Al Gore = pwned?

[Martin]

Originally posted by: EXman

Originally posted by: NSFW
If anyone sees it, can they please send global warming my way? Its flippin cold up here!

This has been the coldest winter in KY since I have been here. School out all week. Cannot get the car out of the garage. Will not be able to until Sunday. Why we have a sheet of Ice with snow on top. Then we have another layer of ice with snow on top and now it is snowing and 25 degrees. Like shoveling concrete.

GW is a scam IMO. Even the head of the weather channel said it is BS. I care more about clean water and sustainable land so we can use it for recreational purposes. Hunters and fisherman are doing more for the planet than anyone else. Cause we use it and we want to pass it along to our kids.

To endorse something that scientists that get paid to study and say is there is like trusting a russian oil conglomerate to take care of the land. Any scientist that has not agreed with the Gore Doctrine has been the victom of cut funding and ran out of the field. That says something to me. Also says something that Gore will not make any money unless the government passes legislation that would implement the science he is heavily invested in. he has a Multi BILLION dollar Fund that is tied up in might be "Green" technology.

The problem with you you people is your obsession with Al Gore. If Al Gore came out and said magnetic bracelets don't make you lose weight, you'd be falling over yourselves to see who can fit the most magnetic bracelets on each hand.

If you people had the ability to reason logically, you would be able to instead focus on the fact and arguments to come to your conclusions. But you don't, so you have to instead get drawn into your stupid little he-said-she-said-I-don't-like-him bullshit drama.

 

[srp49ers]

Like any other change in thinking, there are those who will always oppose new thinking. Even the brightest minds have been proven wrong through out history.
Weather you believe in "Global Warming" or not, its hard to argue the fact that 6 billion people living in an enclosed space can have a effect on their environment.

Just think about it logically, dont get caught up in a Me vs Al Gore debate.

 

[smokeyjoe]

the OP article is not the best argument against AGW.. if anyone is interested

http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckit...search/APEC-hockey.pdf
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008597 - before you say it is just an opinion, research the author

or just google "gore" along with "molten metal technology", "maurice strong", "chicago climate exchange", "carbon offset"

 

[Phoenix86]

Originally posted by: jjzelinski

Originally posted by: Fayd

Originally posted by: rockyct
lol, KUSI is such a joke of a tv station.

as much as i hate john coleman, he is a meterologist...

and i think he has a much better idea of what's happening with regard to global climate change than some dumbass politician like al gore.

From Her209
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J...iews_on_global_warming

Views on global warming
"...Despite having no educational or scientific credentials in meteorology, climatology, environmental science, or indeed any other scientific field or discipline..."


I'm sorry, please go on about Coleman's credentials and why anyone should give a shit about his "scientific opinions."

No idea who this guy is, however in that same wiki article:

Originally posted by: her209
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J...iews_on_global_warming

Coleman's global warming views are closely aligned with those of the International Climate Science Coalition, an organization of over 197 climate science specialists or scientists in closely related fields, who in 2008 in Manhattan N.Y., issued a declaration known as the Manhattan Declaration stating that ?Global warming? is not a global crisis [6] .

Carry on.

edit: Spokesmen don't have to have credentials, and often scientist make horrible spokesman...

 

[Vette73]

^

International Climate Science Coalition is a group put togetgher with funding from big oil. It is NOT a scientific group, but a group of people paid for to come together with the same opinion.

 

[marketsons1985]

Originally posted by: EXman

Originally posted by: NSFW
If anyone sees it, can they please send global warming my way? Its flippin cold up here!

This has been the coldest winter in KY since I have been here. School out all week. Cannot get the car out of the garage. Will not be able to until Sunday. Why we have a sheet of Ice with snow on top. Then we have another layer of ice with snow on top and now it is snowing and 25 degrees. Like shoveling concrete.

GW is a scam IMO. Even the head of the weather channel said it is BS. I care more about clean water and sustainable land so we can use it for recreational purposes. Hunters and fisherman are doing more for the planet than anyone else. Cause we use it and we want to pass it along to our kids.

To endorse something that scientists that get paid to study and say is there is like trusting a russian oil conglomerate to take care of the land. Any scientist that has not agreed with the Gore Doctrine has been the victom of cut funding and ran out of the field. That says something to me. Also says something that Gore will not make any money unless the government passes legislation that would implement the science he is heavily invested in. he has a Multi BILLION dollar Fund that is tied up in might be "Green" technology.

As many have mentioned here, this is a problem of long-term vs. short-term problems. I'm up in MI right now. It's frickin freezing. My heat bill is ridiculously high because it's been in the 10's or 0's for nearly the past month. Thus, I should take this as the earth actually cooling down, right? I mean, that makes so much sense!!!!!!

Meteorologists are crappy long-term forcasters. They look at far different weather patterns that climatologists do. They use different models to predict the weather, and don't take historical data very kindly (except to say it's colder than it was last year, warmer etc.) Meteorologists are good at their job, but they suck at looking at climate change.

