Al Gore wins Nobel Peace Prize
- Thread starter Padraic
- Start date
Woolybugger
Member
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2007
- Messages
- 194
So what does this have to do with Al Gore and with Global Warming? He was one of the first to talk about Global Warming, that's what he's about.......... everything else is "spin" to get the working class off the subject of Global Warming.
Regan "the smoke above the Smokey Mountains is only the rotting of the plants in the forest, that's what the scientists tell us, there is no such thing as Global Warming"
the old Bush "this guy is so crazy, we'll be up to our necks in owls and out of work for every American, no such thing as Global Warming"
congressman ? last year "Al Gore is the head of the biggest scam ever put on the American public, with all this craziness about Global Warming"
young Bush is too stupid to know what CO2 is! and "environment" is a big word for him........ he can't pronounce it, so how could he understand it! W gets a pass on this one! Sometimes being the dumbest guy in the room is what it takes to mislead the folks in America.
God Bless America!
Regan "the smoke above the Smokey Mountains is only the rotting of the plants in the forest, that's what the scientists tell us, there is no such thing as Global Warming"
the old Bush "this guy is so crazy, we'll be up to our necks in owls and out of work for every American, no such thing as Global Warming"
congressman ? last year "Al Gore is the head of the biggest scam ever put on the American public, with all this craziness about Global Warming"
young Bush is too stupid to know what CO2 is! and "environment" is a big word for him........ he can't pronounce it, so how could he understand it! W gets a pass on this one! Sometimes being the dumbest guy in the room is what it takes to mislead the folks in America.
God Bless America!
ryanh
Member
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 657
Lookit,
I think that we are all on the same page as far as digging the envrionment. There is a LOT that we can do. The industrial revolution ravaged the world and particullarly our part of the country. We will be cleaning it up perhaps forever.
But....
Al Gore in self serving hypocrit. Anybody who lives in a mansion and flies around on private jets to get speaking fees looses the luxary of mau-mauing regular people about environmental issues.
Also no objective person in the planet could suggest that we are primarily the ones at fault. We are perhaps the most environmentally responsible nation in the world. Once China, India, Russa and the rest of BFE gets their crap together, then come talk to us.
I think that we are all on the same page as far as digging the envrionment. There is a LOT that we can do. The industrial revolution ravaged the world and particullarly our part of the country. We will be cleaning it up perhaps forever.
But....
Al Gore in self serving hypocrit. Anybody who lives in a mansion and flies around on private jets to get speaking fees looses the luxary of mau-mauing regular people about environmental issues.
Also no objective person in the planet could suggest that we are primarily the ones at fault. We are perhaps the most environmentally responsible nation in the world. Once China, India, Russa and the rest of BFE gets their crap together, then come talk to us.
Ryan,
I thought I just turned on the Sean Hannity radio show reading that spew. you could have at least changed a few words rather than recite it verbatim.
Enjoy the kool-aid.
ryanh
Member
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 657
For the record I am no fan of Hanity.
Am I really the only one that thinks he's (Gore) full of crapola?
Like I said, there is much to be done when it comes to the environment. I personally believe that Gore is our for Gore and is not the jolly green giant that he says that he is.
To each their own, but all I ask is that you don't try to take mine.
Am I really the only one that thinks he's (Gore) full of crapola?
Like I said, there is much to be done when it comes to the environment. I personally believe that Gore is our for Gore and is not the jolly green giant that he says that he is.
To each their own, but all I ask is that you don't try to take mine.
Just bustin yur chops Ryan....ther eis a sayin that goes clean up yer own back yard before telling me what is wrong with mine. That applies to the US toward other countries. Afterall we have taken on the role of we are greater than the rest of you in this generation. We should show it in our actions.
I am not a fan of gore either...in fact I don't really have a stance on the issue of global warming except that it comes up everywhere you look and the counter isn't a bad thing unless you are a green house gas polluter.
As for gore, well, anyone who begins(did I say begins?) locomotes a movement makes a footprint. it is unfortunate that footprints are the enemy in his one. As important as this movement is, it is a shame to have the focus be on the messenger than the message. But that is just the way society sees things these days. rather than take a position on an issue this society of convenience would rather take the position of someone they can easily listen to and be comfortable with discussing with their friends and call it anti-capitalism. It really is a movement of its own. Not based on values but peer presure.
Anyway, I am not so sure Gore is targeting the middle class to recycle or to go broke driving hybrid cars so much as to get people thinking about their impact or better yet the global impact on our industry and environmental choices. Yet he is the villian or percieved to be by the right in any way they can muster and their following will rally the pitch forks and torches to villianize the notion of positive action toward a potentially globally harmful situation.
