Gore's Message to Climate Change deniers

reply to post by tommyson50


My point is that it doesn't matter:

Whether global warming is man made or not, the propositions Gore and others make are still the right move. We need to get off of Oil and other carbon fuels.

reply to post by forestlady


See...here we go again...Don;t like what an expert says....attack attack attack. credentials, schooling, how many times have they been married. Anything would be fair game to discredit someone who disagrees with global warming.

My name is Algore....and I approve this message!

Originally posted by Kinesis
reply to post by aravoth

 

In spite of your tormented rant, in the next few years you'll eat your words.. that's a guarantee.

How long should I wait to start a thread laughing at you for being soo soo wrong. Lemmings!!!!!!!

Originally posted by tommyson50
Since the focus of the thread has gone ofcourse i have returned with links from National Geographic and a few others, basically, all the planets are getting warmer due to increased solar activity, and i don't care what Gore is or isn't, look at the bigger picture. Read and please cease arguing about Gore.

news.nationalgeographic.com...

Perhaps the biggest stumbling block in Abdussamatov's theory is his dismissal of the greenhouse effect, in which atmospheric gases such as carbon dioxide help keep heat trapped near the planet's surface.

He claims that carbon dioxide has only a small influence on Earth's climate and virtually no influence on Mars.

But "without the greenhouse effect there would be very little, if any, life on Earth, since our planet would pretty much be a big ball of ice," said Evan, of the University of Wisconsin.

Most scientists now fear that the massive amount of carbon dioxide humans are pumping into the air will lead to a catastrophic rise in Earth's temperatures, dramatically raising sea levels as glaciers melt and leading to extreme weather worldwide.

Abdussamatov remains contrarian, however, suggesting that the sun holds something quite different in store.

"The solar irradiance began to drop in the 1990s, and a minimum will be reached by approximately 2040," Abdussamatov said. "It will cause a steep cooling of the climate on Earth in 15 to 20 years."

www.livescience.com...

the majority of climate scientists and astrophysicists agree that the sun is not to blame for the current and historically sudden uptick in global temperatures on Earth, which seems to be mostly a mess created by our own species.

www.timesonline.co.uk...

I will have to digest this one as I don't understand it yet.

Originally posted by traderonwallst
How long should I wait to start a thread laughing at you for being soo soo wrong. Lemmings!!!!!!!

Lemmings as compared to what... one trick ponies?

That the climate is in a state of flux is normal. What is abnormal is the wild fluxuations. One points to human activity, another points to cycles. My guess is both are right to some extent.

This past winter saw the emergence of a La Nina event, something that seems to continually slide under the radar of most posters, and yet is reponsible for so much of the freaky weather we've been seeing.

La Nina is one of those cycles, just like El Nino.

Or do you think Al Gore thought that one up too?

Originally posted by Sublime620
reply to post by tommyson50

 

My point is that it doesn't matter:

Whether global warming is man made or not, the propositions Gore and others make are still the right move. We need to get off of Oil and other carbon fuels.

Yep, and that has been well known since the 70's. Nothing or very little,
has been done. Because to many people are getting rich off of the oil
economy. But the oil is running out! There is a big rumor that Saudi Arabia
has reached it's peak. As has several other big oil fields. So the global warming BS, isn't even needed. It is just another ill conceived propaganda ploy, to get control over individual rights. When it is the super
rich causing the problems. With their boundless greed!

reply to post by Tguntony



I read about William Gray but I can't help wondering if he doesn't understand computer modeling after reading the below in your source.

Gray's crusade against global warming "hysteria" began in the early 1990s, when he saw enormous sums of federal research money going toward computer modeling rather than his kind of science, the old-fashioned stuff based on direct observation. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) stopped giving him research grants. So did NASA. All the money was going to computer models. The modelers are equation pushers.

"They haven't been down in the trenches, making forecasts and understanding stuff!"

reply to post by stikkinikki




I think you may have a point there.

reply to post by masqua


Well put - these are things that most people forget.

Despite my dislike for (call me al) gore, we DO need to change some, if not many of the things we do if we are going to be in this for the long run as a species.