AFAIK, I've never heard of a "Gore Doctrine." Al Gore, again as mentioned above (gosh, doesn't anyone read anymore?) is merely the spokesperson for an issue being studied by hundreds of climatologists (not meteorologists) worldwide.

If you want to see global warming, go trade places with a polar bear for a few days, you might not live to trade back, and then the real scientists could do what they are trained to do instead of argue with nonsensical and illogical people like you.

 

[judasmachine]

wtf, it even mentions the Bohemian Grove. i trust this site implicitly.

 

[Phoenix86]

Originally posted by: Marlin1975
^

International Climate Science Coalition is a group put togetgher with funding from big oil. It is NOT a scientific group, but a group of people paid for to come together with the same opinion.

It's one thing to attack the scientists credentials or bias, that's completely reasonable, but saying Coleman must have credentials to publicly discuss a given position is ridiculous.

Is Al Gore a scientist?

 

[Fritzo]

Originally posted by: Phoenix86

Originally posted by: Marlin1975
^

International Climate Science Coalition is a group put togetgher with funding from big oil. It is NOT a scientific group, but a group of people paid for to come together with the same opinion.

It's one thing to attack the scientists credentials or bias, that's completely reasonable, but saying Coleman must have credentials to publicly discuss a given position is ridiculous.

Is Al Gore a scientist?

No, but the people he consults with are. Good ones too.

 

[Phoenix86]

Originally posted by: Fritzo

Originally posted by: Phoenix86

Originally posted by: Marlin1975
^

International Climate Science Coalition is a group put togetgher with funding from big oil. It is NOT a scientific group, but a group of people paid for to come together with the same opinion.

It's one thing to attack the scientists credentials or bias, that's completely reasonable, but saying Coleman must have credentials to publicly discuss a given position is ridiculous.

Is Al Gore a scientist?

No, but the people he consults with are. Good ones too.

Right, again a reasonable argument but that's not being made about Coleman (rather the scientist who he agrees with).

Bashing Coleman because he has no credentials is silly, that's what 99% of this thread is doing. Marlin1975 is the first one to attack the credentials of the scientists, and even then there's no proof, just a "big oil funded" comment. It may be true and it's certainly a valid argument but it's not being proved.

I'm just saying attacking Coleman's credentials is just as silly as attacking Gore's. Neither have credentials and neither need them. Furthermore the link that demonstrates he has no credentials plainly states his position is backed by people who appear to have valid credentials.

 

[GasX]

I have a healthy amount of global warming skepticism, but the guy in the article references the "plans for a world government". Instant credibility shattering statement.

 

[Phoenix86]

Originally posted by: Mwilding
I have a healthy amount of global warming skepticism, but the guy in the article references the "plans for a world government". Instant credibility shattering statement.

That's just what they want you to think!!!

 

[JDub02]

Originally posted by: bunnyfubbles
Summary of it all:

Global warming IS real.

??? the earth is colder now than it has been in the last 50 years or so. how is that warming?

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: JDub02

Originally posted by: bunnyfubbles
Summary of it all:

Global warming IS real.

??? the earth is colder now than it has been in the last 50 years or so. how is that warming?

50 years on a geological time scale is like a day. You're better off looking at the trends over the last 200 years.

They've come to the conclusions by looking at the data - CO2 is a greenhouse gas; in the past 200 years, CO2 being dumped into the atmosphere, by industrialization, has skyrocketed. In that same time frame, global temperatures have also risen.

Additionally, Global Warming doesn't mean that places are going to get warmer overall. It could mean that many places get much colder, as the "circulatory system" of the Earth is re-adjusted, moving warming currents (air and water) elsewhere....

 

[randay]

no, that be religion son.

 

[SagaLore]

John Coleman founded The Weather Channel.

But he is also only 1 man. Good info in his article, but don't take this as some kind of counter-proof.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Originally posted by: mozirry
I always liked the general message of preventing global warming, which is to quit being a douchebag about littering and waste. Plus, I've noticed that going "Green" usually will benefit your local business/family more directly then benefiting some national/worldwide corporation.

Being clean, resourceful, and respectable to the environment is pretty awesome. But not everybody enjoys the outdoors I guess.

I hate the outdoors and am activly working to get it banned.
I believe in domed cities for everyone.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Originally posted by: 2Xtreme21
Here's the thing:

I can't see us dumping unbelievable amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere HELPING the environment-- can you?

I certainly can. Maybe that is all that is holding off global cooling!
Who is to say that the real final goal of nature is not to wrap the entire planet in clear polyurethane wrap?

I'm not saying I believe any of that, I'm just saying your argument holds no water.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Originally posted by: Brainonska511
They've come to the conclusions by looking at the data - CO2 is a greenhouse gas; in the past 200 years, CO2 being dumped into the atmosphere, by industrialization, has skyrocketed. In that same time frame, global temperatures have also risen.

in the that same number of years the number of pirates have sharpy declined. Perhaps it is the lack of pirates that is causeing global warming. We are seeing more reports of pirates, and it is colder this winter.
Correlation != Causation.

