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.

 

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

page: 5
31
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 01:51 PM
link   
Did you actually read this article? It says that Gore 'gilded the lily'. I'm firmly on the fence at the moment...HOWEVER...I think the real message here is that nobody in world gov't is actually looking to make any changes for the better, they are just looking to get something out of the deal for themselves. In doing so they have lost sight of the big picture and achieved precisely nothing.




posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 02:23 PM
link   
I think it is so bizarre that watching the news I see people in Copenhagen, from all over the world outside of the United States mounting a revolution, blaming politicians and some NWO for not doing something about pollution and the rapidly advancing climate change.

Here in the US we have people carrying almost the same signs posing a revolution, blaming politicians and some NWO for BELIEVING in climate change.

Something tells me a few very big oil companies are behind the homeboys.

First they came for the gold...
We are being fooled allright.



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 02:45 PM
link   
First, I agree that we need to keep our environment healthy and clean. But, can someone please answer these four questions:

1. If the polar ice caps are melting so rapidly, where is the rise of the sea level? I thought Mr. Gore said if this started to occur, New York would be underwater (I forgot the %, but it equated to a 6 foot rise, I believe).

2. Since 1998, I believe it was agreed at the Kyoto Summit in 1997, CFC emissions were to be fazed out by 2005. Because during that era the Bad Boy on the block was CFC. So, exactly why has CO2 won the new Bad Boy Title? This was a when & why question, but I recalled the when part of the question.....2004-05, hmmm.

3. Why in the late 1960's and early 1970's it was reported that we were in the beginning stages of an Ice Age? And now, what has in the past taken the earth thousands of years to cycle through, a mere 40 years later we are in a GW crisis?

4. We all know for a fact that US, Canada and most of Europe has seen a huge decline in manufacturing in the past decade, yes? Well if agreed, wouldn't the days of say the 60's, 70's , 80's & 90's show a much greater degree of CO2 emissions and warming since not only production was higher, but so was the pollution?

Please don't attack me, these are just questions I have been seriously pondering. Thanks!



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by rusethorcain
 


Really? It's not to baffling at all. Here in the US we are trying to rein in our out of control government. Another tax for a not to proven theory is just plain ridiculous. It not the issue with Climate Change so much, it's the issue with the politicians always solving problems with more taxation.
I guess in Europe they love paying taxes and will hold rallies to have their governments act....but then the rallies will start again because the tax was increased.
We here just try to cut to the chase.....Peace



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by hellfrozeover
1. If the polar ice caps are melting so rapidly, where is the rise of the sea level? I thought Mr. Gore said if this started to occur, New York would be underwater (I forgot the %, but it equated to a 6 foot rise, I believe).


I don't believe it is the polar ice caps melting that will rise sea levels. It is the ice on top of Greenland and such, because that is ice that is on top of land...hence not part of the current sea level.



2. Since 1998, I believe it was agreed at the Kyoto Summit in 1997, CFC emissions were to be fazed out by 2005. Because during that era the Bad Boy on the block was CFC. So, exactly why has CO2 won the new Bad Boy Title? This was a when & why question, but I recalled the when part of the question.....2004-05, hmmm.


I believe that Kyoto is to deal with all greenhouse gases. CFC is dealt with in the 1987 Montreal Protocol. CFC was what was depleting our ozone layer was it not? And we for the most part succeeded in phasing out CFC because of other technologies...

Thus we moved onto the 2nd largest concern? Just my best guess.



3. Why in the late 1960's and early 1970's it was reported that we were in the beginning stages of an Ice Age? And now, what has in the past taken the earth thousands of years to cycle through, a mere 40 years later we are in a GW crisis?


True. I think it was bad science in that time? They thought pollution would block out the sun or something. It was only speculation by a few at the time though, and not widely accepted by institutions...nor was there summits, or any type of consensus at the time that I know of.

So I think some people just messed up with their science.



4. We all know for a fact that US, Canada and most of Europe has seen a huge decline in manufacturing in the past decade, yes? Well if agreed, wouldn't the days of say the 60's, 70's , 80's & 90's show a much greater degree of CO2 emissions and warming since not only production was higher, but so was the pollution?

Please don't attack me, these are just questions I have been seriously pondering. Thanks!


Taking population into account, I think CO2 emissions have stayed relatively the same in North America. The problem is likely that we use more (electricity, heat, cars, etc.)...as well as that we consume more as our manufacturing moves over to China and other countries (where they see spikes in their CO2 emissions). As one entity, our world is seeing a rise in CO2 emissions (which I should note is mostly due to other countries developing).

