NationStates Jolt Archive

Al Gore: An Inconvenient Story

A New video reveals that "global Warming" alarmist Algore uses more hydrobarbon fuels than most individuals in the world.

http://streams.cei.org/

'"All the evidence suggests that Mr. Gore is an elitist who passionately believes that the people of the world must drastically reduce their energy use but that it doesn't apply to him,” said Myron Ebell, CEI's director of energy and global warming policy and the creator of the video.'

Amazing, this guy is all over my ass because I drive to work everyday, but he burns up more fuel in a day than I do in 6 months.

Al Gore: An Inconvenient Story

A New video reveals that "global Warming" alarmist Algore uses more hydrobarbon fuels than most individuals in the world.

http://streams.cei.org/

'"All the evidence suggests that Mr. Gore is an elitist who passionately believes that the people of the world must drastically reduce their energy use but that it doesn't apply to him,” said Myron Ebell, CEI's director of energy and global warming policy and the creator of the video.'

Amazing, this guy is all over my ass because I drive to work everyday, but he burns up more fuel in a day than I do in 6 months.
Wow. What an amazing strawman you've got there. I drive to work everyday because I have to. I think what Gore, and I, would like is for us to work for alternatives to that.

Funny. You realize the CEI is funded by Exxon Mobil and other oil companies and that Gore has purchased pollution credits to offset the carbon footprint that promoting this film is creating, don't you?

You don't? Gee--maybe that's because you're too busy being a hack.:rolleyes:

Funny. You realize the CEI is funded by Exxon Mobil and other oil companies and that Gore has purchased pollution credits to offset the carbon footprint that promoting this film is creating, don't you?

You don't? Gee--maybe that's because you're too busy being a hack.:rolleyes:
You bring up an interesting subject. When one purchases a 'credit' to offset an act of pollution, what really happens? There has to be an awful lot of cooperation for that act to really mean something, doesn't there? I really don't know the answer, but the question that comes to mind is "So what?" Does this actually reduce contaminants in the air or water, or is it just another way for the enviro-extremists to feel good about the consequences of their actions?

..maybe that's because you're too busy being a hack.:rolleyes:

Fuck you, you fucking liar. Moveon made no such comparison, and only lying douchebags still make that claim.

Your debate skills are simply fantastic. I am awwwwed by your talent for persuasion.

firstly, yes, Al Gore uses alot of hydrocarbons. But look at his competition. Considering much of the world population doesn't even have electricity, they don't exactly use much.

Second, Gore doesn't say people are "bad" for using hydrocarbons. He argues that we need to put the money into research to find an alternative.

Third, I don't particularly believe that you've seen Gore's movie.

Does purchasing a credit make the pollution go "Poof!" and disapear in shame? It is still there in the sky, killing pol,ar bears and icebergs. :gundge:

-snip-
Funny, I didn't see Nazz make any such uncivil comment.

Third, I don't particularly believe that you've seen Gore's movie.

Seeing a film you're criticising or reading a book you want banned and/or burnt? That's just kooky enough to make sense.

"the alleged global warming"

Hah. That's just silly.

Does purchasing a credit make the pollution go "Poof!" and disapear in shame? It is still there in the sky, killing pol,ar bears and icebergs. :gundge:
No, but credit CAPS pollution, so there is less.

You bring up an interesting subject. When one purchases a 'credit' to offset an act of pollution, what really happens? There has to be an awful lot of cooperation for that act to really mean something, doesn't there? I really don't know the answer, but the question that comes to mind is "So what?" Does this actually reduce contaminants in the air or water, or is it just another way for the enviro-extremists to feel good about the consequences of their actions?
I was kinda wondering that myself...I mean, even in the US, we don't monitor factories constantly...in a rapidly developing country like India or China, is it even plausable that they stick to their quotas? I think the money spent on these credits would be much better spent buying some land and planting some trees on it

I think the money spent on these credits would be much better spent buying some land and planting some trees on it

No. Then the lumbar industry comes a knocking. After all its about job creation isn't it?

Seeing a film you're criticising or reading a book you want banned and/or burnt? That's just kooky enough to make sense.

"the alleged global warming"

Hah. That's just silly.
Sorry, I must have been using that pesky logic again. I'll try harder not to.

This reminds me of the "All people who believe in socialism should starve" arguments.

Seriously, is your real objection that Gore pollutes too much? I doubt it.

Funny, I didn't see Nazz make any such uncivil comment.

Different thread.

No. Then the lumbar industry comes a knocking. After all its about job creation isn't it?
depends who owns the land really...if I bought up a couple dozen acres and planted trees on it, as a private citizen, there is really nothing anyone could do or say. If the government did it...then yeah. you're right.

I was kinda wondering that myself...I mean, even in the US, we don't monitor factories constantly...in a rapidly developing country like India or China, is it even plausable that they stick to their quotas? I think the money spent on these credits would be much better spent buying some land and planting some trees on it
If there even are caps. The vaunted Kyoto treaty didn't even establish caps for the worst polluting nations except for the U.S.

If there even are caps. The vaunted Kyoto treaty didn't even establish caps for the worst polluting nations except for the U.S.
Well, I'm not specifically refering to Kyoto...I'm just questioning the concept of using these caps, and their effectiveness. I think they're a good start, perhaps, and might be able to do some good...maybe. But I don't see them being particularly plausable.

If there even are caps. The vaunted Kyoto treaty didn't even establish caps for the worst polluting nations except for the U.S.

A lie.

The Kyoto accords roll back Carbon Dioxide production levels to 2001 levels - 5% for all nations, not just the US.

The Kyoto accords roll back Carbon Dioxide production levels to 2001 levels - 5% for all nations, not just the US.
A Lie.

"Other countries, like India and China, which have ratified the protocol, are not required to reduce carbon emissions under the present agreement."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol

Speaking impartially:
I think the amount of CO2 Gore personally uses is irrelevant. If his trips and lobbying result in the passage of laws that reduce the CO2 emissions of millions of people and thousands of businesses (like those on the West Coast), then the CO2 emissions reduced will be many, many times more than the amount he personally produces in his entire lifetime of travel.

Speaking partialy:
At least he's doing something to help the environment rather than just sitting back and letting the status quo continue to the detriment of our health, economic future, and environment. At least the West Coast (and maybe Texas?) will be able to adapt to the future, so that's a plus because that region is the future of our economy.

Has anyone else watched the other advertisements on that site?

"CO2 They call it pollution, we call it life."

One could almost believe that they're parodying something.

Gore's speeches have already led to an increased awareness that have significantly reduced emissions from others. It's the same as me putting up paper bulletins telling people not to use so much paper. If I put up one sheet and it saves a hundred then it's worth it.*

*However, if I can use an email bulletin posting that can save just as much than that's even better.

A Lie.

"Other countries, like India and China, which have ratified the protocol, are not required to reduce carbon emissions under the present agreement."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol
Maybe not a lie, but incorrect...
163 countries have ratified the treaty. All of the industrialised nations (Russia, Japan, all of the European countries etc) would have to roll back Carbon Dioxide production levels to 2001 levels - 5%. So no, not just the US.

And why not developing countries? According to the Wiki-link:
The position of some industrialized nations on developing countries has often been criticized in the developing world. For example, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change agreed to a set of a "common but differentiated responsibilities." The parties agreed that

1. The largest share of historical and current global emissions of greenhouse gases has originated in developed countries;
2. Per capita emissions in developing countries are still relatively low;
3. The share of global emissions originating in developing countries will grow to meet their social and development needs.. UNFCCC background

In other words, China, India, and other developing countries were exempt from the requirements of the Kyoto Protocol because they were not the main contributors to the greenhouse gas emissions during the industrialization period that is believed to be causing today's climate change.

Funny. You realize the CEI is funded by Exxon Mobil and other oil companies and that Gore has purchased pollution credits to offset the carbon footprint that promoting this film is creating, don't you?

You don't? Gee--maybe that's because you're too busy being a hack.:rolleyes:

ooh... purchasing pollution credits. So you're saying that in the future, only the rich will be able to pollute at will...

I, myself, respect people who back up their talk with their actions. Clearly though Al Gore talks the talk he does not walk the walk. No big surprise there. However, the timing of the video "exposing" this is rather distasteful and disgraceful, to say the least. It makes me more than a little suspicious of their motives for doing so.

I'm rather hoping that this news item goes away quickly.

