Al (the Hypocrite) Gore buys ANOTHER house - 9 million bucks, 6 fireplaces, 9 bathroo

[Sammy the Bull]

Al Gore should be in jail for fraud!! I just heard a real expert on fossil fuels say CO2 is actually good for trees, because they suck that stuff out of the air and turn it into oxygen.

I say its polluting free-for-all!! Gentlemen, start up your SUV's!!

 

[HafDun]

Al Gore should be in jail for fraud!! I just heard a real expert on fossil fuels say CO2 is actually good for trees, because they suck that stuff out of the air and turn it into oxygen.

I say its polluting free-for-all!! Gentlemen, start up your SUV's!!

You just discovered that trees convert CO2 into oxygen? Who's the expert? Your grade 3 teacher? Problem with that is that trees don't do much of anything when we cut them all down.

Since the start of the Industrial Revolution, as much as 50% of the tropical forests on the planet have been lost. Estimates are that by 2030 (should we make it that far) 80% of tropical forests will be gone and half of what remains will be in too poor a condition to be of any use. But I suppose your REAL expert forgot to tell you that part.

Maybe he also didn't tell you about how the oceans absorb and filter CO2. But given the massive increase in CO2 in our atmosphere, even our vast bodies of water can't keep up and dead zones the size of countries are being found in the oceans.

And just to put it in perspective, our atmosphere now has approx 387 PPM of CO2 and rising. That is the highest level in known history. 350 PPM is considered 'manageable' .

So maybe you could install a solar panel on the roof of your SUV and take the subway.

 

[Sammy the Bull]

You just discovered that trees convert CO2 into oxygen? Who's the expert? Your grade 3 teacher? Problem with that is that trees don't do much of anything when we cut them all down

Which we arent!!

Since the start of the Industrial Revolution, as much as 50% of the tropical forests on the planet have been lost. Estimates are that by 2030 (should we make it that far) 80% of tropical forests will be gone and half of what remains will be in too poor a condition to be of any use. But I suppose your REAL expert forgot to tell you that part

And you believe ALL those statistics??

80% of tropical forests will be gone and half of what remains will be in too poor a condition to be of any use

No, they wont!

So maybe you could install a solar panel on the roof of your SUV and take the subway

Yet it wouldnt surprise me if you yourself owned a car or a house run on fossil fuels

 

[blackrock13]

Which we arent!!

And you believe ALL those statistics??

No, they wont!

Yet it wouldnt surprise me if you yourself owned a car or a house run on fossil fuels

Thanks for coming Sam. You can retrieve your pointy cap at the door on your way out. What rock did you crawl out from? There are times, I hate amateurs.

 

[HafDun]

Which we arent!!
Well you really caught me there Sammy. You're right. We aren't cutting ALL the trees. Just the big ones. Now perhaps your school yard hasn't got a logging project happening, but there is not too many people disputing the fact that we are doing a wonderful job of getting rid of those pesky ancient forests and tropical ecosystems in favor of farming and livestock(which produce methane...many times more volatile than CO2)

And you believe ALL those statistics??

Not only do I believe those statistics. I've seen it first hand.

No, they wont!
Well I suppose we'll have to wait and see. Of course in 2030, I might be retired or gone up in a puff of smoke. Sounds to me like you'll be just graduating from high school (we hope)

Yet it wouldn't surprise me if you yourself owned a car or a house run on fossil fuels

Got me again you tricky dickens. I live in a 70 year old house heated by a 95% efficient NG furnace. I increased the insulation to take me from a 47 efficiency rating to over 80. (at 74 i would have been in the top 5% of homes in my category for all of Canada. Now my terrain is too low to install a wind turbine and my neighbourhood has too much shade for solar (soon we'll cut down those pesky trees) So until I can install geothermal, and find an alternative source of power to run it, I'm stuck on fossil fuel. But I have done everything in my power to minimize my consumption of power. I have no lawn, just a veggie garden. My car runs on fossil fuel, but it averages 68 MPG and I drive about 20% of what I did 5 years ago. I use no plastic bags and the garbage man never has to stop at my house. So I figure I'm doin not so bad.

Now, for a guy that is surprised by the concept of photosynthesis, I hope I haven't given you too much of a shock.

 

[Sammy the Bull]

Got me again you tricky dickens. I live in a 70 year old house heated by a 95% efficient NG furnace. I increased the insulation to take me from a 47 efficiency rating to over 80. (at 74 i would have been in the top 5% of homes in my category for all of Canada. Now my terrain is too low to install a wind turbine and my neighbourhood has too much shade for solar (soon we'll cut down those pesky trees) So until I can install geothermal, and find an alternative source of power to run it, I'm stuck on fossil fuel. But I have done everything in my power to minimize my consumption of power. I have no lawn, just a veggie garden. My car runs on fossil fuel, but it averages 68 MPG and I drive about 20% of what I did 5 years ago. I use no plastic bags and the garbage man never has to stop at my house. So I figure I'm doin not so bad.

Now, for a guy that is surprised by the concept of photosynthesis, I hope I haven't given you too much of a shock.

