em? Why do they have to justify anything to us mere mortals?

JimmytheT

01-30-2007, 03:53 PM

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/2b/1006itsmealgore.JPG/776px-1006itsmealgore.JPG

Ah, excellent, serial spreading of ManBearPig awareness is at the top of Al Gore's agenda

JimmytheT

01-30-2007, 03:54 PM

20-12-22

01-30-2007, 03:55 PM

Cartman: Dude, what are you doing?
Al Gore: I'm spreading manbearpig awareness

Even better http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=09_5T8UmQQI

Looger

01-30-2007, 03:58 PM

Sheesh. And around and it goes. Where it stops even you don't know.
well it sure doesn't stop you from asking me the same questions over and over. and over. and over.
If the real powerful people want to track us everywhere we go, why don't they just do it? Why bother with the fake political parties, the media control, the controlled opposition, the sham governments, the international treaties, the global warming farce and all the rest of it. If they are powerful enough to control the world like you say, why don't they just go ahead and enslave us, track us, kill us, do-whatever-they-want to us?
not everything everywhere is controlled completely by one person. make of that what you will. there is plenty of power and plenty of factions but there are people looking to centralize and expand what they have. why is this such a 'crazy' concept?
The way you have it, they run everything already, but they need this crazy global warming scheme just to keep on eye on us? Why not just put "RFID tags on toll highways, tracking by overpass readers or satellites or whatever". Who is going to stop 'em? Why do they have to justify anything to us mere mortals?
if they 'ran everything already' then there wouldn't be movements afoot to gain more control. there are people with impressive wealth and power, and they want to cement their positions.

i'm... done answering the same questions again and again, at least for now.

kevman

01-30-2007, 04:00 PM

I don't recall him ever making that claim.

If you have links to articles published in peer-reviewed journals that contradict the scientific evidence of human-caused global climate change, I'd be happy to read them.

He claims again and again that there has never been a peer reviewed journal to dispute what he is saying does he not?

Do you have access to the journal of Pure and Applied Geophysics? (student library perhaps?)

I just found an article titled
"The Global Warming Debate: A Review of the State of Science"
That seems to disagree with what Mr. Gore says.

The case for global warming as presented above appears convincing and
seemingly governed by a simple but attractive physical argument that more CO2 in
the atmosphere will trap more outgoing longwave radiation and thus the earth’s
surface will eventually become warm enough to make a case for ‘‘global warming.’’
As mentioned before, the global warming and associated climate change issues are
governed by many complex mechanisms and it is imperative to more closely examine

these mechanisms before making definitive conclusions about cause and consequence of global warming.

I also scanned across some of these which referred to x MY (million years) ago and the earth temperature based on various techniques of measuring.

-145 MY (Cretaceous). Very warm. Speculation that there was no ice on the planet, even at the poles (ENVIRONMENT CANADA, 2003).
-43 MY (Eocene). Very warm. CO2 levels then were less than during the glaciation at –114,000 years (ENVIROTRUTH, 2003).
-114,000 years. Beginning of the most recent glacial period. Very cold. High CO2 levels (ENVIROTRUTH, 2003).
-12,000 years. In Europe, temperatures varied from warmer than present to the coldest during the ice age in a few decades and then bounced back. In Greenland, temperatures rose by 8 C in a single decade (WEART, 2003).

I haven't read the article yet but after skimming it over it appears to dispute what Mr. Gore had to say. It was also published in 2005 and IS a "peer reviewed" article.
How can that be? I thought Gore said (and others in this very thread) that there are zero peer reviewed articles that disagree with his conclusions on global warming...:whistle:

Edit: Sorry for the crappy formatting the forum doesn't appear to like my quotes...

eazyduzzit

01-30-2007, 04:02 PM

maybe someone should ask him why jupiter's surface temperatures are rising...

those damn jovian SUV's!

lol

WE all know the real reason Al Gore is coming to Alberta is to continue his search for the elusive (and imaginary) ManBearPig.

LOL

RougeUnderoos

01-30-2007, 04:08 PM

well it sure doesn't stop you from asking me the same questions over and over. and over. and over.

not everything everywhere is controlled completely by one person. make of that what you will. there is plenty of power and plenty of factions but there are people looking to centralize and expand what they have. why is this such a 'crazy' concept?

if they 'ran everything already' then there wouldn't be movements afoot to gain more control. there are people with impressive wealth and power, and they want to cement their positions.

i'm... done answering the same questions again and again, at least for now.

I don't really think I was asking the same question over and over, you were just giving me the same answer to different questions. "Powerful people are behind this incredible conspiracy and they want to track us" is pretty much the gist of it.

It's a "crazy concept" because for it to be true me and everyone else (except you and people of like mind) are living in a completely alternate reality than we think we are.

MarchHare

01-30-2007, 04:11 PM

He claims again and again that there has never been a peer reviewed journal to dispute what he is saying does he not?

No.

What he said is that the nature of the "global warming controversy" is overstated in the media. He didn't say that not a single scientific journal published an article questioning the correlation between CO2 and rising mean temperatures. The point he was making was that in a sample of 900+ published articles, none of them disputed that correlation, yet in a similar-sized sample of media reports about global warming, 50-something percent of them cast doubt on the science.

It's no different than the evolution debate. In the media, it's portrayed as if evolution is a highly controversial and widely-disputed subject, and they'll quote a few scientists with pet theories about "intelligent design". Within the scientific community, though, evolution is considered as factual as heliocentricity.

Azure

01-30-2007, 04:11 PM

No, it doesn't say that the world cooled off. It said one datapoint was significantly higher. If the Flames scored 2 goals a game every game, then score 10 goals in one game and after that score 4 goals a game it doesn't mean that they are worse goal scorers now than they were in that one game. It just means that game was out of the norm and should be identified. But overall the Flames scored more goals now on average than they did.

So you're saying we should ignore the data from 1998 to 2005 because it is out of the norm?

I realize the temperature is overall going up, but 1998 was a warmer year then 2005, and if anything, we are producing more CO2 in 2005, then we were in 1998.

I realize its a very, very small sample size, and in the big picture it might mean nothing, but I find it intriguing that 1998 was the warmest year EVER, and even the 21st century with all our enviromental problems has not been as warm as 1998.

So you grab the one section for the mid-troposhpere and totally ignore the rest of the summary? You know the part that deals with the globe as a whole (from your link):

Actually, I was only going to post the section that referred to..

The faster rate of recession of tropical mountain glaciers in the last twenty years than might have been expected from the MSU and radiosonde records remains unexplained, though some glaciers may still be responding to the warming indicated by radiosondes that occurred around 1976 to 1981.

Azure

01-30-2007, 04:18 PM

http://www.gsajournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1130%2F1052-5173(2003)013%3C0004:CDOPC%3E2.0.CO%3B2

kevman

01-30-2007, 04:30 PM

No.

What he said is that the nature of the "global warming controversy" is overstated in the media. He didn't say that not a single scientific journal published an article questioning the correlation between CO2 and rising mean temperatures. The point he was making was that in a sample of 900+ published articles, none of them disputed that correlation, yet in a similar-sized sample of media reports about global warming, 50-something percent of them cast doubt on the science.

It's no different than the evolution debate. In the media, it's portrayed as if evolution is a highly controversial and widely-disputed subject, and they'll quote a few scientists with pet theories about "intelligent design". Within the scientific community, though, evolution is considered as factual as heliocentricity.

My apologies then, I must have misunderstood him in the movie but judging by quotes in this same thread I'm not the only one.

"In the film he points out that of 958 peer reviewed journals on global warming, not one single article disagrees with the scientific consensus. "

However, I was able to find a peer reviewed journal that disagrees within 5 mins of searching, most of which was spent remembering how to log in to my acount :D So I question his 958 peer reviewed journals that conviently didn't disagree with him. It's easier to bend the truth to make a point though...ask Michael Moore :bag:

Beside decoupling CO2 with warmer temperatures this particular article also examines urbanization as a cause of the increased global average. An interesting approach since we know that urban areas are generally warmer than rural areas and therefore by increasing the urban area on earth you could effectively increase the average temperature a little.
The article also discusses that while the temperature has slightly increased in the lowest atmospheric layer of earth it has actually remained relatively constant in the lower troposhpere since 1979.
These are 2 ideas I've never even thought about discussin global warming.

Displaced Flames fan

01-30-2007, 04:34 PM

Unquestionably. We burn a lot of fossil fuels, that produces Co2. The trend is as clear as day. That Co2 produces a warmer atmosphere. Levels are higher in the last 50 years than in any time in recordable history.

I would guess that deforestation is a larger cause of rising co2 levels than fossil fuel emissions.

Yes,I realize this is a human caused problem. But it is a different problem altogether.

