Al Gore is wrong on global warming

whether we are the cause or not is irrelevent, al gore proposes we take better care of our planet and we should whether we effect the earth or not we certainly effect our own health and the health of other animals. One of the worst things ever is when you see beautifull scenery, nature at its finest and then in the corner of your eye you see a plastic bag stuck in tree, even if its just at the aesthetic level it has an impact

Historically it will matter not one puddle of p#@s whether global warming is man-made (or primarily) or not. What speaks is only what we choose to do about it. We need to think in terms of one or more of these: off-planet colonization, eco-friendly reindustrialization and population control by mass sterilizations (only). Of greater importance than global warming are the TOXICITY LEVELS of the environment (dead zones in the oceans, rapid decline of species).

We must get over our collective psychosis that mere treaties are enough to save our butts; or that there will be another conventional panacea. We need the entirely new knowledge of the scientific breakthrough of the truth behind the (very apparent) nonhuman ("god") presence.

The reason people (outside the US) are motivated to be concerned about the use of fossil fuels is because their petrol costs more.

Why do you exclude the US? I believe this holds true for all political leaders.

Whether it's a local projection of a global issue or not is kind of irrelevant - if everyone's local level problems were sorted there wouldn't BE a global problem.

I don't agree.

If, at this point in time, coal burning would better agree with an economy than a more eco-friendly fuel (and it does), local level problems (expnsive fuel) would be solved by burning more coal, and the global atmospheric problem worsens...

reply to post by gniessic


Are you kidding me????? The reason the US did not sign the Kyoto treaty is....its crap. Every aspect of the treaty is geared to slow down 1st worl countries and prop up 3rd world countries. It is on big transfer of wealth and nothing more. The whole idea about carbon credits is ridiculous. Companies operating in certain countries are allowed to build up carbon credits and sell them on the open market to the highest bidder who then cashes them in to off set the pollution they are not supposed to be doing. That is junk science at its best.

Remember....ALgore was one of the BIG backers of the Kyoto Treaty. He was sent off on one of those vice predisential thingys that Presidents send no name people to do. Bill Clinton saw the treaty his "man" came up with. After he was done laughing at it. He walked away making all look like the fool we all know he is.

The concept might be in the right place, but the actual treaty does nothing except allow other nations to go into 3rd world countires and manipulate the rules and continue to strip these countires of their natural resources at the expense of the inhabitants of those countries.

When I look at companies for investment purposes, i use certain companies that compile all sorts of "invetment" research and puts them in one place. When I look at international companies, they actually show these credits on their books because there is "worth" to them. Granted the true worth can be assigned until they are actually sold. The sick thing is, they have to be sold in order to get that worth out of them. Its like flipping houses in the US......buy credit cheap, sell them high to a company that is in dire need of offsetting something they did. Even hedge funds get in the act when they see profit to be made and there is no other place too put there money for a short period of time.

FORGET THE KYOTO AGREEMENT.......it is junk science!!!!!!!!!!!

Humans are really something... Even when the natural balance that support humans is deteriorating we still have the time to bicker among ourselves.

Go on, bicker some more. Keep on arguing while the natural life is being destroyed all around you by your own kind. I think humanity will come to it's senses when all of humanity is destroyed and there's no one else to fight.

Humans are really pathetic. I think we deserve being wiped out as a result of our own filth. Now I really hope there will be an alien invasion to wipe humans out like the cancer we really are. Because, honestly we really don't deserve this planet...



[edit on 16-10-2007 by omnicron]

as joe rogan says: humans are like the mold on bread. they find a nice host to live and eat from, but ultimately our job is consume our environment, just like any other mold / virus / bacteria.

Like the millions and billions of bacteria in your gut, just waiting for you to be weak enough to consume you.

reply to post by gniessic


OK smartie. Changed weather patterns is the right reason to promote global warming? You think this has never happened before? Well, a way back, some time ago, my family (my mom's side) was living in Ireland. And they had this little thing called the potato(e) famine. Hmmmm.....People were starving, people were dying. Guess what? My people got up off their ass and moved. They settled in these here United States. Made a pretty decent living too. They came here and opened, not one, but 2 potato farms on Long Island.

What should we blame for the change in that weather pattern? What stupid ppeople were busy burning fossil fuels over in Ireland in the mid 1800's that caused the potato famine????

