Gore's Message to Climate Change deniers

reply to post by Kinesis

You people seem to come out of the woodwork and show your ignorance with a lot of pride. When are all the polar icecaps and mountain peeks supposed to be restored to levels previous to the 1950's? If this is some natural cycle, why is the air getting warmer and more polluted, year after year?

I think you had better start reading reports by people who know what they are talking about, such as:

So the ice caps are all melting and it's panic stations, we need more taxes on carbon now, right?
Not according to Certified Consultant Meteorologist and Executive Director of ICECAP, International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project, Joseph D’Aleo, who does not receive any funding from corporate interests and provides a somewhat bigger picture:

Let’s put this in perspective. The account may be misinterpreted by some as the ice cap or a significant (vast) portion is collapsing. In reality it and all the former shelves that collapsed are small and most near the Antarctic peninsula which sticks well out from Antarctica into the currents and winds of the South Atlantic and lies in a tectonically active region with surface and subsurface active volcanic activity. The vast continent has actually cooled since 1979.

The full Wilkins 6,000 square mile ice shelf is just 0.39% of the current ice sheet (just 0.1% of the extent last September). Only a small portion of it between 1/10th-1/20th of Wilkins has separated so far, like an icicle falling off a snow and ice covered house. And this winter is coming on quickly. In fact the ice is returning so fast, it is running an amazing 60% ahead (4.0 vs 2.5 million square km extent) of last year when it set a new record. The ice extent is already approaching the second highest level for extent since the measurements began by satellite in 1979 and just a few days into the Southern Hemisphere fall season and 6 months ahead of the peak. Wilkins like all the others that temporarily broke up will refreeze soon. We are very likely going to exceed last year’s record. Yet the world is left with the false impression Antarctica’s ice sheet is also starting to disappear.

infowars.net...

Joseph D’Aleo, with his credentials, carries a lot more credibility than Al Gore.Al Gore is nothing but a political hack, and a BAD one at that. He doesn't have a clue about what is actually going on.

Global Warming being caused by man? That is the biggest lie since Bill Clinton said he didn't have sex with THAT woman.

reply to post by traderonwallst


Are you seriously suggesting that there is as much of an ice cap now as there was even a few years ago?

Do you even know of the imminent danger our societies are in from the leck of ice packs?

I'm not going to get into this global warming debate, but I will say that I don't approve of statements like this. If he wants to go out and try and raise awareness on global warming that's fine. If he wants to go out and make a movie about it, whether the science is hard or fuzzy, that's fine. But what's he's doing wrong is politicizing a scientific issue. Rather than getting word out like a scientist he's babbling on like a politician.

Going out an making a docuementary is one thing, but slinging mud at a person just because they're not convinced of your beliefs is another. I think that the global warming issue would have a ton more respect if people like Al Gore would actually respect the opposition's views. Respect means so much.

Take the 9/11 conspiracies. While I know both sides have good points I won't even get into it simply because there's so many people on both sides that can't respect the opinions of others. Showing a bit of respect in my opinion counts for more than anything else when trying to prove an issue. A lack of respect is a sign of weak science while a person with good science won't have to resort to mudslinging.

I am sensing that that resistance to global warming/climate change science maybe based upon fear of carbon taxes or other laws. Is this the case? There is the science and then there is the politics. I do agree with the scientifically based theories that claim humans have altered their environment in ways which affect the global ecosystem. I have looked into the carbon credit system and I understand some of the appeal, but I do not support it as it legalizes pollution.

I think humans can mature as a species so that we live in balance with the land while still enjoying our silly technological distractions.

With any massive change, there is always consequence down the road. Has anyone did a study on how all the CFL light bulbs will impact the environment when they are disposed / all other "green" alternatives.

The true impact of alternative fuels? Disposing all the batteries from electric cars?

There is plenty we have to worry about.

Are we ahead or behind the poor countries? Maybe they lived right all along.