I, myself, respect people who back up their talk with their actions. Clearly though Al Gore talks the talk he does not walk the walk. No big surprise there. However, the timing of the video "exposing" this is rather distasteful and disgraceful, to say the least. It makes me more than a little suspicious of their motives for doing so.

I'm rather hoping that this news item goes away quickly.
It's not a news item, it's really an advertising item. All bought and payed for.

ooh... purchasing pollution credits. So you're saying that in the future, only the rich will be able to pollute at will...
Well, lets put it this way, they will be strongly discouraged to pollute but if a business enterprise needs to pollute a certain amount to achieve growth then the price of pollution credits ensures that the economic growth compensates for the negative externality created by the pollution. Because nobody wants to lose their money, pollution credits would discourage pollution while allowing it in cases where the perceived benefit would compensate for the cost and the money from pollution credits could go towards fighting the effects of pollution or other government functions. At least, that is how I am interpreting the idea that you are expressing.

Well, lets put it this way, they will be strongly discouraged to pollute but if a business enterprise needs to pollute a certain amount to achieve growth then the price of pollution credits ensures that the economic growth compensates for the negative externality created by the pollution. Because nobody wants to lose their money, pollution credits would discourage pollution while allowing it in cases where the perceived benefit would compensate for the cost and the money from pollution credits could go towards fighting the effects of pollution or other government functions. At least, that is how I am interpreting the idea that you are expressing.

I'm well aware of the pollution credit idea. It's still essentially a license for the rich to do what they want, and for them to tell the poor to knock it off.

Hats off for Al Gore. Than man who should've been...

I'm well aware of the pollution credit idea. It's still essentially a license for the rich to do what they want, and for them to tell the poor to knock it off.

Which is basically what the industrial-oriented rich do anyway. If I threw trash on the lawn of the rich, they'd lock me up. If they spill pollutants into a river that runs by my house, it's all part of business.

I'm well aware of the pollution credit idea. It's still essentially a license for the rich to do what they want, and for them to tell the poor to knock it off.
Well, one thing is that rich people would have to pay for their pollution and rich people don't remain rich if they keep on doling out money for random reasons, another thing is that the purpose of the environment is human interests, if the gain in human interests from a corporate scheme would be greater then the loss incurred by the environment then we should pick the former because it helps us more, finally if the money from the pollution credits is spent on the environment then the program could possibly help valid environmental concerns.

Yes, the rich do have more power than the poor, big deal, they don't stay rich if they use up their power stupidly and some form of logical system must be formed and it needs to take into account valid economic interests, the entire purpose of protecting the environment is truly human economic concerns and we need to remember that.

Well, one thing is that rich people would have to pay for their pollution and rich people don't remain rich if they keep on doling out money for random reasons, another thing is that the purpose of the environment is human interests, if the gain in human interests from a corporate scheme would be greater then the loss incurred by the environment then we should pick the former because it helps us more, finally if the money from the pollution credits is spent on the environment then the program could possibly help valid environmental concerns.

Yes, the rich do have more power than the poor, big deal, they don't stay rich if they use up their power stupidly and some form of logical system must be formed and it needs to take into account valid economic interests, the entire purpose of protecting the environment is truly human economic concerns and we need to remember that.
You have correctly stated that rich people don't get rich by doing stupid things. If a rich person is buying pollution credits, doesn't it make sense that this person(company) is doing it because it is the profitable thing to do?

An example of this comes from the Clinton years. That Administration issued an order that no upgrades could be done to power plants unless the whole system was brought up to current EPA emission standards. So a small change that might have resulted in a large efficency increase might not have been done because of the enormous expenses to update all the other powerplant equipment. Buying pollution credits may well be the best and most economical approach to generate more power, but produce more pollution at the same time.

You bring up an interesting subject. When one purchases a 'credit' to offset an act of pollution, what really happens? There has to be an awful lot of cooperation for that act to really mean something, doesn't there? I really don't know the answer, but the question that comes to mind is "So what?" Does this actually reduce contaminants in the air or water, or is it just another way for the enviro-extremists to feel good about the consequences of their actions?
An act of pollution is an act of pollution. You can't quantify or reverse the damage in a "credit". And I'm not even an "enviro-extremist" (incidentally, do you think Gore is one?)

The thing with credits is that if you buy credits for your pollution, the one who sold you the credit cannot pollute. It's not like you can invent credit and *poof* there it is.

The thing with credits is that if you buy credits for your pollution, the one who sold you the credit cannot pollute. It's not like you can invent credit and *poof* there it is.
But it's only good among companies or within nations that play at the game. I suppose it's better than just universal standards that can't be met by all.

Al Gore: An Inconvenient Story

A New video reveals that "global Warming" alarmist Algore uses more hydrobarbon fuels than most individuals in the world.

http://streams.cei.org/

'"All the evidence suggests that Mr. Gore is an elitist who passionately believes that the people of the world must drastically reduce their energy use but that it doesn't apply to him,” said Myron Ebell, CEI's director of energy and global warming policy and the creator of the video.'

Amazing, this guy is all over my ass because I drive to work everyday, but he burns up more fuel in a day than I do in 6 months.

Wow, you mean the people who stand to lose the most from Al Gore's environmentalist message are eager to tell us that Al Gore is a wanker?

Will wonders never cease! The next thing you know, the oil industry will be telling us that alternative fuels are too expensive and inefficient to compete with their sweet, sweet crude!

Wow, you mean the people who stand to lose the most from Al Gore's environmentalist message are eager to tell us that Al Gore is a wanker?

Will wonders never cease! The next thing you know, the oil industry will be telling us that alternative fuels are too expensive and inefficient to compete with their sweet, sweet crude!
And that ad about the benefits of CO2 was just precious. Those guys were spinning so fast they threatened to turn back time.

And that ad about the benefits of CO2 was just precious. Those guys were spinning so fast they threatened to turn back time.

Benefits of CO2? In moderation and balance. Put anyone in room full of CO2, they'll die of heatstroke or suffacate.

Benefits of CO2? In moderation and balance. Put anyone in room full of CO2, they'll die of heatstroke or suffacate.
Yeah--watch the video at that site, the one with the girl blowing the dandelion. They fail to make that distinction.

Benefits of CO2? In moderation and balance. Put anyone in room full of CO2, they'll die of heatstroke or suffacate.
Their argument is, "We all breathe out CO2. Therefore, CO2 is a wonderful thing, and we need more of it. Please use more fuel."

Their argument is, "We all breathe out CO2. Therefore, CO2 is a wonderful thing, and we need more of it. Please use more fuel."
Isn't there also a bit about how plants need CO2 to produce oxygen, so we need to give them plenty of it? I swear, the first time I saw it, I thought I was watching an SNL spoof--then I realized that SNL had never been that good.

Which is basically what the industrial-oriented rich do anyway. If I threw trash on the lawn of the rich, they'd lock me up. If they spill pollutants into a river that runs by my house, it's all part of business.

Which is basically the point I'm making about Al Gore.

He was born rich and lives rich.

He never, as he once stated in a speech, "cleared fields using an axe and a mule".

Which is basically the point I'm making about Al Gore.

He was born rich and lives rich.

He never, as he once stated in a speech, "cleared fields using an axe and a mule".
Yes, but he's the rare rich person who isn't shitting where he's eating (http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.05/gore.html).

Yes, but he's the rare rich person who isn't shitting where he's eating (http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.05/gore.html).
Here is the key...

Carbon offsets are still an imperfect tool, favored only by a few early adopters. (An Inconvenient Truth directs viewers to a personal carbon calculator posted at www.climatecrisis.net.) Gore acknowledges that the average US consumer isn't likely to join what is, for now, essentially a voluntary taxation system. "The real answer is going to come in the marketplace," he says. "When the capitalist market system starts working for us instead of at cross-purposes, then the economy will start pushing inexorably toward lower and lower levels of pollution and higher and higher levels of efficiency. The main thing that's needed is to get the information flows right, removing the distortions and paying attention to the incentives."

When it is profitable to be green, then products will be so. We can buy blocks of 'green' electricity from our co-op, but they are limited in what they can provide. We buy it in 150 Kwh blocks. Each block is enough for a couple refrigerators and costs $3 above the normal cost for power. Using landfill methane for power generation is a good idea and it does reduce emissions more than buying credits.

Here is the key...