Good for you, now go hug that tree you're so fond of

 

[Sammy the Bull]

And just to add, you science nerds have gotten your global warming all wrong the last 15 years.
Earth has not only not gotten warmer, its actually gotten cooler!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html

This totally flies against all global warming prediction models

 

[flubadub]

And just to add, you science nerds have gotten your global warming all wrong the last 15 years.
Earth has not only not gotten warmer, its actually gotten cooler!

Hmmm, daily mail, eh.
Well, according to my handy iphone app, Skeptical Science (free), their rebuttal (which includes direct references to papers and data) starts off as:

Empirical measurements of the Earth's heat content show the planet is still accumulating heat and glabal warming is still happening. Surface temperatures can show short term cooling when heat is exchanged between the atmosphere and the ocean, which has a much greater heat capacity then air.....

They go on in detail with stats, references to NASA and other weather data, but the idea is the daily mail is crock.


Now, I just read an article the scared the bejeabers out of me.
http://www.energybulletin.net/node/52728

To sum it up, the odds are greater that we could make the planet uninhabitable (ie so hot over most of the world that were we to be outside we would die) then the odds anyone of us might die in a car accident. That is, the odds of death in a car are about 1 in 83, but the odds are about 1 in 20 that we could raise the surface temperature 12 degrees celsius with a doubling of CO2 levels from pre-industrial levels.

There is more chance that we're going to cook our kids then we will die in a car accident.

 

[GotGusto]

I've been telling liberals that Al Gore is a piece of shit for years. What will it take for them to see the light?

 

[tweeter]

Uhmmm... maybe it's not the message that's the problem, but the messenger. Someone mentioned earlier about the fossil fuel companies promoting their agendas; well, Gore is an enviromental businessman promoting his agenda. And how some people can not see the hypocrisy of a man not practicing what he preaches while he advocates to us just escapes me.

Only a fool could not see the importance of protecting our enviroment. We just need to watch the motives of those that are promoting their cause. And I question anyone who has a personally large financial stake in that cause. How can we not question their true motives when they obviously have a lot financially to gain? Remember the oil companies and their causes? Maybe I'm one of the few who does believe in practice what you preach!

 

[Sammy the Bull]

Hmmm, daily mail, eh.
Well, according to my handy iphone app, Skeptical Science (free), their rebuttal (which includes direct references to papers and data) starts off as:

Empirical measurements of the Earth's heat content show the planet is still accumulating heat and glabal warming is still happening. Surface temperatures can show short term cooling when heat is exchanged between the atmosphere and the ocean, which has a much greater heat capacity then air.....

They go on in detail with stats, references to NASA and other weather data, but the idea is the daily mail is crock.


Now, I just read an article the scared the bejeabers out of me.
http://www.energybulletin.net/node/52728

To sum it up, the odds are greater that we could make the planet uninhabitable (ie so hot over most of the world that were we to be outside we would die) then the odds anyone of us might die in a car accident. That is, the odds of death in a car are about 1 in 83, but the odds are about 1 in 20 that we could raise the surface temperature 12 degrees celsius with a doubling of CO2 levels from pre-industrial levels.

There is more chance that we're going to cook our kids then we will die in a car accident.

First of all, it was Phil Jones who was directly quoted by Daily Mail.

Second of all, how do you explain no global warming the past 15 years??!! Cars mustve increased by at least 10 to 20 percent. If GW computers were even half correct that wouldve meant a severe increase in global temps. Not only did that not happen but temps actually decreased in a lot of regions.

Explain that Sherlock

 

[HetroGuy]

I've been telling liberals that Al Gore is a piece of shit for years.

Finally an honest opinion that doesn't reference his life style or cherry pick pseudo-science reports from gossip rag tabloids. The hate and conservative bias is dripping far beyond objectivity in many of these posts.

Maybe you could promote your own hero of the environment Cheney, Bush, Exxon .. whatever !

 

[Mencken]

The problem with his "message" is that he is just a talking mouth. If he had the science background to speak a bit from his own head it would be a lot more credible. He's a talking mouth that chose this as his post political speaking gig...and its making him the big bucks, so why not spend it on a house. I think he cares no more for the environment in any real way than any other speaker on the dollar tour. Its just the gig that worked for him.

 

[HetroGuy]

If he had the science background to speak a bit from his own head it would be a lot more credible.

I dunno, David Suzuki drives me nuts with some of his idiotic solutions. I remember when gas was ~ 80cents/L and he was urging a 20 cent hike to dissuade the use of gas. Like I'm going to push my car to work. Well, gas is over $1/L and nothing has changed except I have less money at the end of the day.

 

[flubadub]

First of all, it was Phil Jones who was directly quoted by Daily Mail.

Second of all, how do you explain no global warming the past 15 years??!! Cars mustve increased by at least 10 to 20 percent. If GW computers were even half correct that wouldve meant a severe increase in global temps. Not only did that not happen but temps actually decreased in a lot of regions.

