Al Gore and His Profane Rant at Aspen Institute

Looks like the pressure is getting to him, his poor scam he had all setup to make billions of dollars went belly up.
Carbon tax is not the answer, anyone who says it is, is just out to make money. The only thing a tax like that would do is hurt the poor and middle class.

Kind of ironic how he sounded like Alex jones one if his critics. As for having pseudo scientist saying no global warming, the great global warming swindle has actual scientists presenting actual data that contradicts what his film claims.
Would be interesting to see the scientists behind the global warming swindle and the ones that helped with an inconveinent truth debate

I'm so sorry Mr Gore, that more people aren't blindly buying into your get rich quick scam.

Sorry people don't believe that humans are causing global warming because we only release 25gt/yr of c02, compared to 220gt/yr from plants and decaying animals, or the 330gt/yr released by the oceans, or the massive amounts of Methane, an even more potent greenhouse gas, being released from the oceans. But no, it's definitely us, with all 2-3% or whatever of our greenhouse gas contributions.

Sorry people don't believe because you use ice cores as proof, when it's recently been discovered that the ice sheets melt and freeze on BOTH the top and bottom, making them almost useless because we have no way to tell what time the air in the cores even comes from.

Sorry nobody takes you serious because YOU PERSONALLY account for more greenhouse gas emissions than a few thousand "normal" people do. You can't expect us to care, when based on your actions YOU DON'T EITHER?

I hate Al Gore. I'm sorry, he is just a total tool. There is no absolute evidence that human beings are solely responsible for climate change. How much arrogance and ego can people have to believe that we know everything? We know exactly how the world is "supposed" to be right now. We somehow know exactly what gas percentages and global temperatures are "supposed" to be right now. We don't, sorry. Just because someone has PHD in front of their name doesn't mean they do, either.

Those sad individuals that go around bashing people just because they don't blindly follow all these "humans are heating up the earth!" egomaniacs are a danger to science. You cannot have a healthy scientific community when the only way you get a job is by towing the line and following.

In the 70s they were scared we were going to have another ice age. That didn't happen. Now they say they were right about the ice age, but humans stopped it because of our emissions. We as a species sure are powerful. We can not only stop ice ages but heat the world more than it was before too!

The planet is an extremely complex places. The atmosphere, the weather, all these things are too misunderstood for people to say they KNOW that humans are causing the climate of the planet to change.

I'll keep an open mind and say it's possible, because I don't know that it's not. But these climate change fanatics won't give people the same respect, and step back from their computers to say "I may be wrong, the planet might just be changing like it ALWAYS HAS BEEN, and humans are having very little effect if any"

Nope, they can't do that. Their ego is too big, they are too arrogant, they are too worried about making sure they keep their funding. So they say downright idiotic things like "I KNOW for a fact that humans are heating up the planet!" Well bravo sir, bravo.

There is a question I always ask when on this type of thread, its this:- with atmospheric CO2 being 393 parts per million (less than one percent) just how can so little affect so much?
Volcanoes, emissions from which have gone up 300% in the last 2,000 years, have put three times as much crud into the atmosphere than humans, stuff like CO2, ash particulate, sulphur di-oxide, helium, hydrogen, methane, water vapour (the stuff real scientists get excited about, along with methane) argon, cannot remember what else.
All above information is available via your search engine

Sounds like Gore is still pissed about getting screwed out of the Presidency. If he does believe Global Warming being caused by humans, I can understand his emotion in this soundbite.

reply to post by youdidntseeme


He has a lot of nerve accusing someone else of paying pseudo-scientists to get the answers they want to hear

It looks like the real Al Gore Jr. is showing through a little... and I must say, that apple didn't fall too far from the tree. He sounds more like his daddy every day.

The part I found telling was how he wants us to have this "shared reality"... sounds like "my fantasy" to me. He has this scheme that was going to make him filthyier rich, and now no one is buying his line of "pseudo-science".

Yeah, the guy who thinks plant life breathes out, the guy who uses out-of-context photos to 'prove' a theory, the guy who can't understand that cause comes before effect... is the same guy who is calling others "pseudo-scientists"; does that mean he thinks he is a 'real scientist' now? Gore couldn't calculate his way out of a brown paper bag, and I doubt he could put together a scientific experiment with step-by step instructions.