When it is profitable to be green, then products will be so. We can buy blocks of 'green' electricity from our co-op, but they are limited in what they can provide. We buy it in 150 Kwh blocks. Each block is enough for a couple refrigerators and costs $3 above the normal cost for power. Using landfill methane for power generation is a good idea and it does reduce emissions more than buying credits.
I agree completely. There isn't an overnight solution to this problem, and there are any number of ways to go about tackling it. But the point I made on the first page of this thread still stands, I believe--industry shills who are saying "CO2 is life" and who are acting as though polluting is a good thing are part of the problem, and people like Gore are part of the many potential solutions.

Personally, if and when my g/f and I are ever in the position to buy a home (the market will have to utterly crash in south Florida for that to happen, but that's another story), we're going to make it as green as possible--solar panels, etc. It'll be a small step, but it's a step we can take.

Here is the key...

When it is profitable to be green, then products will be so. We can buy blocks of 'green' electricity from our co-op, but they are limited in what they can provide. We buy it in 150 Kwh blocks. Each block is enough for a couple refrigerators and costs $3 above the normal cost for power. Using landfill methane for power generation is a good idea and it does reduce emissions more than buying credits.

Don't point that out to The Nazz. He thinks that Gore is Mahatma Gandhi, and that the only way to reduce pollution is to punish people.

Don't point that out to The Nazz. He thinks that Gore is Mahatma Gandhi, and that the only way to reduce pollution is to punish people.
Ahem. Look at the post directly before yours. :rolleyes:

I agree completely. There isn't an overnight solution to this problem, and there are any number of ways to go about tackling it. But the point I made on the first page of this thread still stands, I believe--industry shills who are saying "CO2 is life" and who are acting as though polluting is a good thing are part of the problem, and people like Gore are part of the many potential solutions.

Personally, if and when my g/f and I are ever in the position to buy a home (the market will have to utterly crash in south Florida for that to happen, but that's another story), we're going to make it as green as possible--solar panels, etc. It'll be a small step, but it's a step we can take.
Good luck. I interviewed for a job at FAU in the Physics department. When I started looking at the prices for houses in Boca Raton, I started to see advantages in Atlanta that I didn't even know existed.

I wish I could buy more than enough power for my 'fridge, but that's just the way supply goes. I'm starting to think about some solar panels for hot water production, though. With the kids out of college, there are more things I can afford to do.

Good luck. I interviewed for a job at FAU in the Physics department. When I started looking at the prices for houses in Boca Raton, I started to see advantages in Atlanta that I didn't even know existed.

I wish I could buy more than enough power for my 'fridge, but that's just the way supply goes. I'm starting to think about some solar panels for hot water production, though. With the kids out of college, there are more things I can afford to do.
It's all a matter of perspective. When I finished grad school, I looked at my student loans and said "damn, I have a mortgage." Now I look at them and say "damn, I have a quarter of a condo." And I haven't paid one cent on them yet--I have a pretty good full time teaching gig and still fall into the economic hardship deferral.

Speaking impartially:
I think the amount of CO2 Gore personally uses is irrelevant. If his trips and lobbying result in the passage of laws that reduce the CO2 emissions of millions of people and thousands of businesses (like those on the West Coast), then the CO2 emissions reduced will be many, many times more than the amount he personally produces in his entire lifetime of travel.

Speaking partialy:
At least he's doing something to help the environment rather than just sitting back and letting the status quo continue to the detriment of our health, economic future, and environment. At least the West Coast (and maybe Texas?) will be able to adapt to the future, so that's a plus because that region is the future of our economy.


Wow, you mean the people who stand to lose the most from Al Gore's environmentalist message are eager to tell us that Al Gore is a wanker?


Those two said what I was thinking before I got the chance...

Those two said what I was thinking before I got the chance...
But repeating the same argument a hundred times in a thread is a NS tradition, and who are you to break the tradition? You post that! ;)

:p

ooh... purchasing pollution credits. So you're saying that in the future, only the rich will be able to pollute at will...
The polution credits don't apply to personal, private, residential use. When was teh last time someone came to your door and asked you to pay for your polution?

The way it works is that there are caps placed on industry regarding CO2 emmissions. If you produce more than your cap you get fined for that amount. If you polute less, you get credits. Other industries can then buy those creditis from you if they go over. The point is it creates an incentive to polute less because, if you do, you can then make more money by selling yoru credits and, if you don't, you make less money because you have to buy credits. Private individuals are not forced to buy or sell credits, but you can if you want to. Al Gore is just taking responsibility for his CO2. Id' like to ask you all how you expect him to do his job without travelling. He has to travel to support and promote his movie and he's being responsible about it by purchasing credits out of his own pocket.

It's all a matter of perspective. When I finished grad school, I looked at my student loans and said "damn, I have a mortgage." Now I look at them and say "damn, I have a quarter of a condo." And I haven't paid one cent on them yet--I have a pretty good full time teaching gig and still fall into the economic hardship deferral.
This is way off track, but what the hell ... I remember the happy day when I paid off our last student loan. I think my wife and I both graduated with about $5K, but in those days, I wasn't earning more than $25K a year, either. The good thing about a mortgage is that you own property that appreciates. And a portion of every payment actually increases the equity in that property.

This is way off track, but what the hell ... I remember the happy day when I paid off our last student loan. I think my wife and I both graduated with about $5K, but in those days, I wasn't earning more than $25K a year, either. The good thing about a mortgage is that you own property that appreciates. And a portion of every payment actually increases the equity in that property.
Heh. I'd rather converse like this than get into a pissing contest any day. :)

As far as the mortgage goes, my g/f and I would like to buy. We don't like debt generally speaking, but we'd get into that if there was any sense to the market, but when you're looking at teardowns in shitty neighborhoods for $225K, there's no way to get into the market. And here in Fort Lauderdale, we've got a mayor who considers low to moderate income housing to be communism--his words, not mine--so there's precious little help coming from that front.

There's about to be a major problem here, though, because it's getting too expensive for wage earners to rent, much less buy, and since the local economy depends on tourism, there's a lot of wage earners around here. If they can't afford to live here, and with gas prices, they can't afford to commute, then who's going to do those jobs?

What is with the fearmongering over carbon? It doesn't even play the largest role in the "global warming" phenomon!

http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

Heh. I'd rather converse like this than get into a pissing contest any day. :)

As far as the mortgage goes, my g/f and I would like to buy. We don't like debt generally speaking, but we'd get into that if there was any sense to the market, but when you're looking at teardowns in shitty neighborhoods for $225K, there's no way to get into the market. And here in Fort Lauderdale, we've got a mayor who considers low to moderate income housing to be communism--his words, not mine--so there's precious little help coming from that front.

So move to a different city

What is with the fearmongering over carbon? It doesn't even play the largest role in the "global warming" phenomon!
Yes it does.

Had to find the site first... just humor me and take a look; it isn't CO2

So move to a different city
Nah. I'd rather keep my job and rent. It's an acceptable trade off for now.

What is with the fearmongering over carbon? It doesn't even play the largest role in the "global warming" phenomon!

http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
The guy who wrote that site is a mining engineer. What's his expertise in global warming? Doesn't the link to fossil fuel organizations--since it's West Virginia, I assume coal--make you question their objectivity any? And lastly, why are you depending on a site that hasn't been updated since 2003?

The guy who wrote that site is a mining engineer. What's his expertise in global warming? Doesn't the link to fossil fuel organizations--since it's West Virginia, I assume coal--make you question their objectivity any? And lastly, why are you depending on a site that hasn't been updated since 2003?


You can't necessarily go by qualifications in that respect, you need to go by who funded his study, and who published it; if it is true, it doesn't necessarily matter if a housewife or a geologist said it! I also have no problem using a site from 2003 to refute one of the central "global-warming" (I have no problem with the green house effect, but i use " " around global warming since I disagree with the conclusions that it usually is associated with) that was published in 1998 (the hockey stick)!



http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=012705C

The guy who wrote that site is a mining engineer. What's his expertise in global warming? Doesn't the link to fossil fuel organizations--since it's West Virginia, I assume coal--make you question their objectivity any? And lastly, why are you depending on a site that hasn't been updated since 2003?
The guy is right. Humanity is only responsible for about 1% of the greenhouse effect. We are entirley rsponsible for global warming, however.