That is one of the main issues at Copenhagen that I've seen. Developing vs. Developed countries. We enjoyed a nice ride, and are now asking others to not get on it...which isn't really fair.

We as developed nations need to take the lead in green industry.

[edit on 15-12-2009 by Nickmare]



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShogunAssassins
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...


as far as being taught to keep our planet clean, well that is just common sense.

As far as the above post, yep, climate change has been around as long as there has been a big orange ball in the sky. Where is the proof in that? Well if the greenhouse theory has been around since like 1825 yet Old Henry didn't start pushing out those horseless carriages until early 1900's then I think it's safe to say that perhaps man doesn't play as big a part in the global temperature as Mr. Gore would have us believe. Hence, the big lie that pisses me off to no end.

Breathe the air in LA and it's about the same a sucking on your tailpipe. Does it need fixing? Does the Pope crap in the woods? Hell yea it does. Just don't tell me that I have to pay some shyster for my carbon footprint to make it happen. Make them use hydrogen. Make it work then make it a mandate. Oh yea, and make it be a stable price. It would be nice to see how the oil sheiks look begging for some corn because they can't grow anything over there but Oil.



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by lordtyp0
In light of your railing about Gore making money-I presume from speaking and selling books.


No, he meant from his carbon credit trading company!

AL Gore: Businessman Of The Year!

Since his election defeat, apart from winning a Nobel Peace prize and an Academy Award, he’s landed numerous $175,000 speaking gigs and his stock in Google and Apple that he received as a board advisor is reportedly worth nearly $35 million. Plus he’s started a carbon credit trading company and his networth is supposedly north of $100 million! company!


Al Gore's Inconvenient Loot

Former Vice President Al Gore has built a Green money-making machine capable of eventually generating billions of dollars for investors, including himself, but he set it up so that the average Joe can't afford to play on Gore's terms. And the US portion is headed up by a former Gore staffer and fund raiser who previously ran afoul of both the FEC and the DOJ, before Janet Reno jumped in and shut down an investigation during the Clinton years.
******SKIP******
Gore's company, GIM was specifically established to take financial advantage of new technologies and solutions related to combating Global Warming.

Al Gore Set To Become First “Carbon Billionaire”

Creators of carbon credit scheme cashing in on it

Gore Invests In Carbon Credit Company, Will Media Care?

I REALLY don't think that they were talking about him making money by selling books and giving speeches, that's chicken feed compared to Gore's carbon credit trading scheme.



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by hellfrozeover
 





Originally posted by hellfrozeover
1. If the polar ice caps are melting so rapidly, where is the rise of the sea level? I thought Mr. Gore said if this started to occur, New York would be underwater (I forgot the %, but it equated to a 6 foot rise, I believe).



I don't believe it is the polar ice caps melting that will rise sea levels. It is the ice on top of Greenland and such, because that is ice that is on top of land...hence not part of the current sea level.


Correct. The polar ice caps are floating.

Remember that ice in a glass of water will not cause the glass to overflow when it melts.

The Antarctic Ice Shelves are not raising the sea level as they disappear either.

However, the Greenland Ice Cap Glaciers are accelerating as the extra melt water caused by warmer weather works its way to the ground level and serves as a lubricator.

And the Antarctic Ice Cap is accelerating as the Ice Shelves that are 'damming' the Glaciers disappear.



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Nickmare
 


Not true with the 1987 date. I hold a Universal Certification for Refrigerants.....the course I took in 1996 for that certification included all of that information. R-12 (industry name Freon) was replaced with R-134A R-22 was/is being replaced with R-401A (industry name Puron) The complete schedule referred to the faze out of R-12 person auto use by 2003 and Commercial/Industrial use by 2005. R-22 Personal Home use by 2005 and Commercial/Industrial by 2010 and complete faze out of all systems by 2030. I beleive it was a steady percentage reduction per year, to complete faze out.
Did you know that R-134A the (replacement) was invented before R-12. I believe if memory serves me correct, 1933. As where most of these others. That in itself make me wonder????

I really can't grasp the science behind the CO2 being so harmful. It is everywhere.....and tree, flowers, grass etc....soak it all up. To me it sounds like a cause gone mad and government is just rolling with it, figuring what the heck, we can get more taxes out of the knuckleheads.

Or could it be the same as Y2K....that would make more sense too me. After all, Y2K did keep recession off our backs and delayed the complete collapse of the dollar back then....who's to say this is not the same thing but on a world scale, since this time the world economy is in the toilet.

