Gore's Message to Climate Change deniers

reply to post by traderonwallst


The climate is constantly changing. Why didn't the media give a lot of coverage to the snow throughout the Middle East this year, the cold weather in Vietnam killing cattle this year or the increase in diesel being caused by the refineries having to produce more home heating oil in the USA this winter?

reply to post by kix


Beautiful image! Our planet has so many nooks and crannies that pockets of climate shift activity and non-shift activity are to be expected though, and while I count myself among those who is skeptical of the ideas as presented by the popular medias and the celebrity solutions offered; I would hesitate to seize upon that one geographic location at one point in time as indicative of everything being normal.

Now I know that there have been many such photo montages and presented to argue both sides of the case. I still feel that indeed, there is a very real storm brewing in our ecological future - I just can't accept a financial 'snake-oil' solution which requires significant sacrifices by the common folks, while the money masters and industrialists continue the 'statistic and mathematical obfuscation' game at thier expense.

Originally posted by kix
Grrenland is Called STILL Greenland because 700 hundred years ago it had a lot of less ice than it has today, then a cold wave happened and it had to be abandoned due to long winters and such....

Too bad Al gore was not there to shout that the world was going to end...

BTW the ammount of biomass now is a lot less than lets say 200 years ago due to extinctions and a smaller presence of big animals, so all that CO2 is not being produced right now.... tell that to big Al $$$$.

I have camped in yosemite for almost 15 straight years (well I skipped 1997 because of the flood) but this winter has been in my recollection the one with more snowfall in a very long time, in fact a woman in Oakhurst California (elavation=3100f) had snow falling and she told me it was the 2 time she saw snow falling there in 40 years

pic

Beautiful picture kix. That is funny what you said about snow in Yosemite. I went through there in January of 2001 and we had snow from Sequoia -Kings Canyon NPs into Yosemite NP. I guess I was lucky to see snow there if that was only 1 of the two times it snowed there in 40 years.

I am afraid that you maybe mistaken about Greenland. Yes there was green along some of the southern coasts where the vikings set up settlements but supplies were too scarce as they were living right close to the edge. It was called Greenland to get more people to go there.

I have never heard of the biomass theory as you presented it. Alot of the carbon sinks that kept CO2 locked up in solid form has been removed over the past 200 years. These carbon sink (storage) areas were very large tracts of forests, some portion of it was old growth. I think the plants would easily outweigh the animals as far as carbon and anything else goes.



[edit on 30-3-2008 by stikkinikki]

Originally posted by Maxmars
reply to post by kix

 

Now I know that there have been many such photo montages and presented to argue both sides of the case. I still feel that indeed, there is a very real storm brewing in our ecological future - I just can't accept a financial 'snake-oil' solution which requires significant sacrifices by the common folks, while the money masters and industrialists continue the 'statistic and mathematical obfuscation' game at thier expense.

The money masters change to meet with fluctuations in the stock market. The stock market is based on the value of shares in companies that produce, or give service to meet the demand in the market. When product variety widens and extent of service broadens, the value of its market share increases. Base metals, oil and chemical shares increase proportional to cost of mining, drilling, refining, and smelting. As technology has evolved, and growth in residential zoning continues to increase, we become chained to these comodities, and have no alternative to sustain development. If the ability to extract and produce these comodities becomes restricted, then the value of its shares increases exponentially.

We need to find better ways of sustaining development, without infringing on the environment and ecosystem by which the industry leaves its foot print.

Originally posted by Kinesis
And that, my friend, is what the issue boils down to. I like to use plain English so my point is clear, rather than twisting a sentence around it sounds more technical than it should be.

No worries, I like plain English more, after all English is only my third language.

People will find holes in your argument, no matter how thorough the research, or how compelling your argument. They'll find a hole for the sole purpose of stifling your intend toward awareness, and stall anyone who may be in a position to act upon your message.

Noticed that all over ATS, no matter which topic you will have these kinds of people. There is recently a new thread talking about this www.abovetopsecret.com... Well kinda. Don't get frustrated though, if people rather close their eyes and ignore the daily unnatural output (harmful or not) by mankind to the planet Earth, so be it.

I did not look into the issue that technically or scientifically, don't know if Gore exagarated or not, twisting facts to bring forth a message or not. I could care less because I notice the changes human beings had done to the nature on a daily base. I fly quite often, especially in the short trips you can see out of the plane and see how much green is left from Europe and China. The nightview is even more dramatic, the Earth is lightened up for kilometers.