He's not even a decent tree-hugger... I seem to remember him getting lost just out of sight of a walking trail in a National Forest and having to be rescued...

reply to post by NoHierarchy

The scientific debate over AGW ended in the 50's-70's. The MEDIA/POLITICAL debate we see now is completely manufactured and is the cause of very respectable scientists losing their hair.

The moment you say a scientific debate has ended is the very moment you leave the realm of science. Isaac Newton's Laws of Motion were 'proven' for a very long time, until Albert Einstein's Relativity showed them to be incomplete.

Scientific debate never stops until scientific veracity disappears.

TheRedneck

Profane?

He called bull#ters on their bull# and liars on their lies.

And apparently he did so while being recorded by one of those pterodactyl recorders fro mthe flintstones. Goddamned ow.

Some thoughts:
- OW MY EARS
- Getting mad about something that matters isn't wrong in any way
- He's still a fruitcake
- He probably hurts the GW cause more than helping it
- Even though he's a fruitcake, global warming is almost definitely happening
- Neither corporations, nor governments, nor politicians, nor the wealthy could ever be trusted to ever be truthful about the reality of global warming. Or the reality of anything.
- We're all screwed, but now have a lot worse things to worry about than our species probable death to GW. Saddest fact of all...

Originally posted by TheRedneck
Yeah, the guy who thinks plant life breathes out, the guy who uses out-of-context photos to 'prove' a theory, the guy who can't understand that cause comes before effect... is the same guy who is calling others "pseudo-scientists"; does that mean he thinks he is a 'real scientist' now? Gore couldn't calculate his way out of a brown paper bag, and I doubt he could put together a scientific experiment with step-by step instructions.

I am sorry but I am not botanist or anything but the part I underlined caught my eye. Plants do not breathe out? It was my understanding they exhaled oxygen. Is that not true?

reply to post by Kitilani

They release oxygen, but they do not breathe at all. There is no respiration in flora as there is in fauna.

In "An Inconvenient Truth", Gore indicated that plants breathe in carbon dioxide during the spring/summer and exhale it during the fall/winter. The actuality is that all chlorophyll-based plant life absorbs carbon dioxide during photosynthesis and emits oxygen as a byproduct of that photosynthesis. They do not emit carbon dioxide other than in response to an inability to utilize what is absorbed.

Interestingly enough, this same process recycles ground water from the root systems through the leaves, cooling the immediate area through evaporational cooling. Of course, no one is to mention that little 'inconvenient truth'...

Gah, I despise Al Gore... spawn of a corrupt politician, made a poor excuse for a 'farmer' (never picked the first tobacco leaf himself), a poor excuse for a politician, a poor excuse for an activist, and not even that much success playing 'scientist'.

TheRedneck

reply to post by TheRedneck


don't forget this wonderful gem! i don't know how he can call anyone a "psudo-scientist" with a straight face.

reply to post by TheRedneck


sigh.

First, "An Inconvenient Truth" is an introductory work, designed to be readable to people who might not already know all that much about biology or climatology, etc. Think of it as sort of a boardbook "easy reader." No, "breathe" is not the proper scientific term, but it's the basic idea, and is understandable to anyone who's approaching the subject.

Second, yes plants do respire carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, during the night cycle. it's a byproduct of aerobic respiration. during the day, plants do take in CO2 for use in photosynthesis, but at night, with no light, they release what they've stored as well as that which is produced as waste from respiration.

Overall they take in more CO2 than they release, since they use the atmospheric carbon to build their structures. But yes, they do "breathe out" CO2.

Originally posted by Sunsetspawn

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
OWWWWWWWWW!! that sound hurts! wtf did they record this with, a potato or something?

he has no right to be pissy. all his "save the environment" is meaningless to me when you take into account his house, the amount of electricity and waste he makes, and his profit-fueled motives.

edit on 9-8-2011 by Bob Sholtz because: (no reason given)

First person to make me LOL on ATS since I joined. This place really is fully of humorless duds in general. Although a little constructive joke critique; don't use "or something" after a great punchline, it really weakens it. BTW, did you know that you can make a battery out of a potato?

Anyway, about ol fatso Al Gore, I kind of think he's right, but since I hate women and they hate me I won't be getting married or having any kids so I don't give a crap. Let's all warm the planet until we die from it, YAY!

WHOOOOOOOSH

That's the sound of the reference going over your head.

Portal 2 contains potatoes.

His avatar is from portal.

