"An Inconvenient Truth": Al Gore, Environmentalists and the State of the Planet

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Flame On

You're obviously a person of extremes. Is there no way that some things could be done without affecting the economy? Alternatively would it be alright to sacrifice a little economic growth in order to make a dent? Or perhaps a combination of the two?
Or is military spending and a Chinese arms race your major concern?

Obviously I'm not convinced that our warming trend isn't more than
a part of a natural cycle which man has contributed little towards and
can do little to change. But having that position doesn't stop me for
wanting to preserve the environment or having clean air. I'm not opposed to requiring new vehicles to meet California standards regarding emissions. Helping poorer African countries convert to cleaner burning coal generators should be part of our foreign aid. British Columbia should expand their Hydro electric power and offer it as an alternative to the States building more coal burning generators on our borders. The list goes on. Approach it from clean air angle and you'll have me and many other septics on board.

When I mention China of course my concern goes beyond the environment. But even if you looked at it just from an environmental
point of view they are too important to ignore. You and I probably have
as many Chinese material goods in our homes as North American made
goods. Those shoes or toys or whatever it is were produced in factories
with no environmental standards using electricity produced by coal burning
generators with no emission standards. If the Western World required
China to improve this situation in order to have access to our markets
we would eliminate a vast amount of pollution. The cost being a few cents on the price of a pair of sneakers. Also by allowing them to ignore their
environment we give them an unfair advantage within the market place. This in turn has caused their rapid growing economy which has put a greater strain on the environment. It has also given them the ability to
greatly expand their military. War is never kind to the environment.

[Flame On]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

It isn't the percentage. It's the argument. I will not surrender my
right to look at the material on both sides and come to my own conclusions. Scientists are just as fallible as the rest of us. They are
also just as prone to herd mentality and corruption as you or
me.

If the global warming camp were more willing to acknowledge other
significant factors and give an honest attempt to measure their effect
instead of ringing alarm bells and dismissing opposing views as fringe
science I would be more inclined to wards them. "Everyone worthwhile agrees with me" is not an convincing argument in my eyes. Also, Al Gore as a spokesman doesn't help the readability of their case.

You're using circular logic. If scientits study something and find concerns, how do they tell people without as you said "ringing alarm bells"? Not ring them? That would be useful...
You keep mentioning Al Gore, what are your specific disputes you have with his claims? Other than him being; as I suspect is your issue, a Democrat (ex).

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Al Gore isn't a spokesman for anybody but Al Gore. He's a rich, famous and powerful person broadcasting a message that a lot of people have heard, but that doesn't mean he speaks for everyone who might believe that human activity is a factor in climate change.

I realize there wasn't a secret ballot at the club house which voted
Al Gore in as revered leader. If there was he would probably lose and
demand that they keep recounting until he came out on top. But
like it or not because of his fame and little documentary he is the Poster boy for the global warming camp.

It might not be fair but it could be worse. You could have Benny Hinn or Pat Robertson.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Flame On

You're using circular logic. If scientits study something and find concerns, how do they tell people without as you said "ringing alarm bells"? Not ring them? That would be useful...
You keep mentioning Al Gore, what are your specific disputes you have with his claims? Other than him being; as I suspect is your issue, a Democrat (ex).

A concern is fine. Predictions of cities sinking and rapidly expanding
deserts when they can't even get next weekend weather right is
ringing alarm bells. As I said before: If they were at least honest about
the many other factors and demonstrated logically why CO2 emissions
should be regarded as the main cause of global warming and by what percent they would be more credible.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

A concern is fine. Predictions of cities sinking and rapidly expanding
deserts when they can't even get next weekend weather right is
ringing alarm bells. As I said before: If they were at least honest about
the many other factors and demonstrated logically why CO2 emissions
should be regarded as the main cause of global warming and by what percent they would be more credible.

Who is it that's being "dishonest?" Al Gore? I happen to have a very different opinion of him than you--but here's something we can both agree on: Al Gore is not a scientist. He does no original research, is not qualified to analyze data, cannot by himself use computer models to predict weather trends, etc.

Obviously he relies on the research of others to make his claims. So: who of the thousands of scientists whose models and data predict anthropogenic global warming is a liar? All of them?

[Flame On]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

A concern is fine. Predictions of cities sinking and rapidly expanding
deserts when they can't even get next weekend weather right is
ringing alarm bells. As I said before: If they were at least honest about
the many other factors and demonstrated logically why CO2 emissions
should be regarded as the main cause of global warming and by what percent they would be more credible.

In summary, you're asking for a precise calculation to given to you before you're willing to act or have others act on your behalf.
Me I'm willing to act before that.
In much the same way as I do with a smoke detector. Being as you like the alarm bells analogy so much.

[mykalberta]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Global warming is left wing conspiracy. Isn't it obvious? Jesus, the left wing science whackos just created a new hurricane classification (level 6) because storms have exceeded the standards set for the old classification (not thought possible). These super-storms are nothing more than conspiracy and can be explained away by the proposition of a cycle. It all makes sense!

Is that the case or is it that disaster Groups have taken the same path the media has in having to over sensationalize disasters so people will take notice and pay more attention / give more money etc.

I personally think the technology for measuring them has simply gotten better and what was normally thought of as a 4 is now a 3 and a 5 is a 4 etc.

They had in the G&M yesterday an opinion peace by some environmental dude (not familiar to me) and he blamed the storm in Stanley Park on Global warming - come on, there havent been storms before like that before? Give me a break.

I am not disputing the Global Warming thing, the Arctic melting and all those poor buggers on the coasts who will drown will be testament to Global Warming. HAHA - I am in Calgary bhind one of the largest moutain ranges in the world - HAHA - take that Kanuckleheads.

MYK