The base level of CO2 in the atmosphere before the industrial revolution was responsible for about 50 degress farenheight of temperature. Without it we would probably not be alive. In fact, we certainly would not be. The problem is that the extra 1 or 2 degrees that we add may have catastrophic consequences. We need the naturally occuring greenhouse effect. We do not need the little bit that we have added to it. Global warming referrs to teh amount by which we increase teh naturally occuring greenhouse effect. basically, it's bullshit subterfuge because it usese real facts to cloud the issue. What happens naturally is not a problem. What we add to it is.

You can't necessarily go by qualifications in that respect, you need to go by who funded his study, and who published it; if it is true, it doesn't necessarily matter if a housewife or a geologist said it! I also have no problem using a site from 2003 to refute one of the central "global-warming" (I have no problem with the green house effect, but i use " " around global warming since I disagree with the conclusions that it usually is associated with) that was published in 1998 (the hockey stick)!



http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=012705C
Again, look at where that article was published--I pulled this right of their site:
TCS is supported by a small group of sponsors: the American Beverage Association, ExxonMobil, Freddie Mac, General Motors Corporation, Gilead Sciences, McDonalds, Merck and PhRMA. They say that their opinions are independent, but if you're depending on sponsorship money from a company that's openly attacking global warming, you've got to expect that people are going to question your independence. And TCS seems to love nursing at the corporate teat.

So, it's not enough that Algore burns up thousands of gallons of jet fuel, he apparently needs to take a caravan of cars a few blocks to reach the screening of his "global Warming" scare movie.

http://in.today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=entertainmentNews&storyID=2006-05-22T232359Z_01_NOOTR_RTRJONC_0_India-250545-1.xml

"Last week, Gore and his team were seen driving the 500 metres or so from a hotel to the Cannes festival headquarters in several cars. "

Will it never end with this guy?

Again, look at where that article was published--I pulled

By Dr. Roy Spencer : BIO| 27 Jan 2005

Just about the author: Dr. Roy Spencer is a principal research scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville and the U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA's Aqua satellite.

Dr. Spencer is the recipient of NASA's Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement and the American Meteorological Society's Special Award for his satellite-based temperature monitoring work. He is the author of numerous scientific articles that have appeared in Science, Nature, Journal of Climate, Monthly Weather Review, Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology, Journal of Climate and Applied Meteorology, Remote Sensing Reviews, Advances in Space Research, and Climatic Change.


So yes, I'd say that the writer (critizing the aged climatology model) is pretty well qualified.

Actually CO2 makes up a very tiny part of the atmosphere. There's more water in the air than CO2 and it's more potent a greenhouse gas in its vapor form than CO2. And it's much more abundant in nature. If we took a football feild and colored it in to show how much of what is in the atmosphere most of it would nitrogen (~78%), followed by oxygen (~21%), Argon (~1%), and then CO2 and other trace gasses make up the rest. These are rounded numbers but CO2 is between 300-400 ppm while Argon is at 9300+ ppm.

Actually CO2 makes up a very tiny part of the atmosphere. There's more water in the air than CO2 and it's more potent a greenhouse gas in its vapor form than CO2. And it's much more abundant in nature. If we took a football feild and colored it in to show how much of what is in the atmosphere most of it would nitrogen (~78%), followed by oxygen (~21%), Argon (~1%), and then CO2 and other trace gasses make up the rest. These are rounded numbers but CO2 is between 300-400 ppm while Argon is at 9300+ ppm.
Okay.
The guy is right. Humanity is only responsible for about 1% of the greenhouse effect. We are entirley rsponsible for global warming, however.

The base level of CO2 in the atmosphere before the industrial revolution was responsible for about 50 degress farenheight of temperature. Without it we would probably not be alive. In fact, we certainly would not be. The problem is that the extra 1 or 2 degrees that we add may have catastrophic consequences. We need the naturally occuring greenhouse effect. We do not need the little bit that we have added to it. Global warming referrs to teh amount by which we increase teh naturally occuring greenhouse effect. basically, it's bullshit subterfuge because it usese real facts to cloud the issue. What happens naturally is not a problem. What we add to it is.

So, it's not enough that Algore burns up thousands of gallons of jet fuel, he apparently needs to take a caravan of cars a few blocks to reach the screening of his "global Warming" scare movie.

http://in.today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=entertainmentNews&storyID=2006-05-22T232359Z_01_NOOTR_RTRJONC_0_India-250545-1.xml

"Last week, Gore and his team were seen driving the 500 metres or so from a hotel to the Cannes festival headquarters in several cars. "

Will it never end with this guy?
Try again (http://thinkprogress.org/2006/05/22/drudge-falsely-smears-gore/).

So, it's not enough that Algore burns up thousands of gallons of jet fuel, he apparently needs to take a caravan of cars a few blocks to reach the screening of his "global Warming" scare movie.

http://in.today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=entertainmentNews&storyID=2006-05-22T232359Z_01_NOOTR_RTRJONC_0_India-250545-1.xml

"Last week, Gore and his team were seen driving the 500 metres or so from a hotel to the Cannes festival headquarters in several cars. "

Will it never end with this guy?

You realize that that story was already retracted don't you? But hey, it's not like repeatedly spreading lies is out of character for you.

Try again (http://thinkprogress.org/2006/05/22/drudge-falsely-smears-gore/).
Hey, good job. A broken link to an article titled "Drudge falsely smears gore", when I quoted Reuters.

Keep up the Good Work.

Hey, good job. A broken link to an article titled "Drudge falsely smears gore", when I quoted Reuters.

Keep up the Good Work.

Dude, a minute on google will show you that the Gore story was retracted.

Also, his link worked fine for me. I find it works better if you refrain from chewing on the mouse.

Funny, it looks to me like nothing was "retracted", just argued about by some leftist prig website. The Reuters article is still up, and your linked website links to another article with the exact same info about the caravan. There is no retraction, and all your pathatic little insults change nothing.

But, seriously, keep up the good work.

and feel free to actually quote something that disproves the linked article.

Funny, it looks to me like nothing was "retracted", just argued about by some leftist prig website. The Reuters article is still up, and your linked website links to another article with the exact same info about the caravan. There is no retraction, and all your pathatic little insults change nothing.

But, seriously, keep up the good work.

and feel free to actually quote something that disproves the linked article.

Again, feel free to look at this google search which contains several different sources.

http://www.google.com/search?q=retraction+gore+drudge&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official

Hey, good job. A broken link to an article titled "Drudge falsely smears gore", when I quoted Reuters.

Keep up the Good Work.

Irrelevant. You see, the fact that Al Gore may/may not produce global warming emissions says nothing about his underlying claim that producing global warming emissions is bad. At best/worst, it says that Al Gore is a hypocrite. So the flying f$%k what? Every person is a hypocrite at some point in their lives, and in point of fact, hypocrites usually give the best advice. After all, I usually take the "Don't do drugs" mantra more seriously from a reformed crackhead or a former alcoholic than I do from Dudley Do-Right, because the hypocrite has practical experience in the matter. Moreover, you haven't even proven that Al Gore is a hypocrite, because the central claim to Gore's thesis is that man produces more CO2 than the planet can process, and the excess is killing us; you have absolutely nowhere even articulated that Al Gore's CO2 production is part of this excess.

If the whole point of your thread is to say that Al Gore produces CO2, then you've done little more than state the blatantly obvious: everyone produces CO2 simply by breathing. If the point is to say that Al Gore should shut up about CO2 simply because he doesn't use a solar-powered plane to travel around, then collect your prize for asshattery and can it, because the point is based on logic I could pick apart when I was six.

Irrelevant. You see, the fact that Al Gore may/may not produce global warming emissions says nothing about his underlying claim that producing global warming emissions is bad. At best/worst, it says that Al Gore is a hypocrite. So the flying f$%k what? Every person is a hypocrite at some point in their lives, and in point of fact, hypocrites usually give the best advice. After all, I usually take the "Don't do drugs" mantra more seriously from a reformed crackhead or a former alcoholic than I do from Dudley Do-Right, because the hypocrite has practical experience in the matter. Moreover, you haven't even proven that Al Gore is a hypocrite, because the central claim to Gore's thesis is that man produces more CO2 than the planet can process, and the excess is killing us; you have absolutely nowhere even articulated that Al Gore's CO2 production is part of this excess.

