dmarc117 Posted June 27, 2009 Share Posted June 27, 2009 (edited) Have to agree here!!!! He belongs to a firm that invests in something he believes in? Was he benefiting from any of this when he made his little documentary? No? . .Hmm . . . If joining a business that supports a cause you beleive in is wrong, then what SHOULD he do? get in bed with oil companies like Bush I and Bush II and get involved in foreign wars? Is THAT ok? But that would involve morals . . . . PS guys . . AL Gore is a private citizen now, NOT an elected politician. He can do whatever the funk he wants . . . If he did all this while in office (see Bush and Cheney) THEN you might start making sense. Again, I am against cap and trade and think it is a terrible idea. But seriously guys, start thinking for yourselves and stop quoting OPINION articles written by others. you make me laugh. any more softballs? he started his 1st investment firm in 2004 http://www.generationim.com/strategy/ inconvenient lies came out in 2006 Edited June 27, 2009 by dmarc117 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted June 27, 2009 Share Posted June 27, 2009 you make me laugh. any more softballs? he started his 1st investment firm in 2004 http://www.generationim.com/strategy/ inconvenient lies came out in 2006 Touche . . . Boy, it is amazing how much power a private citizen has over the whole world. Dmarc, here is another "softball". Did he do any of this while in office? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted June 27, 2009 Share Posted June 27, 2009 (edited) you make me laugh. any more softballs? he started his 1st investment firm in 2004 http://www.generationim.com/strategy/ inconvenient lies came out in 2006 It's very difficult to for a well known former pres or vice pres to make money after the conclusion of their political careers - nearly impossible. The only way to do it is push a vast conspiracy into the spotlight and convince almost everyone in the scientific community to help sell your ruse. At least it's the easiest way. Edited June 27, 2009 by bushwacked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted June 27, 2009 Share Posted June 27, 2009 (edited) Touche . . . Boy, it is amazing how much power a private citizen has over the whole world. Dmarc, here is another "softball". Did he do any of this while in office? i do not know if he did or didnt. you simply asked What does anyone have to GAIN from this "hoax"? al gore has the potential to make a massive amount of money on global warming. lets just say it really, truly is a hoax(which i believe it is) or that he has stretched the truth. al gore first invests in a number of alternative energy firms. then he comes out and lies about our impending doom. these alt energy firms make money on these lies and he in turn makes money on his investments. how is this scenario not corrupt or a conflict of interest??? how is it any different from the short seller, rumor mongerers that supposedly took down bear stearns and lehman?? i think that all politicians are crooks, left and right. they are not doing this stuff for us. Edited June 27, 2009 by dmarc117 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted June 27, 2009 Share Posted June 27, 2009 i do not know if he did or didnt. you simply asked al gore has the potential to make a massive amount of money on global warming. lets just say it really, truly is a hoax(which i believe it is). al gore first invests in a number of alternative energy firms. then he comes out and lies about our impending doom. these alt energy firms make money on these lies and he in turn makes money on his investments. how is this scenario not corrupt or a conflict of interest??? how is it any different from the short seller, rumor mongerers that supposedly took down bear stearns and lehman?? i think that all politicians are crooks, left and right. they are not doing this stuff for us. Let me say this slowly so you understand . . . HE IS A PRIVATE CITIZEN All this was done POST elective office! If any of this was done while he WAS in office (y'know, like Bush and Cheney?) then I would be right behind you in crying about conflict of interest. If Al Gore held this kind of massive, global power, dont you think he would have won the election against Bush? Hell, if he has this kind of galvanizing super ability to change the minds of millions of people, dont you think he would be crowned "king of the world"? Methinks you need another "scary" figure to associate with this . . . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted June 27, 2009 Share Posted June 27, 2009 What does anyone have to gain by this? Does Pelosi have huge amounts of stock in wind farms (like Cheney had a conflict of interest with Halliburton?)