Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Al Gore is wrong on global warming

page: 2
9
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 15 2007 @ 12:46 PM
link   
Look ma! another thread on "global warming"... :shk:

I hate to repeat myself, so I'll quote myself form another thread:


Originally posted by Gools
What does this debate really mean?

Here's what irks me about this debate.

I don't believe for a moment that humans can burn over 84 million barrels of oil products per day while having zero effect. The nature and magnitude of those effects are up for debate and research of course, but there has to be some! Thermodynamics says so.

Now, there is plenty of evidence that the climate is changing (and I prefer the term climate change rather than 'global warming' since Europe may find itself in a new ice age) and has always been in a state of change.

The problem I have with the "global warming deniers" ... is that they seem to be saying humans have no effect whatsoever on the environment and that we can keep burning fossil fuels to our heart's content, polluting our rivers, lakes and oceans and that anybody who says otherwise is a moron. They refuse to change anything about how our economic paradigm works or how we live our lives. It looks to me like some kind of "Hummer Owners of the World Unite!" battle cry.


Originally posted by Muaddib
You see, the only thing that is going to come out of "blaming mankind for climate change", is that we are going to be "taxed to our ears" with "carbon credits", or some other gimmick for a global tax.


I agree that this is where we are heading, but I have to ask something. Regardless of the climate change issue, if such measures result in greater efficiency, better technology, less pollution and cleaner air and water, would that really be so bad?

If "global warming" scare mongering is what it takes for humans to clean up their act, maybe we should fully support it?


.


[edit on 10/15/2007 by Gools]




posted on Oct, 15 2007 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by TruthWithin
I know that 1000's of planes flying around at any given time, burning MILLIONs of gallons of jet fuel everyday is bad for the atmosphere.


Speaking of planes, check this out (shameless plug)


The controversy stems from the fact that high-altitude emissions - from nine to 13 kilometres up for subsonic flights and higher for supersonic - cause disproportionately more warming than those at ground level, anywhere from 50 per cent to four times as much, making its global-warming role more significant than its emissions tally alone would indicate.

Part of the worry is due to contrails, the thin vapour trails from jets that crisscross the sky above many of the world's most-travelled air routes. Contrails resemble artificial cirrus clouds, trapping heat, although there is no scientific consensus about the size of their leavening effect on global warming.


Which still leaves a problem because I don't see any practical solution to this.

[edit on 15-10-2007 by Beachcoma]



posted on Oct, 15 2007 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

Learning about the carbon cycle might be a good idea. The CO2 emitted by fossil fuels has been locked up out of the carbon cycle for millions of years. Releasing it all in a few hundred years, which took millions to store, can't be a good thing, no?


Just curious...

If the CO2 was locked up for millions of years, where was it before it was locked up?

Can you really say with a straight face that the people who promote the global warming theories do not have political or self-serving interests in sounding the alarm? Do you think they are all altruistic, unbiased researchers?



posted on Oct, 15 2007 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by robert z
Just curious...

If the CO2 was locked up for millions of years, where was it before it was locked up?


Atmosphere? Then it became part of some organism/plant, then it died and was removed from the carbon cycle.


Can you really say with a straight face that the people who promote the global warming theories do not have political or self-serving interests in sounding the alarm? Do you think they are all altruistic, unbiased researchers?


I think some will have political interests, doesn't mean they are wrong though. But what political interest is there in producing the science that underpins the theory. If the evidence didn't exist, this stuff wouldn't last 5 minutes.

I think most scientific researchers are capable of being more objective than most people on this issue.

You've gotta remember, the science underpinning current climate science and GHG-mediated warming was produced 100-150 years ago with the likes of Tyndall, Fourier, and Arrhenius. The basic science is solid and irrefutable, even the likes of Pat Michaels and Dickie Lindzen accept that humans are having an impact. They just question how much.



posted on Oct, 15 2007 @ 01:09 PM
link   
OK...lets talk about the ocean smartie.

