Al (the Hypocrite) Gore buys ANOTHER house - 9 million bucks, 6 fireplaces, 9 bathroo
- Thread starter james t kirk
- Start date
I'll tell you what the problem with so called "tree huggers" is... It is their knee jerk reaction to things, that cause bigger problems than the ones their trying to solve.
Case in point... years ago- there was this device everyone used to carry their groceries home from the grocery store call a paper bag. BILLIONS of them were used and then pretty much discarded since they were essentially a one use device. Cheap, and plentiful. (not to mention 100% biodegradable) Then the "tree huggers" decided it this was a horrible thing to do since these paper bags required cutting down trees to make them... so, the brilliant minds that be, got together and devised a REUSABLE plastic bag! Perfect... no more cutting trees down to make paper bags! Every one was happy... Right??!!
We all know where that story ends...
Case in point... years ago- there was this device everyone used to carry their groceries home from the grocery store call a paper bag. BILLIONS of them were used and then pretty much discarded since they were essentially a one use device. Cheap, and plentiful. (not to mention 100% biodegradable) Then the "tree huggers" decided it this was a horrible thing to do since these paper bags required cutting down trees to make them... so, the brilliant minds that be, got together and devised a REUSABLE plastic bag! Perfect... no more cutting trees down to make paper bags! Every one was happy... Right??!!
We all know where that story ends...
Lets see here.Drops in a bucket compared to the billion a year Shell and B.P. spend on there Alternative Energy divisions.
First, keep in mind that since we're at peak oil it only makes sense for oil companies to fund alternate energy research, since they won't be selling much oil in 20 years. Also, funding alternate energy does not mean that they won't still be trying to make the most money they can off of oil and then alternate energy. Or, finally, that their alternate energy research will lead to any less CO2 output. Oh, and BP closed its alternate energy program in 2009, though it may be still working on biofuel (leading the way to turn food into fuel!).
Here's a quote from an Exxon internal memo from 1998 (available on wikipedia) about their disinformation campaign (which was largely based off of the tobacco industries work).
Victory will be achieved when
* Average citizens [and the media] 'understand' (recognize) uncertainties in climate science; recognition of uncertainties becomes part of the 'conventional wisdom' …
* Industry senior leadership understands uncertainties in climate science, making them stronger ambassadors to those who shape climate policy
* Those promoting the Kyoto treaty on the basis of extant science appear out of touch with reality.[52]
If you're buying their propoganda, and it sounds like you are, maybe they are winning.
But remember, there is a higher chance that climate change will make the world uninhabitable for most humans then there is a chance that you will die in a car accident.
Three or four years ago now. Stick in my mind because we are always paying more for some idiotic reason they come up with.How long ago did he make this statement?
Really, now why do you say that?Ha Ha Ha! That's a good one!
They back up everything they say with references to source material and peer assessed work.
And if you're about to say something about climategate, Phil Jones et al and their work have been vindicated by the two studies commissioned by the British Parliament.
Oh really, you know the arctic is melting do you?? Have you been there to see it for yourself???OK, so every country in the northern hemisphere is positioning themselves to lay claim to the Arctic now that the seasonal ice is disappearing. And virtually every land based iceberg on the planet is well documented as retreating at epic levels. And Sea based ice is retreating at both poles again at epic proportion. Major inland bodies of water are drying up in visible fashion. (Lake Mead at current rates will dry up by 2022. Closer to home, Lake Huron has been down 3-6 feet for almost 10 years).
Look up d-e-s-e-r-t-i-f-i-c-a-t-i-o-n. Did I say it s-l-o-w enough for you?
But you find a news rag that says it ain't so.
So surely the planet is just trying to trick us. ??????
Sammy, grown ups aren't really debating this anymore!!! Time to move on.
About 30,000 "grown-ups" are suing Al Gore for fraud. Many of those scientists have PhD's.
See here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfHW7KR33IQ
And the arctic isnt melting, it goes through seasonal changes. Much like the earth's temperature.
See here: http://www.news.com.au/antarctic-ice-is-growing-not-melting-away/story-0-1225700043191
But keep drinking the koolaid and dont forget to donate to Al Gore's "charity"
wrong side of the planet.And the arctic isnt melting, it goes through seasonal changes. Much like the earth's temperature.
See here: http://www.news.com.au/antarctic-ice-is-growing-not-melting-away/story-0-1225700043191
"
Nice try Sammy full of Bull, but no go.Oh really, you know the arctic is melting do you?? Have you been there to see it for yourself???
About 30,000 "grown-ups" are suing Al Gore for fraud. Many of those scientists have PhD's.
See here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfHW7KR33IQ
And the arctic isnt melting, it goes through seasonal changes. Much like the earth's temperature.