If the whole point of your thread is to say that Al Gore produces CO2, then you've done little more than state the blatantly obvious: everyone produces CO2 simply by breathing. If the point is to say that Al Gore should shut up about CO2 simply because he doesn't use a solar-powered plane to travel around, then collect your prize for asshattery and can it, because the point is based on logic I could pick apart when I was six.
Well put. The argument is seperate from the man. Jut because Al Gore does what everyone else does - namely drives places - does not mean that global warming is not a serious problem.

ok guys why don't we do a little research and put this damn topic to rest, first look up sunspot cycle history, then compare RECORDED history about earth's consistent temperatures. FINALLY look at how far back any scientific data can go. Then post your opinions.

What is with the fearmongering over carbon? It doesn't even play the largest role in the "global warming" phenomon!

http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

the numbers on that site are essentially made up, and the math that follows from them is trivially wrong. for starters, check the source provided for the first table and tell me where the "natural additions" came from.

ok guys why don't we do a little research and put this damn topic to rest, first look up sunspot cycle history, then compare RECORDED history about earth's consistent temperatures. FINALLY look at how far back any scientific data can go. Then post your opinions.

Here's a good place to start: http://www.scientificamerican.com/

There's also www.realclimate.org.

Then one can mosey over to the Oil-funded thinktanks and notice that all the points those thinktanks bring up have been thoroughly rebutted without any hint of a counter-rebuttal.

Hmmmmm.

All it takes is a bit of patience and the awareness to see the final arguments are all held by the scientific and environmental positions.

But hey, make up your own minds.

Here's a good place to start: http://www.scientificamerican.com/

There's also www.realclimate.org.

Then one can mosey over to the Oil-funded thinktanks and notice that all the points those thinktanks bring up have been thoroughly rebutted without any hint of a counter-rebuttal.

Hmmmmm.

All it takes is a bit of patience and the awareness to see the final arguments are all held by the scientific and environmental positions.

But hey, make up your own minds.
It doesn't matter if you believe in global warming--global warming believes in you. :p

It doesn't matter if you believe in global warming--global warming believes in you. :p

Yup. At which point, the argument comes back, "Yeah, but there have been changes in the climate before, and we're all here!"

Sure. We've also had famines, depressions and pandemics. We're all still here, but it's not like it was pleasant. Or good for the economy.

Does purchasing a credit make the pollution go "Poof!" and disapear in shame? It is still there in the sky, killing pol,ar bears and icebergs. :gundge:

Seriously, if you want to trust the oil and gas industry/lobbyist to tell you about global warming why don't you ask people from Antartica to teach you to surf? CEI is bought and paid for by Exxon-Mobil and they have no interest in btraying their employers. Gore has been talking about environmental issues for the past 20 years, so this is hardly new. Every damn climatologist not on the lobbyists payroll says that transportation and industrial emissions are having a dreastic impact on global temperatures. But you want me to believe the people who make their money selling these products? I drive when I have to, work, food shopping, and the occasional vacation. But I sure as hell would be happy if someone sold me a fuel efficient vehicle that only produced water as a bi-product. Hmmm, I think there is such an abundantly available item called hydrogen. You'll sell your soul to the slickers who are the cause of the problem and you try to preech to others?

Funny you mention antarctica in a global warming thread. Over 95% of the continent is getting colder pretty fast. If things keep going this way some penguin groups could start dying off. I'm sure you'll tell me now that it's all the republicans fault. And let's not forget Buish because he's the evil mastermind behind all this...or a bumbling idiot. Nobody can ever seem to settle on just one with that guy.

Funny you mention antarctica in a global warming thread. Over 95% of the continent is getting colder pretty fast. If things keep going this way some penguin groups could start dying off. I'm sure you'll tell me now that it's all the republicans fault. And let's not forget Buish because he's the evil mastermind behind all this...or a bumbling idiot. Nobody can ever seem to settle on just one with that guy.

And once again the Climate Change deniers trot out oversimplified and obsolete data. Do you have a source for this gem? Of course not.

Here's the skinny: Most of Antarctica IS getting colder (at least recently,) while other parts (the peninsula primarily,) are experiencing a dramtic upsurge in temperature. But again, this shows the average Climate Change deniers inability to process the concept of average temperatures. Some places get warmer, Some places get colder. When you add it all up, you still get an average increase in global temperature.

Forget the fact that a large chunk of cooling area means that other regions are warming more dramatically than the average temperature increase suggests. That's TOO HARD to comprehend, I guess.

I comprehend it perfectly well. To be blunt, we're just not that powerful, important, or an influence on the world. There is no natural balance. That is a myth. A belief. It's all one species inability to erradicate the competition.

I'll start trusting Gore when he starts leading by example. That means giving up his expensive houses and cars (and if has a jet that'd have to go too) and starts living in a straw hut with a dirt floor and an organic garden in the backyard and goes everywhere on a bike because that' what he wants from us. Gore's a damn hypocrite and one of the last people on this lump of rock you should trust.

I comprehend it perfectly well. To be blunt, we're just not that powerful, important, or an influence on the world. There is no natural balance. That is a myth. A belief. It's all one species inability to erradicate the competition.

Individually, no, we're not. But when you pile up the effects of over 6 billion people, year after year after year, we are. Mankind has personally eradicated countless species, even before the advent of modern technology. We've drained swamps, silted up rivers, causing formerly coastal towns to now be several miles from the shore. We've torn down forests. We've sped up desertification. These are hard, observable facts. The "belief" is on your part, because you declare your stance outside of any data. The world reacts to in geological time. Our actions work on a human timescale.

I'll start trusting Gore when he starts leading by example. That means giving up his expensive houses and cars (and if has a jet that'd have to go too) and starts living in a straw hut with a dirt floor and an organic garden in the backyard and goes everywhere on a bike because that' what he wants from us. Gore's a damn hypocrite and one of the last people on this lump of rock you should trust.

His personal antics have nothing to do with the soundness of his evidence, or, rather, the evidence of those he champions. A Doctor who smokes may still be knowledgeable about cancer. A Lawyer who speeds may still be an expert in law. What matters is the evidence, not your preconceptions about the person.

I comprehend it perfectly well. To be blunt, we're just not that powerful, important, or an influence on the world. There is no natural balance. That is a myth. A belief. It's all one species inability to erradicate the competition.

I'll start trusting Gore when he starts leading by example. That means giving up his expensive houses and cars (and if has a jet that'd have to go too) and starts living in a straw hut with a dirt floor and an organic garden in the backyard and goes everywhere on a bike because that' what he wants from us. Gore's a damn hypocrite and one of the last people on this lump of rock you should trust.

Is that any way to thank the man who created the internet for you?

His personal antics have nothing to do with the soundness of his evidence, or, rather, the evidence of those he champions. A Doctor who smokes may still be knowledgeable about cancer. A Lawyer who speeds may still be an expert in law. What matters is the evidence, not your preconceptions about the person.


Why choose to deliver water with a cracked pot?

Is it my imagination or did you just call Gore a crackpot? Fool! You've insulted their mesiah! They're coming after us with pitchforks and torches! RUN!!!

To be blunt, we're just not that powerful, important, or an influence on the world.

i trust that you have data to back that up, yes? and it's gone through peer-review too?

I comprehend it perfectly well. To be blunt, we're just not that powerful, important, or an influence on the world..

I'd have to disagree with that; humans may not cause global warming and climate change but we're sure as hell making it occur faster...which means it is more severe and we're less able to respond to it when problems do occur.

Even so, regulating emissions is a desirable thing. CO2 regulation helps reduce the unpleasant reality of smothering, smog-choked cities that pose a danger to those who live in them...and that's desirable regardless of whether or not you think global warming is happening.

The Earth is built to last. It is a 4,550,000,000-year-old, 5,973,600,000,000,000,000,000-tonne ball of iron. We occupy less than 5% of the surface (that includes farms). The entire 6 billion plus population of Earth could be stuck in an area the size of Canada comfortably. And if your talking about the long-term impact we'll have, remember that no matter who you are, no matter what you do, that even if your the most famous or infamous person in modern history, in 8,000 years you'll be just about completely forgotten and nothing you've done in your life will really matter.

Also, I'm not against making cars more efficient or using nuclear power instead of coal. I'm just saying that we live off wind and solar alone without covering a significant portion the developed world with them. Make things more efficient because it will make using them cost less, not because a talking tree cartoon told you oil companies want to steal your grandmas cookies.

Is it my imagination or did you just call Gore a crackpot? Fool! You've insulted their mesiah! They're coming after us with pitchforks and torches! RUN!!!

See, this is where you completely miss the point. The man, the messenger, the face of the information is supremely unimportant. I don't care if it's Al Gore or Carrot Top. What matters is if the information is sound. You're too caught up in personality and politics.

