It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Al Gore is wrong on global warming

page: 10
9
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 18 2007 @ 10:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by nixie_nox
People who don't think we can contribute to global warming can do a little test for me. Go to the nearest running car and suck on the tail pipe for 15 minutes and tell me how you feel afterwards.


wouldn't that be a human reaction,rather than a global?
personlly i think it's gore's big mouth that spews too much carbon. when there's money to be made off of this form of global terrorism, i have to take a step back and take a deep breath(is that allowed anymore?) if it is such a wide spreadfact, why hasn't the scientific community banded together to form a loud and vigilant community to stop this ,or at least curtail the effect.just some guidelines or suggestions would be fine. instead my information base is the same group of people i don't really trust.politicians. i read that the polar caps have increased. i see that there have been cycles throughout history. i have to wonder to myself if that during the jurrasic period, if dinosaur farts helped to keep the co2 rate up. they would have been proportionatly larger than cow farts.
i guess what i'm trying to say is that Al Bore was the vice president for 8 years.where was he on this then, or is this just today's way of him keeping his 15 min going?
plus that ,hes making a lot of money on this,and i don't see him making concessions in his lifestyle,just the opposite.
if you really wanna convince me,prove it's not cyclical. this is a living planet. it knows when and how to cleanse itself of whatever harms it . it always has.
so once again i only see people poised to make money ,and blow smoke up my butt,with just another form of global terrorism.

[edit on 18-10-2007 by Spectre0o0]



posted on Oct, 19 2007 @ 12:49 AM
link   
Humans are definatley doing something bad towards the environment with the Millions of Tonnes of Chemicals we dump into the atmosphere Every year. But then Again - I dont think our actions are entirely to blame for the sudden 'Heat-Up' which is melting our ice-caps.

I'm not sure if He deserves the nobel peace prize, when there are thousands of scientists across the globe trying to Cure Diseases & End Poverty, but I do however think that Al Gore has done a remarkable thing by pushing Global Warming into the forefront of the media. Ignorance is not always necessarily bliss, and its important to know whats happening now while we can still do something about it.



posted on Oct, 19 2007 @ 06:07 AM
link   
I look at it this way:

A) Assume that Global Warming does exist. Therefore we should try to clean our act up. We save the planet, live healthier lives and create a brighter future for our children. Even if we're wrong, we come out better.

B) Assume that Global Warming doesn't exist. Do nothing. If Global Warming doesn't exist we live the same as we are today... BUT - if we're wrong on this bet, we could lose everything.

Ehhhhhh... I'll take option A)

I can't believe scientists don't think like this. It's Pascal's wager twisted into Global Warming... the only irony is that I'm an Atheist hehe =)



posted on Oct, 19 2007 @ 09:32 AM
link   
i've been saying this for years...the misnomer that we are the cause for warming...its an ice-age cycle that occurs every 10k years give or take...people are so apt to believe anything...especially liberals hehe



posted on Oct, 19 2007 @ 12:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Angry Danish
I look at it this way:

A) Assume that Global Warming does exist. Therefore we should try to clean our act up. We save the planet, live healthier lives and create a brighter future for our children. Even if we're wrong, we come out better.

B) Assume that Global Warming doesn't exist. Do nothing. If Global Warming doesn't exist we live the same as we are today... BUT - if we're wrong on this bet, we could lose everything.

Ehhhhhh... I'll take option A)

I can't believe scientists don't think like this. It's Pascal's wager twisted into Global Warming... the only irony is that I'm an Atheist hehe =)



If scientists thought like this, they would not be scientists!!!!!!



posted on Oct, 19 2007 @ 02:49 PM
link   
MY Opinion

Climate change happens all the time,.

But if people want to worry so much they should be putting money into space

programs so we can go colonize and mine another rock to live on.

So once we theoretically screw this planet up we can move on to another

one to screw up.

Eventually this planet will run out of resources which I see as a much more

urgent problem then the world getting hotter and making some nice beaches

where it was too cold to swim before.