Looger

01-30-2007, 04:34 PM

I don't really think I was asking the same question over and over, you were just giving me the same answer to different questions. "Powerful people are behind this incredible conspiracy and they want to track us" is pretty much the gist of it.
agenda. not conspiracy.

agendas are outlined by guys like carole quigley (spelling), hg wells, aldous huxley, david rockefeller, zbigniew brizhinsky, and many others - they write books aboot it, auto-biographies, policy documents. this is all open and all public. it's simply not shoved down our gullets by the 6 o'clock news.

there is nothing 'secret' aboot kissinger saying some positively blood-chilling things to lesser-traveled media outlets, check the major financial papers and much of this is in there plain as day.
It's a "crazy concept" because for it to be true me and everyone else (except you and people of like mind) are living in a completely alternate reality than we think we are.
there's nothing alternate aboot banking machinations and governments staging events to precipitate a manipulated reaction, nazi germany for example is an easy study on many of these concepts.

when universities select leading candidates for the fast tracks to major power, there always seems to be forces like the rhodes foundation or other 'old money' that get their candidates on the programs early. they are placed in positions of power and they forward the agendas set for them.

people should really simply read and study everything that comes out of anybody referring to themselves as 'the elite', it is a little stunning how brazen these people are.

Bobblehead

01-30-2007, 04:36 PM

So you're saying we should ignore the data from 1998 to 2005 because it is out of the norm?

I realize the temperature is overall going up, but 1998 was a warmer year then 2005, and if anything, we are producing more CO2 in 2005, then we were in 1998.

It is a TREND. Sure, 1998 was the warmest year on record, followed by 2005. One data point does not invalidate the trend. And you admit that the overall temperature is going up. Is not the bigger issue that the 2 hottest year happened in the last 10? And that there is continuous climbing on the average temperatures?

I accept that there are historical cycles to the climate (note: climate <> weather). But the trends that we are seeing right now are happening faster than they have in the past. They are occuring during a time that there are other man made factors that haven't happened before. The change since the industrial revolution vs the rest of human history is astonishing. I don't want a knee jerk reaction, but I believe no reaction is not the answer either.

And as for your second quote, I'm not sure what you are trying to say? That glaciers are receding and it may be related to data gathered by weather balloons reporting there was warming in the late '70's?

RougeUnderoos

01-30-2007, 04:56 PM

agenda. not conspiracy.

I know it's a loaded term in these discussions, but it does fit the bill. Somebody had to conspire to get all that scientific data rigged or they are all in on it. If the scientists have been duped (which you appear to believe), somebody duped 'em.

Looger

01-30-2007, 05:04 PM

I know it's a loaded term in these discussions, but it does fit the bill. Somebody had to conspire to get all that scientific data rigged or they are all in on it. If the scientists have been duped (which you appear to believe), somebody duped 'em.
go back in my posts and show me where i said anything like this.

you can't, because i didn't.

it's not that 'the scientists are in on it'.

it's that media agendas select which data to show and which data to not show.

if you think you're getting the whole picture from people that have other goals then you, well - good luck.

Azure

01-30-2007, 05:57 PM

It is a TREND. Sure, 1998 was the warmest year on record, followed by 2005. One data point does not invalidate the trend. And you admit that the overall temperature is going up. Is not the bigger issue that the 2 hottest year happened in the last 10? And that there is continuous climbing on the average temperatures?

That one data points shows that temperatures have been consistant from 1998-2005, in fact they evem dropped a tiny bit.

Not a big deal, but something.

I accept that there are historical cycles to the climate (note: climate <> weather). But the trends that we are seeing right now are happening faster than they have in the past. They are occuring during a time that there are other man made factors that haven't happened before. The change since the industrial revolution vs the rest of human history is astonishing. I don't want a knee jerk reaction, but I believe no reaction is not the answer either.

How do you know that Earth didn't warm up much faster back when we got rid of the ice age? Again, in order to get out of an ice age, temperatures much more extreme then what we're seeing right now had to be in effect. And we didn't have any SUVs to burn up all those fossil fuels that 'must' be causing this global warming. ;)

And as for your second quote, I'm not sure what you are trying to say? That glaciers are receding and it may be related to data gathered by weather balloons reporting there was warming in the late '70's?

That glaciers are receding based on data from the late '70's, and not data from the 21st century? :confused:

RougeUnderoos

01-30-2007, 06:14 PM

FlamingLonghorn

01-30-2007, 06:17 PM

go back in my posts and show me where i said anything like this.

you can't, because i didn't.

it's not that 'the scientists are in on it'.

it's that media agendas select which data to show and which data to not show.

if you think you're getting the whole picture from people that have other goals then you, well - good luck.

Well where's the independent media source that says 90% of scientists don't think we are causing global warming? How many different factions are fighting for control of the world? The Illuminati, Stonecutters, Skulls, who am I missing? I have not encountered many scientific studies that say we don't cause global warming. I did extensive studying of this topic when I was in college debate. We had like 5 big ass tubs full of research we brought to each debate rd and I read most of it. I would have killed to find these credible independent media sources that had all the secret studies that contradicted the studies I read.

Looger

01-30-2007, 06:32 PM

Well where's the independent media source that says 90% of scientists don't think we are causing global warming?
independent? for god's sake, how aboot the scientists themselves???
EDIT: we're causing global warming, that's undeniable. there's also other things causing global warming. according to carl sagan in his book 'cosmos' we're also causing SOME global cooling with the change in colour and surface area of the earth, trees -> farmland.

i just don't get it. i say that there are other factors and suddenly i'm saying that 90% of scientists are wrong when i said no such thing. whatever man.
How many different factions are fighting for control of the world?
6 billion or so...
The Illuminati, Stonecutters, Skulls, who am I missing?
the obvious one: the fact that it's all the same group at the top and all that 'the masons' or 'the jesuits' or 'the joooos' or 'the club of malta' or 'the vatican' or 'the black pope' or <insert easy answer here> is a big pile of dog crap, spouted by maniacs and morons that are trotted out to 'represent all those crazy conspiracy theorists' in the mainstream media.
I have not encountered many scientific studies that say we don't cause global warming. I did extensive studying of this topic when I was in college debate. We had like 5 big ass tubs full of research we brought to each debate rd and I read most of it. I would have killed to find these credible independent media sources that had all the secret studies that contradicted the studies I read.
what can i tell you? if you're interested you'll check out more sources, if you're not then you won't.

science is NOT a consensus, but media attention sure can be. simple as that.

pay a bunch of figurehead scientists to explore a limited list of causes and quite soon you'll discover that your suspicions are correct! how amazing!

meanwhile scientists that aren't on the panel that have been studying solar cycles for their careers don't get consulted. hmmmm...

FlamingLonghorn

01-30-2007, 06:40 PM

independent? for god's sake, how aboot the scientists themselves???

6 billion or so...

the obvious one: the fact that it's all the same group at the top and all that 'the masons' or 'the jesuits' or 'the joooos' or 'the club of malta' or 'the vatican' or 'the black pope' or <insert easy answer here> is a big pile of dog crap, spouted by maniacs and morons that are trotted out to 'represent all those crazy conspiracy theorists' in the mainstream media.

what can i tell you? if you're interested you'll check out more sources, if you're not then you won't.

science is NOT a consensus, but media attention sure can be. simple as that.

pay a bunch of figurehead scientists to explore a limited list of causes and quite soon you'll discover that your suspicions are correct! how amazing!

meanwhile scientists that aren't on the panel that have been studying solar cycles for their careers don't get consulted. hmmmm...
I don't think you get it I didn't just read newspaper articles I did in depth study for like a year on human effects on global warming I was at college libraries pulling studies and reading them. Sure I did read some media articles, but I was doing all I could to find sources that said we don't cause global warming because 1/2 the time that was the side of the debate I was on. Sure there were some studies out there, but if I went by a study by study basis I would say the ratio was somewhere around 30 to 1 for human caused warming. Now I understand that some might lean towards the consensus just to be in that position but it wouldn't account for that kind of discrepancy...

Looger

01-30-2007, 06:41 PM

I said you believe the scientists have been duped, not that they are in on it. It has be one or the other so take your pick.
wow, such a simple set of circumstances.

this is the entire problem, right here.

if you're anti-kyoto you MUST be anti-environment.

if you're against chipping children you MUST be a child molestor.

if i ask a bunch of scientists if humans are warming the planet with our activity, something tells me they'll say, yes.

that must mean that we're the #1 runaway factor!

put it in the books, we've solved global warming!

GIVE ME A BREAK.

Looger

01-30-2007, 06:46 PM

I don't think you get it I didn't just read newspaper articles I did in depth study for like a year on human effects on global warming I was at college libraries pulling studies and reading them. Sure I did read some media articles, but I was doing all I could to find sources that said we don't cause global warming because 1/2 the time that was the side of the debate I was on. Sure there were some studies out there, but if I went by a study by study basis I would say the ratio was somewhere around 30 to 1 for human caused warming. Now I understand that some might lean towards the consensus just to be in that position but it wouldn't account for that kind of discrepancy...
i don't think you get it either.

humans ARE coausing global warming.

holy moley.

but you know what?

so is the sun.

so are volcanoes.

so are mid-atlantic ridge gas emissions.

so are many other things i can't even think of right now.

don't get me wrong here - we're definitely (and i've said this elsewhere in this thread) having a measured effect in recent history on the cycles of CO2.

but compared to the activity of the sun and the KNOWN and MEASURABLE cycles and trends, we are a smaller factor in my opinion.

were any of those '90% of scientists' asked that question specifically?

