Al Gore an Global Warming, Someone Explain This To Me

[LibertyOfOne]

For the next 50 years, if you believe the consensus of scientists (and not the Global Warming Swindle Movie which is basically bought and paid for by the oil lobby and contains FAKE graphs, cutoffs of graphs, and horribly skewed scale lines, amongst other things), we're looking at a 1 to 2 degree rise of the temperature, Greenland melted off, and a rise in sea levels of 10 to 20 feet, by 2050.

In 20 years if you follow what the oil reserves have there will be close to no oil to regulate.

 

[Redcard]

The reason why I oppose this is because the government won't help. Just look at the current push for bio fuels made from corn. The people who grow corn want the government to fund that crap even though bio fuels made from corn are close to a net energy loser. That is what happens when you get government involved. With the mandates on cars given how crappy the system is it will only lead to those who have political connection to get their car certified while their competitors struggle because they weren't the ones to lobby for it. That would kill innovation leaving the big fish to monopolize with the force of government, while the small guys get eaten up. Political favoritism happens all the time and has already creped into this issue.

Fair enough.

Then drop Kyoto from the list of Gore's plan. Don't do it. But all the other stuff I listed will save you money, get you in shape, and reduce the foreign interventionism that is seemingly justified to maintain our use of oil. If I'm right, and it saves the earth, what's the harm?

 

[LibertyOfOne]

For the next 50 years, if you believe the consensus of scientists (and not the Global Warming Swindle Movie which is basically bought and paid for by the oil lobby and contains FAKE graphs, cutoffs of graphs, and horribly skewed scale lines, amongst other things), we're looking at a 1 to 2 degree rise of the temperature, Greenland melted off, and a rise in sea levels of 10 to 20 feet, by 2050.

Yeah Yeah Yeah I must get my information from the big oil companies because I don't buy into the regulation must happen dogma.

 

[Redcard]

In 20 years if you follow what the oil reserves have there will be close to no oil to regulate.

Well, in under a year, the oil is going to be off the dollar. In 20, we're not going to be able to afford it as much, and it'd be nice if we had an alternative energy.

Maybe one that didn't release CO2?

Just thinking.

Look, the long run is this. Burning fossil fuels releases CO2. CO2 is the problem. If you don't believe that, fine. Look at it like this. Burning fossil fuels requires us to ship it in from countries that we are pissing off.

Any reduction of that is good, right?

I know I'm not going to convince you that Gore is right. I'd like to. I'd REALLY like if you sat down and gave his movie a chance, as it's not the doom and gloom and America hating that it's made out to be.. but.. failing that.. I think we can reach a consensus here without you having to agree with Gore's hypothesis.

 

[Dr.3D]

Interesting how so many Masons I talk to are opposed to the Great Global Warming Swindle movie. Every one of them says the same things about that movie almost as if they went to a meeting to learn what to say about it. Is there a connection between the Masons and the strong general belief in Global Warming?

 

[TSOL]

If you don't think Global Warming isn't a real phenomenon then you're an idiot.

 

[LibertyOfOne]

 

[Redcard]

Yeah Yeah Yeah I must get my information from the big oil companies because I don't buy into the regulation must happen dogma.

Then don't. Don't believe in regulation. Push for the companies to make more fuel economic cars.

We have cars right now that have the SAME safety standards as those in other countries.. only, in those other countries, they have higher gas mileage.

Why aren't they over here?

Well, because, they tell you that it's harder to ship them over here. They talk about "export restrictions" and "safety issues."

You can have a car , right now, that gets 50 mpg. BEFORE hybridization.

If you don't want regulation, FINE. But I can't see why you're letting auto and oil companies screw you in the ass.

 

[LibertyOfOne]

Interesting how so many Masons I talk to are opposed to the Great Global Warming Swindle movie. Every one of them says the same things about that movie almost as if they went to a meeting to learn what to say about it. Is there a connection between the Masons and the strong general belief in Global Warming?

If there is so what? I could careless what a bunch of beer drinkers talked about anyways.

 

[Dr.3D]

If you don't think Global Warming isn't a real phenomenon then you're an idiot.

Global warming is true! It's just that people causing it is a silly thought.
When they went to the poles to check the amount of CO2 throughout the years, they also checked to see what the temperatures were throughout those same years.

What is very interesting is that the temperature would go up some 300 to 700 years before the carbon dioxide level went up. The converse also holds true. As the temperature went down, then years later, the carbon dioxide levels also dropped.

So the change is temperature is what causes the rise or fall in carbon dioxide levels, not the carbon dioxide levels causing the change in temperature.

 

[LibertyOfOne]

Then don't. Don't believe in regulation. Push for the companies to make more fuel economic cars.

We have cars right now that have the SAME safety standards as those in other countries.. only, in those other countries, they have higher gas mileage.

Why aren't they over here?

Well, because, they tell you that it's harder to ship them over here. They talk about "export restrictions" and "safety issues."

You can have a car , right now, that gets 50 mpg. BEFORE hybridization.