I just object to what gore says in the OP - and hey, if he's going to call me a nutter for doubting him, then I'm going to call him a poopy artist for what he says, and for not walking the walk.

As FF says - there are real issues at stake here.

And IMO he cheapens them.

reply to post by malcr

......I think his only purpose in life is to remind us occasionally that SOMETHING IS HAPPENING. It doesn't mean that it is a manmade something, but it is SOMETHING. I have watched National Geographic vids of the Greenland glacier retreating at an unprecedented rate. Where is it going? By the tons, into the north Atlantic. Another vid of the poles losing ice at a rate unheard of in written history. Where is the ice going? Into the oceans, by the tons. The Northwest Passage is predicted to be open to shipping in a few short years....

I "think" you may have misunderstood my position in the discussion. I "think" my statement speaks for itself in that I do agree that climate change is happening. Just because I "think" Al is the wrong guy to deliver the message doesn't mean I don't accept the message. However, to clarify one of my statements about global warming not being the real issue; OK, "climate change" which really is a better term, because the warming we are observing will, in my opinion, bring on a much more serious change, that being the continued dumping of fresh water into the oceans, which will in turn affect the ocean currents. Stop the Gulf stream and what will happen to Europe and North America? Several Ice Ages in the past seem to indicate what? Some are saying we are at the tail end of an Ice Age and to this I also agree. I say this is cyclical. Historically, the ice comes, the ice goes, the ice comes, the ice goes. If the ice is now going, what comes next????

Oh, and yes, I do sit at home and have an opinion. Like many others that post here, I am not a scientist, I leave that to the people that are qualified for that, and I read what those qualified people are saying. There are qualified people on both sides of this issue. I just happen to "think" the climate change people are correct.

Originally posted by Kinesis

Originally posted by resistor
Climate change denier’s message to Algore, GET STUFFED!!!!!

Few are fooled by your globalist claptrap anymore. We recognize this global warming fertilizer, as we do Kyoto for what they are: colossal cash grabs on a level to shame the federal reserve. Take your private jet, and then your limo back to your mansion in TENN and STFU!!!

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? Are your thought processes are so stunned, that you just don't realize that this actually getting worse? Is the smog disappearing over large populations, or is it getting thicker?


Mod Edit: Courtesy Is Mandatory.

[edit on 27-3-2008 by Dulcimer]

Us people huh. Bigoted much? Face it Becky, the ‘global warming is all because of man’ crap has been debunked. Put down the globalist cool aid and smell the coffee. It's the SUN stupid.

Originally posted by DisgustedOne
Wow!!! Few subjects stir the passions like the global warming subject. No commenter on this thread has displayed much intelligent debate, not because you guys aren't intelligent, but because you all lose your minds when Al makes an appearance.

No, it's because it's all been said before, and I expect members of ATS to be familiar with what's been posted before. But that being said, yes this globalist yat pisses me off.

Originally posted by Sublime620
Now man-made or not... that's debatable. Either way, it's gonna hurt if we don't fit it.

Sure, we can fix it. Just as soon as we learn to control the sun.

Originally posted by Sublime620
Whether global warming is man made or not, the propositions Gore and others make are still the right move. We need to get off of Oil and other carbon fuels.

Now that I can agree with. It should have been an obsolete technology with only isolated applications decades ago. Too bad there's so much money in it.

reply to post by traderonwallst


How long should I wait to tell that you to stop harassing people on the forum? I do not appreciate your comments in the least.


[edit on 28-3-2008 by Kinesis]

The personal attacks stop NOW...

The topic, despite the political connotation of Gore is "Climate Change".

Prove with rhetoric and source....not ad hominem.

[edit on 29-3-2008 by Sublime620]

reply to post by Kinesis


The people who you are getting your info from are the same ones who cry "global warming" and then turn around and are more than happy that you believe them and will now sell you all of the great "green" items they just made. Those same people will also benefit from the carbon taxes they will pass, congratulations on putting more money straight into the pockets of the liars and thieves that have been conning us for decades, some people believe everything they hear.

reply to post by Stumpy1


You live in a very oppressive society. You're given no choice but to believe advertising at face value and buy into it until you go bankrupt. Wait, when you have limitless credit then window shopping is a free-for-all.