Forgive me...I just got a little carried away



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 04:30 PM
link   
reply to post by network dude
 


I love it....grow corn and sell it to the sheiks for $75 a bushel....and keep raising it as they raise oil prices


Now on a serious note....my Grandfather was a Chemist at Ford Motor Co. He worked there from 1930-1963. In the early 70's, during the first Oil Crisis, I remember him saying that in the Lab they had cars in the 1950's running on Hydrogen? Never really understood it until later as an adult. What a scam the bastards have been pulling on us. I really believe it was planned from the get-go. Nothing else makes sense.



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 04:43 PM
link   
The most troublesome part of this whole debate is nobody seems to actually pay attention to what is said. They simply wait their turn to spew more rubbish and propaganda or fearful statements on why it isn't so.

What I said initially was: The polar ice shelves are gaining less and less ice on each freeze cycle. Eventually if that keeps up there will be no ice left. Which is what this thread was actually about-according to the OP article and title.

The responses that boil down to this:
"How can you believe a man who makes money off of it?" followed by the same person telling me "Following the money motive doesn't mean you should believe or not... nice logic.".. Astounding. This person apparently also does not understand that "man-made" involves direct influence from humans-at least I was not supposed to say that in defining it.

Someone asked me why he wasn't championing the deforestation issues, so I showed a link where he was. It was ignored-indeed someone seemed to think I brought it up instead.

I am curious though, why do people in this thread think carbon is the sole provocateur of GW? The 10,000+ glaciers that are gone are from 'deforestation' according to some... By this logic deforestation is not a man-made event.

GW is a multi-tiered issue, it is not ONLY carbon emissions.

Urban Warming: From laying down sprawling cities of black asphalt. Heats the area around because of how the material reacts. This is a localized thing.

Inversions over a city where low pressure fronts trap exhaust and smoke can influence the weather patterns in the localized area.

Gradient Dispersion: Basic in chemistry where a concentration of particles/substance will spread from high concentration to low concentration creating an equilibrium. Dragging pollution from cities to miles and miles away.

Deforestation: Vegetation affects the temperatures by it's mere presence. From humidity to light energy. Not to mention of course CO2

CFCs: CFCs operate in a mechanical nature, rips apart an ozone molecule, spits it out, grabs another, spits it out. It is basically a long term airborne enzyme.

CO2: A greenhouse gas of course. In conjunction with the host of other issues it is dangerous. It is not the sole issue though.

I don't really care if Al Gore gets any money. I could care less that Al Gore says at some rally. I have been reading the published papers for a long time, I have no need of a spokesman and can follow the majority of what I read though I am not a climatologist. There is cause to treat GW as a man-made even though there are gaps in the understanding, some are large some are trivial.

The repercussions however of making a mistake make this the only sane solution: It is better to spend a lot of paper than chance losing a lot of life-possibly even up to extinction of humanity.



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 05:56 PM
link   
Although we have not yet reached the highest amount of sea-ice yet in years
JAXA SeaIce monitor

...the current trend of the amount of sea-ice each year is: 'increasing'..



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 06:04 PM
link   
reply to post by jsmappy
 


A waste of time, I know, but here are some comments on a random selection of your items. Most of them don't actually have anything to do with your premise which you state variously as CLIMATE CHANGE IS NATURAL: 100 REASONS WHY or There is “no real scientific proof” that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from man’s activity.

What does the effeciency of windfarms (number 51) (among many others) have to do with either of those premises?

Before I continue, have you researched any of these 100 assertions for yourself? Apparantly not, because they are so easily debunked by anyone who can spell "Google".

I would also refer you to this page about "Posting work written by others" on ATS. What is it about anti-science people and plagiarism? Are you afraid to reveal that your sources have a vested interest in destroying public confidence in science? Why is that?

Anyway, back to the random selection of comments:



9) Leaked e-mails from British climate scientists – in a scandal known as “Climate-gate” - suggest that that has been manipulated to exaggerate global warming


The stolen e-mails suggest nothing of the kind. They just show normal people going about their normal job and sometimes having (shudder) normal office whinges. You clearly haven't been paying attention, just copying shiite from propagana bulletins.



16) A Harvard University astrophysicist and geophysicist, Willie Soon, said he is “embarrassed and puzzled” by the shallow science in papers that support the proposition that the earth faces a climate crisis caused by global warming.


Willie Soon is co-author of one of the most "embarrasing and puzzling", and shallow papers in the recent history of climate science, known as Soon and Baliunas, 2003. A paper so bad that 6 editors resigned from the journal that published it because their judgement was overruled by the publisher and so egrigious that Mike Mann had to write an extraordinary rebuttal in EOS Forum.