If you don't want regulation, FINE. But I can't see why you're letting auto and oil companies screw you in the ass.

You let companies screw you in the ass along with the rest of America. Who has the real power the buyer or the seller? You see we as consumers can buy whatever the fuck we want. The problem with those cars is that people don't want to drive something so small when everyone else has these huge cars. It's illogical, but people see the cars as death traps. The goal would be to change that perception. Also it wouldn't hurt to start a trend where it's cooler to drive said cars. If the price of oil wasn't subsidized with intervention in other countries to begin with this would not be a problem being that the price of oil would truly reflect its scarcity.

 

[amy31416]

Tell your pal, that she will have more control over the environment in the sense that we have more control of where our money goes.

Don't want it to line oil companies pockets? Don't buy their wares.

Don't want to buy crap from dirty companies like Halliburton, etc? Guess what--they have NO MORE GOVERNMENT FAVORS OR HANDOUTS.

Think that your state/city is too smoggy? You write to your Senators, Congressmen, mayors etc. You have MORE control! Senators, Congressmen, Mayors, State Reps are all much more accessible to us than the Federal Govt.

But it requires that YOU take responsibility and educate YOURSELF on the issues.

 

[attackkatt]

This says it best http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-qu_0KlMvw

 

[Young_Apprentice]

the IPCC is a government program, not scientific. Many of the scientists whose names were included did not agree at all with the reports.

But, even if agw is happening on the scale the scaremongers are saying, they don't have the solution. The only solution is new technology, created by a strong economy.

Penn and Teller illustrated the point really well. Imagine you're suffocating with a plastic bag over your head. The governments' solution is to breathe less, which will ultimately result in death, albeit slower. The market's solution is to create a tool to peirce the bag.

 

[m72mc]

You apparently know nothing of Gore's plan, other than what you were told it was by some oil company lobbiest who is masking as a scientist.

Here's Gore's plan.

1. Raise fuel economy standards. Right now, cars we make cannot be sold in China because they are too pollutant. They can sell their lead tainted toys over here, but we can't sell a SINGLE model of car of ours over there. Is there any wonder why US auto companies are falling apart? Our products are simply inferior. One state bucked the trend, and they were promptly sued by the EPA.

2. Increase greenway / bikeway / walkway paths. Make biking to work a safe option. Make walking to work a safe option.

3. Switch to CFL's for lighting. Makes sense. They waste less energy, save you money, last longer, and light better.

4. Buy a hybrid. This coupled with #1 are just thorns in the sides of the oil lobbyests. They HATE these two things.

5. Sign Kyoto. Okay, this one I agree with you on. A carbon offset economy is a GOOD THING.. but not when it can be gamed. Not when the sole purpose is to shuffle blame around.

6. Purchase Green Energy. This can be done now, and the few extra cents per kilowatt are often fed back into the energy system to encourage development of more wind farms, solar power farms, and hydro power plants. Nuclear would be nice too.


All in all, we can reduce our carbon offsets to where it was in 1970 by doing steps 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6. All without step 5. Step 5 would have pulled us below 1970.

So please, know the plan. Understand "the plan" would save us money as a nation. It's good for the economy. It's good for the environment.

you do realize it will be a tax on breathing and farthing ?

 

[athlon64bit]

Many of the scientists in this film claim that they were misquoted and that their data was intentionally reinterpreted for it.

Only 1 scientist made that claim and just because one scientist was edited out of context does not discredit the whole film.

If you don't think Global Warming isn't a real phenomenon then you're an idiot.

Have you watched this documentary before?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3069943905833454241



Also Global Warming stopped in 2001.

http://www.newstatesman.com/200712190004

Has global warming stopped?

David Whitehouse
Published 19 December 2007

'The fact is that the global temperature of 2007 is statistically the same as 2006 and every year since 2001'

