Al Gore coming to Calgary

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Flamescupbound!

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]

Originally Posted by Flamescupbound!

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!]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

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]

Originally Posted by Flamescupbound!

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!]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

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]

Originally Posted by Flamescupbound!

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.

[Flamescupbound!]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

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

No?

Whatever.

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

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]

Originally Posted by Lurch

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.

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

[Looger]

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]

Originally Posted by Looger

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?

I don't know about his Navy career. Maybe he did have a part in creating
the network indirectly. Does the Navy help draft bills?

[Devils'Advocate]

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]

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

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/02/sc...rtner=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, of the causes and consequences of climate change. 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!

[Azure]

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/abstra...A80994DE404482

Registration is required.

[Azure]

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.

[Azure]

And one last article...

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedi...-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]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

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

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/02/sc...rtner=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, of the causes and consequences of climate change. 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]

Originally Posted by Azure

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.

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]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

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....ap/index.html

Comforting indeed.