If nobody takes the lead, who will be the leader? Industry?
I am not a fan of gore either...in fact I don't really have a stance on the issue of global warming except that it comes up everywhere you look and the counter isn't a bad thing unless you are a green house gas polluter.
As for gore, well, anyone who begins(did I say begins?) locomotes a movement makes a footprint. it is unfortunate that footprints are the enemy in his one. As important as this movement is, it is a shame to have the focus be on the messenger than the message. But that is just the way society sees things these days. rather than take a position on an issue this society of convenience would rather take the position of someone they can easily listen to and be comfortable with discussing with their friends and call it anti-capitalism. It really is a movement of its own. Not based on values but peer presure.
Anyway, I am not so sure Gore is targeting the middle class to recycle or to go broke driving hybrid cars so much as to get people thinking about their impact or better yet the global impact on our industry and environmental choices. Yet he is the villian or percieved to be by the right in any way they can muster and their following will rally the pitch forks and torches to villianize the notion of positive action toward a potentially globally harmful situation.
If nobody takes the lead, who will be the leader? Industry?
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 17,363
The truth is nowhere near as exciting as the sensationalization of this "issue" by those who have much to lose if Al Gore's advocacy for responsible energy usage is successful.
The claims are exagerated in the first instance and misleading when all facts are considered. As this more balanced consideration shows (http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/gorehome.asp), the Gore household is not a mere residence, but also serves as an office for both Al and Tipper and a goodly portion of their energy comes from more expensive and renewable sources.
But, importantly, the Gore household is not a typical household. I would suspect that for a family of his stature both in notoriety and economic means, he shows as much if not more concern for the environment than his true peers.
All of that aside, however, as Maurice duly notes, what is important is whether there is truth to his message, not whether his contribution to the problem of consumption is greater than yours or mine.
It may be honorably maintained that the goal of an environmentally responsible, yet technologically advancing society, is to produce more and more energy to make life more convenient and enjoyable while causing less and less harm to the planet. There simply is no neccessary hypocrisy in consuming large amounts of energy and advocating for a shift away from forms of energy production that are harmful to the environment and non-renewable.
The claims are exagerated in the first instance and misleading when all facts are considered. As this more balanced consideration shows (http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/gorehome.asp), the Gore household is not a mere residence, but also serves as an office for both Al and Tipper and a goodly portion of their energy comes from more expensive and renewable sources.
But, importantly, the Gore household is not a typical household. I would suspect that for a family of his stature both in notoriety and economic means, he shows as much if not more concern for the environment than his true peers.
All of that aside, however, as Maurice duly notes, what is important is whether there is truth to his message, not whether his contribution to the problem of consumption is greater than yours or mine.
It may be honorably maintained that the goal of an environmentally responsible, yet technologically advancing society, is to produce more and more energy to make life more convenient and enjoyable while causing less and less harm to the planet. There simply is no neccessary hypocrisy in consuming large amounts of energy and advocating for a shift away from forms of energy production that are harmful to the environment and non-renewable.
Topic 1. Global Warming
Topic 2. Al Gore, whether you like him, don't like him, etc.
The two topics are essentially unrelated.
You have to decide, are you going to talk about climate. Or are you going to talk about Al Gore?
If the climate is actually undergoing significant changes, that would be true whether or not anyone named Al Gore ever existed.
The people who tried to turn the debate about Climate Change into a debate about Al Gore were completely aware of what they were doing, of course.
Topic 2. Al Gore, whether you like him, don't like him, etc.
The two topics are essentially unrelated.
You have to decide, are you going to talk about climate. Or are you going to talk about Al Gore?
If the climate is actually undergoing significant changes, that would be true whether or not anyone named Al Gore ever existed.
The people who tried to turn the debate about Climate Change into a debate about Al Gore were completely aware of what they were doing, of course.
ryanh
Member
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 657
I do not believe in man made climate change. Of course the weather will change but it varies within a standard deviation. Where were all of the hurricanes this year? Any scientist knows that;
#1 you can not extrapolate from only a few data points
#2 you can make numbers say just about anything that you want
#3 you data is only as precise as your intrumentation.
Considering that the definition of climate is long term weather patterns, and that the modern thermomter was not invented until the mid 18th century I have little faith in climactic data originating before the 1940's.
#1 you can not extrapolate from only a few data points
#2 you can make numbers say just about anything that you want
#3 you data is only as precise as your intrumentation.