Maybe make a big spaceship and collect all the animals and transplant them

on our terraformed worlds.

Anyway thats my opinion



posted on Oct, 19 2007 @ 06:30 PM
link   
Havn't gotten though all the posts so excuse me if this is a repeat.

I belive the important issue is that all the IPCC and Al Gore are only talking about C02! Nothing else!

We put alot of crap into the air but I belive c02 is not what we should worry about. It's all they talk about! They spend tons of our tax money on trying to make c02 skrubbers and making cars that put out less c02.

I belive this draws attention away from real problems like clean water to name one example.

Could this be a conspiracy in it self. To shift the blame and keep our minds on this? So we won't care if they make huge nuclear plants? Make war? Make weapons of mass destruction? Treaten to use them?

Because this is what they are doing!

[edit on 19-10-2007 by kremer]



posted on Oct, 19 2007 @ 08:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by kremer
I belive the important issue is that all the IPCC and Al Gore are only talking about C02! Nothing else!


Gore maybe, but you would need to actually read the IPCC reports to know they do assess other influences.



posted on Oct, 20 2007 @ 09:26 AM
link   
Al Gore is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. The CFR's position on Global Warming is that they are pushing for a Global Tax on Carbon Emissions. Al Gore's larger than life PowerPoint presentation is slanted in order to gain public support for this Global Tax.

Contrary to what CFR member Al Gore would like you to believe. C02 is NOT a pollutant. As TraderonWallSt said.....plants take in C02 and in turn they produce and release oxygen.

If you go to Al Gores website, what you discover is six activated pages describing what We the People can do to help fix the Global Warming problem. Pages 1 through 4 tells us what we can do in our home, like adding insulation, for example. Page 5 tells us to "eat less meat", and Page 6 tells us when we are ready to buy a new car to get an environmentally friendly one.

What Al does NOT do is have pages 7, 8, 9 and 10 describing what INDUSTRIES responsibility and culpability is in dealing with the problem of increased levels of C02 in or atmosphere/Global Warming. There are no pages that discuss sustainable energy options.

Al very cleverly makes We the People feel guilty about the increased levels of C02 in his slide show presentation when he said: China is waaaaay ahead of us in reducing C02 emissions. Japan is waaaaay ahead of us in reducing C02 emissions.

In my view, this Global Tax on C02 is really part of the CFR's other core mission which is to create a One World Government. I recently found a video online of Mike Gravel (Dem running for Prez) saying with a smile on his face and plenty of enthusiasm that "we need a One World Government". He also pushes for this Global Tax on C02.

It's all a SHAM and a SCAM.

Oh, and by the way....TEXACO, MOBILE and EXXON VALDEZ also have corporate memberships in the CFR.

This is just a couple of the many reasons whey I'm putting all of my efforts into getting Presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich elected.

Our country is in extreme danger and we will not be able to extricate ourselves from that danger with a Corporate Owned/CFR President.

Dennis Kucinich has been in politic for 40 years and is perfectly capable of beating the Republican nominee by a HUGE MARGIN.

The is country is long overdue for a President that can and will represent We the People, not the coporate establishment elite.

VoteKUCINICH2008!
www.dennis4president.com...



[edit on 20-10-2007 by SusanForKucinich]



posted on Oct, 20 2007 @ 12:47 PM
link   
Looks like China is not so "waaaaaay ahead of us" as Al Gore would like
us to believe. Check out this link:

Rough Cut
China: Undermined
Coal mines threaten villages


BY Duane Moles
October 04, 2007

As part of a class at the UC Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism, I traveled to China last spring with an assignment to report on the country's environment. Having grown up in a coal-mining region in West Virginia, I was really interested to see what life was like in China's coal belt.

More than in any other country, coal is the lifeblood of China's booming economy. Coal-fired power plants provide 70 percent of the country's electricity, and more than 30,000 mines operate throughout the country -- about 20 percent of which are illegal and, thus, unregulated.