? Does Al Gore hold a patent on batteries used in hybrids? What does anyone have to GAIN from this "hoax"? PS- Just something to think about . . . if the Earth is supposed to be in a COOLING period like our resident climatoligist H8 says . . . and the earth temp has flatlined (not increased or decreased) . . . is there some factor that is preventing the earth from cooling like it "should" be doing right now? Is the absence of falling temps (like h8 adamantly says is going on) akin to saying that the temp is rising? ie- if you turn you air conditioning from 80 down to 70 . . but it stays at 80 . . . would you say HA! it isnt getting any hotter, or would you look to see why it isnt getting colder? And what is the variable (or combination on mnay variables) that is causing it? PPS- I dont support cap and trade at all. But to deny that humans cant have a influence on the environment is just ignorant. Humankind has cut down millions of trees, spread across almost every corner of the world, crisscrossed previously natural landscapes with asphalt, and has made certain parts of the world uninhabitable with irresponsible actions (see Chernobyl). While global warming probably isnt as bad as AL Gore thinks, to blithely proclaim it isnt happening either is just as dumb. Somewhere in between lies the truth . . . Let me say this slowly so you understand . . . HE IS A PRIVATE CITIZEN All this was done POST elective office! If any of this was done while he WAS in office (y'know, like Bush and Cheney?) then I would be right behind you in crying about conflict of interest. If Al Gore held this kind of massive, global power, dont you think he would have won the election against Bush? Hell, if he has this kind of galvanizing super ability to change the minds of millions of people, dont you think he would be crowned "king of the world"? Methinks you need another "scary" figure to associate with this . . . . . who cares if he is private or not. its a scam that he will make alot of money from, thus making it illegal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted June 27, 2009 Share Posted June 27, 2009 who cares if he is private or not. its a scam that he will make alot of money from, thus making it illegal. A scam. Again, boy do you give Al Gore a lot of credit! He cant convince the Supreme Court that he may have won the Presidential election, but he can convince millions that global warming and burning fossil fuels is bad. He is a private citizen that has somehow completely subverted not only the US governmnet, but scientists and other countries around the world! He is like Bernie Madoff squared multiplied by infinity! It is truly amazing that you and the opinion section of the WSJ are the only ones that have twigged onto these monumental shenanigans being perpetrated on the world! Why . . . oh why, doesnt anyone else expose this scam?!?!? And if it is a scam, why isnt anything being done to stop it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted June 28, 2009 Share Posted June 28, 2009 who cares if he is private or not. its a scam that he will make alot of money from, thus making it illegal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted June 28, 2009 Share Posted June 28, 2009 (edited) So, Al Gore is doing his GW thing: A - Out of the kindness of his heart to benefit mankind B - As part of a complex and far-fetched scam where he is getting America turned into a socialist state and the science community has ignored ethical guidelines to help push him through his diabolical objectives. or C - The truth is somewhere between belief A and B. He is benefiting financially and politically for his work, but actually believes in what he is doing. I know what 2 options I think are filled with desperate absurdity and a lack of logical and rational thought. If Dmarc leaned to the left, it's reasonable to think he would have thought 9-11 was an inside job. Starting to notice a common theme in the most stubborn "AGW" doubters. Edited June 28, 2009 by bushwacked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McBoog Posted June 28, 2009 Share Posted June 28, 2009 It's a vast left wing agenda. Almost every climate expert in the world that I and only I (and those who agree with my position and my position only) am willing to accept as credible, have overtly agreed to push forth bad science with cherry picked data so they can keep their politically funded, well-paying jobs as compared to the majority of the world population, while helping the socialists drive the death nail in the world economy. Just think about it. I'm Fixed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H8tank Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 (edited) The 98-page report, co-authored by EPA analyst Alan Carlin, pushed back on the prospect of regulating gases like carbon dioxide as a way to reduce global warming. Carlin's report argued that the information the EPA was using was out of date, and that even as atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have increased, global temperatures have declined. Read it yourself: http://cei.org/cei_files/fm/active/0/DOC062509-004.pdf Watch the little red bars get shorter... Edited June 30, 2009 by H8tank Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 The abnormally cool 65-degree high predicted Wednesday would deliver the Chicago area its coolest July opening in 79-years -- since a 65-degree reading in 1930. A temperature at that level at this point in the season is more typical of early May and 18 degrees below normal for the date. It comes on the heels of the coolest June close in 23 years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 Watch the first 3 1/2 minutes of this. After that it gets more political than factual. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 (edited) These threads always come to some sort of predictable finality when on the 8th page a skeptic demonstrates he has no grasp on the difference between weather and climate. Edited July 2, 2009 by bushwacked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Retrograde assault Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 Like anybody here has a grasp on it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 Like anybody here has a grasp on it. In the early 1800's we understood the complexity of geology; the magnitude. At the turn of the century we learned a ton about what constitutes the he earth's core, magnetic deviation, the atmosphere, radiometric dating, cosmic radiation, and continental drifts. In the 1930's we dropped some serious knowledge about the earth's inner core and periodic ice ages. In the 1950's and 60's we further developed our understanding of plate tectonics and seafloor spreading. Now we are figuring out that in the last 200 years of civilization, our industrial activities and exponentially blooming population, do in fact effect us, and the planet we are renting. Those of you who resort to the philosophy that the earth has been around for 4 billion years and will be fine without out us, are completely missing the point on every level. Denying that an educated scientific consensus helps us out in understanding how things work; puts you in a politically-religious motivated side of being historically wrong. If there were innnernets and blogs from the 1800s to the early 60's; we'd be treating all the aforementioned topics the same way we are treating global warming. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Retrograde assault Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 Denying that an educated scientific consensus helps us out in understanding how things work Even a poor uneducated fool like myself knows you have no consensus on the so called global -warming subject. Get real dude. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 Even a poor uneducated fool like myself knows you have no consensus on the so called global -warming subject. Get real dude. Exactly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Neutron Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 In the early 1800's we understood the complexity of geology; the magnitude. At the turn of the century we learned a ton about what constitutes the he earth's core, magnetic deviation, the atmosphere, radiometric dating, cosmic radiation, and continental drifts. In the 1930's we dropped some serious knowledge about the earth's inner core and periodic ice ages. In the 1950's and 60's we further developed our understanding of plate tectonics and seafloor spreading. Now we are figuring out that in the last 200 years of civilization, our industrial activities and exponentially blooming population, do in fact effect us, and the planet we are renting. Those of you who resort to the philosophy that the earth has been around for 4 billion years and will be fine without out us, are completely missing the point on every level. Denying that an educated scientific consensus helps us out in understanding how things work; puts you in a politically-religious motivated side of being historically wrong. If there were innnernets and blogs from the 1800s to the early 60's; we'd be treating all the aforementioned topics the same way we are treating global warming. I get all of that. I also think it's safe to say that Al Gore and his ilk are jumping the gun. Scientific theory and understanding changes over time. We're pretty early into the study of climate change - my guess is that 10-50 years from now we'll have a better understanding of what's going on and there there are multiple reasons for climate change - not the least of which is man-based activity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 I get all of that. I also think it's safe to say that Al Gore and his ilk are jumping the gun. Scientific theory and understanding changes over time. We're pretty early into the study of climate change - my guess is that 10-50 years from now we'll have a better understanding of what's going on and there there are multiple reasons for climate change - not the least of which is man-based activity. Spot on (but we are also pretty much early on learning the world isn't flat and we sent man to the moon). You guys despise Al Gore , I understand he is the right wing hate poster child that clouds all other judgment. But, Science is Science. My biggest beef, is with those who are convinced that our unadulterated living over the last 200 years couldn't effect our planet. Not only does it contradict basic intuition, it definitely contradicts Science. I've claimed, all along, the debate shouldn't be if man effects Climate, but how much and what should be done. You have to get off the tricycle and take off the training wheels before you learn how to ride a bike. Science and policy have legitimately moved forward, If you really want to make a difference on how things are moving forward, get off tricycle and take off the training wheels. While a lot of you guys are arguing the world is flat, there are a lot of educated decisions being made. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H8tank Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 In the early 1800's we understood the complexity of geology; the magnitude. At the turn of the century we learned a ton about what constitutes the he earth's core, magnetic deviation, the atmosphere, radiometric dating, cosmic radiation, and continental drifts. In the 1930's we dropped some serious knowledge about the earth's inner core and periodic ice ages. In the 1950's and 60's we further developed our understanding of plate tectonics and seafloor spreading. Now we are figuring out that in the last 200 years of civilization, our industrial activities and exponentially blooming population, do in fact effect us, and the planet we are renting. Those of you who resort to the philosophy that the earth has been around for 4 billion years and will be fine without out us, are