Considering that the definition of climate is long term weather patterns, and that the modern thermomter was not invented until the mid 18th century I have little faith in climactic data originating before the 1940's.
tabasco_joe
Member
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2006
- Messages
- 889
I’m not sure I understand your logic. AL Gore wins the Noble prize for feeding the public information about global warming that even the scientists that believe in global warning call extremely exaggerated. He is a primary partner in a carbon credit company that, according to financial analysts pockets about 85 cents on every dollar they receive. That leaves 15 cents for investment in renewable energy. He has profited to the tune of $100 million dollars since 2001 from the cause. How is climate change and Al Gore unrelated?
OK, so let's agree that Al Gore is a dunce and a bad guy. That get's THAT out of the way.
Now, what are we going to do about Climate Change? If the climate really does change in the way many climatologists are predicting, the trout populations here in PA are going to take a big hit. Warmer water temps would mean shrinkage of the "trout zone" in our stream systems. Brook trout's range would shrink even further up into the headwaters. And their range has already shrunk greatly from their original range.
ryanh
Member
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 657
Troutbert,
I mean this in the best way possible....you scare me. Lets say that you are right about global warming. Say that we adopt all of the Koyoto protocols. Think about what that would do to this country. Then think, REALLY think, what this country means to the rest of the world. Then also contrast that with the fact that the real polluters such as China, India and Russia are not held to the same regulatory level as we would be. The earth is a closed system. If we completely eliminate our emmissions and they are allowed to continue on their current trajectory net emissions will still rise.
Yes we consume more energy than another country in the world (though China will pass us soon) but we produce more goods, foods and services. And I was 100% serious when I said that we are perhaps the most environmentally responsible country in the world. Look these terms up and get back to me; RCRA, CERCLA, TSCA, NPDES, and EIS.
I mean this in the best way possible....you scare me. Lets say that you are right about global warming. Say that we adopt all of the Koyoto protocols. Think about what that would do to this country. Then think, REALLY think, what this country means to the rest of the world. Then also contrast that with the fact that the real polluters such as China, India and Russia are not held to the same regulatory level as we would be. The earth is a closed system. If we completely eliminate our emmissions and they are allowed to continue on their current trajectory net emissions will still rise.
Yes we consume more energy than another country in the world (though China will pass us soon) but we produce more goods, foods and services. And I was 100% serious when I said that we are perhaps the most environmentally responsible country in the world. Look these terms up and get back to me; RCRA, CERCLA, TSCA, NPDES, and EIS.
tabasco_joe
Member
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2006
- Messages
- 889
OK, so let's agree that Al Gore is a dunce and a bad guy. That gut’s THAT out of the way.
Now, what are we going to do about Climate Change? If the climate really does change in the way many climatologists are predicting, the trout populations here in PA are going to take a big hit. Warmer water temps would mean shrinkage of the "trout zone" in our stream systems. Brook trout's range would shrink even further up into the headwaters. And their range has already shrunk greatly from their original range.[/quote]
Quoted from Troutbert, the quote box got lost when I edited the qoute down.
I have a technical background and have put a lot of time investigating various aspects of global warming. I also happen top have a brother who is a PhD in fluid dynamics and a reasonably respected expert in the field. In my opinion the earth is warming by natural causes. I believe we are experiencing a cycle of increased solar energy output. This theory is subscribed by a number of top astronomers and astrophysisists..
I have studied reviews of pro global warming scientists and see a number of flaws in the modeling.
1. Solar energy inputs are generally kept as a constant.
2. The largest portion of the warming mechanism comes from water vapor. We probably have at least 20% - 30% error in our modeling of water vapor. This dwarfs any CO2 component.
3. The models rely on positive feedback for CO2 contribution. They do not explain what limits the positive gain and keeps it from becoming runaway such as happens on Venus.
For those that believe in man made contribution to climate change I ask these questions:
1. During the Medieval warming period the Vikings had farms on Greenland. What caused the glaciers that formed over this area that we know today? We also know that prior to the first century AD these areas had glaciers. Why did they melt to allow the Viking communities?
2. As glaciers in the Swiss Alps recede Roman villages and mines are being discovered. These date to the first century AD. Why did they ice over?
Now, what are we going to do about Climate Change? If the climate really does change in the way many climatologists are predicting, the trout populations here in PA are going to take a big hit. Warmer water temps would mean shrinkage of the "trout zone" in our stream systems. Brook trout's range would shrink even further up into the headwaters. And their range has already shrunk greatly from their original range.[/quote]
Quoted from Troutbert, the quote box got lost when I edited the qoute down.
I have a technical background and have put a lot of time investigating various aspects of global warming. I also happen top have a brother who is a PhD in fluid dynamics and a reasonably respected expert in the field. In my opinion the earth is warming by natural causes. I believe we are experiencing a cycle of increased solar energy output. This theory is subscribed by a number of top astronomers and astrophysisists..
I have studied reviews of pro global warming scientists and see a number of flaws in the modeling.