China is also the most dangerous place in the world to be a coal miner. On average, 13 people a day die in mine accidents there, and more than 80 percent of mining deaths worldwide happen in China.

I headed west from Beijing to coal country, Shanxi Province, as part of a team of three reporters. Our plan was to see what life was like in a small village in the region. We knew that in November 2006 a villager named Hao Hualin had talked to Chinese news outlets about how the mines were burrowing beneath his village, causing homes to collapse. But we had no idea about the consequences of his speaking out. (Link below for full article)

www.pbs.org...



posted on Oct, 20 2007 @ 08:04 PM
link   
reply to post by SusanForKucinich
 


Cal Berkley? quoting PBS??

and favoring my side??????????????????

Careful before the DNC pulls your credentials!!!!



posted on Oct, 21 2007 @ 03:32 AM
link   
I think what really amazes me are the number of people who chose to make this subject one for polarization as well.

First, let me state the following: YOU ARE NOT YOUR POLITICAL PARTY. You are not your presidential vote. You are not your ideology. You are you, and as such, you should consider yourself smart enough to not paint everything in black and white. Because a great many subjects aren't black and white - global warming, for instance. We already know the Earth goes through these cycles, and we are coming out of an Ice Age, so the Earth technically should be heating up.

However, to brazenly say this is the sole cause of global warming is jumping the gun. Humans aren't creating massive climate change - they're augmenting the natural processes already in place.

Most scientists will likely tell you that the Earth goes through heating and cooling cycles. They'll also tell you that this heating cycle statistically overwhelms the previous ones in terms of rapid temperature increases, a trend that's holding steady. These temperature increases are largely why we have seen a record-breaking number of hurricanes each year, and those records will keep getting broken.



posted on Oct, 21 2007 @ 02:21 PM
link   
Actually, Gore is right to certain extent. The globe is warming up. But I don't think it has much to do with what we are doing as a human species.

What you may not know is that the whole solar system is undergoing major change. More so than ever in just the last 50 years. Solar flare activity has become stronger, ice caps are disappearing, planets are becoming brighter, atmospheres are changing dramatically in short time spans. Moons are being affected. This has been happening at an increasing rate over the WHOLE solar system. And Earth is just part of the grand scheme, along for the ride.

Earth is warming up indeed, but not because of us. It's much bigger than that.



posted on Oct, 21 2007 @ 11:50 PM
link   
I read the first page of this post and that's all I need to read, Al gore is my hero I believe him and that's that ok.

I really don't want to know the truth, if the world end tomorrow I don't care I already made my peace, I could die tomorrow walking down the street and I fell on big pointy stick and I die, my point here is who cares how die.

Do we have to be more cleaner, yes
Do we have to stop polluting are resource, yes
Do we need to care of our environment not only in the US but around the World.

Chinese need to stop polluting, Third world country need to stop being dirty, and Super Power country need to stop polluting the world because they need to make a iPhone.



posted on Oct, 22 2007 @ 01:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Angry Danish
I look at it this way:

A) Assume that Global Warming does exist. Therefore we should try to clean our act up. We save the planet, live healthier lives and create a brighter future for our children. Even if we're wrong, we come out better.

B) Assume that Global Warming doesn't exist. Do nothing. If Global Warming doesn't exist we live the same as we are today... BUT - if we're wrong on this bet, we could lose everything.

Ehhhhhh... I'll take option A)



This is probably the most valid point anyone has made in this discussion. In all truth, nobody actually knows whether it is down to us, the idea can get tossed around all it wants, but at the end of the day, a theory is just that. A theory.
So, at this moment in time, we don't know if it is true. The age olde line springs to mind for me. Better safe than sorry. If we take all the precautions against it we can, and it turns out to be true, happy days for us all.
If it turns out global warming isn't true, then what? Absolutely nothing! All that has happened is we've cleaned up our air. So there has been a lot of money wasted on the various projects around it, but think of it like this:


  1. The incentive has provoked research into more sustainable energy resources

  2. We've avoided an outcome that NOBODY could say for certain was actually true.


When someone can prove to me (and scientists agree with them) without a shadow of a doubt that it isn't true, i say that the risk isn't worth it.



posted on Oct, 22 2007 @ 07:04 AM
link   
The arguments above have only two options:

1. Do something about global warming, just in case.
2. Don't do anything.

This is flawed...