completely missing the point on every level. Denying that an educated scientific consensus helps us out in understanding how things work; puts you in a politically-religious motivated side of being historically wrong. If there were innnernets and blogs from the 1800s to the early 60's; we'd be treating all the aforementioned topics the same way we are treating global warming. You left one out dude, you know the global ice age fears of the 1970's. How about eugenics? there was 'consensus' there too dipschit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 people use the term "consensus" as to not think for themselves...."well, the majority says this"....and regardless of who the majority is and whether they are qualified to even have any weight on the subjects is almost thrown out the window... even the Huddle CCS has been way off from time to time....and this forum is full of...experts Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 You left one out dude, you know the global ice age fears In the 1930's we dropped some serious knowledge about the earth's inner core and periodic ice ages. Exactly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McBoog Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 My biggest beef, is with those who are convinced that our unadulterated living over the last 200 years couldn't effect our planet. Not only does it contradict basic intuition, it definitely contradicts Science. I agree 100% with this statement. My biggest beef, is with those who are convinced that CO2 is a significant factor in driving climate over the last 200 years. Not only does it contradict basic intuition, it definitely contradicts Science. In the 60s, the impending ICE AGE was going to kill us all. Now three decades later, a gas, relatively inactive and a poor conductor/retainer of heat, making up 0.0383 % (that is less than four one-hundredths of 1% or four one-hundred thousandths of the total atmosphere) has caused the planet to warm? Puh-lease. Get off YOUR trike baby. It also takes the focus away from much more significant things we could be doing to make the planet cleaner and really protect the environment in direct and tangible ways. Until you realize that the CO2 debate is about politics and not science/cleaning the planet, we are all mutually And tell me again... How exactly is there no relationship between weather and climate? In basic terms, the cumulative average of "the weather" is what determines the type of "climate" you live in. This applies to the macro and micro levels and everything in between. Even the climal warnging proponents argue that "it is getting hotter" (weather) and therefore the "overall climate" (cumulative average of weather) is changing. The IPCC describes as follows... " Climate in a narrow sense is usually defined as the "average weather," or more rigorously, as the statistical description in terms of the mean and variability of relevant quantities over a period of time ranging from months to thousands or millions of years... " In other words Climate is what statistically helps you predict the weather. The average weather over time defines climate. Pointing out unusually cool weather is not only poignant, but is appropriate since the weather today WILL be included in defining the climate of tomorrow. This is unfortunately part of your "inconvenient truth" If you want to make real change in this area, drop the CO2 dogma and focus on what is real. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 Could we be wrong about global warming?Buzz up! Like this story? Share it with Yahoo! Buzz X-large Could the best climate models -- the ones used to predict global warming -- all be wrong? Maybe so, says a new study published online today in the journal Nature Geoscience. The report found that only about half of the warming that occurred during a natural climate change 55 million years ago can be explained by excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. What caused the remainder of the warming is a mystery. "In a nutshell, theoretical models cannot explain what we observe in the geological record," says oceanographer Gerald Dickens, study co-author and professor of Earth Science at Rice University in Houston. "There appears to be something fundamentally wrong with the way temperature and carbon are linked in climate models." During the warming period, known as the “Palaeocene-Eocene thermal maximum” (PETM), for unknown reasons, the amount of carbon in Earth's atmosphere rose rapidly. This makes the PETM one of the best ancient climate analogues for present-day Earth. As the levels of carbon increased, global surface temperatures also rose dramatically during the PETM. Average temperatures worldwide rose by around 13 degrees in the relatively short geological span of about 10,000 years. The conclusion, Dickens said, is that something other than carbon dioxide caused much of this ancient warming. "Some feedback loop or other processes that aren't accounted for in these models -- the same ones used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for current best estimates of 21st century warming -- caused a substantial portion of the warming that occurred during the PETM." In their most recent assessment report in 2007, the IPCC predicted the Earth would warm by anywhere from 2 to 11 degrees by the end of the century due to increasing amounts of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere caused by human industrial activity. USA Today Link Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.