[edit on 28-3-2008 by Dulcimer]

reply to post by Kinesis


Open your eyes my friend to the truth that is science. Our planet is heating up very very very slowly...hell our whole solar system is and then it will cool back down, this cycle is nothing new and if the earth and our atmosphere didn't sythesize carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide and CFC's back into the scheme of things then the whole planet would have been shrouded in an impenetrable cloud of smog during the industrial revolution. Jump on Al-gores band wagon and have a fun and convoluted ride in the conformation zone. He smiles and lies and is so damned nice that it is almost believable, oh yeah except that 1 in 10 scientists disagree. Remember that hole in the ozone layer that people thought existed? yeah...those people were wrong about that too.....Our planet adapts to sustain life as needed, it always has and always will if It couldn't then the first major volcanoe eruption would have been a permanent effect not a temporary one. And all that "smog" makes the leaves of the rainforest trees so shiny. hehe

[edit on 03/21/08 by Stumpy1]

Originally posted by traderonwallst

Originally posted by stikkinikki
I understand what Al is saying and at this stage what is the point in trying to convince 100% of the people to learn about the scientific method? It's kind of too late for that. Using what I have learned and observed about climate change phenomena and forcasts over the last 20 years I hypothesize that the signs will continue to point the way to man made altering of the environment.

Have you been studying climate for 20 years? What have you learned? How did you arrive at your hypothesis? What exactly is man doing and how is it exactly affecting the climate???

I have observed climate, but I have not "studied" climate for 20 years. It's been a subject of interest but my main interest is ecology and how all the various nutrient and water cycles affect each other and how everything finds a balance. I went to a forestry school and I feel like I got a fairly sober education there.
The corellation between CO2 and temperature from the early 1800's on is convincing to me. This time period is the same as the industrial revolution and onward. I attempted to explain earlier that the part of the carbon cycle that results in part of the increased level of carbon in the atomosphere comes from human activity that includes more than just what comes out of smoke stacks and tail pipes.
There is no way I can attempt to write a peer review quality paper at this time of the night but I do like to hear all sides to see where they are coming from.

reply to post by Kinesis

You people seem to come out of the woodwork and show your ignorance with a lot of pride.

Interesting statement from someone who said...

Well, I beg to differ. I'm at a loss to what the IPCC is, but in the next 20-30 years, the polar ice cap will have melted.

... in another thread. LINK

I know it is a cheap shot, but come on.

On this threads topic...

Al Gore is trying to alienate his opposition by utilizing "the majority disagrees with you, thus you are wrong" argument. He goes one step further and compares his dissenters to moon landing hoaxers. Next we'll see "Global Warming deniers are like Holocaust deniers", and soon after that it will be something like "Global Warming deniers are anti-semitic eugenicist nazi's".

His argument is juvenile, whether his views be correct or not. It makes his side (seeing as how he thinks he is the spokesman for the movement) look like foaming-at-the-mouth religious zealots.

It is language like this that makes solving this problem effectively impossible. I think we need to listen to people like Bjorn Lomborg and others with good, effective ways of dealing with the problems of the world.

edit: I added the reply at the top

[edit on 28-3-2008 by DINSTAAR]

Originally posted by Sublime620
reply to post by traderonwallst

 

Are you seriously suggesting that there is as much of an ice cap now as there was even a few years ago?

Do you even know of the imminent danger our societies are in from the leck of ice packs?

Such as? If that is what he is in fact suggesting, what do you have to say about that? What is the "imminent danger" our societies are in for?

If scare tactics to suit your agenda are what you're going after, you're better off shaking your fist and muttering idle threats under your breath.

reply to post by ProfEmeritus


Kinesis will not answer you my friend. He is afraid of facts that don't blame the U.S. for all the earths problems.
They think that we do not care about the environment. This couldn't be farther from the truth. I recycle everything I can, I walk to the local store, I turn off the lights in the rooms I am not in. I don't use Styrofoam, I have all energy efficient appliances, and I don't litter. I could go on forever.
The point is, you cannot argue that the ends justify the means in this case, and then toss that argument out the window in others, (war on terror, etc.) If we are going to approach the issues facing us in the environment, then let us stick to facts.
I hate that all these "scientists" and activists, spend so long arguing against any expansion of our energy production, or manufacturing, instead of voluntarily helping these same companies find alternative places for their factories, or new tech for their energy.
No, it's much easier to watch our economy flush away, and then when we lose our world status, who is going to listen to your protests then? Not china, not India. Find a compromise, stop arguing that we don't care. I just don't care to hear lies.



Just to make it clear, I never argued against climate change, or human pollution. Just not the connection you all argue.