FlamingLonghorn

01-30-2007, 06:47 PM

wow, such a simple set of circumstances.

this is the entire problem, right here.

if you're anti-kyoto you MUST be anti-environment.

if you're against chipping children you MUST be a child molestor.

if i ask a bunch of scientists if humans are warming the planet with our activity, something tells me they'll say, yes.

that must mean that we're the #1 runaway factor!

put it in the books, we've solved global warming!

GIVE ME A BREAK.
It must be nice to take a stance on every issue that requires no logical debate or evidence. All you have to is say the "man" wants us to think the wrong way and thus all of us our wrong. Then, come out with a ridiculous and sarcastic comment about how your being painted as a child molester, murderer, etc... Repeat as needed...

FlamingLonghorn

01-30-2007, 06:49 PM

i don't think you get it either.

humans ARE coausing global warming.

holy moley.

but you know what?

so is the sun.

so are volcanoes.

so are mid-atlantic ridge gas emissions.

so are many other things i can't even think of right now.

don't get me wrong here - we're definitely (and i've said this elsewhere in this thread) having a measured effect in recent history on the cycles of CO2.

but compared to the activity of the sun and the KNOWN and MEASURABLE cycles and trends, we are a smaller factor in my opinion.

were any of those '90% of scientists' asked that question specifically?

No but the majority would say that we have a "significant" effect that could be catastrophic...

Looger

01-30-2007, 06:54 PM

It must be nice to take a stance on every issue that requires no logical debate or evidence. All you have to is say the "man" wants us to think the wrong way and thus all of us our wrong. Then, come out with a ridiculous and sarcastic comment about how your being painted as a child molester, murderer, etc... Repeat as needed...
well it's aboot as ridiculous as the conclusions rouge was coming to, i figured.

apparently i was saying 'all the scientists' were duped or 'all the scientists' were 'in on it', same logic - none at all.

'the man'?

i think the main factor behind all this stupidity is us, the groupthink phenomenon.

we think short-term, us people. we see temperatures rising, and the main message in the media is pointing fingers, and 'all these scientists' agree, even though the entire debate is framed. we parrot, we repeat, we demand.

we don't need 'the man' making all our decisions, we just need a nudge off the cliff.

Looger

01-30-2007, 06:59 PM

No but the majority would say that we have a "significant" effect that could be catastrophic...
great.

this is just amazing. i posted earlier in the thread that i read an article in sciam a couple years back saying humanity averted a minor ice age with our activity, and now apparently i'm 'disagreeing with 90% of scientists'.

this is just unbelievable.

i'm out.

Azure

01-30-2007, 07:00 PM

Quick question...say we can reduce the amount of global warming humans cause by a significant value...will that solve our problems?

If 10% is caused by humans...what the heck are we supposed to do about the other 90%?

Ignore it because we can't make money from making a documentary about it?

maverickeastwood

01-30-2007, 07:13 PM

let's get real here, there may be 7 billion of us on this marble (small IMO) as compared to natures activities, forest fires, volcanoes and even methane belching cattle.

OK, what are we proposing to do. Lets face it. Junk our vehicles, move into much smaller houses and live off the land. Let's do it!! Fisrt of all, we have to say "screw money"...not gonna happen. The unfortunate by-product of todays society is that we depend on a substance that drives todays greed. Try as you may "I'm gonna buy a small car, therefore I'm polluting less" yeah, right! with 113 cars arriving in this city everyday, that just means that you can fit more vehicles on the road.

There is no easy answer.

RougeUnderoos

01-30-2007, 10:28 PM

wow, such a simple set of circumstances.

this is the entire problem, right here.

if you're anti-kyoto you MUST be anti-environment.

if you're against chipping children you MUST be a child molestor.

if i ask a bunch of scientists if humans are warming the planet with our activity, something tells me they'll say, yes.

that must mean that we're the #1 runaway factor!

put it in the books, we've solved global warming!

GIVE ME A BREAK.

What are you talking about?

Although I must admit that I do see the world in slightly more black and white terms than you do. You appear to believe that there is some group of elite supervillains out there conjuring up intricate ruses and manipulating science so they can put chips in our ears and tracking devices on toll booths. I don't. I think the scientific community is coming up with this stuff honestly.

Flames in 07

01-30-2007, 10:35 PM

Why is pointing out scientific fact dangerous? In my opinion it is dangerous to ignore people like him that are making the effort to warn about the effects of our human activities.

Just because a movie says something it doesn't automatically become scientific fact.

You can't just watch a movie and run around with a bunch of facts. The issue is far more complicated than what a reasonably shallow and populist movie could ever point out.

Looger

01-30-2007, 10:44 PM

What are you talking about?

Although I must admit that I do see the world in slightly more black and white terms than you do. You appear to believe that there is some group of elite supervillains out there conjuring up intricate ruses and manipulating science so they can put chips in our ears and tracking devices on toll booths. I don't. I think the scientific community is coming up with this stuff honestly.
this isn't just unreal.

it's surreal.

i say, over and over, that...

ah, nevermind.

you're just going to make something up and say 'you say this' anyway.

NOWHERE did i say that the scientific community is being dishonest.

i said that our media-filtered image is an incomplete one, bent to send a message and frame the debate.

but go ahead and make something up that you can take on, please. it's so awesome.

RougeUnderoos

01-31-2007, 01:53 AM

NOWHERE did i say that the scientific community is being dishonest.

the agendas behind politicized environmentalism scare the hell out of me. and it DOES NOT end with al gore and a return to the white house for the tenessean. it has to do with global government, with per-mile taxes for driving, and the loss of much freedom for people everywhere.

Considering that the whole thing, politicized or not, is based on scientific evidence, then you by definition have to believe the scientific community is being dishonest. Or they have been duped (which also means they are all stupid). You obviously believe David Suzuki is a moron and Al Gore is a pawn (or maybe a player) in some big game, but they don't get their "science" from thin air. Someone had to come up with the stuff that meshes with what they are saying. Dishonesty or dumbness are really the only explanations for what it all says.

(the same bankers and oil company owners and financiers behind all the environmental causes AND the supression of decent green technology,

I think I get it. The oil companies and financiers are promoting, secretly, these environmental agendas in an effort to justify a world government and global mileage tax so they can institute a bunch of regulations for tracking and control purposes. Is that right? If I have misinterpreted your message please correct me.

At the same time, they are suppressing decent green technology so we remain dependent on fossil fuels and are therefore unable to avoid the global mileage tax imposed by the one-world government.

Again, if I have this wrong, please feel free to correct me.

I'm not trying to be argumentative or repetitive. I'm just trying to understand this incredibly complicated scenario.

ShaolinFlame

01-31-2007, 02:58 AM

I have read a PAPER in a PEER REVIEWED JOURNAL on my university library ejournal crap saying global warming IS NOT CAUSED BY HUMANS. So Al Gore is lieing off the bat. MANBEARPIG strikes again.

Devils'Advocate

01-31-2007, 05:52 AM

Blah, blah, blah, blah...it really wouldn't matter if the science was incontrivertable (which is pretty much the case). There are *HUGE* *HUGE* industries out there paying billions of dollars to confuse the issue. On the flip side, there a millions upon millions of people who grasp onto any of the rogue naysayers, even the ones financed by oil and gas, even when the bulk of the evidence is against them... simply because they enjoy a high standard of life BECAUSE we are ignoring Kyoto.

After I left "An Inconvenient Truth" I stopped watching my power consumption. Why bother? The human species will continue to lie to itself until it is too late. It really is naive to believe otherwise. We are a stupid, stupid species and deserve whatever is coming to us.

But the s*** isn't going to hit the fan for another 50, maybe 100. We'll be long gone or nearing the end of our run. It's our children and our children's children that will have to deal with the issue. The naysayers causing the problem will never have to pay for their crimes. Just the way the world works. There really is no use fighting against this tide, just ride the wave and see where it takes us.

Looger

01-31-2007, 06:39 AM

Agamemnon

01-31-2007, 08:43 AM

I have read a PAPER in a PEER REVIEWED JOURNAL on my university library ejournal crap saying global warming IS NOT CAUSED BY HUMANS. So Al Gore is lieing off the bat. MANBEARPIG strikes again.
Sounds like you've got those enviro-nuts beaten then... do you happen to know the name of the paper/journal you read? Its probably of great interest to the anti-Gore/human-caused-climate-change crowd. Maybe a link or something?