Does Van Gogh's madness make his paintings less beautiful? If Einstein were a child molester, would it make his theories less sound? Forget Gore. Stop being a child.

The Earth is built to last. It is a 4,550,000,000-year-old, 5,973,600,000,000,000,000,000-tonne ball of iron. We occupy less than 5% of the surface (that includes farms). The entire 6 billion plus population of Earth could be stuck in an area the size of Canada comfortably. And if your talking about the long-term impact we'll have, remember that no matter who you are, no matter what you do, that even if your the most famous or infamous person in modern history, in 8,000 years you'll be just about completely forgotten and nothing you've done in your life will really matter.

We're not talking about the destruction of the Earth. That's a silly strawman. We're talking about hardships caused by changing weather patterns. We're talking about conditions that can lead to a greater chance of floods, famine and pestulence. We're talking about What the Earth will be like when I'm an old man and how the Earth will treat our grandchildren.

It doesn't take Armageddon for things to suck.

Tell me who you voted for in 2000. I didn't vote for anyone that year.

The Earth is built to last. It is a 4,550,000,000-year-old, 5,973,600,000,000,000,000,000-tonne ball of iron. We occupy less than 5% of the surface (that includes farms). The entire 6 billion plus population of Earth could be stuck in an area the size of Canada comfortably. And if your talking about the long-term impact we'll have, remember that no matter who you are, no matter what you do, that even if your the most famous or infamous person in modern history, in 8,000 years you'll be just about completely forgotten and nothing you've done in your life will really matter.

That doesn't mean we can't damage our own situation considerably; humans will not be able to destroy the Earth anytime soon, but we can seriously worsen our own condition on it through any variety of methods. Nuclear wars or wanton pollution can cause serious problems, as can reckless growth and wasteful consumption. That's why we must take action to ensure that the market is allowed to work freely, but at the same time government must take in active role in curbing the abuses the market cannot solve.

There are major reasons why we should regulate pollution; our health benefits, the economy is strengthened, and technological innovation is encouraged by the emergence of a new sector for controlling pollution and developing efficient means of production. In both the short and long run it is desirable to regulate environmental law to combat pollution, lest we have a repeat of the environmental devastation that occured during the Industrial Revolution and the post-WWII boom in the petrochemical industry.

Also, I'm not against making cars more efficient or using nuclear power instead of coal. I'm just saying that we live off wind and solar alone without covering a significant portion the developed world with them. Make things more efficient because it will make using them cost less, not because a talking tree cartoon told you oil companies want to steal your grandmas cookies.

Thankfully, the market does a good job of regulating such problems. Economic growth slows population growth and drives technological innovation, which reduces resource use and drives growth far beyond previous capacity. Resources are priced by the market, and high demand drives up prices and encourages conservation and the development of alternatives; that's why the long-term trend of commodity prices is always downward rather than upsloping.

We're seeing alternative energy take off because the economics support it. The technologies are getting cheaper and superior to fossil fuels, even without subsidies, in the case of wind and solar. Even nuclear is becoming attractive as the technology advances; fossil fuels are heavily subsidized so nuclear is equally justified in recieving them to be economical.

Alternative fuels, hybrids, and more efficient versions of existing products are all becoming economically feasible and the threshold for them to become unprofitable is getting lower and lower...it is extremely possible that most alternative technologies will be superior to oil or coal at any price within the next 10 years. Fusion technology may be a reality by the end of the century, or even earlier.

The problem with hybrids is that they suck on highways. The EPA was forced to update the way they calculate mpg because so many hybrid owners were complaining that they weren't getting the mpg promised. That and the last time it was updated was before AC was standard in most cars. Hybrids have tiny engines and the battery pack dies fast at high speeds. It works great if you live in downtown Minneapolis but if you live on a farm outside Rochester you'd be paying less to own and operate a regular car.

And hydrogen cars will never work because it takes more power just to process the fuel than you'll get in return. And it would require huge tanks to go the industry standard 300 miles. And there are other problems with it that'll keep it as just a concept car. A what could have been. And it showed us there are other solutions. It served its purpose well enough.

As for Fusion; a few physicists have built fusion reactors in their basements. These are all based off the first reactor designed and built by the guy who invented the TV, Philo T. Farnsworth. The tokamak reactors they're tinkering with right now are really expensive and will never reach break even because they're set up in a torus--I'm getting off track. If you want to learn more about fusion, ask Richard Hull. The guy built something called a Fusor, a tabletop device that uses something called Interial Electrostatic Confinement to draw the light nuclei to the center of the machine and sometimes they strike headon and fuse (if your lucky and you built it right). How do people know it works? Neutrons! When fusion occurs neutrons are released because nobody uses straight protons. It's just easier to use something with neutrons. Now the fusor will never reach break even either. So far the only two methods we've observed have been gravitational confinement and the H-bomb. The GC is out of the question and the H-bomb is a bomb.

To learn more about fusors, fusion history & news, and other methods of fusion try the forums at fusor.net

It seems that at least for now we are stuck with fission. But we have plenty of designs for those and some are pretty cheap compared to others. Still there are a lot of people who don't trust nuclear power because of Chernobyl. But what you may not have realized is that only 56 people died there and it was caused by a build up of steam in the reactor. The rods melted down into a puddle of slag and burned/sank their way into the ground. It was not like a nuclear bomb going off. That's different because you have two types, gun types and compres--I'm getting off track again.

Anyway, fusion doesn't work yet and won't if the funding keeps going to tokamaks. But as the man once said, the difficult we can do today. The impossible only takes a little longer.

Keep dreaming, maybe you'll be the one who finds the answer.

The Earth is built to last. It is a 4,550,000,000-year-old, 5,973,600,000,000,000,000,000-tonne ball of iron. We occupy less than 5% of the surface (that includes farms). The entire 6 billion plus population of Earth could be stuck in an area the size of Canada comfortably. And if your talking about the long-term impact we'll have, remember that no matter who you are, no matter what you do, that even if your the most famous or infamous person in modern history, in 8,000 years you'll be just about completely forgotten and nothing you've done in your life will really matter.

Also, I'm not against making cars more efficient or using nuclear power instead of coal. I'm just saying that we live off wind and solar alone without covering a significant portion the developed world with them. Make things more efficient because it will make using them cost less, not because a talking tree cartoon told you oil companies want to steal your grandmas cookies.
Not a good point. Most pepole still shudder at the name of Nero. *Shudder*

Nero wasn't alive 8,000 years ago. That would be the "dark headed people" (probably referring to their hair) of the "place of the civilized lords" we call Sumer. We still have questions about them as they weren't semitic like the Akkadians that followed. Why if it weren't for them inventing the wheel (oh wait that was Al Gore), basic math (Al Gore again), and the first writing system (did I mention Al Gore invented the turnip and fire?) they'd be nothing but a historic footnote.

Nero wasn't alive 8,000 years ago. That would be the "dark headed people" (probably referring to their hair) of the "place of the civilized lords" we call Sumer. We still have questions about them as they weren't semitic like the Akkadians that followed. Why if it weren't for them inventing the wheel (oh wait that was Al Gore), basic math (Al Gore again), and the first writing system (did I mention Al Gore invented the turnip and fire?) they'd be nothing but a historic footnote.

Just so you know, Al Gore never said he invented the internet. That was a lie spread by conservative pundits that caught on with parrotting imbeciles.

But again, who gives a fuck about Al Gore? We're talking about his movie, not him. Lots of movie makers have been complete freaks, but it matters not at all when you're considering a movie and it's merits.

Seriously, you reason like a child. You practically refuse to talk about any thing substantiative and when anyone challenges you on specifics, you completely ignore them. It's almost as if you KNOW you're full of BS, but you're to focused on driving your anti-personality agenda that you don't even care.

I don't cite specifics because I don't want to bother wasting the time dredging them up from books. That's right. I get my information from books, not google. I waste too much time just posting as much as I do. And even if I cited something from a textbook you'd immediately dismiss it as what you'd probably call "right-wing-nut" propaganda. In 30 years time this 'crisis' will be exposed as the gross exageration it is.

Do you honestly think that CO2 is the only thing trapping heat? It's a trace gas. Argon makes up 0.9340% at 9340 ppm. CO2 comes in at 0.0350% with a ppm of 350. Meanwhile water vapor, while varying greatly depending on region (you won't find as much in the Sahara as you will in the Amazon), is typically about 1%. Those all come from NASA. Happy now?

