Inconvenient Truth for Al Gore As His North Pole Sums Don't Add Up

reply to post by Vitchilo


woa! Tell me where you are, and I will have a fresh cup of coffee rushed over to you right now. It seems you missed yours and it is making you a bit edgy. I feel the same way, but struck by lightning and sent to hell? wow.

It doesn't matter that the facts don't support his statements. It really doesn't... he's done what he intended to do - even with the Dr. discounting his statements - he's put it out there. Although I'm encouraged that the Copehagen meetings are not going very well, we will have this forced upon us... maybe not as stringently as Al Gore and others may desire... but they will happen anyway. This ramrod technique is not new to Gore or the man-made global warming proponents - it is their modus operandi. Facts won't get in the way of this unfortunately.

reply to post by rnaa

rnaa,
Valiant effort on your part. But to be honest after watching the back and forth on this issue, and seeing the general trend here on ATS, I'm not quite sure why you tried.
The GW deniers rule here. A bunch of sorry self-important baby Nero's who fiddle while they sell their grandhildren's planet down the river.
It's unfathomable to me that a movement that is a natural outgrowth of the environmental movement could get so much heat here. Is moving to alternative energies a bad thing? No. Is cutting down on consumption, lowering carbon emissions, and moving away from petrochemical based packaging a bad thing? No. Are energy efficient lights, homes, etc. etc. a bad goal. No.
All of these things are worthy goals? Of course. But suddenly because these ideas also fall under the category of fighting global warming they become suspect.
What really concerns me is how these corporate run anti-GW shills can effectively get people to work against their own interests.
Talk about sheeple.













[edit on 15-12-2009 by kenochs]

What I find sad is that AL runs his mouth making up stuff all the time and it rarely gets called ... recently saying the earth core was ...millions of degrees...
(in what the fairy scale?)

I would really like to see science get off this co2 kick and do some real research on the subject, its getting very hard to sort facts from hype.

Making a lot of the collected data public might be a useful first step, give more researchers the opportunity to fact check. And of course stop ignoring the parts about other planets in solar system heating up,

I am also curious how people who are so much believers are doing in their own carbon production and other environmental issues?
I don't believe but:
I don't drive a car - mostly I walk
I don't own a TV
half my lights (the ones used the most) are low energy
I have a very small fridge that uses min. electricity
I recycle what little trash I make
I use reuseable shopping bags (cloth) thata I carry to from the store.
My heat comes from excess industrial production.
I do not have ait conditioning.
this computer is I think my biggest bit of energy use.

How are you believers doing on doing your part?


[edit on 15-12-2009 by Chett]

I really hate how defensive the GWing side has become.

Honestly, they should just change their title to Global Climate Destabilization (is GCD really so hard?) to make themselves more relevant.


oh, and whoever said "This jackass almost became our president" or whatever:

You liked W Bush and his dishonest way of winning an election? LOLOLOLOLZZZZZZZZZ




From my perspective: There's a chance that Gore may be sensationalizing this data but on the other hand, they recently had a great deal of trouble with those e-mails being taken out of context. I want to think that they wouldn't do something as stupid as outwardly lie after a fiasco that has people who know nothing about the weather saying "case closed".

goddamn glenn beck

reply to post by Chett


How much of the data have you actually looked into? It doesnt take a math genious to put 2 and 2 together.

And when the earth core estimated close to 11,000 degrees F. i dont know if it matters, your still toast XD

[edit on 15-12-2009 by ShogunAssassins]

Al Gore used information given to him in a private conversation from the scientist. Now the scientist is trying to deny that he told him that information specifically.

Really, it looks like the scientist is trying to back peddle for some reason. That's not to say Al Gore didn't stretch the truth, but it looks like the Times is trying to make a mountain out of an ant hill.

Originally posted by piddles
I really hate how defensive the GWing side has become.

Honestly, they should just change their title to Global Climate Destabilization (is GCD really so hard?) to make themselves more relevant.


oh, and whoever said "This jackass almost became our president" or whatever:

You liked W Bush and his dishonest way of winning an election? LOLOLOLOLZZZZZZZZZ




From my perspective: There's a chance that Gore may be sensationalizing this data but on the other hand, they recently had a great deal of trouble with those e-mails being taken out of context. I want to think that they wouldn't do something as stupid as outwardly lie after a fiasco that has people who know nothing about the weather saying "case closed".

goddamn glenn beck

Please tell me how you have come to the conclusion that the emails were taken out of context? Any links? Did you actually look at the emails??

Originally posted by kenochs
reply to post by rnaa
A bunch of sorry self-important baby Nero's who fiddle while they sell their grandhildren's planet down the river.

Shame, shame, shame ... sticks and stones...

It's unfathomable to me that a movement that is a natural outgrowth of the environmental movement could get so much heat here.

I'm not adverse to the environmental movement.

Is moving to alternative energies a bad thing? No.

No, it definitely is not.

Is cutting down on consumption and moving away from petrochemical based packaging a bad thing? No. Are energy efficient lights, homes, etc. etc. a bad goal. No. All of these things are worthy goals? Of course.

No, none of these things are a bad thing and definitely are worthy goals.