The amount of CO2 we pump into the environment pales in comparison to the amount that a single volcano can put out in a year. It would seem that we are producing a statistically insignificant amount of greenhouse gasses.

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

THREE choices everyone:

1) GLOBAL WARMING IS ACTUALLY REAL
We do something about it
200 years from now the Earth is "safe"

2) GLOBAL WARMING IS ACTUALLY FAKE
We do something about it it
200 years from now the Earth is "safe"

3) GLOBAL WARMING IS ACTUALLY REAL
We do nothing about it it
200 years from now the Earth is "dead"

The above is simply what pisses me off about the "debate" over global warming.

This is also why Fox news is full of jackasses. A concise statement that is irrefutable? NOoooo, I can yell louder than you says Mr O'Reiley.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Originally posted by: IHateMyJob2004
THREE choices everyone:

1) GLOBAL WARMING IS REAL
We do something about it
200 years from now the Earth is "safe"

2) GLOBAL WARMING IS FAKE
We do something about it it


3) GLOBAL WARMING IS REAL
We yell at each other
200 years from now the Earth is "dead"

The above is simply what pisses me off about the "debate" over global warming.

Oh, I can play this game too!

1) GLOBAL WARMING IS REAL
In attempting to do something about it we ruin our economy and lose the oppertunity to invent a real fix.
200 years from now the Earth is "dead"

2) GLOBAL WARMING IS FAKE
We don't do something about it it, and have amazing golden era of prosperity and invent technologies that make everyones life better.
200 years from now the Earth is "safe"

3) GLOBAL WARMING IS REAL
We yell at each other
It gets a little warmer and the sea level rises and it causes some problems while we all are forced to move inland a few miles, but Earth is "safe"

If it was clear that not doing anything about it would kill the earth there would be no debate.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Regardless of what happens with global warming, the Earth will be safe. It's incredibly arrogant of us to think we can somehow destroy the planet. We may be able to change the landscape, we may be able to make the global environment non-conducive to human life, but to think that we could actually destroy 6,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 kg of rock... Well, that's just preposterous. Long after we are all dead, this giant orb will still be floating through space, compltely oblivious to our absence. We are completely irrelevant in the cosmic scheme of things.

Of course, we do still live here, and it would be convenient for our survival if we didn't actually make the only planet capable of supporting human life inhospitable for us. That's just fucking stupid. So, if global warming could potentially threaten our existence, maybe it's not such a bad idea to prepare ourselves to meet the challenges it may pose for us, rather than objecting to it because someone whose politics you don't agree with made a movie about it.

 

[marketsons1985]

Originally posted by: SMOGZINN

Originally posted by: Brainonska511
They've come to the conclusions by looking at the data - CO2 is a greenhouse gas; in the past 200 years, CO2 being dumped into the atmosphere, by industrialization, has skyrocketed. In that same time frame, global temperatures have also risen.

in the that same number of years the number of pirates have sharpy declined. Perhaps it is the lack of pirates that is causeing global warming. We are seeing more reports of pirates, and it is colder this winter.
Correlation != Causation.

The amount of CO2 we pump into the environment pales in comparison to the amount that a single volcano can put out in a year. It would seem that we are producing a statistically insignificant amount of greenhouse gasses.

Says who? A meteorologist? Read the argument against that here and see how false and feeble that argument is.

Basically, if that were true, then carbon emissions would have huge spikes when a volcano went off. We know that's 100% false, so that argument fails miserably.

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: JDub02

Originally posted by: bunnyfubbles
Summary of it all:

Global warming IS real.

??? the earth is colder now than it has been in the last 50 years or so. how is that warming?

50 years on a geological time scale is like a day. You're better off looking at the trends over the last 200 years.

They've come to the conclusions by looking at the data - CO2 is a greenhouse gas; in the past 200 years, CO2 being dumped into the atmosphere, by industrialization, has skyrocketed. In that same time frame, global temperatures have also risen.

Additionally, Global Warming doesn't mean that places are going to get warmer overall. It could mean that many places get much colder, as the "circulatory system" of the Earth is re-adjusted, moving warming currents (air and water) elsewhere....

I see, 50 years is like "one day" and an insufficient sample size to make a determination...however 200 years, or "four days" is definately a large enough sample to determine the direction of climate in the next 20 years. Excuse me for viewing that data with some level of scepticism but it seems like those are both horribly small sample sizes that really are insufficient to make any kind of determination on. This is like those studies where they say women's brainwaves all function in a certain way after they use a sample of 20 people who are all from a local college. And then some asshole prints it in a newspaper and everyone talks about how weird that is.

 

[smokeyjoe]

Originally posted by: marketsons1985
Says who? A meteorologist? Read the argument against that here and see how false and feeble that argument is.

Basically, if that were true, then carbon emissions would have huge spikes when a volcano went off. We know that's 100% false, so that argument fails miserably.

They better be prepared to measure the data from this Alaskan volcano

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200...n_re_us/alaska_volcano