Lurch

01-31-2007, 08:56 AM

Not that articles matter, but here is the latest from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070131.wclimate31/BNStory/National/home

I think the bottom line is that the case for global warming is gathering with every passing year. I'm not sure what the tipping point is for a rational person, but based on polls it seems 4/5 Canadians have reached it. The question becomes are we willing to do anything about it, and it probably doesn't even require changing our lifestyle in a measurable way to make a huge impact on emissions. It just requires that all decisions are made with emissions as a consideration.

kevman

01-31-2007, 09:08 AM

Sounds like you've got those enviro-nuts beaten then... do you happen to know the name of the paper/journal you read? Its probably of great interest to the anti-Gore/human-caused-climate-change crowd. Maybe a link or something?

I posted the information where to get a peer reviewed journal article arguing that it's natural but it appears that everyone simply ignored my post. Sorry that I can't post the full article but that would be against CP guidelines for piracy. The article is:
"The Global Warming Debate: A Review of the State of Science"
and can be found in the journal of Pure and Applied Geophysics.

It was actually really easy to find so I can track down some more if you want. Turns out that even though Mr. Gore said that there are no Peer Reviewed articles disagreeing with him this was the first article that appeared while searching for "global warming climate change"...

TheCommodoreAfro

01-31-2007, 09:25 AM

Gore was in Tokyo recently. As our agency helps to promote the book/movie, I got a good seat to a talk he gave (along with Japan's answer to a certain Japanese-Canadian environmentalist, Ryoichi Yamamoto). The fact that this winter here in Japan features ski hills with NO SNOW, there is a whole lot of what he says that is true. That alone should rally people behind the threat but there seems to be a lot of separation in people's opinions based on trust and economic issues. Not much I can add to seven pages of this thread really, just that I think you need to see climate change from the perspective of a country that is normally chilly and snowy, but is actually far from it. Global warming has happened, so the issue is stemming the tide.

Gore has also totally chunked out. Dude gained what Clinton lost. He is a great speaker, but his size kinda surprised me.

Bunk

01-31-2007, 09:50 AM

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070131/climate_change_070131/20070131?hub=TopStories

I am sure the 2000 scientists from around the world know less about the topic then the doubters on here.

Hmmm, who should I believe?

Agamemnon

01-31-2007, 10:04 AM

It was actually really easy to find so I can track down some more if you want. Turns out that even though Mr. Gore said that there are no Peer Reviewed articles disagreeing with him this was the first article that appeared while searching for "global warming climate change"...
I suppose that means that Gore and his crusade against greenhouse gasses are sufficiently discredited then... we can finally forget all this nonsense and get back to more important things.

Hakan

01-31-2007, 10:05 AM

Global warming or not I think this thread does prove two valuable points:

You can always trust Looger and Azure to ruin a good thread.

Looger, your post about Noam Chomsky bent on world domination through the Ford Foundation is so laughably idiotic that, that, jeez, I don't even know what to say.

Cowperson

01-31-2007, 10:09 AM

I posted the information where to get a peer reviewed journal article arguing that it's natural but it appears that everyone simply ignored my post. Sorry that I can't post the full article but that would be against CP guidelines for piracy. The article is:
"The Global Warming Debate: A Review of the State of Science"
and can be found in the journal of Pure and Applied Geophysics.

It was actually really easy to find so I can track down some more if you want. Turns out that even though Mr. Gore said that there are no Peer Reviewed articles disagreeing with him this was the first article that appeared while searching for "global warming climate change"...

A link for you:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/g87327815xg2u1h2/

Al Gore's claim that 900 + scientific papers contain 100% agreement about climate change has been challenged repeatedly. He bases his claim on a study by Dr. Naomi Oreskes, of the University of California who did a survey of such papers and published her analysis in Science Magazine.

Other academics were actually suspicious of her claim and did their own survey of the same papers. Dr Benny Peiser, a senior lecturer in the science faculty at Liverpool John Moores University, looked at the same documents and concluded that only one third backed the consensus view, while only one per cent did so explicitly. His paper on the topic is here:

http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/Scienceletter.htm

And there are others like him who have publicly stated their doubts about Oreskes claim and thus Gore's claim of unanimity.

Another rebuttal from a credible scientist is at the link below with a nice little stab where he notes he's never taken a dime from any special interest group to state his position on this:

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4801

I only mention this to point out that Gore can be as guilty of shaping this debate as anyone.

As is common in these types of types of debates, one source first tries to discredit objectors or certainly the other side, thereby leaving himself/themselves as the only logical purveyors of truth.

If you first can't believe the other side, then you must certainly believe the only thing left, which, of course, in this case, would be Al Gore.

Both sides engage in that tactic on pretty much any subject.

Does Al Gore really help his credibility by objecting to news accounts which contain two points of view, one opposing his own?

The issue and controversy isn't whether or not warming is occurring. . . . it seems to be about the degree that humanity might be involved.

By the way, I was the guy in this thread who posted the link to the New York conference concluding today, I posted the link indicating scientists were being pressured by government to alter findings and, lastly, I would add I'm probably broadly on Gore's side that mankind is driving the boat on warming.

As with most partisans, however, he makes claims which can be challenged. . . . . and that's my point. An Inconvenient Truth isn't necessarily entirely truthful.

Cowperson

Looger

01-31-2007, 10:15 AM

Looger, your post about Noam Chomsky bent on world domination through the Ford Foundation is so laughably idiotic that, that, jeez, I don't even know what to say.
Hakan, your assumption that i think chomsky is bent on world domination is so laughably idiotic, that, jeez, i know exactly what to say.

chomsky gets major airtime and is bought and paid for as the limit of 'the left' opposition, you 'just can't get more extreme than chomsky' i hear the bought and paid for 'right wing' pundits cry all the time.

chomsky is parroting the line (and he probably believes it wholeheartedly) that the US is the cause of all of this trouble nearly singlehandedly, and that there are no globalist agendas looking to centralize power, but we should all bow down to global government through a reformed or replaced UN to solve everything.

as to me ruining this thread, ask yourself why a couple posters keep asking me the exact same questions, and ask yourself why you feel you need to insult others instead of offering rebuttals to the viewpoints offered.

who'd being idiotic here?

Hakan

01-31-2007, 10:24 AM

I'm not going to legitimate your drivel with actually responding to it. You are a internet fisher looking for information or controversy that satisfies your ultimately naive and self congratulating world view.

The fact that you believe a global government is the end product of GHG abatement negotiations proves just have far gone you are from reality. Am I being an apologist? No, I have read probably 40 papers and books on the Kyoto treaty negotiation process. You have categorically missed or ignored almost every major issue at play in the negotiations.

Don't believe me? Read some books. And no, the crap you read off of Billy-Joe Yokel-dee-dokel big government watch doesn't count.

Hakan Out.

Looger

01-31-2007, 10:30 AM

wow Hakan, what a fascinating and relevant post, addressing the things i've brought up involving the global warming issue at hand.

yes, i've stated where i think all this is going, and where the agenda leads.

you and others do nothing but attack me for these views, without any evidence besides 'you're being idiotic' or 'you're crazy'. i am in awe sir.

Calgaryborn

01-31-2007, 10:36 AM

When the Flames put together a decisive win or two people
are predicting a deep playoff run. When we lose a "big" game
the majority of posters are picking the players apart and predicting
doom and gloom. On both occasions there is a small minority who
see it opposite to the crowd and these posters receive a good
share of ridicule for their thoughts. Scientists too have an unhealthy
herd mentality. Scientist are largely funded by government. This
funding is based on performance. Therefore a scientists reputation
will decide his livelihood. The other major factor with receiving government funding is public interest. If scientists were more honest
about the limited conclusions one can reach by the data they've
produced there would be less political interest in funding more research.

I don't believe in a conspiracy or even a clear cut agenda on either
side of the issue. I do think scientists are human and as such succumb
to the failings of humans. The money today is in finding human links
to global warming. Any research that contradicts this hypothesis is
met with ridicule. Research that contradicts the hypothesis is underfunded
by government because of the political climate today.

The big losers in all of this will be tax payers; Not big companies. This
will become a "moral" reason for new taxation. Oil companies will still
reap in the big profits from their dwindling supplies with the increasing
demand from China. They will also have new revenue sources in these
alternate energy sources. They'll even get government subsides to go
greener. If global warming wasn't the pet issue of the day we would still
be moving away from petroleum in the next decade because of the cost
a decreased supply and greater demand world wide. Thanks to this issue
we are going to be paying for these companies to retool.

kevman

01-31-2007, 10:51 AM

A link for you:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/g87327815xg2u1h2/

Thank you. Like I said I would have posted the entire pdf but that would be piracy. It's a somewhat interesting read, I don't know if it's a $32 interesting read but if anyone has access to a univeristy library it's worth 20 mins of your time.

As with most partisans, however, he makes claims which can be challenged. . . . . and that's my point. An Inconvenient Truth isn't necessarily entirely truthful.