What makes up 36% of the ocean floor? Active volcanoes. Now these active volcanoes do not contribute to the CO2 being measured in the atmosphere because it never leaves the oceans. Know wahat aactive volcanoes due to the oceans? Raises the temperature level. Know what else active volcanoes underwater due? They produce basalt and lots of it. What does producing basalt under water due? It raises ocean levels. HMMMMM rising sea levels, rising water temps..... Sounds like little evil men are living under the ocean setting volcanoes off. I could go into lots of other causes that are also ACCEPTED resons for cyclical levels of global warming and cooling, but I do not have enough space. Sunspot activity and increased solar flares. Ever notice that all our CO2 is now effecting other planets? Mars is undergoing its own levels of global warming....same times as earth...coincidence?? I think not, its us. We have finally found a spot to dump all our evil waste. We are shipping it throught the stargate to Mars!

Man, I am in a bad mood today. Apologizing to the boards again. Just having fun with my bad mood.



posted on Oct, 15 2007 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by traderonwallst
What makes up 36% of the ocean floor? Active volcanoes. Now these active volcanoes do not contribute to the CO2 being measured in the atmosphere because it never leaves the oceans. Know wahat aactive volcanoes due to the oceans? Raises the temperature level. Know what else active volcanoes underwater due? They produce basalt and lots of it. What does producing basalt under water due? It raises ocean levels. HMMMMM rising sea levels, rising water temps..... Sounds like little evil men are living under the ocean setting volcanoes off.


Sounded good until that last three sentences. Ever heard of subduction zones?



posted on Oct, 15 2007 @ 01:17 PM
link   
You thought I was serious about little evil men living at the bottom of the ocean?



[edit on 15-10-2007 by traderonwallst]



posted on Oct, 15 2007 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin The basic science is solid and irrefutable, even the likes of Pat Michaels and Dickie Lindzen accept that humans are having an impact. They just question how much.



So who is projected to impact global warming the most in the next 100 years? The 3 billion people in China and India or the 300 million in the U.S.?

Do you have any idea what the opinion of the Chinese scientists is regarding global warming?



posted on Oct, 15 2007 @ 01:19 PM
link   
I wouldn't mess with Coma. He's a metaphorical beehive. Get him roweled up and the stings will never end. I've seen it at least 10 times before. I'm currently waiting for something to disagree with him about so we can go a few rounds. Haha.



posted on Oct, 15 2007 @ 01:24 PM
link   
for a conspiracy based website, im surprised there arent more people skeptical of this global warming myth. I mean, when there is something being debated that 95% of all politicians agree on, and that they are spending money to research... it's a safe bet to assume it's based on lies and extremism.



posted on Oct, 15 2007 @ 01:26 PM
link   
reply to post by traderonwallst
 


Of course, those dumb oceanorgraphers forgot about the volcanoes.



posted on Oct, 15 2007 @ 01:35 PM
link   
reply to post by scientist
 


Considering it was treated as a joke for the first 10 years. Even 3 years ago it was still considered "questionable." The scientists appointed by Bush to investigate the issue found the results "inconclusive" but were later to be found "doctored" or even "false."

I think it has less to do with one ultimate conspiracy but a perpetual effort to use every situation to their advantage. The carbon tax wasn't what they were aiming for 5 years ago but now that it's a reality, they're not going to blink an eye before capitalizing on it.



posted on Oct, 15 2007 @ 01:37 PM
link   
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.



posted on Oct, 15 2007 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by robert z
So who is projected to impact global warming the most in the next 100 years? The 3 billion people in China and India or the 300 million in the U.S.?


I think the answer to that is obvious, especially if these asian giants hit US levels of emissions per individual. The point is, though, that if the US can't be bothered acting, why should they?

We need to work together on this.


Do you have any idea what the opinion of the Chinese scientists is regarding global warming?


They seem to accept where the science is.

Linky 1

linky 2

But it's easy to talk the talk.



posted on Oct, 15 2007 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by DeadFlagBlues
The carbon tax wasn't what they were aiming for 5 years ago but now that it's a reality, they're not going to blink an eye before capitalizing on it.


good point. to me, global warming (in the context of politics) just means less freedoms, and more taxes. It has nothing at all to do with the environment, or wanting to make the world a better place. If that was the case, they would stop blaming PEOPLE, and start pointing fingers at the industry. I mean, we COULD all have electric cars right now, if they were pushed. Unfort, business regulates the government, not the other way around.