One point always being raised up is that people is afraid what and how a "better environment" would affect the economy and industries, thus their pockets, or asking other nations to stop polluting first. Well, these people clearly don't understand that modifying machines or using more enviromental friendly material are not neccesary hurting one's business. Or that even a country like China decided to impose new regulations to help the environment. For example, China recently forbid all supermarkets to give plastic bags. Guess what, thousands of small factories manufacturing supermarket plastic bags went bankrupt.

reply to post by Kinesis


Huh? No I'm currently writing submissions for the government to take action on climate change. I think it's a huge issue.

I was commenting on how everyone is treating global warming as some sort of government fabrication, when in reality it was conspriacy theorists like the members of ATS that pushed it in the first place. Now that it's mainstream though, most people on this board can't take it and have suddenly turned against that which they created. It's insanity.

Hence the comment on "Tall Poppy Syndrome". You build something up as big as you can, then suddenly get scared by how big and well known it is, so you freak out and try to cut it back down. That's what I've seen happen on these boards with the global warming issue.

Al Gore should read the information found here, and then shut his mouth about the continued warming of the planet. Even the IPCC knows about it, and the data is from a NASA satellite:

www.theaustralian.news.com.au...

If the information pans out, it means that AGW is at best no concern, and worst, a total lie. It certainly tosses the validity of Carbon Trading into question.

reply to post by Cynic


Oh awesome. You quoted a source.

Guess the debates over.

Go home everyone, Cynic found a source that disagrees.

Originally posted by Duality
reply to post by Kinesis

 

Huh? No I'm currently writing submissions for the government to take action on climate change. I think it's a huge issue.

I was commenting on how everyone is treating global warming as some sort of government fabrication, when in reality it was conspriacy theorists like the members of ATS that pushed it in the first place. Now that it's mainstream though, most people on this board can't take it and have suddenly turned against that which they created. It's insanity.

Hence the comment on "Tall Poppy Syndrome". You build something up as big as you can, then suddenly get scared by how big and well known it is, so you freak out and try to cut it back down. That's what I've seen happen on these boards with the global warming issue.

Haha, that makes me laugh, because of the irony. I thought it was people trying to get the message out, and were trounced on for having genuine concern for the environment. To know that it was more like you described brings a smile to my face.

reply to post by Duality


yes? is global warming started of as a conspiracy theory?

so when the governments are starting to anounce that aliens and ufos are real and are visitting us frequently, then we will also start to dispose it as fabrications

This certainly IS a charged topic, and as with most charged topics, it is NOT black and white.
First, let's state what the issue at hand is: Global Warming.
IT is not whether mankind is polluting the earth. I doubt that many people would doubt that, so when some posters make comments indicating that man is trashing the environment(my paraphrase), I can agree, BUT that does not mean that I have to buy into man causing global warming, or even WHETHER there is global warming.
Al Gore says that mankind is adding too much carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. Duh, HELLO, Al, is anyone home? Plants LOVE carbon dioxide, and in fact, more carbon dioxide would greatly benefit plant life on earth.
Here is a great site concerning the above:
www.purgit.com...

One of the best-kept secrets in the global warming debate is that the plant life of Planet Earth would benefit greatly from a higher level of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere.You read that correctly. Flowers, trees, and food crops love carbon dioxide, and the more they get of it, the more they love it. Carbon dioxide is the basic raw material that plants use in photosynthesis to convert solar energy into food, fiber, and other forms of biomass. Voluminous scientific evidence shows that if CO2 were to rise above its current ambient level of 360 parts per million, most plants would grow faster and larger because of more efficient photosynthesis and a reduction in water loss. There would also be many other benefits for plants, among them greater resistance to temperature extremes and other forms of stress, better growth at low light intensities, improved root/top ratios, less injury from air pollutants, and more nutrients in the soil as a result of more extensive nitrogen fixation.

The article also talks about the increased food supplies for the world, as a result of the above. Starvation would decrease significantly, and because of the increased plant yield, less acreage would be needed to produce the same amount of food.

As I said, there are two sides to the issue. Furthermore, it has NOT been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that "Global Warming" is more than a small spike in a less certain long-term graph.

Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
Furthermore, it has NOT been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that "Global Warming" is more than a small spike in a less certain long-term graph.

Yes, it has been. It's been done to death.

Must I find the graph again? In before someone says "oh my god it's one graph only!", despite using exactly the same limited data to argue against global warming in the first place. At least this has a huge body of scientific data suporting it, unlike the conspiracy inspired graphs...

I chose this one because it's simply the easiest visually, but the harder (blander) scientific ones behind it are available through google.