1. Solar energy inputs are generally kept as a constant.
2. The largest portion of the warming mechanism comes from water vapor. We probably have at least 20% - 30% error in our modeling of water vapor. This dwarfs any CO2 component.
3. The models rely on positive feedback for CO2 contribution. They do not explain what limits the positive gain and keeps it from becoming runaway such as happens on Venus.
For those that believe in man made contribution to climate change I ask these questions:
1. During the Medieval warming period the Vikings had farms on Greenland. What caused the glaciers that formed over this area that we know today? We also know that prior to the first century AD these areas had glaciers. Why did they melt to allow the Viking communities?
2. As glaciers in the Swiss Alps recede Roman villages and mines are being discovered. These date to the first century AD. Why did they ice over?
tomgamber
Well-known member
Again, I do not believe man is the cause of climate change...but to say we do not contribute to it would be naive. None of the things we are asking the world to do are new. Pollution control, conservation of fossil fuels, new and renewable energy sources have been discussed as positives for decades. What some don't like is that there is actually pressure now to act upon some of those previous suggestions...
tabasco_joe
Member
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2006
- Messages
- 889
As to Brooke Trout;
If the earth is indeed warming by natural causes the brook trout will simply be exposed to changes they have already endured in past thermal cycles. Their range expanded and contracted with the cycles. They will endure. The earth is never a constant. It just appears that way to our small period of time we are granted to experience it.
If the earth is indeed experiencing global warming caused by mans CO2 emissions then the brook trout could be in trouble. One could argue that the thermal changes are happening too quickly for the species to adjust. If you review the model results from proponents of manmade global warming it is too late to have any significant effect this century. If we instituted the most severe measures it only cuts back the temperature change by a degree or so by the end of the century.
The brook trout’s fate for our and our children’s lifetime is sealed, either way.
This is not to say that if man made global warming was fact that we should not make efforts to resolve the problem. The most effective solutions that engineers and scientists propose would not be those being presented by the current set of politicians.
If the earth is indeed warming by natural causes the brook trout will simply be exposed to changes they have already endured in past thermal cycles. Their range expanded and contracted with the cycles. They will endure. The earth is never a constant. It just appears that way to our small period of time we are granted to experience it.
If the earth is indeed experiencing global warming caused by mans CO2 emissions then the brook trout could be in trouble. One could argue that the thermal changes are happening too quickly for the species to adjust. If you review the model results from proponents of manmade global warming it is too late to have any significant effect this century. If we instituted the most severe measures it only cuts back the temperature change by a degree or so by the end of the century.
The brook trout’s fate for our and our children’s lifetime is sealed, either way.
This is not to say that if man made global warming was fact that we should not make efforts to resolve the problem. The most effective solutions that engineers and scientists propose would not be those being presented by the current set of politicians.
ryanh
Member
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 657
I agree with you Tom on the conservation side. We do need to conserve and develop renewable energy sources. It is the right thing to do. Furthermore our technology is to a point where we can do that.
I personally think that we are on the cusp of some emmergent technology that will change all of this. Look at the internal combustion engine. Within a decade of its invention the industrial revolution was in full swing. We need that next great leap of innovation.
My problem with the enviro-movement now is that it is dumbed down too much. I understand that you can not present research findings to Joe Six-pack but through dumbing it down so much you are turning hypothesis and theory into dogma and political platforms.
That is not the place for science. It opens doors that should not be opened. You get what we have now. A politician who wraps himself in science to get POLICY changes that he wants. If you question his policy you are labeled as "anti-green". If you question his science you are labeled as ignorant. Who are you to second guess all of these scientists?
Well I am a scientist, and have worked on farms....I know horse crap when I see it.
I personally think that we are on the cusp of some emmergent technology that will change all of this. Look at the internal combustion engine. Within a decade of its invention the industrial revolution was in full swing. We need that next great leap of innovation.
My problem with the enviro-movement now is that it is dumbed down too much. I understand that you can not present research findings to Joe Six-pack but through dumbing it down so much you are turning hypothesis and theory into dogma and political platforms.
That is not the place for science. It opens doors that should not be opened. You get what we have now. A politician who wraps himself in science to get POLICY changes that he wants. If you question his policy you are labeled as "anti-green". If you question his science you are labeled as ignorant. Who are you to second guess all of these scientists?
Well I am a scientist, and have worked on farms....I know horse crap when I see it.
tomgamber
Well-known member
Well, you are right in one way..the actual science has been dumbed down. But to the point that it is perceived as junk science...hell, I can make gravity should like junk if dilute it enough to try to make someone (who will never understand it ) understand it. Some people just like the earth flat...especially if it has a detrimental effect on their portfolio.