I may have got sidetracked along the way but my point all along was not to take everything this guy says to heart.

I didn't dismiss global warming. I dismissed Al Gore's propaghanda.

I suppose that means that Gore and his crusade against greenhouse gasses are sufficiently discredited then... we can finally forget all this nonsense and get back to more important things.

Again, I discredited Gore's documentary and not "global warming". Do I believe that we are having a significant change on the global temperature? That's yet to be decided although I tend to believe it's a natural cycle. With that said I'm still all for stricter enviromental laws and a crack down on pollution. Not for "global warming" but for the fact that if we are all breathing a little cleaner air is that really such a bad thing?

California began implementing stricter emission controls when they realized they had a smog problem. All new cars conform to this, most old cars that are maintained properly can pass, why not implement this across the rest of North America?

What i don't support however is the idea of fixing a problem, if you believe there is a problem, through taxation. What good does Kyoto really do if all it means is that we spend billions on emission credits while our emissions remain the same? I supose it makes us look better on the world stage but I'd rather see those billions put into research and development of new technologies so we can lower our emisions instead of hiding them with expensive credits.

How's the saying go... trust the man seeking the truth not the one that knows the truth... I guess it's easier to buy into ones fear mongering than it is to challenge it and educate yourself on the matter.

Looger

01-31-2007, 11:05 AM

i know that honda for one (and maybe others) makes all their cars conform to california smog rules, i've even heard that people have attempted suicide with newer hondas and been unable to do it. seems kinda doubtful to me with CO in the exhaust but maybe the garage was slightly ventilated.

it'd be nice to see some tax breaks for car companies that say, conform their fleet to a certain LEV and ULEV percentage, kind of a similar idea (but less teethy) to california's CARB regulations.

chemical plants, heavy duty industry, car emissions, the companies that own them all say that they can't retool cheaply but they build new facilities and junk the old ones once in awhile. would it be so hard to enact legislation that requires a given industry to drastically reduce the harmful output of their next projects without forcing them to scrap what they're working with now, which would cost jobs and thus be unpopular?

i'm ALL FOR reducing emissions, it is a very smart thing to do. but there is no need to be alarmist and flip out and tax everything, that just polarizes and camps everyone in the debate.

look at this thread for example. if you think that gore is playing hard and loose with the data and is showing us a skewed and agendad perspective and that we should look at all the data we can, well you might as well be the antichrist nuking the rainforest.

kevman

01-31-2007, 11:13 AM

You can always trust Looger and Azure to ruin a good thread.

Agree or disagree, I like the fact that Looger is bringing HIS OPINION to the debate. The same goes for Calgaryborn, Cowperson and a few others in this thread. It's a nice break from the same thoughtless doom and gloom that the media spews out everyday.

RougeUnderoos

01-31-2007, 11:39 AM

Rougeunderoos...

i've said aboot five times now that i don't think 'the scientists' have been duped or that they're all idiots or something, but that the entire debate is framed.

asking me over and over again isn't evidence of you being argumentative, it's evidence of something else.

What is it evidence of, that I'm stupid? Maybe, but you don't seem to get the point. Oh well.

If not believing in a one-world government environmental agenda designed for tracking purposes means I'm stupid then I guess I have to take my medicine.

Looger

01-31-2007, 11:56 AM

If not believing in a one-world government environmental agenda designed for tracking purposes means I'm stupid then I guess I have to take my medicine.
NOWHERE did i say that if you didn't agree with what words you put in my mouth that you were stupid.

do you even read what you're posting, or what you're responding to?

do you have an opinion at all on the subject matter at hand or do you just like to attack other peoples' opinions?

...not sure where i said that this one single agenda is for one single purpose...

but hey, you said i think that, so it must be true!

Azure

01-31-2007, 12:09 PM

Wow...by asking a few questions...suddenly I'm ruining a thread.

Thanks again Hakan, your contribution was noted.

RougeUnderoos

01-31-2007, 12:25 PM

NOWHERE did i say that if you didn't agree with what words you put in my mouth that you were stupid.

do you even read what you're posting, or what you're responding to?

do you have an opinion at all on the subject matter at hand or do you just like to attack other peoples' opinions?

...not sure where i said that this one single agenda is for one single purpose...

but hey, you said i think that, so it must be true!

Of course I've got an opinion on the matter, but it is well represented in this thread and probably a little too mainstream for you. I wasn't attacking anything, at least in the beginning. I was just asking questions. You interject quite often with what I find to be rather strange theories about world affairs so I figured I'd ask you a few questions. If you don't want these theories of yours questioned then, well, that's too bad I guess.

Looger

01-31-2007, 12:28 PM

RedHot25

01-31-2007, 12:33 PM

RougeUnderoos

01-31-2007, 12:42 PM

Rougeunderoos...

you're WhiteDoors-ing my replies to your questions, by framing your questions with incorrect statements by myself, it is pathetic.

you pull stuff out of nowhere and say i posted it, i'm sick of your crap - and i'm sick of wasting time responding to it.

Okay sorry for that. Can you give me an example? I've been quoting you directly most of the time so I don't know how I could have pulled it out of nowhere and say you posted it.

Maybe it's because your theory isn't really clear. You go along about some subject or other and sneak in something like "he's controlled by the Tri-Lateral commission" or "oil companies and financiers are behind all environmental issues". It is kind of confusing.

Looger

01-31-2007, 12:47 PM

Looger- Question for you, which may help bring some clarity to your poisition.

Can you provide the "readers digest version" of your opinion about the topic of this thread? I am talking just your opinion on things, because it is not apparently clear...I'm talking in a couple of lines to a paragraph or so?
sure.

i think that there's a media agenda getting pushed on us right now as a huge sinkhole for people that think of themselves as left-wing, or environmentalists, to be the new political pressure, the new winners against the WWF-style right wing caricatures in executive power in the united states.

they will 'save us' from all this environmental destruction and evil behaviour with more regulation and more taxes.

i also think that this is carefully timed to coincide with the rise in output from the sun, as global temperatures have been rising for some time and there probably will be some measurable environmental impact.

i don't claim that 'the scientists are in on it' or anything as asinine as i've been accused of saying here. i simply think that when you frame a debate and you limit the scope of the factors observed that it will easily appear that recent human activity is the driving force behind all this change.

al gore brings up some solid points aboot our activity and how much more responsible we can be.

but be aware - this is getting pushed on us for a reason. and when the sun's output or the sunspots or whatever subside and the climate changes 'back to the way we remember it', then 'we'll be so saved'.

that is pretty much it.

RedHot25

01-31-2007, 12:57 PM

pepper24

01-31-2007, 01:00 PM

Azure

01-31-2007, 01:13 PM

Ok, well I do agree whole-heartedly that in general the media frames, well pretty much everything, but I'm not so sure about the sunspots thing, though to say the least. Each to their own however, and I respect that's your opinion...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3869753.stm

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/07/18/wsun18.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/07/18/ixnewstop.html

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Library/SORCE/sorce_04.html

SeeGeeWhy

01-31-2007, 01:31 PM

At least people like Gore have us talking and thinking about the issue.

The worst thing that can happen is to get locked into "analysis paralysis" and end up not doing anything about the environment and our way of life.

Biological systems have a range of conditions in which they can exist in the healthy fashion, and year over year, we are discovering more instances of such systems ceasing to exist. Many such instances (such as the extinction of an animal, loss of forested land, etc) are the direct result of human activity. Indirect consequnces such as 'global warming' are likely the result of many factors, CO2 emissions being just one such factor. The point is that such a factor is one which we can have an impact on, and therefore should be thinking about whether or not it is good for our own survival to be living in the manner that we do.

Will we be able to adjust to massive changes in the environment? Probably, but only to a point. Humanity is like any other biological entity - there is a range of conditions that suit our survivial. I believe that there will be a time when our activities drive us to a point that will witness massive and abrupt change. That is, if we continue to exploit our environment without thinking of the consequnces.

It is hard to argue that dilution is the solution to pollution anymore.

I don't know if we are the cause of global warming, a catalyst, or nothing at all - but I do know that the current lifestyle of maintaining 1st world standards that the West is so famous for cultivating is not sustainable. Certainly not if the entire world expects to live within the same parameters.

Let me pose this question - is it a good idea that we plan on turning roughly 50% of Northern Alberta into either an open pit mine, or a toxic tailing pond? Do you think that will have any sort of impact on the surrounding environment and the sustainability of ANY form of life in that area? Hmmm. While we are sitting here debating about issues such as CO2 emissions, I wonder if we are not seeing the forrest for the trees in many cases.

I have seen Gore's film and it was absolutely frightening. I also find it interesting that the man quit politics in order to make sure this message was being heard from an "unbiased" source.

Azure

01-31-2007, 01:37 PM

Good post SeeGee.

Contrary to what people think, I have seen Gore's film, which is exactly why I ask questions, and get involved in debates like this.