(Image Source: czerniec.com/2007/04/ 27/an-inconvenient-truth.jpg - Uploaded for easy viewing in this thread).

Oh yes, this path we're on tooootally looks in line with past fluctuations. Mmmhmm.

I don't know why I bother because no amount of evidence is going to convince people who already have their heart and soul set on denying climate change. Lets be honest here, you're not looking for truth, you're just pushing an alternative opinion at any cost. It's called denial usually.

I'm aware this post is very close to flaming but this is just so ridiculous. The ATS motto is "Deny Ignorance", yet so many posters in this thread are just ignorant to the end. They chose a viewpoint long ago and are now sticking with it no matter how much evidence to the contrary is presented, if that isn't igorance I don't know what is.

[edit on 31/3/08 by Duality]

reply to post by Duality


Nah, they watched a movie on YouTube so they know better than you.

Great post, by the way.

I guess I've lost the point of this thread...I figured the reason it was being posted here is to show how Al Gore perceives favorite ATS topics like the moon landing theories, no? A joke maybe?

And anyway, does anyone really think that the east and/or west coast of the United States will still look the same in a thousand years? Or the UK? It's seems people get on the climate band wagon to protect their property interests rather than saving anything for the sake of the planet. It all belongs to the planet already whether it's under water or not, yes? Animal species will die and so will people. Are we trying to prevent this? Companies will also collapse and others will rise. Is this so terrible either?

The human race is terribly irresponsible and if you believe Gore or not, we should be looking to clean things up. WE DON'T OWN ANYTHING HERE. WE AREN'T EVEN RENTING. The planet will reclaim all of the land, lease or not, and put us in the ground to make fertilizer. Isn't that true?

Can anyone tell me how much plastic was in the oceans after the last ice age?
I work in waste disposal and let me tell you, that's a REAL problem. Try following your local garbage truck to the landfill.

reply to post by Duality

Lets be honest here, you're not looking for truth, you're just pushing an alternative opinion at any cost

It seems to be YOU that is "pushing" your opinion. I did not offer an opinion, other than to state that it has not been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, that what we have seen is nothing more than a spike, or even an outlier on the graph. Furthermore, you posted a picture of a "graph" with no reference. For all anyone knows, it might be the price of oil.
In reality, it is one of Al Gore's fabrications. If that graph really depicted the earth's temperatures, we wouldn't be here discussing anything. We'd be fried.

Nah, they watched a movie on YouTube so they know better than you

As for sublime620, your frequent one-line wisecracks add nothing to an attempt at serious discussion.

reply to post by ProfEmeritus


Your opinion is that it hasn't been proven, so you are pushing one. The scientific and social concensus now is that it has been proven beyond reasonable doubt, so sayng that it hasn't been is pushing an opinion that is backed by little supporting evidence.

I don't see why not saying "This is from Al Gore's - An Inconvenient Truth" somehow makes the data misleading. You can see Al Gore in the image and I think most people, at least people who browse this site and engage in climate change talk have seen the movie by now anyway and would recognise it.

What basis do you have though for stating it is a fabrication by Al Gore? You present no references to support this theory, you merely state it as if it is a fact. All things being fair I'd expect some sort of source for this information, or misinformation - whichever way you want to go.

You say it isn't clear that this isn't just a normal spike, yet it has been proven. It's there staring you in the face and you dismiss it. CO2 spikes, then falls, spikes, then falls. This spike is not in line with that cycle, it is not in line with the norm and it's clear as day.

The evidence is there in front of you, it's available on the IPCC website (google it) and it's accepted in the mainstream media and even socially. It's ridiculous to say it hasn't been proven when the data is there, you're just refusing to accept it. And again I'll make the distinction between this data and the anti-global warming data. There is a mass of data supporting the theory of anthropogenic climate change, there is very little denying it and even less of that is from credible sources.

To summarise my point: The issue here is not the data, the data is solid and vast in its range and depth. The issue is, instead your personal lack of acceptance of the data. No amount of good reasoning or good science is going to deter someone so determined to deny the facts when they present themselves, no matter how perfect and complete the research, nothing will be accepted by a mind in denial.

reply to post by Duality

You present no references to support this theory, you merely state it as if it is a fact.

oism.org...

We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

This petition has been signed by over 19,000 American scientists.

There is MY PROOF. 19,000 scientists agree with my point.

You also fail to address the positive effects of increased CO2 on plant life, and decreased starvation in the world. But I guess that is no concern of yours.

nothing will be accepted by a mind in denial.

I'm glad that at least you realize that you are in denial, but can't seem to do anything about it. Realization is the first step. Now you need to do something about it.

