Al Gore coming to Calgary

[kevman]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

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.

Originally Posted by Cowperson

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.

Originally Posted by kevman

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

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Hakan

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

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]

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

Thanks again Hakan, your contribution was noted.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Looger

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]

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.

[RedHot25]

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?

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Looger

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]

Originally Posted by RedHot25

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]

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...

[pepper24]

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?

Well said.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by RedHot25

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...ixnewstop.html

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Lib.../sorce_04.html

[SeeGeeWhy]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by SeeGeeWhy

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]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

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]

Originally Posted by SeeGeeWhy

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]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

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.