Pretty much all of what you say has been debunked more than once. But keep on trucking if it makes you feel better - go visit RealClimate - I'm sure they'll agree with you.
Al (the Hypocrite) Gore buys ANOTHER house - 9 million bucks, 6 fireplaces, 9 bathroo
- Thread starter james t kirk
- Start date
How can you disagree with "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'. Tell me that not true. Tell me where that's been debunked.
How can you disagree with, '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.' Tell me that's not true. Tell me where that's been debunked.
So what part has been debunked?
Oh... so now plastic bags are all MY fault? Try reading the thread again Captain no-so Fantastic... I am a huge proponent of being environmentally responsible and an active member of being outdoors and enjoying all the wonderful things mother nature has to offer- including trees.
I simply used this as an example of a typical "knee jerk" reaction that are all too common...
I simply have a problem tolerating the "religion" of the "green movement" (aka "tree huggers") and the likes of Al Gore, that are nothing more then capitalists disguised as concerned individuals taking advantage of a situation for their own personal gain.
Move along....
Exactly!
Dont get me wrong, I'm all for a clean environment, bio-degradable plastic, clean fuels...etc
But it has to be based on good science. Right now Global Warming is IMO way too controversial
Hey you want to take on something worthwhile, high impact and quick returns. Try the fishing trawler/factory ship that are basically clear cutting our fish stocks. Stop drag net and purse seine fishing and you see major improvements in 7-12 years. Less complicated science and just as important.
Your opinion, then, is wrong.
The science is good, and represents the work of vast majority of reputable scientists.
The question remains, how is it that you think the oil industry propaganda you keep regurgitating is good science?
Whereas the IPCC, on their 2007 report used:
People from over 130 countries contributed to the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report over the previous 6 years. These people included more than 2500 scientific expert reviewers, more than 800 contributing authors, and more than 450 lead authors.
But we've observed it in other species. What happens when there are too many predators and not enough prey? The predator population decreases because there isn't enough food to go around. Those that can't find food die. What happens when an animal's habitat is destroyed? Their population size decreases or perishes completely. There is only one end to this 'cycle' for humans. I don't lose any sleep over it.
Normally I find you rather level headed CG, but why is it that 'tree huggers' get blamed cause someone solved one bad idea with another worse idea. That sounds a little twisted to prove a point.
If all products were developed based on real costs, including end of life costs, perhaps the solution would have been some kind of reusable bags. That worked for thousands of years (of course back in the day, they called them baskets).
I didn't blame them directly... more like indirectly... but no matter.... it took us awhile... but we did get there... Not with baskets per se... but those reusable microfiber bags everyone sells nowadays...
Glad to hear it you don't loose sleep.
I really don't like quitters when there is a solution.
The predator/prey cycle doesn't work here because we're omnivores and we can grow out own food, unlike any other species I can think of.
Good try though.
That is an unsupportable statement. It is one thing to say that the balance of evidence indicates that warming is occuring. But to say that you can calculate the percent chance that the earth will become uninhabitable is crazy, there is not close to being enough information to do that.
Let's keep in mind that the thread was intended to be a discussion of what a piece of shit Al Gore is, not a discussion of global warming in general. I don't see why the fact that Al Gore is a piece of shit should make warming people feel threatened, or make warming deniers feel smug, Al being a piece of shit is unrelated to whether warming is real.
Finally, to me it makes no sense to say that I believe in global warming, therefore I take the bus and live in a box. There is no plausible scenario where you believe in global warming, but you can conceive that taking the bus will solve it. If you believe it is real, the only possible solution is technology, to fill human needs without making heat, and / or to live in a warmer world. So if you care about it, you should focus on generating wealth to make technology, not on taking the bus and waiting to die.
The cooking your kids odds quote is quite supportable. Here's the link to the article about the article (original article is a paid National Academy of Science work, but there's a link to it in the article I quoted).
http://www.energybulletin.net/node/52728
The author uses the worst case IPCC numbers, which are 12 degrees celsius temperature change globally with a doubling of CO2 from pre-industrial levels. He then works out which parts of the world would then have regular temperatures with high humidity (a key part of the article) where the temperatures would easily reach 35 degrees celsius. At that temperature, and humidity, a couple degrees below body temp, the human body cannot cool itself enough and unprotected outside would die. The worst case IPCC numbers are rated as 5 or 10% probability. Take a look at the article and the maps.
I don't care if Gore is an asshole or not. But the only reason its ever talked about is to use his large houses as a way of discrediting his message. Its a cheap tactic.
And lastly, I have no idea what your point is with your last paragraph.
Not to belabor a point (but isn't that what we do so well here?) But... "I'll tell you what the problem with so called "tree huggers" is... " really sounds more like 'directly' to me.
But I agree, we did get there, or at least we're getting closer. Now maybe if we weren't filling those microfiber bags with plastic packaging weighing more than the products it encloses..then maybe we would be making real progress.
Excuse me while I go hug a couple of maples in my back yard.
Move along?
Child, please.
Move along. <shaking head laughing>
Child, please.
You make a lame argument/examples, can't discuss the issues or even make a cognizant defence of your own post, so instead you revert to childish ad hominens, excuses, factually dubious claims and a weak attempt at a shutdown.
Move along. <shaking head laughing>
Hi Pot... This is kettle...
Don'tcha just love the irony present on TERB! LOL
You are (of course) aware of the fact that you just contradicted yourself right...
Don'tcha just love the irony present on TERB! LOL
Isn't THAT the truth in most cases... Fortunately a lot of my personal groceries come in convenient little biodegradable packages... often edible in fact.
No contradiction or irony.
It's called fire with fire and all that.
My other point was that you engaged in the type of same rhetoric that "tree huggers" use to try and make their position. Neither are helpful when trying to make real change.
Sorry if you misunderstood, but really, don't sling mud if you're not willing to get a bit dirty.
Edit: Oops, just noticed that you're banned. Carry on...
It's called fire with fire and all that.
I explained - with specific rationale, facts and science - why your example was a fallacy. Nothing more or less. You decided not to turn it into something else. Yup, I lowered myself to respond in kind (hence, "child, please," etc.) because I simply will not be told to "move along" by you or anyone.
My other point was that you engaged in the type of same rhetoric that "tree huggers" use to try and make their position. Neither are helpful when trying to make real change.
Sorry if you misunderstood, but really, don't sling mud if you're not willing to get a bit dirty.
Edit: Oops, just noticed that you're banned. Carry on...
The article you linked to starts with assuming that there is a 5% chance of a 12 degree temperature increase, and then does calculations as to what the effect would be. But it even admits that the 5% number is a worst-case estimate. It is that number which can't be calculated, which makes the rest of the calculations pointless. That does not mean that there is no chance it could happen, or that the chance is small, but it does mean that we can not calculate in the manner you described.
If you feel defensive about Gore being an idiot, that is your issue, I just said he was an idiot, I made the point that this was not a reflection on the message. You can choose any popular message, and some of the people presenting it will be idiots.
The point in the last paragraph was that the message of reducing your footprint as being most important thing to do, is a misguided message. A better message would be for people to generate wealth, and direct it towards energy efficient technology. If people did that, the problem would be more likely to be solved. Ironically, generating wealth is exactly what Gore is doing, and if he is offsetting his personal consumption by investing in alternate energy, he is doing what he should be there also. But he is still an idiot.
