Al Gore: An Inconvienient Truth

[pilferk]

Haha, I did go overboard.  Wanted to see if anyone caught The Stand/Randall Flagg reference.  I was acting in jest to an extent, but also because it uses your argument.  You can't pinpoint the blame for global warming on a 30 year old, they've only been in the game for a short while.  But a 70 year old is someone who has been around the block and their generation is what (if any) created the biggest problem.  It's the baby boomers who created global warming (again if man has an impact) not generation X.

Yeah, that's stable logic.

Maybe we should also not look for cures for Cancer, AIDS, Parkinsons, or any of the really nasty diseases that effect humankind.

After all...we didn't create the problems, so why should we find solutions for them?  I mean, not doing so would probalbly cut down on golbal overpopulation, too....

Randall...there is a fine line between outrageousness for effect and just flat out wrongheaded.  Turn around and look behind you....that's the line.

[Rockin' Rose]

I haven't seen this film but when I look outside the window and see no snow, and think it's December.. Global warming in my ass I say...

It's weird and I live in Finland, the country with eskimos and polar bears.. It's hard to tell if this is natural or not as we only have information from few hundred years back, I know that global warming has some part in it but how much? that is the question but unfortunatly the simple answers is that we don't know, like we don't know why the magnetic poles haven't shifted for the last 800.000 years when before that they shifted about every 100.000 years.

The world is weird, and now it's time for me to get some sleep.

[Mama Kin]

So instead of using the science we have today to help correct the mistakes of the past we should just throw blame around?

Again, this is arrogant meddling. It's what got us to this point in the first place. We should just leave the Earth alone. Leaded fuel was the most amazing invention ever, until we found out how poisonious it was. Using today's science to correct yesterday's problems will only leave us with entirely new problems tomorrow.

[Hysteron]

Using today's science to correct yesterday's problems will only leave us with entirely new problems tomorrow.

continuing as we are isn't going to help either.

[The Chad Cometh]

This makes for a very very interesting read ...

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st279/#a

[SLCPUNK]

Not surprisingly, NCPA is a right wing think tank. One of the few groups left pretending that human beings do not contribute to global warming.

[JMack]

Is there any documentation or statistics from countries such as:China, Russia, India and Pakistan? In regards to emmisions and pollutants being created and sent into the atmosphere.? If so where can it be located so I could check it out.? Also percentage wise where are the bulk of the scientists from or where do they do their studies?
? ? I believe that Global Warming exisits, but I'm not sure how far advanced it is or what the causes actually are or how they can be relieved or retarded.? It is easy to point the finger at the U.S. because it is always the goat in global opinion.
? ? What I do understand is that it is a scientific therory and in a constant exchange of ideas and experimentation and it's valid that the scientific community should voice their concerns.
? ? I do not understand why there is a political divide though.? Why should it be a political slugfest rather than an overall concern for both parties in the U.S. (and the world)that could be worked out in some committee room.? Well I can only believe that the reason for such political division is because the politicians want it this way to sway public opinion for there own ambition and monetary coffers.? Al Gore certainly is biased in regards to politics and global warming is his way of staying in the media.? The cause maybe right but why add the politcal charge.? Most republicans will dismiss V.P. Al Gore because of who he is.? Do you really think V.P. Gore lives any differently with the exeption of a hybrid car than he did before he became a global warming spokesman?? He still uses private jets and owns big houses and uses suv motorcades.? He is the former Vice President so I could understand that you can't fit a security team into a Prius and he can't hop onto the shuttle to Washington D.C.? His homes are partially powered by wind and solar which is available from the local power plant.? Shouldn't everyone be able to be able to purchase that kind of energy source?? I don't know that, maybe if available?? ?Why is V.P. Gore commended for that and President Bush condemed for his ranch being almost totally eco-friendly.? I believe the white house became solar powered when Pres. Bush took office.(Not positive though).? Why is He called a hypocrite for not making all companies to do the same and that all power plants should be eco-friendly.? It is extremely expensive to change over and these companies should be given time to do so because we don't want them to leave and set up in another country that'll look the other way.? If they go so do jobs.? There is a big picture within a bigger picture I guess.
? ? My point is why isn't this a people problem vs. political problem.? Why is this a U.S. vs. the world instead of a global problem? Hence "Global Warming" Maybe if hatred, envy, jealousy and political agendas weren't a factor that something could actually be done about the worlds problems and it goes with every issue, not just global warming.?