Originally posted by jasonjnelson
reply to post by ProfEmeritus

 

Kinesis will not answer you my friend. He is afraid of facts that don't blame the U.S. for all the earths problems.
They think that we do not care about the environment. This couldn't be farther from the truth. I recycle everything I can, I walk to the local store, I turn off the lights in the rooms I am not in. I don't use Styrofoam, I have all energy efficient appliances, and I don't litter. I could go on forever.
The point is, you cannot argue that the ends justify the means in this case, and then toss that argument out the window in others, (war on terror, etc.) If we are going to approach the issues facing us in the environment, then let us stick to facts.
I hate that all these "scientists" and activists, spend so long arguing against any expansion of our energy production, or manufacturing, instead of voluntarily helping these same companies find alternative places for their factories, or new tech for their energy.
No, it's much easier to watch our economy flush away, and then when we lose our world status, who is going to listen to your protests then? Not china, not India. Find a compromise, stop arguing that we don't care. I just don't care to hear lies.



Just to make it clear, I never argued against climate change, or human pollution. Just not the connection you all argue.

Even though it looks like you are including "me" in the "them" that you describe I can assure you I hold my own beliefs and opinions on a great many issues as do a great many of my science inclined friends. I am uncomfortable with this trend of demonizing scientists. Maybe all intellectuals are next???

Originally posted by stikkinikki

Even though it looks like you are including "me" in the "them" that you describe I can assure you I hold my own beliefs and opinions on a great many issues as do a great many of my science inclined friends. I am uncomfortable with this trend of demonizing scientists. Maybe all intellectuals are next???

And there is the trend of claiming victimhood, by taking what I said out of context.
I am using data from scientists who disagree with you. I respect many scientists. Scientists who think that this is a bad way to raise awareness of the environment, by politicizing it, and using scare tactics. Why is it that Al gore can say that we are like those who said the world was flat, when they were the majority, like he is. i still don't see him meeting the actual intellectuals who want to debate him. he has no backing.


[edit on 28-3-2008 by jasonjnelson]

Gore is nothing more than a shill for the eco scam. That fat idiot wants nothing more than to get rich off scamming people by making them feel guilty. He and his ex boss belong in prison.

All this, yet no mention of man bear pig?

Keep and eye out for the man-bear-pig caused by global warming; they might be conspiring with the newly discovered gnomes to take over our planet.

I don't get this. If global warming is some sort of NWO-scam, why does Dick Cheney publicly doubt its existance? It would be on his agenda to, to promote the global warming issue, wouldn't it?
Strange.

reply to post by enigmania


You know, i wouldn't put it past them to do some reverse psychology on the masses. The people that are set against his personality are in a lot of cases not buying the Global warming thing so 1+1=2 let's take a stance against global warming an spread the confusion!

Anyway, i'm one of the people that doubt that humans are responsable for the globalwarming. Certainly with the fact that more then half of the planets in our solarsystem are having some sort of global warming going on. Are we guilty of that too? Didn't think so.

Originally posted byKinesis
I'll just say to the moderators, courtesy shouldn't be offered to people like this who are just out to discredit the growing evidence, rather than building awareness to what's happening.

Wow, you certainly are part of the modern-day inquisition aern't you? Try to stay civil rather than crucifying anyone who dares to challenge your oh-so concrete views and savior Al Gore.

[edit on 28-3-2008 by dodgygeeza]

reply to post by Harman


Thanks, that's a pretty good explanation, they do use confusion tactics all the time.
By the way, I have doubts about global warming myself, or at least about what's causing it.

Originally posted by stikkinikki
I am sensing that that resistance to global warming/climate change science maybe based upon fear of carbon taxes or other laws. Is this the case? There is the science and then there is the politics. I do agree with the scientifically based theories that claim humans have altered their environment in ways which affect the global ecosystem. I have looked into the carbon credit system and I understand some of the appeal, but I do not support it as it legalizes pollution.

I think humans can mature as a species so that we live in balance with the land while still enjoying our silly technological distractions.

Everything is taxed nowadays - i'd be happy if the government was to be trusted with our money. If this tax was spent in the deveopment of new and more efficient fuel then fair enough but we all know it wont be. The government expects us to throw money at the problem but you'll never get them to help anyone with the problem.

We need solid proof of global warming. Kind of like the links below please dispelling the myth of Global Warming. Or as I like to call it the new age cult of Gorism. This is a giant farce folks. Those that say there is warming don't offer any kind of proof other than "look the sky is falling".

Or statements like this "I've read scientists both pro and con, and I am persuaded that the case for global warming is the strongest." Where is the science that says there is global warming? There is none. You pro global carbon tax people are some whacky humans...

Th Myth dispelled

Record Snow Fall

And finally another thread here on ATS
Twelve-month long drop in world temperatures wipes out a century of warming