During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet.
While not claiming he Invented it, he claimed he created it. Which seems to mean the same thing. If you look at a Thesaurus, under create, there is "invent" listed as a synonym.

So Algore did claim to be the creator of the Internet. Of course, he clamied his mother sang him songs in his crib that were written when he was an adult. And he claimed he was the basis for "Love Story" aand he claimed he didn't try to steal the 2000 election. So really, there is a patern of lies coming from Algore that leves him zero credability.

All gore uses more fuel flying around the US every year in his private jets than any average American could dream of. He pollutes more than almost anyone else on the planet. I can get sources if you want them. The man is a hypocrite.

All gore uses more fuel flying around the US every year in his private jets than any average American could dream of. He pollutes more than almost anyone else on the planet. I can get sources if you want them. The man is a hypocrite.
To quote your best friend, Dubya, "Bring 'em on." Let's see what sources you've got. I predict you've got, oh, zero.

To quote your best friend, Dubya, "Bring 'em on." Let's see what sources you've got. I predict you've got, oh, zero.

Air Force II's Global Warming Express features an itinerary that takes the
vice president from Washington to Florida to Washington to Alaska to Japan
and back -- all in just 72-hours.

Saturday, December 6, 1997

9:45 a.m. Air Force II departs Andrews AFB enroute Fort Myers, Fla.

12:05 p.m. Air Force II arrives Southwest Florida Regional Airport. Gate 69-A.

2 p.m. Vice President Gore addresses the 50th Anniversary/Rededication,
Everglades Municipal Airport, Everglades National Park.

6:40 p.m. Air Force II departs Florida en route AFB.

8:35 p.m. Air Force II arrives at Andrews Air Force Base.

9:45 p.m. -- Air Force II departs Andrews Air Force Base en route Elmendorf
Air Force Base

Sunday, Dec. 7

1:15 a.m. -- Air Force II arrives Elmendorf Air Force Base, Anchorage, Alaska

2:45 a.m. -- Air Force II departs Elmendorf Air Force Base en route Osaka, Japan

Monday, Dec. 8

5 a.m. -- Air Force II arrives Osaka International Airport, Osaka Japan


11:15 p.m. -- Air Force II departs Osaka, Japan en route Elmendorf Air Force
Base

12:35 p.m. -- Air Force II arrives Elmendorf Air Force Base, Anchorage, Alaska

2:05 p.m. -- Air Force II departs Elmendorf Air Force Base en route Andrews
Air Force Base

Tuesday, Dec. 9

12:45 a.m. -- Air Force II arrives Andrews Air Force Base

----

"The extra heat which cannot escape is beginning to change the global
patterns of climate to which we are accustomed. Our fundamental challenge
now is to find out whether and how we can change the behaviors that are
causing the problem."

Gore's plane, a Boeing 707 gas guzzler burns on average 4.1 gallons a mile.
The complete Washington to Florida to Washington to Alaska to Japan and
return to Washington trip calculated from commercial air mileage tables is
just over 16,000 miles total. Gas gallons needed for AIR FORCE II to go
16,000 miles: 65,600. Applying the average price of $2.01 per gallon of
Jet A to the 16,000 mile r/t -- the fuel cost alone passes $131,000.00.
There are 6.7 pounds per gallon of jet fuel. Total pounds of fuel burned on
Gore's Global Warming Express -- 439,500. In 72 hours.

Unprecedented Leadership.

want more?

Air Force II's Global Warming Express features an itinerary that takes the
vice president from Washington to Florida to Washington to Alaska to Japan
and back -- all in just 72-hours.
(snip)
want more?
This won't work for Nazz... you didnt' include a source.

It will all be made well when Manbearpig is erradicated.

Free republic news magazine.
Air Force two official flight scheds. and technical specs.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1636620/posts

It will all be made well when Manbearpig is erradicated.

Heh heh heh heh, you referenced South Park. How original of you.

Heh heh heh heh, you referenced South Park. How original of you.

Yeah ... I am the shizzle ... so fresh and original.

I just saw the thread and thought of my sig.

Free republic news magazine.
Air Force two official flight scheds. and technical specs.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1636620/posts
Okay, first you use stats from 1997, and then you use Freeperland as a source? Hold on a sec.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Wait wait, I've got control now.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Just a second. I swear, I've got it now.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHA

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


For some reason, I'm picturing that Stewie laugh from the Family Guy movie.

That dead faced laugh he does while watching that TV show.

thats ok nazz, you probably think that Al Gore has a magical plane that uses no fuel on his 10,000 mile global warming fear mongering trips......I guess If salon.com or moveon.org dont have it on record he never flew anywhere. he walked to Japan. He road a whale over to the canne film festival. I stand by my claim that if Al Gore used 1/10 of the fuel that he does he would still use more than me.

thats ok nazz, you probably think that Al Gore has a magical plane that uses no fuel on his 10,000 mile global warming fear mongering trips......I guess If salon.com or moveon.org dont have it on record he never flew anywhere. he walked to Japan. He road a whale over to the canne film festival. I stand by my claim that if Al Gore used 1/10 of the fuel that he does he would still use more than me.
Nope--if you'd read the earlier posts on the thread, you'd have noted that for the publicity surrounding "An Inconvenient Truth," Gore bought pollution credits so that the tour would be carbon-free. But I guess since Freeperland didn't mention that, it didn't fucking happen, huh?

I don't cite specifics because I don't want to bother wasting the time dredging them up from books. That's right. I get my information from books, not google. I waste too much time just posting as much as I do. And even if I cited something from a textbook you'd immediately dismiss it as what you'd probably call "right-wing-nut" propaganda. In 30 years time this 'crisis' will be exposed as the gross exageration it is.

Do you honestly think that CO2 is the only thing trapping heat? It's a trace gas. Argon makes up 0.9340% at 9340 ppm. CO2 comes in at 0.0350% with a ppm of 350. Meanwhile water vapor, while varying greatly depending on region (you won't find as much in the Sahara as you will in the Amazon), is typically about 1%. Those all come from NASA. Happy now?

Meh, There are good book and bad books. There are good references online and bad. If one uses good information gathering discipline, it shouldn't matter. One good thing about documents online is that they often have linked references.

No one is saying that CO2 is the only greenhouse gas. No one is saying that it isn't a trace gas. The thing is, the atmoshphere is a really, really big thing. Even a small percentage of a gas can have a noticeable effect because there's such a depth of atmosphere to pass through. There are toxins that require only millionths of a part per million to kill you. Perhaps even less.

Look, there's a certain amount of greenhouse gasses already in the atmosphere that tend to keep the status quo. When an additional (and consistently increasing,) source for those gasses are added on top of everything else a certain effect is inevitable. Unless, of course, you can point to a corresponding decrease in greenhouse gas output caused by man.

Think of it this way. Pretend you're in a room that is being bombarded by just a little less radiation than can harm you. Now another source of radiation is added. That source of radiation, by itself, would go unnoticed. When it's added that which is already extant, it becomes harmful.

Surely you've heard the fable of the straw that broke the camel's back? That metaphore hasn't lasted as long as it has for no reason.

Think about it.

Nope--if you'd read the earlier posts on the thread, you'd have noted that for the publicity surrounding "An Inconvenient Truth," Gore bought pollution credits so that the tour would be carbon-free. But I guess since Freeperland didn't mention that, it didn't fucking happen, huh?


so he got sombody else to not pollute so he could pollute to get to Cannes. You notice somthing here, he still polluted. He flies around in private jets as part of his living. Let me mention somthing else here, if he had only won his home state he would have been the President and could have signed Kyoto. What kind of guy runs for President and losses his home state?

Al Gore: An Inconvenient Story

A New video reveals that "global Warming" alarmist Algore uses more hydrobarbon fuels than most individuals in the world.

http://streams.cei.org/

'"All the evidence suggests that Mr. Gore is an elitist who passionately believes that the people of the world must drastically reduce their energy use but that it doesn't apply to him,” said Myron Ebell, CEI's director of energy and global warming policy and the creator of the video.'

Amazing, this guy is all over my ass because I drive to work everyday, but he burns up more fuel in a day than I do in 6 months.

The original post on this thread....as a source? How novel.