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.


clearly not a scientific experiment, and another shining example of the extremism and hyperbole that go hand in hand with this global warming lie.



posted on Oct, 15 2007 @ 02:01 PM
link   
reply to post by nixie_nox
 


Sounds like the rantings of someone without the skills to debate the issues. Must be on of those CNN watchers. Guess CNN siad nothing today about global warming, so I guess you have nothing constructive to say.



posted on Oct, 15 2007 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fang
reply to post by traderonwallst
 


Of course, those dumb oceanorgraphers forgot about the volcanoes.


No, they didn't. But I think climatologists haven't factored their findings as well as those of geologists into the equation. I've a feeling undersea volcanoes may play a crucial role in global warming, but lack of funding is probably the main reason why not enough scientists are following up on that possibility.

To follow traderonwallst's line of thinking before the basalt-seawater displacement bit, the volcanoes along with undersea faults and megaplumes warm the waters around it, which in turn causes the ocean temperatures to rise. Here's a balanced article on this possibility in regards to the El Nino phenomenon:

Hot Vents in the Sea Floor May Drive El Nino

There's also the fact that the last Ice Age was preceded by the oceans warming up first, possibly leading to the release of gas hydrates from their ocean floor deep freeze. All this leads me to believe that the whole global warming mechanism is far more complex than portrayed in the media, a fact that both supporters and detractors of anthropomorphic global warming would do well to remember. After all, we're talking about climate and weather, something we all know is fickle. Besides, if we are to remain objective, we must consider all the reasonable possibilities.

With that said, it is my opinion that whoever thinks this is a free pass to continue leading an environmentally unsustainable lifestyle is most definitely deluding themselves. Carbon dioxide still is a contributor to GW, and a greenhouse gas. If we don't do something to slow down the effects now, we may reach the point of no return when the siberian permafrost starts melting and releasing even more greenhouse gases.

Do we really want to reach that point?



posted on Oct, 15 2007 @ 02:32 PM
link   
Then can I also post something I wrote on another global warming thread?



Originally posted by centurion1211
reply to post by FreeThinkerIdealist
 



And I'm getting tired of people that can't think clearly enough to understand that if global warming is not being caused by mankind, that there is most likely nothing mankind can do to stop it. Least of all by following the preachings/screachings of a global warming hypocrite. Glaring case of the blind leading the deaf - or is it the other way around?

Look at the news on this subject. The tide is clearly turning against gore's position. If this issue is another "feel good agenda item" for you, then go ahead and feel good about it yourself. Just don't expect the rest of us to blindly join you following in gore's footsteps.


For background, read the attached comments from one of the world's leading meteorologists:

link


ONE of the world's foremost meteorologists has called the theory that helped Al Gore share the Nobel Peace Prize "ridiculous" and the product of "people who don't understand how the atmosphere works".

Dr William Gray, a pioneer in the science of seasonal hurricane forecasts, told a packed lecture hall at the University of North Carolina that humans were not responsible for the warming of the earth. ...

"We're brainwashing our children," said Dr Gray, 78, a long-time professor at Colorado State University. "They're going to the Gore movie [An Inconvenient Truth] and being fed all this. It's ridiculous."


And most troubling:


"It bothers me that my fellow scientists are not speaking out against something they know is wrong," he said. "But they also know that they'd never get any grants if they spoke out. I don't care about grants."




posted on Oct, 15 2007 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fang
Phew! thank god for that! I can now ignore the other 98% of the worlds established scientifc opinion and take my 911 turbo for a spin, before coming home and relaxing under my patio heater and book a long haul flight to the Maldives! I'm with you pal, screw the Polar Bears!


Heheh...too funny. But yeah - 1 (one) scientist refutes global warming, while thousands of others agree with 'ol Al Gore??? Hmmm...I guess I'm sticking with the majority of expert opinion on this one too....

Boy, I'm such a stubborn b*astard!


Jimbo



posted on Oct, 15 2007 @ 02:38 PM
link   
reply to post by scientist
 
'clearly not a scientific experiment, and another shining example of the extremism and hyperbole that go hand in hand with this global warming lie.'

'Global warming lie?' Now who's an example of extremism and hyperbole exactly? heh! Jeez...

Jimbo






top topics



 
9
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join