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.

 

Al Gore and His Profane Rant at Aspen Institute

page: 3
7
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 10:16 AM
link   
reply to post by MasterGemini

The air itself is about 80% nitrogen. That is one reagent we have no shortage of.

TheRedneck




posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by MasterGemini

The air itself is about 80% nitrogen. That is one reagent we have no shortage of.

TheRedneck


Well glad to hear that is not going to be a problem.

Thanks!



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 02:46 PM
link   
reply to post by hillynilly
 


And really thats all it takes to see through mst of this. Just a little bit of research.
It is unfortunate that too many people fllow a bipartisan line when they come to the cnclusion on whether or not t believe Mr. Gore. To many people sided with him pre-2000 election, and have held n wholeheartedly ever since. Mr. Gore could come out tomorrow with an expose 'proving' that cigarette smoke is killing puppies on Uranus and people would follow suit and lambast those evil smokers.



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 02:50 PM
link   
reply to post by youdidntseeme

Hey, hey, HEY! Careful of putting ideas in heads, man, we smokers have all the trouble we need already.


TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 02:53 PM
link   
yeah people support the smokers cause were saving the children.

legislation that came about recently uses blood money taxed from smokers for children programs.
edit on 10-8-2011 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by youdidntseeme

Hey, hey, HEY! Careful of putting ideas in heads, man, we smokers have all the trouble we need already.


TheRedneck


I will respond to this once I have finsihed feeding my nicotine addiction...
befre Mr. Gore reads this of course!



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
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.


So this is just semantics over the word "breath?" Quite a long way to go to make a point.


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


And if I were trying to describe that to a general group of laymen, I would probably call it breathing. OK, so you do not like the word but do not dispute that O2 is a byproduct of plants. Seems we agree. You are just more picky about the word you use to describe a process.
edit on 10-8-2011 by Kitilani because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Kitilani

No, you miss the point.

Plants do not give off carbon dioxide. That was the insinuation Al Gore made, that during the winter they were spewing out CO2 like an animal would do. That is completely, absolutely, unconditionally false.

It is a good example of how the uneducated can be manipulated by a simple word, though, so thank you for pointing that out. Animals breathe out carbon dioxide (true, we all know that). Plants breathe (simplified, but sort of accurate) in during the summer and out during the winter (makes sense if they breathe in they have to breathe out). Ergo, plants are only absorbing carbon dioxide during the summer (true), but are putting it all back during the winter (false!). Ergo, plants do not help get rid of carbon dioxide and everyone who says they do is lying (false!).

You see how a little semantic manipulation works? Yeah, 'breathe' may be non-technically semi-accurate in the vernacular, but it can then be twisted to give a completely incorrect assumption. That's where I have a problem.

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 11:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by MasterGemini

Originally posted by NoHierarchy

I'M WITH AL GORE 100% ON THIS



He's right in what he says and he's right in using the extreme language. What Gore and others (who follow actual science) face when up against the ridiculous, unscientific, and corrupt arguments of deniers, their media sources, and those who fund false denial completely warrants frustration and shaming of those who spout ignorance in the face of the entirety of science. It's gotten completely out of hand and when dealing with such corrupt stupidity, I believe profanities are warranted.

Check out my thread debunking denier BULLS****:

www.abovetopsecret.com...


And a carbon tax saves the world how?

LoL yeah rage all you like. Huff and Puff all you want.

Save the world LMAO. With a tax! LMFAO! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Okay next lets outlaw breaking the law! HAHAHAHAHA

You do know that he plagiarized in his film and used fake images of glaciers right?
edit on 9-8-2011 by MasterGemini because: (no reason given)


Not just that be he is on the board of directors for APPLE the least environmentally friendly company on the planet! Just go to greenpeace the bastions of global warming to see this guys is full of manbearpig!
edit on 9-8-2011 by MasterGemini because: (no reason given)


A) Nobody's saying a Carbon Tax alone will save the world. HOWEVER, other countries have implemented carbon taxes with success and WITHOUT this spooky tyrannical takeover that deniers like to cry about.

B) You do know that An Inconvenient Truth was proven to be vastly accurate and had only a few MINOR inaccuracies, one of which was only proven AFTER the movie came out to be half-false.

C) Just because Al Gore is a voracious consumer doesn't mean that AGW is a hoax.