See here: http://www.news.com.au/antarctic-ice-is-growing-not-melting-away/story-0-1225700043191
But keep drinking the koolaid and dont forget to donate to Al Gore's "charity"
First, John Coleman has not sued Gore on anyones behalf. He has no case and won't take it to court, its an idle threat.
Second, his role of 30,000 scientists is based off the fraudulent Oregon Petition, full of non-scientists, dead people made up by the oil industry group 'the Oregon Group of Science and Medicine'. Pure crap
Oh, here's a repudable quote for you about arctic ice levels:
The linear rate of decline for April over the 1979 to 2010 period is now 2.6% per decade.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
I like your reference to an article about antarctic ice, which only said that parts of antarctica are getting colder, and that the general trend is warmer. Nothing there to support your case, you obviously are too stupid to understand the full article.
But best of all is your line about having been there. Sweet. Basically all scientific observations are invalid unless Sammy full of Bull has personally seen it. Nice defence, worthy of a grade 2 schoolyard, I think.
Really, all you can do is to quote old, previously debunked, irrelevant, oil industry funded crap?
LOL...my badwrong side of the planet.
Try this one: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08/15/goddard_arctic_ice_mystery/
Still bad.
Arctic ice is up a bit this year (year over year) but still falling within a 2.6% annual decline.
See previous post.
NY Times has predicted polar caps melting for over 100 years now: http://wallstreetpit.com/12973-the-nyt-has-been-predicting-polar-ice-melt-for-128-years
* 1881: “This past Winter, both inside and outside the Arctic circle, appears to have been unusually mild. The ice is very light and rapidly melting …”
* 1932: “NEXT GREAT DELUGE FORECAST BY SCIENCE; Melting Polar Ice Caps to Raise the Level of Seas and Flood the Continents”
* 1934: “New Evidence Supports Geology’s View That the Arctic Is Growing Warmer”
* 1937: “Continued warm weather at the Pole, melting snow and ice.”
* 1954: “The particular point of inquiry concerns whether the ice is melting at such a rate as to imperil low-lying coastal areas through raising the level of the sea in the near future.”
* 1957: “U.S. Arctic Station Melting”
* 1958: “At present, the Arctic ice pack is melting away fast. Some estimates say that it is 40 per cent thinner and 12 per cent smaller than it was fifteen years [ago].”
* 1959: “Will the Arctic Ocean soon be free of ice?”
* 1971: “STUDY SAYS MAN ALTERS CLIMATE; U.N. Report Links Melting of Polar Ice to His Activities”
* 1979: “A puzzling haze over the Arctic ice packs has been identified as a byproduct of air pollution, a finding that may support predictions of a disastrous melting of the earth’s ice caps.”
* 1982: “Because of global heating attributed to an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide from fuel burning, about 20,000 cubic miles of polar ice has melted in the past 40 years, apparently contributing to a rise in sea levels …”
* 1999: “Evidence continues to accumulate that the frozen world of the Arctic and sub-Arctic is thawing.”
* 2000: “The North Pole is melting. The thick ice that has for ages covered the Arctic Ocean at the pole has turned to water, recent visitors there reported yesterday.”
* 2002: “The melting of Greenland glaciers and Arctic Ocean sea ice this past summer reached levels not seen in decades, scientists reported today.”
* 2004: “There is an awful lot of Arctic and glacial ice melting.”
* 2005: “Another melancholy gathering of climate scientists presented evidence this month that the Antarctic ice shelf is melting – a prospect difficult to imagine a decade ago.”
This is old news and blown out of the water many times including here on Terb, the last time it was discussed.NY Times has predicted polar caps melting for over 100 years now: http://wallstreetpit.com/12973-the-nyt-has-been-predicting-polar-ice-melt-for-128-years
Care to address it since I havent been on Terb for a few months.This is old news and blown out of the water many times including here on Terb, the last time it was discussed.
Are you saying those headlines are made up, and were never printed??
Or are you saying something else??
SB;Oh really, you know the arctic is melting do you?? Have you been there to see it for yourself???
About 30,000 "grown-ups" are suing Al Gore for fraud. Many of those scientists have PhD's.
See here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfHW7KR33IQ
And the arctic isnt melting, it goes through seasonal changes. Much like the earth's temperature.
See here: http://www.news.com.au/antarctic-ice-is-growing-not-melting-away/story-0-1225700043191
But keep drinking the koolaid and dont forget to donate to Al Gore's "charity"
You're going over old territory that's been handled well in past threads not long ago and I for one can claim 'I have been in and spent time in both polar regions' and have seen it over a period of 30+ years.
I hate the taste of kool-aid by the way.
I've said more than once that Gore is not my favorite messenger, but his message isn't wrong.
I'm not sure how old some of you are, but as early as the 80's many "scientists" were calling for a coming ice-age.
Then they did a U-turn and now its global warming we should be worried about.
And that ice-age prediction was supposedly based on good science
Then they did a U-turn and now its global warming we should be worried about.
