Al Gore coming to Calgary

[Calgaryborn]

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]

Originally Posted by Looger

...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]

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]

Originally Posted by Azure

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.

Originally Posted by Azure

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]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

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.

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

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.

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

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]

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

[20-12-22]

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/f...9b1b3542ef&p=1

Interesting read

[JimmytheT]

Like I said at the beginning of the thread, Al Gore's only real concern is the capture/killing of ManBearPig . 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]

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]

Originally Posted by JimmytheT

Like I said at the beginning of the thread, Al Gore's only real concern is the capture/killing of ManBearPig . 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]

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

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Looger

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]

Originally Posted by FLAMESBURNOIL

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

[JimmytheT]

Originally Posted by 20-12-22

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.

I would be highly skeptical about anything a Russian scientist puts on the table. I have not reviewed his study or methods, however a lot of crap comes out of Russia that at least superficially, appears to have scientific merit.

[20-12-22]

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

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

[Looger]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

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.

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

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?

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

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]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

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...

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

[eazyduzzit]

Originally Posted by Looger

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

those damn jovian SUV's!

lol

Originally Posted by JimmytheT

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]

Originally Posted by Looger

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]

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.