Cowperson

01-31-2007, 01:39 PM

I have seen Gore's film and it was absolutely frightening. I also find it interesting that the man quit politics in order to make sure this message was being heard from an "unbiased" source.

If he was unbiased, he wouldn't be playing so fast and loose with his sources, particularly after they've been brought under the microscope and found lacking.

He's not helping himself by denigrating media who give opposing views a voice.

I actually think the film is a good idea. I'm glad its out there. On the other hand, as with any partisan piece from any side of any debate, you should be careful with accepting it as fact unchallengable.

Cowperson

SeeGeeWhy

01-31-2007, 01:55 PM

If he was unbiased, he wouldn't be playing so fast and loose with his sources, particularly after they've been brought under the microscope and found lacking.

He's not helping himself by denigrating media who give opposing views a voice.

I actually think the film is a good idea. I'm glad its out there. On the other hand, as with any partisan piece from any side of any debate, you should be careful with accepting it as fact unchallengable.

Cowperson

You're right on the money in terms of what he could be doing in order to gain support for his view of things; but I am unsure if that is his goal. I'd like to think that his goal is to just get people talking about it, which he is pulling off.

I'm neither a huge supporter or detractor of the global warming movement, nor Gore specifically, so I really haven't followed the debate to the point where I could say his sources are questionable. Do you have examples?

Cowperson

01-31-2007, 01:58 PM

You're right on the money in terms of what he could be doing in order to gain support for his view of things; but I am unsure if that is his goal. I'd like to think that his goal is to just get people talking about it, which he is pulling off.

I'm neither a huge supporter or detractor of the global warming movement, nor Gore specifically, so I really haven't followed the debate to the point where I could say his sources are questionable. Do you have examples?

Read my post on page 7 of this thread.

Cowperson

SeeGeeWhy

01-31-2007, 02:26 PM

Read my post on page 7 of this thread.

Cowperson

Ah, thanks.

I think the way he is going about spreading his message is more of his old habits as a politician acting up than anything else. So I'd say that I agree with your statements in that post.

Looger

01-31-2007, 02:28 PM

Okay sorry for that. Can you give me an example? I've been quoting you directly most of the time so I don't know how I could have pulled it out of nowhere and say you posted it.

Maybe it's because your theory isn't really clear. You go along about some subject or other and sneak in something like "he's controlled by the Tri-Lateral commission" or "oil companies and financiers are behind all environmental issues". It is kind of confusing.
i have to call you on this kind of lying.

NOWHERE did i say that 'oil companies and financiers are behind all environmental issues'.

what the hell is wrong with you?

Calgaryborn

01-31-2007, 02:41 PM

RougeUnderoos

01-31-2007, 03:53 PM

i have to call you on this kind of lying.

NOWHERE did i say that 'oil companies and financiers are behind all environmental issues'.

what the hell is wrong with you?

(the same bankers and oil company owners and financiers behind all the environmental causes

Jesus. Talk about splitting hairs. But fine. Point conceded. I mistakenly attributed "oil companies and financiers are behind all environmental issues" to you, but what you really said is "oil companies and financiers are behind all environmental causes". I'm truly sorry for this glaring error, but I promise it wasn't a lie.

Anyhow, it's an interesting point. I for one don't believe for a second that oil companies are behind all environmental causes. It seems to me that some environmental causes, such as the cause of " we shoul use less oil" run directly counter to what oil companies are trying to do, which is sell oil.

I do have to wonder what the shareholders in said oil company's would think of this strategy.

Flamescupbound!

01-31-2007, 04:18 PM

Al Gore is a known liar. I saw his debates with Bush when he was
running for President. He talked about specific people who he later
had to confess didn't exist. To say I have to see his movie
in ordered to be informed on this issue is poppycock. I'm not saying
that the issue doesn't have any merit but, when Al Gore says something
it should be doubted before believed. No I'm not dismissing the issue
because Al Gore has decided to make his living off of it. But I do dismiss
the movie.

I have read several articles exposing half truths and false
assertions made by Al Gore's movie. A couple have been posted earlier on this thread. The authors of these articles although unknown to me carry
a lot more weight then a pr oven liar like Al Gore.

LMAO, liar is right...wasn't it Gore who claimed to have invented the internet? I laughed for a long time when I heard that.

As for his movie, man is it ever a joke. One big political agenda. I feel for the gullable out there, because an Inconvenient Truth probably scared the **** outta them.

Cowperson

02-01-2007, 08:21 AM

LMAO, liar is right...wasn't it Gore who claimed to have invented the internet? I laughed for a long time when I heard that.

As for his movie, man is it ever a joke. One big political agenda. I feel for the gullable out there, because an Inconvenient Truth probably scared the **** outta them.

I guess you're not going to like this then . . . . Al Gore nominated for The Nobel Peace Prize!!!

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/01/gore.nobel.ap/index.html

Cowperson

Burninator

02-01-2007, 08:25 AM

As for his movie, man is it ever a joke. One big political agenda. I feel for the gullable out there, because an Inconvenient Truth probably scared the **** outta them.

What are you basing this on?

EDIT: What I don't get about this big Global warming debate is how people find error in the data or discrepancy between scientists and they omit the thing as false. This logic doesn't make any sense to me. Yes you have to be skeptical about things, but with global people seem to want it to be 100% accurate or it's totally false. When has science ever been 100%? Never, science is always changing. Back in the fifties doctors said smoking was good for you, but since then they have said the total opposite. So by this logic the doctors are total liars and the surgeon generals warning is a political agenda for gullable people.

Cowperson

02-01-2007, 08:53 AM

Bobblehead

02-01-2007, 09:05 AM

Al Gore is a known liar. I saw his debates with Bush when he was
running for President. He talked about specific people who he later
had to confess didn't exist. To say I have to see his movie
in ordered to be informed on this issue is poppycock. I'm not saying
that the issue doesn't have any merit but, when Al Gore says something
it should be doubted before believed. No I'm not dismissing the issue
because Al Gore has decided to make his living off of it. But I do dismiss
the movie.

I have read several articles exposing half truths and false
assertions made by Al Gore's movie. A couple have been posted earlier on this thread. The authors of these articles although unknown to me carry
a lot more weight then a pr oven liar like Al Gore.

Wow. And George Bush has never lied? Newsflash! A politician lied!:rolleyes:

LMAO, liar is right...wasn't it Gore who claimed to have invented the internet? I laughed for a long time when I heard that.

As for his movie, man is it ever a joke. One big political agenda. I feel for the gullable out there, because an Inconvenient Truth probably scared the **** outta them.

So you believed Al Gore said he invented the internet? Snopes.com (http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp)

Now, who were you saying is gullible?

Calgaryborn

02-01-2007, 09:15 AM

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, SUV sales jump 17% in Canada in 2006 while "environmental concerns" was 23rd on a list of 26 reasons why an average Canadian might by a vehicle.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070131.wauto31/BNStory/Front

Cowperson

Future fuel prices themself will bring SUV sales down. Living in rural
B.C. I can see the practicality of an SUV in some situations. If you
need a four wheel drive to get up your drive way or to work on a
wintery morning you'll need a pick-up or a SUV. Pick-ups are great if
you have a family of less than four or plan on running a two vehicles.

I believe B.C. already put a tax on SUV's and half ton pick-up trucks.
The result was for many families to buy 3/4 ton and 1 ton trucks with
the four doors. These weren't taxed because of our industries such as
logging which rely on them.

Calgaryborn

02-01-2007, 09:35 AM

Wow. And George Bush has never lied? Newsflash! A politician lied!:rolleyes:

It was the nature of the lie. Politicians bend truth in their favour
all the time. Al Gore didn't start out with anything resembling truth.
He made up a specific person with a specific hardship that didn't even exist. If memory serves me he did this with two imaginary people
and situations in the same debate. He gave them names and families
and even said where they lived. All bogus.

Besides why are you comparing Gore and Bush? If Bush is a liar or
not doesn't make Al Gore any more trustworthy. Al Gore is a known
liar and shouldn't be listened to. To say(as someone has on this thread)
that one needs to see Al Gores' movie to become informed on this
issue is nonsense. Al Gore's film is only as credible as Al Gore is. I
wouldn't spend a loonie to see it.

Lurch

02-01-2007, 09:36 AM

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, SUV sales jump 17% in Canada in 2006 while "environmental concerns" was 23rd on a list of 26 reasons why an average Canadian might by a vehicle.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl.../BNStory/Front (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070131.wauto31/BNStory/Front)

Cowperson

I thought this article was poor - fuel efficiency rated top 3 but environmental concerns were 23rd? How are they different - one has real consequences but the other does not. The article could have been quite good on pointing out that people make economic decisions, not pie in the sky decisions. SUV sales plummet when gas prices go up, come back when gas prices go down. If you want to impact fuel efficiency, what is the solution - charge for pollution. If you don't care, don't charge for pollution. It really is quite simple.