It's clearly a portal joke. The "or something" goes perfectly well with the comedic stylings of portal.

Originally posted by TheRedneck
Yeah, the guy who thinks plant life breathes out, the guy who uses out-of-context photos to 'prove' a theory, the guy who can't understand that cause comes before effect... is the same guy who is calling others "pseudo-scientists"; does that mean he thinks he is a 'real scientist' now? Gore couldn't calculate his way out of a brown paper bag, and I doubt he could put together a scientific experiment with step-by step instructions.

What I bolded in this quote is what gets me about so much of what is purported to be scientific. Too often when someone wants to make a statement and create a 'cause' for others to follow, it is politically motivated, PR motivated and simply doesnt follow conventional logic or science at all.

They find something that has become a nice talking point and invent a cause while only focussing on the effect. Backwards logic.

Now I am not saying that we shouldnt worry about the way that our actions as humans affect the planet around us, after all this is the planet that we need to live on and our children and grandchildren will inherit, but Gore's motivation needs to be questioned. Gore's entire platform on the issue needs to be re-addressed.

Unfortunetly for him, he spoke way too soon and needs to make room in his mouth for a little crow, he simply won't keep it closed long enough to do so.

reply to post by Terrorist

reply to post by mnmcandiez


While that's true, people shouldn't be denying facts. That's what this "debate" is, a wholesale denial of reality.

No it isn't. It's a rebuke of algore's junk science that he had hoped to parlay into a fortune.

Sorry, Al. Not this time.

reply to post by TheWalkingFox

I will admit that "An Inconvenient Truth" was intended for a general audience; I typically use such simplified explanations here on ATS (and occasionally get lambasted for simplifying things myself). But when simplifying, is it reasonable to include minor effects irrelevant to the overall point?

Al Gore said that plants during the summer 'breathe in' carbon dioxide and during the winter 'breathe out' carbon dioxide. The truth is that they actually produce no, zero, nada, zip carbon dioxide internally. The emitted carbon dioxide is what has been absorbed and cannot be used for whatever reason. Fauna respires carbon dioxide from the reduction of carbon in food, a process used to create energy. Plants do not eat food (with the possible exception of a few species such as the Venus flytrap, which would, yes, emit carbon dioxide); plants use solar radiation to convert carbon dioxide to oxygen and simple sugars.

Flora does not perform photosynthesis all of the time, and this is where the confusion comes in. Photosynthesis consists of two different chemical processes, one which runs all the time (except in the dead of winter, to be accurate) and another which runs only when there is sunlight (commonly called the light reaction). Any carbon dioxide absorbed when both processes are running will be detected as an emission shortly after the light process has ceased. But this is no different than pumping gas into the tank of a running car: if the tank overflows, it does not mean the car is producing gasoline. It means the tank cannot hold any more gasoline. When plants emit carbon dioxide it simply means they have absorbed more than they can use and some is lost from extraneous chemical reactions inside the plant.

It is also a fact that higher carbon dioxide levels lead to a faster photosynthetic effect (increased growth). This is commonly used in commercial nursery greenhouses to increase profits. That is much more germane to the issue of carbon dioxide production vs. carbon dioxide sinking than trying to explain how plants actually produce the gas when it is in fact not true.

So which is it? Was Gore trying to simplify an explanation for an uneducated audience or was he muddying the waters? From where I sit, the waters don't look very clear. And apparently they look muddy to others as well, considering that his 'documentary' (my apologies to real documentaries) has been legally banned in some countries from use as a teaching aid due to numerous scientific inaccuracies.

This is just one of those inaccuracies.

TheRedneck

reply to post by TheRedneck


Not trying to derail you as you clearly know a plenty and its obvious Al Gore is selling snake oil.
But, seeing as nitrogen is necessary for increased photosynthesis, is there also an increase in available nitrogen to accommodate an increase in other reactions?

Or do we have enough run off fertilizer from our farms going back into nature in a way that addresses this?

Poor Al, he just can't get that polar ice to melt fast enough...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/190a1b27dec8.jpg[/atsimg]

Al Goraphony seems a little butt hurt...

His CURRENT TV has been exposed..
Tried to hide he actually owns it and runs it...

The global warming scam has been ruined, to think
when I was younger I believed the whole global warming scam for crap and trade..

Since I became an adult and did my own research
I can understand why he is loosing it now since all
his lies have been uncovered..