Oh yeah, I saw a on volcanos on the history channel not too long ago that talked about an eruption in 1800's that actually lead to 3 year mini winter all over europe. The eruption took place in the far east ( NO, I do not remember the name of the volcano) but affected global weather patterns all over the world for the next 3 years. We saw extreme cold in western and southern europe, and they DIRECTLY linked the potato famine in Ireland to this event. (I wish i had some link to back this up, but I am at work now and searching the net for one). It led to very hot, dry weather over northern Africa, not that they were not used to it, but it took things to an extreme.

See, take all your belly aching about weather patterns and throught them out the nearest window. Patterns change, on graphs, these are called outlayers, in real life they are called anomolies. I am not arguing the science any more on global warming, just the logic. Everything can be argued one way or another, just change a few words, omit a few facts and there you have......a new theory. Oh wait, Algore already did that, and won an award for it too!

reply to post by LoneWeasel


If its such a local probem, may I suggest you change your locale.

reply to post by Souljah


Seriuosly.....never before has a polar bear drowned? Thats an awful long time to be making assumpotions about!!!!

Maybe it was suicide!

Seriuosly.....never before has a polar bear drowned? Thats an awful long time to be making assumpotions about!!!!

Maybe it was suicide!

Yes - it couldn't bear the burden of the certain destruction of its kind...

OK......I would like to thank everyone who participated in this thread. It has been a lot of fun. I never expected a response like this. I guess you put algore and global warming together and you see sparks!

On to my next debate, not sure what it is yet, but I hope its a good as this was.

Next time just to annoy everyone, don't be surprised if I am arguing in defense of global warming as I love to play devils advocate.

I will try to use as much logic, and little scientifici evidence so as to keep in line with the actual debate going on the rest of the world.

Keep it simple stupid; because stupid does, what stupid is told to do!

Then what do you think humans should do?

1. Ignore the global warming problem entirely and risk the (admittedly unforeseen) consequences.

2. Address the global warming problem in the (limited) best way in which we know how, thereby (possibly) preventing a (possible) catastrophy?

3. Other? (Specify)


[edit on 16-10-2007 by Saurus]

reply to post by Saurus


How does one address the global warming problem? For everyone 1 person doing their share you will have atleast 1 person still throwing trash in the ocean. For every company here in the states that actually does care and takes measures to prevent crapping over everything on its own, someone in Ecuador will still be slashing and burning forests, someone in china will still be using oil to generates power, someone in Brazil will still be using slave labor to extract pig iron from the ground to make steel to be used in the US, China, Russia.......

As nice as it sounds, you can't stop the world from imploding (if global warming exists). Someone always cheats. Its human nature.

For most of this thread I have been having fun with people, but I do agree that we all need to clean up our surroundings, pollute less and greener lives. I recycle in my home. I have taught my 2 young kids to separate glass from plastic and paper. We grow our own organic vegetables in our yard and share them with our block. Do I think it helps the environment? NO. Someone on the next block has an old car, that pollutes like crazy and it needs to warm up for about 10 minutes every morning so he can drive it. He just offset everything I do.

See what I mean? Yes we should all do our share, but it just is not enough. By the way...did you realize that the earth is its own best filter? All those pollutants in the air......then it rains.....pollutants fall to the earth .... pollutants are absorbed by micro organisms in the soil....micro organisms produce nitrogen as a waste by product.......nitrogen is the most important element for a healthy soil. Water that falls to the earth go through the soil into underground antural water systems. The soil/pebbles/rocks are the best filter system and cheapest money can buy. Polutants that fall in the ocean are absorbed by micro-organism algaes in the oceans and do the same. When there are oil slicks from barges or leaks from ships, we implement algaes to the area to contain the leaks. The earth cleans itself....

We can help and we do, but I think everyone should stop screaming about and at others and just go on with life. The earth can take of herself.

I agree with you - our individual contributions are fairly worthless, but this leads to my point...

If each end every country agrees to pass legislation forbidding or minimizing harmful emissions, the effects will become noticable...

Of course, this legislation may create new problems, and economies may become weakened or compromised by increasing costs of eco-friendly methods and products, giving rise to other serious problems. And, if we are indeed, not the cause of global warming, it would seem stupid to cause potential serious economic harm in order to pass legislation which achieves nothing.

Perhaps every country should rather agree to contribute money to research towards understanding our climate, before making any serious decisions.

[edit on 16-10-2007 by Saurus]

Originally posted by Saurus
Perhaps every country should rather agree to contribute money to research towards understanding our climate, before making any serious decisions.