Also, this article nicely backs up a point I remember talking about a week or two ago about falling oil consumption in the OECD in relation to oil prices at $50. Oil consumption falls when prices go up - not rocket science that we should expect healthy consumption growth this year with lower prices.

Bobblehead

02-01-2007, 09:42 AM

It was the nature of the lie. Politicians bend truth in their favour
all the time. Al Gore didn't start out with anything resembling truth.
He made up a specific person with a specific hardship that didn't even exist. If memory serves me he did this with two imaginary people
and situations in the same debate. He gave them names and families
and even said where they lived. All bogus.

Besides why are you comparing Gore and Bush? If Bush is a liar or
not doesn't make Al Gore any more trustworthy. Al Gore is a known
liar and shouldn't be listened to. To say(as someone has on this thread)
that one needs to see Al Gores' movie to become informed on this
issue is nonsense. Al Gore's film is only as credible as Al Gore is. I
wouldn't spend a loonie to see it.

OK, you bring up this lie. Do you have any links? If it is that blatant I'm sure there must be articles about it.

Calgaryborn

02-01-2007, 09:52 AM

OK, you bring up this lie. Do you have any links? If it is that blatant I'm sure there must be articles about it.

There are links I'm sure but, I'm not going to look right now. I bet you could watch the debates in full again if you wanted. I seen the debates
and I seen Al Gore's camp confess these people didn't exist after reporters
pressed the issue because they wanted to interveiw them.

If you wish you can call me a liar and let Al Gore remain a pilliar of
truth in your eyes.

Cowperson

02-01-2007, 09:53 AM

I thought this article was poor - fuel efficiency rated top 3 but environmental concerns were 23rd? How are they different - one has real consequences but the other does not. .

I think the survey - not the article - indicates fuel efficiency decisions are made for economic reasons, not environmental reasons.

In other words, the people answering the survey could have said "environmental reasons" as a motivator but instead said "fuel efficiency," indicating they saw a difference in those two things.

Inflation adjusted, gas is probably, at the moment, roughly the same price it was in the mid-1960's. At $3 a USA gallon, it did seem to be altering purchase plans. Gas is about $2.17 a gallon in America today.

http://www.fintrend.com/inflation/images/charts/Oil/Gasoline_inflation_chart.htm

Cowperson

kevman

02-01-2007, 10:05 AM

Do you have a better link to that picture? Maybe it's just me but it doesn't open.

kevman

02-01-2007, 10:07 AM

OK, you bring up this lie. Do you have any links? If it is that blatant I'm sure there must be articles about it.

From an earlier page in this thread:

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=d0235a70-33f1-45b3-803b-829b1b3542ef&p=1 (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=d0235a70-33f1-45b3-803b-829b1b3542ef&p=1)

Bobblehead

02-01-2007, 10:39 AM

From an earlier page in this thread:

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=d0235a70-33f1-45b3-803b-829b1b3542ef&p=1 (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=d0235a70-33f1-45b3-803b-829b1b3542ef&p=1)

I was referring to the "He talked about specific people who he later
had to confess didn't exist" in a debate with Bush that calgaryborn was talking about.

kevman

02-01-2007, 11:28 AM

My bad...I would also like to see a link on that subject.

Lurch

02-01-2007, 11:50 AM

I don't know if this is definitive, but here is a conservative based compilation of Gore "lies" from a 10 second google search. The majority seem to be typical of every politician, with exagerations, half truths and taking more credit than appropriate. It wouldn't shock me to find that the list itself is as full of half truths as what Gore put forth. I certainly don't see anything that he completely fabricated anything along the lines suggested by CalgaryBorn.

http://www.nationalreview.com/gorelies/gorelies.shtml

Flamescupbound!

02-01-2007, 12:02 PM

Wow. And George Bush has never lied? Newsflash! A politician lied!:rolleyes:

So you believed Al Gore said he invented the internet? Snopes.com (http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp)

Now, who were you saying is gullible?

Oh damn, i'm sorry...so he didn't claim to have invented...just created?
Invent...create....very similar no? It's still laughable either way.

RougeUnderoos

02-01-2007, 12:10 PM

Oh damn, i'm sorry...so he didn't claim to have invented...just created?
Invent...create....very similar no? It's still laughable either way.

Did you actually read the article?

Bobblehead

02-01-2007, 12:19 PM

Oh damn, i'm sorry...so he didn't claim to have invented...just created?
Invent...create....very similar no? It's still laughable either way.

Did you read the article?

To claim that Gore was seriously trying to take credit for the "invention" of the Internet is, frankly, just silly political posturing that arose out of a close presidential campaign.

Clearly, although Gore's phrasing was clumsy (and perhaps self-serving), he was not claiming that he "invented" the Internet (in the sense of having designed or implemented it), but that he was responsible, in an economic and legislative sense, for fostering the development the technology that we now know as the Internet.

Flamescupbound!

02-01-2007, 12:23 PM

Did you actually read the article?

Yeah, it said that the media\rival politicians took the word "create", and substituted "invent" to make him look more foolish. I'm saying that either way, it's laughable. According to the article create and invent arent the same exact word...and i'd agree, they are just similar. Maybe I shouldn't have entered this argument because I don't have too much knowledge in politics, I just have a loathing for Gore after seeing his movie.

Bobblehead

02-01-2007, 12:28 PM

Yeah, it said that the media\rival politicians took the word "create", and substituted "invent" to make him look more foolish. I'm saying that either way, it's laughable. According to the article create and invent arent the same exact word...and i'd agree, they are just similar. Maybe I shouldn't have entered this argument because I don't have too much knowledge in politics, I just have a loathing for Gore after seeing his movie.

From the article:
Gore never used the word "invent," and the words "create" and "invent" have distinctly different meanings - the former is used in the sense of "to bring about" or "to bring into existence" while the latter is generally used to signify the first instance of someone's thinking up or implementing an idea. (To those who say the words "create" and "invent" mean exactly the same thing, we have to ask why, then, the media overwhelmingly and consistently cited Gore as having claimed he "invented" the Internet, even though he never used that word, and transcripts of what he actually said were readily available.)

Flamescupbound!

02-01-2007, 12:32 PM

From the article:

From the dictionary:

Create:to evolve from one's own thought or imagination, as a work of art or an invention.

Invent:to originate or create as a product of one's own ingenuity, experimentation, or contrivance

Similar no?

Bobblehead

02-01-2007, 12:35 PM

From the dictionary:

Create:to evolve from one's own thought or imagination, as a work of art or an invention.

Invent:to originate or create as a product of one's own ingenuity, experimentation, or contrivance

Similar no?

But you said "According to the article create and invent arent the same exact word"

No?

Whatever.:rolleyes:

Flamescupbound!

02-01-2007, 12:41 PM

But you said "According to the article create and invent arent the same exact word"

No?

Whatever.:rolleyes:

Whoops, sorry my bad.

lol I guess what I meant was; "In my head create and invent aren't the same exact word". But they are similar.

Lurch

02-01-2007, 12:42 PM

You'll note the article stated he sponsored one bill and cosponsored another than were key developments in the modern internet. From a political perspective, he probably did as much as anybody to move the internet from its origins to its modern state. When the case for Gore being some giant liar is really one of semantics, I have to question why it is even an issue over a decade later.

As for the actual movie, it is what it is - an incredibly slanted docu-drama designed to influence people's viewpoint of global warming. Anyone purporting that it represents either the accurate state of current science or a complete pack of lies is an idealogue themselves, and really should not be casting stones one way or the other.

Devils'Advocate

02-01-2007, 05:54 PM

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, SUV sales jump 17% in Canada in 2006 while "environmental concerns" was 23rd on a list of 26 reasons why an average Canadian might by a vehicle.

This is the kind of stuff that makes me a defeatist.

First, Canadians do not need the government to be environmental stewards. We see in that other thread where California is banning traditional light bulbs. If the people would use the more energy efficient bulbs on their own, we wouldn't need the government involvement at all. But people are not going to change their lifestyle even one bit.. not even change they kind of lightbulb they use... for the sake of the environment.

Personally, since I believe in global warming and have for a very, very long time (it would have been over 15 years ago now that I was sitting at a picnic table listening to Bruno Marcocchio and Elizabeth May debate the best way to fight global warming). I do not own a car; instead I walk, bike or use public transportation. Given that it is true that cow waste, including methane, is a huge contributor to global warming I became a vegetarian primarly due to environmental concerns. I have reduced my power consumption by such things as the aforementioned light bulbs.. but beyond that I get my power from Bullfrog Power (all generated from renewable sources). I didn't wait for any government to tell me to do this or do that. I did it because I had a firm belief that the scientists knew what they were talking about.

I've seen it far too often when the people say the environment is their #1 concern and then tell me I'm crazy to spend an extra 15% for my power bill. Far too many of the Liberal (and NDP for that matter) voters want the government to take care of the environment so as to absolve themselves of any responsibility. Far too many of the Conservative voters refuse to believe that there is a real problem to take any individual action. And there are not enough Green voters out there to make any difference.