[The Chad Cometh]

Not surprisingly, NCPA is a right wing think tank. One of the few groups left pretending that human beings do not contribute to global warming.

.
Did you read it or just see NCPA and dismiss it?
Funny how one side of this debate is allowed to dismiss scientific facts, while the other side is labelled as right wing loonies.

[fuckin crazy]

I started reading untill I got to the second paragraph and read "90,000 year ice age cycles". That was the first indicator of the flawed reasoning, misinterpreted data, and outright lies to follow. I skimmed through the next 3 or 4 pages before I got bored. Was "it" meant as scholarly paper?  , and if so where was it published? It would require way too much effort on my behalf to refute all the flaws in the "report". However, If I get bored tomorrow, I will provide a link to someone much more qualifed than myself that soundly refutes all the "science" in that report.

[D]

I read that back in the 1920's, People were having a huge hysteria worried that there would be no more trees by the 1950's or something like that cause trees were used for fuel.

The problem with Global Warming and predicting 100 years from now is, they have no idea what exactly will happen over the next 20 that will change it.

Once fossil fuels run out, alternate fuel sources will be invented and global warming will be a thing of the past.

[norway]

It's getting warmer and thats caused by human activity, scientists says so. Politicians twist it. It can cause more severe natural catastrophes.

[Bobarcord]

You hear that people ? Stop doing stuff. No more sex , masturbation or anything at all.

[JMack]

I can't look at or listen to V.P. Al Gore every since l heard Louie C K doing stand up.  He said that Gore as he ages is starting to sound and look like an aging tranny.  The way he did it in the voice and all was funny as hell and he set it up with a visual of Al in a bad dress with some pearl clip on earings.  "Well Leo" Refering to the Oscar awards when V.P.Gore was on stage with Leonardo DeCaprio.  Maybe its on one of the clip sites?  He's a funny dude that Louie CK

[The Chad Cometh]

http://archiv.ethlife.ethz.ch/e/articles/sciencelife/gruenealpen.html#oben

Read the science people, don't listen to the populist bullshit.

[StradlinRose]

Actually this documentary was far better:

[fuckin crazy]

http://archiv.ethlife.ethz.ch/e/articles/sciencelife/gruenealpen.html#oben

Read the science people, don't listen to the populist bullshit.

Regarding the science, it is the last three paragraphs that are relevant:

Martin Funk (5), Professor for Glaciology at the Laboratory of Hydraulics, Hydrology and Glaciology (VAW), looked at Schl?chter's results. "I see no reason to doubt the results and the conclusions overall, at the most a few details?, says Funk explaining that Schl?chter's study only includes data for a relatively recent period (between 500AD and 800AD) with smaller glacier coverage. "This means that one can't actually compare the hockey stick curve with Schl?chter's results. In addition the temperature alone doesn't tell us much about fluctuations in the area and movement of the glaciers. For that we would also need data about changes in precipitation."

Nevertheless, the data from Jan Esper, Hans von Storch and Christian Schl?chter are a further indication that the curve in question would not be as steep as the IPCC has hitherto claimed.

Schl?chter's publication in the SAC magazine?and above all the corresponding illustration of the landscape on the Susten pass, barely 2000 years ago with a green, glacier free Alp and patches of forest?is taken to be a "massive provocation? by other experts. In an interview in the "Weltwoche" magazine, Wilfried Haeberli, Professor at the Geographic Institute of the University of Zurich is cited as saying: "I think it highly unlikely that the glaciers had disappeared completely 7000 years ago. And as far as the past five thousand years is concerned, it has been well documented that glaciers have never been significantly smaller than they are today."

Also, his data is localized; one can expect regional variations. Finding one alpine meadow does not negate the thousands of papers that have been published documenting global warming trends. Get your head out of the sand.

[wink]

Is there any documentation or statistics from countries such as:China, Russia, India and Pakistan? In regards to emmisions and pollutants being created and sent into the atmosphere.? If so where can it be located so I could check it out.? Also percentage wise where are the bulk of the scientists from or where do they do their studies?
?

http://www.breathingearth.net/

[The Chad Cometh]

http://archiv.ethlife.ethz.ch/e/articles/sciencelife/gruenealpen.html#oben

Read the science people, don't listen to the populist bullshit.