[edit on 30-3-2008 by ProfEmeritus]

it's accepted in the mainstream media

Now there's a good reason to accept it as fact.
Maybe in Australia, you have regard for the MSM. In the US, most people consider MSM to be modern day equivalent of Joseph Goebbels.
Those of us that support Ron Paul, know all too well, what lies the MSM propagates.

[edit on 30-3-2008 by ProfEmeritus]

It may have already been said, but this story is classic divide & conquer cointel. Equating people who only think the moon landing never happened at all, to people who thought the earth was flat, is debatable weather that's partially accurate in a sense of who's been divided & conquered. But the way the statement itself is worded is designed to make everything completely black & white, and to make people who don't think man-made global warming exists at all.

I think man-made warming must exist. But I think it's very very insignificant to the warming (and cooling) of earth itself and mainly the celestial system that we're in.

The article is attempting to create too black & white of an argument, so that they can attempt to disprove one theory, by proving that anyone who doesn't think their theory is right is wrong (which is not a disapproval at all, even if it was a black & white issue, which it's not)

Just like the moon-landing reference. They are discounting the possibility (imo probability) that the Apollo missions were staged on TV *AND* that we really did go to the moon but that wasn't what was seen on TV. Divide & conquer. Black & White.

In all actuality, comparing the moon landing (and people who bought it, hook line & sinker) to people who thought the earth was flat... is somewhat appropriate, because it was the powers that be at the time that had fooled most of the world at the time. but it's still WAY out of context, and CBS (and the writer/s) should be (but won't be) ashamed of themselves for putting out this total piece of crap hit-piece posing as journalism. But, what else is new?


[edit]
by the way, Duality... you're maybe not more guilty of committing black & white arguments... like basically suggesting that global warming is real (it is), but that it must be man-made - much more blatantly than whoever wrote the piece the CBS article was paraphrased from. and then you use as a quasi-scientific proof - PROVEN-to-be-inaccurate data (*cough*al*gore*charts*cough*) to try to back up man-made global warming.

nobody who is looking at actual real-life scientific data (not projections, or incorrect (aka deceptively convienient) carbon data time-lines (*cough*al*gore*cough*) is suggesting that global warming is not happening.

just the fact that you've never tried to correlate our sun's cycles, with the earth's cycles (which just so happens to be part of the solar system), boggles my mind that you are here on a site with a motto "deny ignorance". ultimately it boils down to - if you want to prove that something is a fact, then you will if you ignore all possibilities. and OF COURSE designing black & white straw-man arguments, and tricking people into that BS, and just completely ignoring the real facts, is par for the course.

So when you do come to terms with the truth that most carbon-based global warming "research" is done with the goal to prove that it is a fact, then it might be of no surprise to you that ALL research into carbon-based global warming done without a desire to prove anything but the truth... has found a correlation between carbon and global warming. And the correlation is that when carbon values go up, the earth actually cools!!! Fact.

Then you should ask yourself, who is behind the carbon & global warming connection? What do they have to gain?

Please look up the "carbon tax" which in essence is designed to cull the population of poor peoples, and therefore encourage society to "regulate undesirable" populaces and moreso individuals and at it's root... genealogy. If you think I'm nuts, and that it's unthinkable or could never happen, then you don't know anyone that lives in China.

The "carbon tax" is simply the vehicle it will be brought into the rest of the developed world. And if you really think I'm nuts, then look into who's backing Al Gore's efforts - and what they think on the subject of world population, and "engineering" the gene pool.

[edit on 31-3-2008 by fwombats]

[edit on 31-3-2008 by fwombats]

A REQUEST OF THE CITIZENS OF ATS!
We must unite and some how mass-question this man on the fact that THE ENTIRE SOLAR SYSTEM IS HEATING UP! He's a liar and nothing but a globalist of the worse kind. He shames Bush with his lies.

I still laugh at Katie kurik for her words:

"The bats go into hibernation later in th earlier, so they starve more when they hibernate.

YES! That's right! The bats starve more if they go into hibernation later, despite having more food available to them because of warmer weather.

PERFECT LOGIC!

[edit on 31-3-2008 by Gorman91]

reply to post by ProfEmeritus




BAHAHAHAHA... HAHAHA

You got to be kidding me. that dude you just destroyed says that MSM saying so is good enough reason to believe global warming!? BAHA! MAN, they must be extreme sheep in Australia. The fact they would believe the news, let alone an AMERICAN news agency, is the biggest joke I've heard all week.

truly, TRULY thank you for pointing this man's stupidity out. Let us please get some common sense in these forums.