In SB2003, the authors totally misrepresent the work of at least 13 different authors and blatantly lie about their source of funding. From Stormy Times for Climate Research
(from SGR Newsletter 28, November 2003)



Their Climate Research paper includes acknowledgements to NOAA, NASA and the US Air Force, as well as to the American Petroleum Institute. Yet NOAA flatly deny having ever funded the authors for such work, while the other two bodies admit to funding them, but for work on solar variability – not proxy climate records, the topic that has caused such a storm.




33) Today’s CO2 concentration of around 385 ppm is very low compared to most of the earth’s history – we actually live in a carbon-deficient atmosphere

It is true that 385 is very low compared to most of the earth's history. It is also true that for most of that history the life that is now on the planet, including us, could not exist. In fact the current carbon content of the atmosphere is a direct result of life acting on the atmosphere to remove that carbon, and has been basically stabile (and NOT deficient) for the last million years - a period of time that permitted the rise of humanity. Now, humanity is putting that carbon back into the atmosphere is just a few decades.



37) One statement deleted from a UN report in 1996 stated that “none of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases”

Because it was a false statement, perhaps?



64) Michael Mann of Penn State University has actually shown that the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age did in fact exist, which contrasts with his earlier work which produced the “hockey stick graph” which showed a constant temperature over the past thousand years or so followed by a recent dramatic upturn.

That is completely incorrect. See this story. Can you understand the wrongness of 'fraudulently misrepresenting a position'? That Europe experienced a MWP or a LIA, is not necessarily in doubt. But these were clearly local events, not global events. The current discussion is about GLOBAL climate changes.



99) A US Oregon Petition Project stated “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 CO2, 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.”


The Oregon Petition Project is a COMPLETE AND UTTER FRAUD perpetrated by the fossil fuel lobby.



[edit on 16/12/2009 by rnaa]



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 06:27 PM
link   
reply to post by jsn079
 






Although we have not yet reached the highest amount of sea-ice yet in years
JAXA SeaIce monitor

...the current trend of the amount of sea-ice each year is: 'increasing'..


That is certainly NOT a conclusion you can come to from that site. I quote from their description of their methodology:



Definition of sea-ice cover (extent and area)

* The area of sea-ice cover is often defined in two ways, i.e., sea-ice “extent” and sea-ice “area.” These multiple definitions of sea-ice cover may sometimes confuse data users. The former is defined as the areal sum of sea ice covering the ocean (sea ice + open ocean), whereas the latter “area” definition counts only sea ice covering a fraction of the ocean (sea ice only). Thus, the sea-ice extent is always larger than the sea-ice area. Because of the possible errors in SIC mentioned above, satellite-derived sea-ice concentration can be underestimated, particularly in summer. In such a case, the sea-ice area is more susceptible to errors than the sea-ice extent. Thus, we adopt the definition of sea-ice extent to monitor the variation of the Arctic sea ice on this site.



So they are monitoring sea-ice extent which includes open ocean. So if there is a trend in their data showing the sea-ice extent is increasing (and I don't see that trend from the graph shown), it is only saying that the area of the ocean that includes at least 15% ice cover is growing.

Their data is silent on the depth of that ice and it is silent on the how much of that area is 15% cover and how much is 100% cover.

Intuitively, I would expect a trend towards small 'clumps' of ice scattered over a wider area to be an indicator that polar ice is not freezing as well as it has in the past.

In short, we are seeing a slushy forming, not an ice cube.

[edit on 15/12/2009 by rnaa]



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 06:48 PM
link   
reply to post by hellfrozeover
 


Well on #1: Google Venice. Ocean levels rising is threatening to break their gates and basically sink the city. Also, Florida just released a panic statement because the tides are coming further inland-or something to that effect. Would need to dig the article up.

#2: CFCs and Carbon pose different risks. CFC's destroy ozone which holds back various types of radiation. At the time it wasn't so much related to GW as it was a sanity check. No Ozone = worse than GW in my opinion. That being said CFCs are one of the factors adding to warming-less energy getting filtered out and all that jazz.

#3: Not sure on that one. Last I knew there was a long standing consensus the next ice age was a couple thousand years off. Do you know who published it, and the conditions behind it?

#4: Consumerism has greatly increased since even the 70's. Other nations are near or consuming a greater amount than the U.S. with less regulation on factories scattered around India and China. Greater demand has brought greater production demands which has led to many unsafe shortcuts. The output pollution in tonnage now is much greater.