Alabamamississippi and Dosuun,

I'd just like to welcome you both to Nationstates. I've been here in several incarnations, and the place is always a lot more interesting when there are some paranoiac, anti-liberal, stiff-necked, freeper-referencing, ad hominem-using Bush apologists to kick the ball around with.

thats ok nazz, you probably think that Al Gore has a magical plane that uses no fuel on his 10,000 mile global warming fear mongering trips......I guess If salon.com or moveon.org dont have it on record he never flew anywhere. he walked to Japan. He road a whale over to the canne film festival. I stand by my claim that if Al Gore used 1/10 of the fuel that he does he would still use more than me.

Your point? Oh wait, I know it. He uses more fuel than you because you're too damn busy sitting on your ass at home, while he is actually traveling and speaking out to bring up an important issue that effects ALL of us.

I'd just like to welcome you both to Nationstates. I've been here in several incarnations, and the place is always a lot more interesting when there are some paranoiac, anti-liberal, stiff-necked, freeper-referencing, ad hominem-using Bush apologists to kick the ball around with.

A-fuckin'-men.

http://pointers.audiovideoweb.com/stcasx/ny60win16080/eresources/cei/GorevideoWMV-high.wmv/play.asx

Alabamamississippi and Dosuun,

I'd just like to welcome you both to Nationstates. I've been here in several incarnations, and the place is always a lot more interesting when there are some paranoiac, anti-liberal, stiff-necked, freeper-referencing, ad hominem-using Bush apologists to kick the ball around with.

sticks and stones will break my bones but you are one dumb hippie.

so he got sombody else to not pollute so he could pollute to get to Cannes. You notice somthing here, he still polluted. He flies around in private jets as part of his living.I don't know if he does that or not, but it's really irrelevant. At this point, short of living in an earthship ff the grid (do you even know what that means?), it's damn near impossible to live on earth without polluting at least a little. That doesn't mean that Gore isn't working to fix the problem. The fact that he went to the trouble to purchase pollution credits means that at least he gives a shit, which is a lot more than can be said for a lot of people on this planet.

Let me mention somthing else here, if he had only won his home state he would have been the President and could have signed Kyoto. What kind of guy runs for President and losses his home state?
So in other words, this really is about slamming Gore in general rather than because of any particular stance. :rolleyes:

I think if he really cared about stopping global warming he would go off the grid and stop globe hopping on huge jets. He could use his invention the internet ( at a public library) to fundraise to lobby for pollution controls. He could keep talking the talk and start to walk the walk too.

sticks and stones will break my bones but you are one dumb hippie.
A quadruple flame? Congrats. I'm not certain if that's a new record, but it's damn close.

That's exactly his stance. This guy is completely oblivious to the fact that T. Roosevelt, Hoover, and Nixon all lost their home states, among other presidents.

I think if he really cared about stopping global warming he would go off the grid and stop globe hopping on huge jets. He could use his invention the internet ( at a public library) to fundraise to lobby for pollution controls. He could keep talking the talk and start to walk the walk too.


So, your problem with Al Gore is just a nitpick. Your credibility is totally gone now though. Global Warming can not be stopped. The current Green House gases are there to stay, but the only action we can take it to slow down this process by not emitting anymore pollution. This has been Al Gore's issue for years now, he's pretty much the only one trying to solve this problem, and here you come and say that since he's polluting...he's a goddamn hypocrite for doing so. How about you stop talking the talk and just go take a walk?

So, your problem with Al Gore is just a nitpick. Your credibility is totally gone now though. Global Warming can not be stopped. The current Green House gases are there to stay, but the only action we can take it to slow down this process by not emitting anymore pollution. This has been Al Gore's issue for years now, he's pretty much the only one trying to solve this problem, and here you come and say that since he's polluting...he's a goddamn hypocrite for doing so. How about you stop talking the talk and just go take a walk?

because I could care less.

That's exactly his stance. This guy is completely oblivious to the fact that T. Roosevelt, Hoover, and Nixon all lost their home states, among other presidents.


www.270towin.com

if you take a look you will see that T. Roosevelt won New york ( his home state). Hoover won his home state ( iowa) in 1928, but lost it in 32' when he lost to FDR in the depression in a landslide. Nixon ran for President in 60', 68' and 72' ( winning his home state of California all three times). I know these things for my line of work.....did you just make up what you posted at random?

because I could care less.


Nice counter-productive response.

so you just made up some random facts about Roosevelt, hoover, and nixon, which I proved wrong with a link to prove it. Who were these " many other presidents" who lost their home states?

www.270towin.com

if you take a look you will see that T. Roosevelt won New york ( his home state). Hoover won his home state ( iowa) in 1928, but lost it in 32' when he lost to FDR in the depression in a landslide. Nixon ran for President in 60', 68' and 72' ( winning his home state of California all three times). I know these things for my line of work.....did you just make up what you posted at random?

Nixon's home state became New York in 1968...which he lost.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_major-party_United_States_presidential_candidates_who_lost_their_home_state

You should know your line of work better.

you make another absurd argument.

You say that Nixon's home state in 68' was NY because he lived there. he was living in DC in 60 and 72', does that mean DC was every incumbants home state? Dont play games or talk down to me. Gore lost Tennessee. The state he lived all of his adult life in. That is rare in elections. Only Mcgovern...did that too...

you make another absurd argument.

You say that Nixon's home state in 68' was NY because he lived there. he was living in DC in 60 and 72', does that mean DC was every incumbants home state? Dont play games or talk down to me. Gore lost Tennessee. The state he lived all of his adult life in. That is rare in elections. Only Mcgovern...did that too...

Again, you fail. DC can't be a home 'state'. I provided a link, and coupled with yours will prove my point in every direction.

sticks and stones will break my bones but you are one dumb hippie.

I dunno about the dumb part. I express my points and back up my claims much more clarly than you. As for the hippy part, can't agree with that either. I've never worn patchuli. I have no beard. I like sports. I've never lived in a commune. I do not own one single article of tie-die. I have never owned a van nor a pair of birkenstocks. I don't sing folk music. My hair is short.

I think you are missing the point here. if Gore had carried tennesse, where he was born, raised, elected to congress from....the state that elected his dad to the senate.....he would have been the 43rd president. Clinton and Carter carried tennessee...why couldnt Gore carry his own state when he was running against a guy like dubya? because Gore went off the deep end. he is a limo driven liberal and a private jet environmentalist.

I dunno about the dumb part. I express my points and back up my claims much more clarly than you. As for the hippy part, can't agree with that either. I've never worn patchuli. I have no beard. I like sports. I've never lived in a commune. I do not own one single article of tie-die. I have never owned a van nor a pair of birkenstocks. I don't sing folk music. My hair is short.

I'm sorry, I'm not as good dishing out insults as other people are (:

I think you are missing the point here. if Gore had carried tennesse, where he was born, raised, elected to congress from....the state that elected his dad to the senate.....he would have been the 43rd president. Clinton and Carter carried tennessee...why couldnt Gore carry his own state when he was running against a guy like dubya? because Gore went off the deep end. he is a limo driven liberal and a private jet environmentalist.

Didn't I tell you to give up in the other thread? Why are you still here?!

Your cheap shots at Gore are pure republican slime tactics. We were talking about his environment ideals until you decided to throw in the whole 'omg he didn't win his home state to dubya, this made dubya president...even though i'm forgetting that my beloved dubya stole his brother's state which won him the presidency.' Then I in turn counter your lame home state agenda with actual facts.

So log off and never log back on. As for me, I'm off to bed.

Telling me to go away because you dont like what I have to say. How original. Gore really believes that global warming is a serious threat. I wonder if he remembers earth day 1970 ....where they all screamed with alarm about global cooling killing us all!

Telling me to go away because you dont like what I have to say. How original. Gore really believes that global warming is a serious threat. I wonder if he remembers earth day 1970 ....where they all screamed with alarm about global cooling killing us all!

While laymen might have overreacted in 1970, the serious scientific community did not take a consensus view that global cooling was a concern. It was a fringe theory. That is not true of today's opinion of Climate Change. The overwhelming majority of scientists who specialize in the Earth Sciences agree that Climate Change is a legitimate issue.

In addition, the failures of the past are not relevant to the evidence of today. Just because someone failed to make a working airplane in the past does not mean that airplanes don't work.

I agree its a legit issue for scientists. I think it is a point of contention as to how much of a role human beings are playing.

I'm off to bed. I'l make sure to turn the air conditioner all the way up/

Alabamamississippi,
Stop the double posting. It's not pleasent to look at.