I still walk/bike to work and am a vegetarian, but I do these things for myself rather than any belief that we as a species are going to be able to confront this or any of the other environmental issues (reduction of biodiversity, drinkable water supply, resources as third world countries like China develop into first world countries).

Calgaryborn

02-01-2007, 06:01 PM

Looger

02-01-2007, 06:04 PM

he was in the navy staff before that though, isn't that where the arpanet / internet came frm, the navy?

i've seen interviews where this was addressed, and he didn't claim to invent the thing - but a case could be made that he helped shepherd it in a bureaucratic manner.

i don't think at that stage it was meant for the general public, wasn't it supposed to protect government computer networks after a nuclear war or something?

Calgaryborn

02-01-2007, 06:22 PM

Devils'Advocate

02-01-2007, 07:44 PM

We're not talking about establishing ARPAnet. We're talking about moving ARPAnet out to the public, and creating the Internet.

I see so many web sites stating that he couldn't have created the Internet because ARPAnet was around in the late 60s and Gore didn't have his first term until the late 70s. But when did you start using the Internet? I was on in the beginning of the 90s, but we mostly stuck to DECnet as we were on a VAX and we'd chat with others around the world and amaze ourselves with our Lynx browser.

Getting the technology out there, and especially getting the network into the schools, was principle in making it a success. "Creating the Internet" was far more about promotion of technology than it was about creating a network protocol. I don't know much about what Gore did and I'm far too lazy to read the link in the Snopes article to find out, but to say that Gore couldn't have helped create the "Internet" because ARPANET already existed is disingenuous.

Agamemnon

02-02-2007, 09:07 AM

Azure

02-02-2007, 01:46 PM

Hmmm....

"“It’s too simplistic to say low CO2 was the only cause of the glacial periods” on time scales of millions of years, said Robert Giegengack, a geologist at the University of Pennsylvania who studies past atmospheres. “The record violates that one-to-one correspondence.”....

He and other doubters say the planet is clearly warming today, as it has repeatedly done, but insist that no one knows exactly why. Other possible causes, they say, include changes in sea currents, Sun cycles and cosmic rays that bombard the planet.

“More and more data,” Jan Veizer, an expert on Phanerozoic climates at the University of Ottawa, said, “point to the Sun and stars as the dominant driver.”
Skeptics say CO2 crusaders simply find the Phanerozoic data embarrassing and irreconcilable with public alarms. “People come to me and say, ‘Stop talking like this, you’re hurting the cause,’ ” said Dr. Giegengack of Penn.
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FB0A12FB3A5B0C748CDDA80994DE4044 82

Registration is required.

Azure

02-02-2007, 01:50 PM

Another article here...

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070202/D8N1APV86.html

PARIS (AP) - The world's leading climate scientists said global warming has begun, is "very likely" caused by man, and will be unstoppable for centuries, according to a report obtained Friday by The Associated Press.
The scientists - using their strongest language yet on the issue - said now that world has begun to warm, hotter temperatures and rises in sea level "would continue for centuries" no matter how much humans control their pollution. The report also linked the warming to the recent increase in stronger hurricanes.

Well who cares then, eh?

Why spend billions reducing emissions if it won't help?

Screw buying a fuel efficant car...go for a Hummer. :whaa:

Azure

02-02-2007, 01:54 PM

And one last article...

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-sci-mars22nov22,0

• It tracked changes in weather for four complete Mars years, the equivalent of eight Earth years. For three consecutive Martian summers, it showed that the polar ice caps were shrinking, suggesting a climate change in progress.

Were there humans on Mars?

Excuse me for being cynical....

Thunderball

02-02-2007, 02:02 PM

Surprised no one brought this up in this thread...

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/02/science/earth/02cnd-climate.html?hp&ex=1170478800&en=7f0ce59ee7d312e5&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Seems like another major climate report has come out;

The report released here represented the fourth assessment since 1990 by the group, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change of the United Nations (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/u/united_nations/index.html?inline=nyt-org), of the causes and consequences of climate change (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/globalwarming/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier). But for the first time the group asserted with near certainty — more than 90 percent confidence — that carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases from human activities were the main drivers of warming since 1950.

Obviously another batch of complete morons who can't think for themselves, and have been duped by the Gores/Suzukians of the world. Another blow struck by the clime-apologists!

You can't dispute it... climate change exists. You also can't dispute that by sheer numbers alone, we are somewhat responsible.

However, and what shows the sheer politics of the issue on both sides, is that two crucial questions have not been effectively answered. They also seem to ignore that this climate change is right on cue... seems to happen every 500 thousand years... why say suddenly "that carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases from human activities were the main drivers of warming since 1950." That just seems too partisan to say, especially without documenting terrestrial and solar contributors of climate change.

1. What percentage of contributing factors are directly human related... 1%? 10%? 50%? 99%? If its 1%, why bother... if its 90%, then Kyoto is nothing compared to what should be done and fast.

2. Can we actually stop it, limit it, or should we focus our money and energy into efficiency, clean power, clean air, clean water and emergency money for when these negative effects emerge? (The UK Met Office says the difference between implementing Kyoto and not implementing Kyoto by 2050 is a difference of 0.08 degrees celsius. Either way, they see that 1.5-6 degree increase.)

I'm no scientist, but as a politician, I couldn't possibly make any huge moves until I knew the answer to these two questions. There's too much at stake either way to screw it up on impulse or theory.

Agamemnon

02-02-2007, 02:13 PM

Another article here...

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070202/D8N1APV86.html

Well who cares then, eh?

Why spend billions reducing emissions if it won't help?

Screw buying a fuel efficant car...go for a Hummer. :whaa:
I think the point is that if we stop now, there is damage that will last centuries. If we don't stop now, the damage will be worse, for longer. They're saying we're past the point of no return when it comes to long-term damage... its largely up to us how far past that point we choose to go, and the final extent of the damage.

Azure

02-02-2007, 02:32 PM

I think the point is that if we stop now, there is damage that will last centuries. If we don't stop now, the damage will be worse, for longer. They're saying we're past the point of no return when it comes to long-term damage... its largely up to us how far past that point we choose to go, and the final extent of the damage.

Hmmm...

"This is just not something you can stop. We're just going to have to live with it," co-author Kevin Trenberth, director of climate analysis for the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, said in an interview. "We're creating a different planet. If you were to come up back in 100 years time, we'll have a different climate."

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/02/02/climate.talks.ap/index.html

Comforting indeed.

Agamemnon

02-02-2007, 02:38 PM

Hmmm...

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/02/02/climate.talks.ap/index.html

Comforting indeed.
Yes... as I said, the damage that has already been done is done. This does not mean that humans have caused 100% of the possible damage they are able to, it means that they've already caused enough for long-term consequences.

I don't see anywhere where it says that, because there are already unavoidable long-term consequences, we should stop trying to do anything about mitigating further more damaging consequences.

Azure

02-02-2007, 02:47 PM

I think both articles point out that there is nothing we can do to stop global warming.

We KNOW some of it is human caused, be it 1%, 10% or 90%....so I can't figure out why both articles would mention that there is nothing we can do about it.

We can reduce emissions, we can cut down on pollution, we can drive fuel efficent cars, etc, etc.

Seems a bit of a fear-mongering attitude to say there is nothing we can do about it. Unless these people believe global warming is 100% caused by nature.

Looger

02-02-2007, 02:51 PM

i think what they may be saying is that we're looking at the effects of <insert climate change device here>, written in stone so to speak, and we're not going to have a noticable effect on the near future of the climate regardless of what we do.

Iowa_Flames_Fan

02-02-2007, 05:01 PM

Iowa_Flames_Fan

02-02-2007, 05:07 PM

Oh damn, i'm sorry...so he didn't claim to have invented...just created?
Invent...create....very similar no? It's still laughable either way.

It's really not that laughable. If you take his remark in context, he was referring to committee work that he did in Congress. Nowhere does he claim that he "invented" or "created" the internet. He was "instrumental" in the creation of the internet, when it was a government project that needed funding. This is actually not a lie. But keep on believing he's a "liar" if it makes you feel better.

Iowa_Flames_Fan

02-02-2007, 05:19 PM

The problem with his statement is that the internet existed before he was
elected to the Senate.

See now that actually IS an "untruth." It boggles my mind that you continue to post things that one can contradict with a simple Google search.

Al Gore's congressional career began in 1976. By 1980 he was a senator. The Internet in its current form (though arpanet dates back to the 60s, I believe--I'm not an expert) did not exist until 1984.

As an interesting side note, Gore actually did coin the phrase "information superhighway." Also, the male lead in "Love Story actually WAS based on him and Tommy Lee Jones. If you really look into Gore's famous "lies," you'll find there's about as much truth to them as there was to your "Obama went to a madrassah" story.