But I will be the first to admit: Correlation =/= causality. There is direct observations in areas where humans have been the cause of catastrophic change. The above points simply illustrate SOMETHING is going on, not the cause. That being said: Correlation is a powerful force. If we presume that it is natural and continue as we have been-and we are wrong: It could be extinction. If we do nothing and there was no worry.. fine. If we do something and humans were the cause: Great we just might have halted disaster at the cost of paper bills with pictures on it. If we act as it is real and are wrong: Great-we have much better technology, a much more sensible approach to the world.. at the expense of paper with someones face on it.

Seems a paltry trade to me.

(edit: Was meaning to put the following in #1)
The ice cap melting is a symptom-if the coldest places on earth are melting, then it wont be long for land locked ice to go as well. As is Antarctic ice shelves are also breaking off and going on joy rides. Greenland etc. is worrysome, but Antarctica is the deathknell

[edit on 15-12-2009 by lordtyp0]



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 09:30 PM
link   
The Earth has gone through warming and cooling cycles before. Are humans speeding it up? Most likely. To the degree Gore and company would like us to beleive? Probably not. GW has happened before and it will happen again. If us humans speed it up a few hundred years it happens. The ice will melt, the transalantic current will fail, the ice will come back. Mankind (minus a few billion people) will hopefully learn how fragile the Earth is and not make the same mistake.

Or we could get smoked by a large astroid in 2036 and our contribution to GW really doesnt matter

I beleive Gore is passionate in his cause for awareness of GW but I dont think he is doing it for profit(he's already wealthy). His film stuck to the main belief of the scientific studies involved.
But than he (Gore) could be a puppet of the global elite (NWO) and this is just another angle they're coming at us with.



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 10:18 PM
link   
reply to post by lordtyp0
 


Yep, we keep hearing that it's better to do anything and be wrong than do nothing at all. The problem is the anything that is going to be done is nothing more than pay taxes to a global government. (read: Bankers)
The science behind this latest temperature cycle is flawed. Temperature records are iffy at the very best, meaning we have no way of basing our knowledge in reality.
To take any action, other than increased research, based on such flaccid data would be and will be treasonous.



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 11:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by RelentlessDespot
reply to post by lordtyp0
 


Yep, we keep hearing that it's better to do anything and be wrong than do nothing at all. The problem is the anything that is going to be done is nothing more than pay taxes to a global government. (read: Bankers)
The science behind this latest temperature cycle is flawed. Temperature records are iffy at the very best, meaning we have no way of basing our knowledge in reality.
To take any action, other than increased research, based on such flaccid data would be and will be treasonous.


I hope you are meaning more than the emails that came out recently-those have been argued and argued. Refuted and Buffed. Ultimately from everything I can tell-the data was not tainted. If you are citing those emails I think it is fair to say you think they are in fact tainted. We can leave that there instead of going down yet another debate on that.

As for knowledge in reality: I am sure your city has an index that shows real themostat information for the last X years. It is simple to compare.
for example This shows data in SLC. If you note the month to date shows an increase, YTD however shows a slight drop.

I dare say though land average and mean temperature reading drops would be expected in initial phases of warming. Oceans would heat first-the air rises and displaces cooler air which drops over land masses causing havoc in weather. This is not a statement of whether it is caused by humans or not mind you. Later phases the land temperatures would also go up, as would be expected during various times of the year (hotter summers and crazier springs and winters basically). Though it is just my deductive reasoning on likely events if true-not based on science beyond understanding of basic concepts.


Though if you have more sources, I am certainly open to more information. Debating the email scandal aspects though is unproductive.



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 12:53 AM
link   
reply to post by lordtyp0
 


No I am not talking about the leaked emails.
Scientists are... catty... Big surprise.

What I am getting at is the cycles of climatic change are such that looking at or inferring trend from a paltry hundred year time frame is pointless.
Much worse, claiming doom on the horizon based on readings over thirty years is not only unwise it is deceitful on an order of magnitude that would dim the galaxy.



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 01:28 AM
link   
reply to post by RelentlessDespot
 


I have heard the argument of not enough long term data before...

As far as actual temperatures being recorded, you are right we only have 125-150ish years of data.

Using borehole measurements we see that we are the warmest we have been for about 500 years. Using coral growth, trees, etc, we can measure much further back. It is warmer now then it has been for the last few thousand years, and a lot of science points towards it being the warmest period in many tens of thousands of years.

Essentially, anything we can use to scientifically measure long term temperature shows that we are warming more then ever before.



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join