Al Gore coming to Calgary

[maverickeastwood]

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]

Originally Posted by Looger

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]

Originally Posted by josh white

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]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

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]

Originally Posted by Looger

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

Originally Posted by Looger

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.

Originally Posted by Looger

(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]

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]

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]

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.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by ShaolinFlame

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]

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

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl.../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]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

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]

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]

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...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]

Originally Posted by kevman

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]

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]

Originally Posted by kevman

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]

Originally Posted by Hakan

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]

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]

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]

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.