Al Gore coming to Calgary

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

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/wo...0ce&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]

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?

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

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/...n2413400.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]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

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

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/...n2413400.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

Yes, the temperature does fluctuate naturally over the course of time. However, right now the amount of Co2 that is in our atmosphere is WAY out of the range it has been in the last 10 cycles of ice ages and in between. Temperatures have a DIRECT correlation to the earths overall temperature. This is a fact. Scientists have measured ice shelves and can determine the amount of atmospheric Co2 dating back a few hundred thousand years. We are way out of the normal range historically in the past 50 years.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4467420.stm

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Looger

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]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

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]

Originally Posted by Looger

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.

[Looger]

Originally Posted by josh white

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.

wow, brilliant.

[Igottago]

Originally Posted by josh white

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]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

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

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/...n2413400.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]

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]

Originally Posted by Igottago

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]

Originally Posted by Igottago

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]

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

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Looger

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]

Originally Posted by josh white

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]

Originally Posted by kevman

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]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

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

nice!

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

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]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

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.

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

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.