And that ice-age prediction was supposedly based on good science
Sammy, don't you have anything better than that?
Its all the same old, same old.
Why don't you realize that its you who is drinking the coolaid. The oil industry and their propaganda are the Jim Jones of our time.
Why is the bad science put out as propaganda by Exxon et al more reputable then the work of the IPCC, representing hundreds of scientists from across the world?
Why are you so stupid that you can't understand any of these arguments?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100506/sc_nm/us_climate_science
"The reality of anthropogenic climate change can no longer be debated on scientific grounds," James Hurrell of the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research told the committee. "The imperative is to act aggressively to reduce carbon emissions and dependency on fossil fuels."
Its all the same old, same old.
Why don't you realize that its you who is drinking the coolaid. The oil industry and their propaganda are the Jim Jones of our time.
Why is the bad science put out as propaganda by Exxon et al more reputable then the work of the IPCC, representing hundreds of scientists from across the world?
Why are you so stupid that you can't understand any of these arguments?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100506/sc_nm/us_climate_science
"The reality of anthropogenic climate change can no longer be debated on scientific grounds," James Hurrell of the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research told the committee. "The imperative is to act aggressively to reduce carbon emissions and dependency on fossil fuels."
Close, but not quite...
Rhetoric - environmentalist or otherwise - is not helpful in debate or in finding solutions.
But in their defence, someone has to be there to try and do something. If history has shown anything, business, industry and governments will not act in the best interest of environmental and human health on their own.
Your rhetoric and dismissiveness does nothing to help public policy or find real solutions.
Rhetoric - environmentalist or otherwise - is not helpful in debate or in finding solutions.
Yes. And further to this, they generally want "perfect" solutions, often at the expense of good ones that can and often do lead to incremental improvement. That is their rhetoric that I find infuriating.I'll tell you what the problem with so called "tree huggers" is... It is their knee jerk reaction to things, that cause bigger problems than the ones their trying to solve.
But in their defence, someone has to be there to try and do something. If history has shown anything, business, industry and governments will not act in the best interest of environmental and human health on their own.
...And wasteful. At the time, paper bags were: One-shot usage. There was little or no recycling and composting/methane capture. Deforestation and lack of viable replanting planning were issues - need outstrips the ability to regrow. Vast amounts of chemicals and energy are needed to produce the paper. Paper is and was simply not sustainable.Case in point... years ago- there was this device everyone used to carry their groceries home from the grocery store call a paper bag. BILLIONS of them were used and then pretty much discarded since they were essentially a one use device. Cheap, and plentiful. (not to mention 100% biodegradable)
You've misrepresented everything with this point. The "tree huggers" (as you so derisively put it) wanted true reusable bags, like the ones that are commonplace today, not the cheap, made-in-China plastic ones that ended up in landfills, oceans and strewn all around by the billions that retailers ended up using. The plastic bags were what happened when business and government were left to their own (non) solutions.Then the "tree huggers" decided it this was a horrible thing to do since these paper bags required cutting down trees to make them... so, the brilliant minds that be, got together and devised a REUSABLE plastic bag! Perfect... no more cutting trees down to make paper bags! Every one was happy... Right??!! We all know where that story ends...
Your rhetoric and dismissiveness does nothing to help public policy or find real solutions.
No, the headlines are real, but there conclusions are wrong, misleading, or lies.Care to address it since I havent been on Terb for a few months.
Are you saying those headlines are made up, and were never printed??
Or are you saying something else??
There were maybe 500 post in maybe a half dozen threads within the last year on this subject and it was ground to a pulp. The bottom line was, if you can't believe the science from literally 1000's of sources, primary or otherwise and continue to counter them with not much more than a handful of counter arguments many of whom are suspect or exposed as flawed, then you'll never believe. You either believe in the scientific method or you don't, but it works more often than it doesn't, by a long shot. We have learned more through science in the last 100 years than mankind has learned in its' entirety. Our ability to gather and process information has never been matched at any time. The difficult part is to come up with a right answer and do it soon as we will reach a point, the event horizon, where it will be too late and we're screwed, no matter what.
My whole point in the past was that someone will always be able to point out exceptions to the findings such as the MWP, but they don't look at trends and the trends tell the real tales. As well, we have 'never' been here before, with 6 billion people and natural habitat and resources disappearing at an alarming rates, so this 'cycle' has never been experienced before. We are in uncharted waters and have to work with that in mind.
Somebody told me I have sweaters in my closet older than most of the people I work with.I'm not sure how old some of you are, but as early as the 80's many "scientists" were calling for a coming ice-age.
Then they did a U-turn and now its global warming we should be worried about.
And that ice-age prediction was supposedly based on good science
Yes, there were scientist in the 70s that did say there would be an ice age in the 80s, but it wasn't mainstream thinking by a long shot. In the same vein, there are scientist who are creationist and believe in divine intervention.