Do you think it would make much difference?

At this point in time, the evidence clearly points towards humans having a significant impact on climate. So, I assume the point would be to keep researching in the hope we are wrong, heh.

As you can tell from previous comments in this thread, people already have the fantasy that scientists are defrauding people to maintain their diet of Ferraris, champagne dinners, and millionaire manisions, rofl...

So, if we keep researching and keep confirming what we see already, there will be no change. The right-wing denialist industry will continue unabated in its dishonest FUD campaign, and the libertarian cowboys will still be storming around on their ponies criticising even the slightest sign of government intervention.

[edit on 16-10-2007 by melatonin]

reply to post by melatonin


WHAT SIGNIFICANT IMPACT???? Have you read this thread? Please ellaborate what the hell you mean by this and don't quote Algore or the IPCC. Both, despite winning, have been proven to use unsubstantiated data with flawed results. USE SCIENCE.........undeniable science.....or don't make broad statements like that. Its exactly what I mean when Istated this thread........Over generalization leads to stupidity! Assumpitions begins with as&, don't be an as&.

Originally posted by traderonwallst
WHAT SIGNIFICANT IMPACT???? Have you read this thread? Please ellaborate what the hell you mean by this and don't quote Algore or the IPCC. Both, despite winning, have been proven to use unsubstantiated data with flawed results. USE SCIENCE.........undeniable science.....or don't make broad statements like that. Its exactly what I mean when Istated this thread........Over generalization leads to stupidity! Assumpitions begins with as&, don't be an as&.

Guess you're a libertarian cowboy? Howdie!

Many in this thread have never even spent more than five minutes trawling through a scientific journal, why should I care what they say? Some prefer to be what can be called 'google scientists', basing beliefs on random websites, for example, spreading falsehoods about volcanoes emitting more CO2 than humans.

The IPCC is the main summary of the current climate science. If you want to disregard that, then you are disregarding the science. As for Gore, I could care less about him. The science isn't based on Gore.

[edit on 16-10-2007 by melatonin]

Statistics show a direct correlation between the number of storks in Norway and the number of human babies born. This is evidence supporting the fact that humans come from storks. However, it is not proof.

Similarly, since the industrial revolution, there has been a marked change in the climate. This supports the premise that the global climate change is due to humans, and it is very possible, but I don't think we could call it proof...

On the other hand, if it is true...

I use to believe - without doubt - that man made carbon is causing global warming. I was brought up in school learning the devastating greenhouse theory and I use to speak of it like it was a certain fact and without doubt. However, it was when I was questioned how it all works, and seeking to debunk those evil non-believers, did I realize that I might be the one who had jumped so thoughtlessly into the bandwagon.

Do your research. Not online! Those graphs and tables I saw in earlier posts are all untrustworthy, unless you can explain how and where you got those datas. Be scientific about it and question the source of data and how viable those datas are. There has been countless attempts in the science world of making up data to fit the scientist’s own theory.

While Wikipedia is often “correct”, you should not always assume that what is written is the correct theory, especially on topics like this. Wikipedia is controlled by the population. It is corrected again and again and reformed by people’s contribution. It is formed by a general consensus on what is right, and majority will rule what is right in Wikipedia. It is because of this that makes Wikipedia such a trusted source, but ironically, it is also because of that, that makes Wikipedia the most bias truth.

Why?

Because Science is NEVER about consensus. If it is about consensus, then we would all still believe the world is flat. Everyone thought it was flat at one point, does everyone believing it makes it the truth?

As Michael Crichton summarized:

Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are variable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus….

So whoever was it in the earlier post that claimed 98% of the scientist agrees still can be right with the number of consensus, but the theory still can be so very wrong. Saying that everyone believes in it, does not make it right.

Sources you should read from are scientific journal articles; though take special note on their method of obtaining data. Do not trust what you read without seeing the operations behind the content. All scientific journals are peer reviewed before publishing, though mistakes and bad science can still occur.

I suggest people read this article. This article may give you more awareness of how science works, and what to watch out for when researching about global warming. Learn about the flaws in the arguments used for man-made global warming.

members.iinet.net.au...


[edit on 16-10-2007 by twinklefall]

Because Science is NEVER about consensus

Aah, but it is...

We believe that the world is almost spherical because all scientists agree with the evidence. If the evidence was disputed by some scientists, it would most certainly not be regarded as fact.