I guess if you stop for a moment, and hold back from consuming everything that's put in front of you, then people will think you can't afford it.

Decisions, decisions. Oh yea, the environment. Carbon credit is sounding more and more like a great idea. You can pollute as much as you need to feed the machine, and we'll just put your excess carbon emissions on credit. It just makes perfect sense.

Aw, too bad, Al Gore came up with the idea before I did. What is Al Gore gonna do with a bank full of carbon??

Global warming has both natural and man-made components but the natural components are of such magnitude that I don't think there is anything man can do to stop it. It's also not a constant warming but a series of overlapping cycles, some of which are short term and some of which are long term along with a degree of chaotic behavior.

We really desperately need better energy sources than fossil fuels, not because discontinuing the use of fossil fuels will prevent global warming, it might slow it somewhat but it won't prevent it, but because fossil fuels can not provide us the magnitude of energy we will need to adapt to a changing climate, or to eliminate poverty, or to reach our human potential.

Originally posted by Nookster
We really desperately need better energy sources than fossil fuels, not because discontinuing the use of fossil fuels will prevent global warming, it might slow it somewhat but it won't prevent it, but because fossil fuels can not provide us the magnitude of energy we will need to adapt to a changing climate, or to eliminate poverty, or to reach our human potential.

I couldn't have written it better myself. Eliminating fossil fuels as an energy source could afford us to be in a position where we could maintain an ecological equilibrium. As early on as the 30's and 40's, a lot of petrolium has been spilled as unfiltered waste into the oceans, and across once-beautiful landscapes. Hawaii was a paradise at one time, but the Kamakazi and the battle at Midway spelled the beginning or the end for that region of the world.

People wish to point to the 60's and 70's population growth as the start of the downward spiral. And then there's people who probably don't think there's a problem with the ecosystem to begin with. They'll say it's a form of advertising to be rebelled against.

Take the attitudes of people in these forums as a microcosm of society in general. Is it really no wonder that nothing ever gets done? We need solidarity on this issue, "but it don't look like it gonna happen."

Now here is something I really struggle to understand. Usually rational people who are very sceptical of their government are increasingly willing to believe that global warming is not happening.

Climate Change denial is a line that the neo-cons have been trying to put out for over a decade. It really is bafferling that people who question the 'official' explanation of 9/11 are unwilling to to question the denial of global climate change.

What interest would an oil dependent state have in denying the connection between carbon based emissions and change in the worlds climate?

Between 1993 and 2003, more than 900 peer-reviewed scientific studies have reinforced the consensus of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that ‘anthropogenic activity is contributing to climate change’. 900.. this is a pretty categorical conclusion.

The World Health Organisation already contends that 150, 000 deaths annually are due to extreme weather conditions brought on by climate change. Mostly from water born diseases and vectors. If climate change projections are correct southern Europe will be threatened by malaria carrying mosquitoes. Each year, it causes disease in approximately 515 million people and kills between one and three million people.

Finally climate change will eventually threaten the west, if there is no global warming then why are governments treating the long term impacts of climate change as a security threat. Pentagon security analysts have projected that the impact of climate change on large scale agriculture and fresh water supplies in North America and Europe could lead to a breakdown in normal alliances and promote resource-driven conflict.

There is currently a lag of 20 to 30years in terms off cause and effect, considering the huge industrialisation of the majority world in that time climate change can only increase exponentially.

Originally posted by Kinesis
Take the attitudes of people in these forums as a microcosm of society in general. Is it really no wonder that nothing ever gets done? We need solidarity on this issue, "but it don't look like it gonna happen."

and this is where your bang on the money. The bush administration has always insisted that it doesnt want to make a decision until all the facts are in. As long as there is a question mark looming over the idea of climate change in the minds of the nation there will be no solidarity. Create confusion and uncertainty and people will be very unwilling to commit to something that may have economic repercussions.

Its nice to know its easier to go to war than save the world.