What if what we do about global warming does more damage than good.

The eco-friendly choices are expensive and harm the economy. Yes, they 'may' help the environment (I say 'may' because the things we do are often harmful. ie. The introduction of CFC's for refrigeration was forced by governments, as CFC's are inert and were therefore believed to be totally harmless compared to previous refrigeration gases. Only 20 years later did we discover that our 'eco-friendly' gas destryed ozone.)

So, yes, they 'may' help the environment, but if we are not causing global warming, then we may be causing more harm than good by:

1. Putting tons of research money into something pointless, where it could better be used to fight poverty etc.

2. Harming economies (perhaps not a huge impact on devoloped countries, but global laws imposed on third-world developing countries have serious economic consequences and increase in poverty, starvation etc...

You can probably think of many other examples...

So, I feel the 'logic' above is not logical at all, since it only looks at the problem for its environmental aspect and not at the global effects.



posted on Oct, 22 2007 @ 09:36 AM
link   
reply to post by robert z
 


Hello,
Robert Z used this pretty graphic, which shows the current average temperature as being somewhere near 12 Celsius.

That is not right.

I point to my own website, which computes a running average of global temperatures every hour, 24 hours a day.

see more on: satellite.ehabich.info...

Edit: pic too big

[edit on 22-10-2007 by osaitax]



posted on Oct, 22 2007 @ 09:58 AM
link   
1. From the pictures, your values are only chosen on land. This seriously biases a 'global' average.

2. Your temperatures chosen are not spread evenly across the land mass according to the picture. This will seriously affect statistics. How are they chosen?

There appear to be serious sampling errors in your calculations, which would, of course, negate the entire calculation.

Of course, I can only comment on what I see. Further information on your calculation would be appreciated...



posted on Oct, 22 2007 @ 11:06 AM
link   
Saurus, I agree with you.. to a point. If it turned out it was completely nothing to do with the species as a whole, then we would have wasted a hell of a lot of resources and money.

However, if the money was poured into poverty and then it turned out to be true, the third world countries across the equator would suffer much more due to massive droughting etc.

It's not a principle of doing the right thing with this, its more trying to find the lesser of two evils.

[Edit]

just an added point, your footnote on the previous post, looking at it environmentally and not globally, The environment is global, and as a species, we're very fragile. We require a very specific environment to support us. I just feel i'd rather see the global bank balance drop, than suffer the consequences (Indeed if there would be any)

[edit on 22/10/07 by Longy4eva]



posted on Oct, 22 2007 @ 11:30 AM
link   
I guess you're right in the sense that economies are reversible and can be rapidly restored (in the time-frames we're talking about here - ie. over hundreds of years), whereas the climate change would take much longer to restore, and may be irreversible.

However, my other point was that we are not always right in what is best for the environment. If you go back to the CFC's story, most countries passed legislation forcing the use of CFC's for refrigeration, knowing that they are inert in the troposphere. What we did not foresee was that although they are inert, and do not react with anything, they act as catalysts for the breakdown of ozone. We did more good than harm, thinking we were actually helping the environment.

Similarly (and more applicable to global warming), many governments have tried to cut down on sulfur emissions. However, about 10 years ago, it was discovered that sulfur in clouds increases the earth's albedo (reflection of sunlight) and therefore actually aid in preventing global warming - something we could not possibly forsee when passing legislation trying to stop acid rain. By curbing sulfur emissions, we increase global warming...

So what is best for the environment? Messing with it in any way (even by blocking harmful gas emissions) can harm the environment.

As the saying goes:

"A little knowledge is more dangerous than no knowledge."

And in all honesty, we do know very little.





[edit on 22-10-2007 by Saurus]




top topics



 
9
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join