Is cutting down on carbon emissions a bad thing? No. Is mandatorily (through the law) cutting down on carbon emission while being taxed to the hilt a bad thing? MOST DEFINITELY YES! And the reason is there is no concrete scientific evidence that man-made carbon emissions are causing the planet any distress.

But suddenly because these ideas also fall under the category of fighting global warming they become suspect.

Nope, just the idea that mad-made carbon emissions are causing planatary destruction... they became suspect when the data collected did not correspond with the man-made global warming advocates.

What really concerns me is how these corporate run anti-GW shills can effectively get people to work against their own interests.
Talk about sheeple.

Again, sticks and stones but I'll comment here. You want to talk about sheeple and corporate run Global Warming advocates too? Do you not realize that the green industry is now one of, if not "the", largest corporate endeavor??? Have you looked to see who's invested in the green industry and who stands to benefit monetarily from it? Did you know that there is even a separate stock exchange dedicated to green industry and that most of the large banking giants (Goldman, Bank of America, JP Morgan) are heavily invested???? Now, do you really think that the motive here is doing what's right for the planet or do you think it could possibly be corporate profit driven?

Think and do research before you lump everyone into the same category... at very least, it makes you look silly when you don't and at worst it makes you look like a corporate run GW shill.



[edit on 15/12/2009 by Iamonlyhuman]

reply to post by kcfusion


:double post:

[edit on 15-12-2009 by ShogunAssassins]

reply to post by kcfusion


Did you look at the emails? Other then what was posted in bashing sites?

:edit: its a good thing you guys like making bunkers, at this rate you will need them XD

Also, what do you think the oil industry been doing for years and years? Sorry, you bought into one of the most lucrative, well funded propaganda machines there is hook line and sinker.
[edit on 15-12-2009 by ShogunAssassins]

[edit on 15-12-2009 by ShogunAssassins]

reply to post by kcfusion

I've read the emails and this article seems to get it just about right.
It's from factcheck.org and they're a very good resource.


www.factcheck.org...

reply to post by kenochs


you are very much correct. I just don't think you see the big picture yet. Of course alternative fuels are needed. Sooner rather than later. Now would be nice. Cleaning up our environment needs to happen, or we will be crawling around in piles of plastic to get to our wheelchairs in retirement. I am not sure about the "green light bulbs", I think they are going to be an environmental nightmare before it's over. They are filled with a small amount of Mercury (heavy metal) and it's real hard to deal with.

But the way this movement started is with a big lie. It was noticed by anyone with a brain who wasn't blindly devoted to whatever cause Greenpeace was selling. Nobody likes to get lied to. This could have been handled so much better. Now it has come down to what we were all taught as kids. Don't tell lies because you will have to keep telling new ones to cover the old ones, and then remember what the old ones were. Sooner or later it's going to blow up in your face. Well Mr. Gore......BOOM!

reply to post by kenochs


Yeah, i checked the front page of "factcheck" not to hard to see where they get there $ from.

reply to post by network dude


I was taught as a kid to take care of the earth, not throw trash around my home and to avoid breathing chemicals XD What about you?

reply to post by Iamonlyhuman


Your entire argument falls apart under scrutiny.
No concrete scientific evidence? Really?
That's your argument?
Almost every piece of scientific research on this subject points to the truth of this statement: Human activities are impacting this natural warming cyle in both its speed and extent.
But, I do apologize for the sticks and stones. You're right, that was unbecoming.
But I won't back down off of the idea that the conspiracy here is to get people to deny the factual evidence that leads us to global warming to stop the passage of any meaningful legislation that is an outgrowth of the clean air and clean water acts that have both been very, very good for all of us.

show this figure .. there have been cold periods before so I don't trust global climate change.. yes in some regions there is some change but that is due to people cutting down trees..

If they are so in to climate control the UN should have done something with my plan I send in several years ago..

I said they should use the presure of water when its rising to push the sea water trough a pipe to the middle of the sahara dessert and create artificial lakes to cool down the temperature of the sahara and create rain clouds there so finally plants can regrow there.

[edit on 15-12-2009 by MarkLuitzen]

reply to post by MarkLuitzen


And what casues ice ages and cold spells? Fact is we have no clue..

But changing the Earth's atmospheric composition, well it doesnt take a scientist to understand this will be BAD...

reply to post by kenochs


I'm not going to debate the data because it doesn't matter at this point because it has been debated to death (as I'm sure you're aware) and debating it again won't matter (plus I have a huge headache ). This has been going on for so long, you're not going to convince me about man-made carbon emissions and I'm not going to convince you so it's really just an exercise in futility.

Do you agree that both sides of this issue are corporate profit driven? If so, will you please agree not to parrot the leaders of the GW movement in their use of the idea that big corporations are only interested in seeing the GW movement fail?? That, in my opinion, is one of the worst lies that have come from those people... and was really the only reason I replied in the first place.

[edit on 15/12/2009 by Iamonlyhuman]

reply to post by network dude


Global cooling and global warming go hand in hand, and there are dif trends for dif areas of the planet. We have a climate system that has evolved and been damaged over a number of years, You wont learn anything from walking outside, saying "wow its hot today" and calling that evidence or not of global warming.. I mean the green house theory alone has been around since like 1825...