Global warming stopped? Surely not. What heresy is this? Haven’t we been told that the science of global warming is settled beyond doubt and that all that’s left to the so-called sceptics is the odd errant glacier that refuses to melt?
Aren’t we told that if we don’t act now rising temperatures will render most of the surface of the Earth uninhabitable within our lifetimes? But as we digest these apocalyptic comments, read the recent IPCC’s Synthesis report that says climate change could become irreversible. Witness the drama at Bali as news emerges that something is not quite right in the global warming camp.
With only few days remaining in 2007, the indications are the global temperature for this year is the same as that for 2006 – there has been no warming over the 12 months.
But is this just a blip in the ever upward trend you may ask? No.
The fact is that the global temperature of 2007 is statistically the same as 2006 as well as every year since 2001. Global warming has, temporarily or permanently, ceased. Temperatures across the world are not increasing as they should according to the fundamental theory behind global warming – the greenhouse effect. Something else is happening and it is vital that we find out what or else we may spend hundreds of billions of pounds needlessly.
In principle the greenhouse effect is simple. Gases like carbon dioxide present in the atmosphere absorb outgoing infrared radiation from the earth’s surface causing some heat to be retained.
Consequently an increase in the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases from human activities such as burning fossil fuels leads to an enhanced greenhouse effect. Thus the world warms, the climate changes and we are in trouble.
The evidence for this hypothesis is the well established physics of the greenhouse effect itself and the correlation of increasing global carbon dioxide concentration with rising global temperature. Carbon dioxide is clearly increasing in the Earth’s atmosphere. It’s a straight line upward. It is currently about 390 parts per million. Pre-industrial levels were about 285 ppm. Since 1960 when accurate annual measurements became more reliable it has increased steadily from about 315 ppm. If the greenhouse effect is working as we think then the Earth’s temperature will rise as the carbon dioxide levels increase.
But here it starts getting messy and, perhaps, a little inconvenient for some. Looking at the global temperatures as used by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the UK’s Met Office and the IPCC (and indeed Al Gore) it’s apparent that there has been a sharp rise since about 1980.
The period 1980-98 was one of rapid warming – a temperature increase of about 0.5 degrees C (CO2 rose from 340ppm to 370ppm). But since then the global temperature has been flat (whilst the CO2 has relentlessly risen from 370ppm to 380ppm). This means that the global temperature today is about 0.3 deg less than it would have been had the rapid increase continued.
For the past decade the world has not warmed. Global warming has stopped. It’s not a viewpoint or a sceptic’s inaccuracy. It’s an observational fact. Clearly the world of the past 30 years is warmer than the previous decades and there is abundant evidence (in the northern hemisphere at least) that the world is responding to those elevated temperatures. But the evidence shows that global warming as such has ceased.
The explanation for the standstill has been attributed to aerosols in the atmosphere produced as a by-product of greenhouse gas emission and volcanic activity. They would have the effect of reflecting some of the incidental sunlight into space thereby reducing the greenhouse effect. Such an explanation was proposed to account for the global cooling observed between 1940 and 1978.
But things cannot be that simple. The fact that the global temperature has remained unchanged for a decade requires that the quantity of reflecting aerosols dumped put in our atmosphere must be increasing year on year at precisely the exact rate needed to offset the accumulating carbon dioxide that wants to drive the temperature higher. This precise balance seems highly unlikely. Other explanations have been proposed such as the ocean cooling effect of the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation or the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation.
But they are also difficult to adjust so that they exactly compensate for the increasing upward temperature drag of rising CO2. So we are led to the conclusion that either the hypothesis of carbon dioxide induced global warming holds but its effects are being modified in what seems to be an improbable though not impossible way, or, and this really is heresy according to some, the working hypothesis does not stand the test of data.
It was a pity that the delegates at Bali didn’t discuss this or that the recent IPCC Synthesis report did not look in more detail at this recent warming standstill. Had it not occurred, or if the flatlining of temperature had occurred just five years earlier we would have no talk of global warming and perhaps, as happened in the 1970’s, we would fear a new Ice Age! Scientists and politicians talk of future projected temperature increases. But if the world has stopped warming what use these projections then?
Some media commentators say that the science of global warming is now beyond doubt and those who advocate alternative approaches or indeed modifications to the carbon dioxide greenhouse warming effect had lost the scientific argument. Not so.
Certainly the working hypothesis of CO2 induced global warming is a good one that stands on good physical principles but let us not pretend our understanding extends too far or that the working hypothesis is a sufficient explanation for what is going on.
I have heard it said, by scientists, journalists and politicians, that the time for argument is over and that further scientific debate only causes delay in action. But the wish to know exactly what is going on is independent of politics and scientists must never bend their desire for knowledge to any political cause, however noble.
The science is fascinating, the ramifications profound, but we are fools if we think we have a sufficient understanding of such a complicated system as the Earth’s atmosphere’s interaction with sunlight to decide. We know far less than many think we do or would like you to think we do. We must explain why global warming has stopped.
David Whitehosue was BBC Science Correspondent 1988–1998, Science Editor BBC News Online 1998–2006 and the 2004 European Internet Journalist of the Year. He has a doctorate in astrophysics and is the author of The Sun: A Biography (John Wiley, 2005).] His website is www.davidwhitehouse.com

 

[Dr.3D]

If there is so what? I could careless what a bunch of beer drinkers talked about anyways.

I was hoping for an intelligent answer.

I don't care if you could care less. As for the "bunch of beer drinkers", Many Masonic Temple's don't allow alcohol inside the building.

 

[lost_in_samoa]

..

 

[amy31416]

4.) What Mr. Gore is putting forward as truth is a Dr. Mann's THEORY.

I'm a spaz for the word "theory" because I think it's vastly misunderstood. Tell me, is this only his theory or have others elevated it to theory?

Has it gone under the arbitrary tests to actually elevate it from hypothesis to theory? Theories are pretty serious to me, and while I'm not even close to you in expertise on the environment, something elevated to theory has to have gone through some stringent testing.

So, I'm essentially confessing my ignorance on Dr. Mann's theory--has it truly gone through the experimentation and prediction necessary to consider it as a theory? My first instinct is to highly doubt that.

 

[lost_in_samoa]

..