Explain that Sherlock

As usual, its incredibly easy to find rebuttals for these same, stupid articles, that once again reference the direct scientific work.
This is another of those same, stupid, distracting tactics we see all too often.
The science is correct, and the only thing the deniers are left with are misquotes, distractions (Gore is a hypocrit) and outright lies.

Here's a paste from Realclimate on the daily mail, Phil Jones article (including corroboration from Phil Jones that he was misquoted).
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/02/daily-mangle/

Yesterday, the Daily Mail of the UK published a predictably inaccurate article entitled “Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995″.

The title itself is a distortion of what Jones actually said in an interview with the BBC. What Jones actually said is that, while the globe has nominally warmed since 1995, it is difficult to establish the statistical significance of that warming given the short nature of the time interval (1995-present) involved. The warming trend consequently doesn’t quite achieve statistical significance. But it is extremely difficult to establish a statistically significant trend over a time interval as short as 15 years–a point we have made countless times at RealClimate. It is also worth noting that the CRU record indicates slightly less warming than other global temperature estimates such as the GISS record.

The article also incorrectly equates instrumental surface temperature data that Jones and CRU have assembled to estimate the modern surface temperature trends with paleoclimate data used to estimate temperatures in past centuries, falsely asserting that the former “has been used to produce the ‘hockey stick graph’”.

Finally, the article intentionally distorts comments that Jones made about the so-called “Medieval Warm Period”. Jones stated in his BBC interview that “There is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent or not. The MWP is most clearly expressed in parts of North America, the North Atlantic and Europe and parts of Asia” and that “For it to be global in extent, the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the Southern hemisphere. There are very few palaeoclimatic records for these latter two regions.”

These are statements with which we entirely agree, and they are moreover fully consistent with the conclusions of the most recent IPCC report, and the numerous peer-reviewed publications on this issue since. Those conclusions are that recent Northern Hemisphere warming is likely unprecedented in at least a millennium (at least 1300 years, in fact), and that evidence in the Southern Hemisphere is currently too sparse for confident conclusions. Mann et al in fact drew those same conclusions in their most recent work on this problem (PNAS, 2008).

Unfortunately, these kinds of distortions are all too common in the press nowadays and so we must all be prepared to respond to those journalists and editors who confuse the public with such inaccuracies.

Update 2/16/10. Phil Jones has confirmed to us that our interpretations of his comments in the BBC interview are indeed the correct ones, and that he agrees with the statements in our piece above. He and his CRU colleagues have also put up an response to some of the false allegations in a previous piece in the UK Guardian. We’ll report further such developments as they happen.

 

[blackrock13]

I dunno, David Suzuki drives me nuts with some of his idiotic solutions. I remember when gas was ~ 80cents/L and he was urging a 20 cent hike to dissuade the use of gas. Like I'm going to push my car to work. Well, gas is over $1/L and nothing has changed except I have less money at the end of the day.

How long ago did he make this statement?

 

[flubadub]

The problem with his "message" is that he is just a talking mouth. If he had the science background to speak a bit from his own head it would be a lot more credible. He's a talking mouth that chose this as his post political speaking gig...and its making him the big bucks, so why not spend it on a house. I think he cares no more for the environment in any real way than any other speaker on the dollar tour. Its just the gig that worked for him.

Really now. Look at it this way. The scientists behind the IPCC are scientists, they are not allowed to advocate on behalf of their work or policies. If we didn't have people like Gore and Suzuki we wouldn't have much of anything in the mainstream press about climate change. We need people to interpret the 4000 page works from the IPCC and communicate it to the public.

Meanwhile BP, and EXXON et al have been funding anti-climate change propoganda to the tune of at least $50 million dollars. That's where you're getting your info from, from sites and people clandestinedly funded by the people causing climate change. And you believe them. The question is do you believe them because you're not smart enough to understand the science or because you refuse to believe in something that might require changing your lifestyle? Are you willfully ignorant or just ignorant?

 

[1955pont]

Really now. Look at it this way. The scientists behind the IPCC are scientists, they are not allowed to advocate on behalf of their work or policies. If we didn't have people like Gore and Suzuki we wouldn't have much of anything in the mainstream press about climate change. We need people to interpret the 4000 page works from the IPCC and communicate it to the public.

Meanwhile BP, and EXXON et al have been funding anti-climate change propoganda to the tune of at least $50 million dollars. That's where you're getting your info from, from sites and people clandestinedly funded by the people causing climate change. And you believe them. The question is do you believe them because you're not smart enough to understand the science or because you refuse to believe in something that might require changing your lifestyle? Are you willfully ignorant or just ignorant?

Drops in a bucket compared to the billion a year Shell and B.P. spend on there Alternative Energy divisions.

 

[HafDun]

Good for you, now go hug that tree you're so fond of

Explain to me when liking trees became socially unacceptable. Wasn't it you that suggested trees where the reason you could fire up your SUV and pollute till you drop?

 

[HafDun]

And just to add, you science nerds have gotten your global warming all wrong the last 15 years.
Earth has not only not gotten warmer, its actually gotten cooler!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html

This totally flies against all global warming prediction models

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.