Regarding the science, it is the last three paragraphs that are relevant:

Martin Funk (5), Professor for Glaciology at the Laboratory of Hydraulics, Hydrology and Glaciology (VAW), looked at Schl?chter's results. "I see no reason to doubt the results and the conclusions overall, at the most a few details?, says Funk explaining that Schl?chter's study only includes data for a relatively recent period (between 500AD and 800AD) with smaller glacier coverage. "This means that one can't actually compare the hockey stick curve with Schl?chter's results. In addition the temperature alone doesn't tell us much about fluctuations in the area and movement of the glaciers. For that we would also need data about changes in precipitation."

Nevertheless, the data from Jan Esper, Hans von Storch and Christian Schl?chter are a further indication that the curve in question would not be as steep as the IPCC has hitherto claimed.

Schl?chter's publication in the SAC magazine?and above all the corresponding illustration of the landscape on the Susten pass, barely 2000 years ago with a green, glacier free Alp and patches of forest?is taken to be a "massive provocation? by other experts. In an interview in the "Weltwoche" magazine, Wilfried Haeberli, Professor at the Geographic Institute of the University of Zurich is cited as saying: "I think it highly unlikely that the glaciers had disappeared completely 7000 years ago. And as far as the past five thousand years is concerned, it has been well documented that glaciers have never been significantly smaller than they are today."

Also, his data is localized; one can expect regional variations. Finding one alpine meadow does not negate the thousands of papers that have been published documenting global warming trends. Get your head out of the sand.

Head out of the sand. For fuck's sake man, it's exactly this kind of shit that's the problem. People are somehow convinced this debate is over. Science will always prevail over populist tripe.
Remember hearing about when you were hanged for suggesting that the earth wasn't the centre of the universe?
Remember how the whole world used to believe it was flat?

Then science prevailed.

The global warming debate is one that will go on for longer than you or I are alive. There is just too much information to be gathered and analysed and far too many variables for either side to be claiming they know for a fact they are right. What pisses me off is that any piece that is pro global warming is accepted as gospel, yet any piece that dares to question it is labelled as lies, massively flawed or sponsored by some evil corporation or goverment with alterior motives.

I mean c'mon man, if you seriously think the global warming cause is not the biggest fucking bandwagon that ever existed you're deluding yourself. The global warming debate has been well and truly hijacked by many organisations pushing their own agenda. I mean fuck, recently there was an organisation down here trying to get funds for fat bastards from the government because they said global warming causes obesity.  Apparently the government not doing enough to taclkle global warming has led to hotter days meaning people spend more time inside in the air-conditioning and not exercising. GLOBAL WARMING MADE ME OBESE! 

Just keep in mind that I'm not necessarily saying global warming isn't happening, in fact I have no fucking clue myself. There are just too many differing opiions, which site all kinds of facts that suggest:

Global warming is a man made phenomenon that we need to control.
Global warming is  natural phenomenon that man has cotributed to and we can still do something
Global warming is a completely natural phenomenon that man has no control over because our contribution is insignificant
Global warming is bullshit and the earth is in fact in a process of global cooling (the increasing size and thickness of the majority of Antarctica speaks to that)

The point is I DON'T KNOW, and no-one can claim that they know absolutely. Much much much more research needs to be done before anyone can reach that conclusion.

[fuckin crazy]

Mankinds limited ability to see past one generation is why some think global warming is not of catastrophic consequenses ... it is, and it is happening. Many on this board will live long enough to realize it's devastation; I'm probably too old. The debate is whether, or not, it is man made. Not about it happening.

Regarding a geocentric universe, that was dogma, not science.

Sorry if I misinterpreted your post. I thought you implied GW was a myth. There are still a few of those idiots out there.

[The Chad Cometh]

Regarding a geocentric universe, that was dogma, not science.

Sorry if I misinterpreted your post. I thought you implied GW was a myth. There are still a few of those idiots out there.

It was indeed dogma, but what I'm getting at is that people refused to accept the science because they had already made up their minds. It's starting to seem to me, judging by the harshness with which anyone who dares to say anything not totally in agreement with popular opinion is treated, that people are going down that same road. Following misguided science that has been proven wrong is just as bad as following what it says in some crusty old book narrated by people who weren't there at the time, but that's another argument completely. Not that I'm saying the global warming crowd have been proven wrong, but they sure as fuck have not proven unequivocally that they are right.

No worries dude.  I just want to reiterate that I am not anti or pro global warming, I just wish people would actually look into the facts before they deride those who have done so and don't necessarily swallow everything they hear in the media.