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 11:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by tyson45
im sorry i may be mistaken, but didnt i just see a NASA study that says all this global warming stuff is bs? something about the co2 actually not being trapped in the atmosphere? Even if thats false i honestly dont believe we are causing it. Climate change has happened many times before and will continue to happen.


Yes you are mistaken.



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 11:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by louieprima
The NASA study does not discount global warming so much as prove that there is a lot of alarmist hoopla in the sense that the raving pro-global warming advocates are exaggerating the dangers. Also, it is certainly fact that CERN scientists were effectually gagged about their recent experiment which offered other reasons for warming than human created CO2.
And even if the worst of the chicken littles were correct, Cap and Trade is the biggest scam plan I've ever heard of. It's worthy of the Banking/Finance elite. And The UN is a corrupt, inefficient, and ridiculous organization.


Link this supposed NASA study, please.

And yes, cap n' trade is an industry-crafted scam which allows them to continue business as usual whilst pretending to reduce emissions.



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 11:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by connorromanow
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


The "documentary" The Great Global Warming Swindle was actually proven to have MASSIVE inaccuracies, FAR MORE than Al Gore's documentary. Scientists involved even asked to be removed from the film because they were taken out of context.

Please watch:




posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 11:20 PM
link   
reply to post by NoHierarchy
 


What the hell does half false mean?
Must be talking about your pseudo-science?

So how exactly does carbon kill the world? I am really worried because I am made of carbon and exhale CO2. Should I stop breathing because I am contributing CO2 to the atmosphere? You realize that when you contrast the data from the oil companies and the UN you are just comparing two corrupt organizations who will pay for science to say whatever they want it to say right?

First it was the ice age coming now they are saying they called it right but humans intervened again and made the world heat up? Seriously. Can't you tell it is 90% politics and the actual "global warming" is at least 98% natural.

All you science buffs need to relax on your holier than thou crap


edit on 10-8-2011 by MasterGemini because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 11:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by Kitilani

No, you miss the point.

Plants do not give off carbon dioxide. That was the insinuation Al Gore made, that during the winter they were spewing out CO2 like an animal would do. That is completely, absolutely, unconditionally false.


Yeah, guess I did because somehow we changed gasses.


Originally posted by TheRedneck
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.


Less clear than before so I am just going to go back to using the word breathe. I am not sure what the issue is with the word.



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 11:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
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?


Given that you clearly think the entire subject is "irrelevant" I'm going to have to take your judgement with an entire salt lick.


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.


Al Gore is correct, on a certain level - though he's showing a high-latitude cultural bias (most of the world's plants grow where there's no real difference between "summer" and "winter," after all). His statement is functionally true - in the higher latitudes, when applied to deciduous trees and perennial plants. However, the same thing happens at night, everywhere.

You, however, are completely wrong.

Plants, like the majority of life on earth (some bacteria and most archaeans are exceptions) use Oxygen as a core part of their metabolism; aerobic respiration. Without oxygen, they cannot break down the sugars they produce via photosynthesis, obviously. The by-product for aerobic respiration, from bacteria all the way up to blue whales, is carbon dioxide. Plants produce a lot of it through metabolism, just like almost everything else on earth. C'mon man, this isn't even a Botany course, it's biology 101.


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.


While your lead-in is true - plants do respire unused CO2 when at rest - as I've pointed out, they certainly do produce the gas through their own internal processes. Again, it's aerobic respiration, look it up.


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.


Third time; it absolutely is true. Third time, again; plants use aerobic respiration, just like the vast majority of life on earth. if you were to seal a plant in a container with everything it normally has except oxygen, it would die, and it would die rapidly; it would starve to death because it would be unable to make its metabolism function.


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.


1) he was simplifying the terms.
2) The waters are not muddy; you're just flat wrong
3) And you're telling untruths about it being "banned in several countries." Rather, a few plavces here and there - cities, the occasional British district - have seen efforts to get the film and book removed from use. In every case, those trying to ban it also firt the bill for the type of people who want to ban evolution. One particular case i found - in Kent - the guy suing to get it banned comes up with "nine scientific innaccuracies" that are, themselves false and clearly geared towards confusing the judge. Basically a guy with a political agenda pulling a Snopes Monkey Trial.


This is just one of those inaccuracies.

TheRedneck


Hardly. You're just shockingly uneducated about the subject, and should probably avoid chiming in until you learn at least the basics.



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 12:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Kitilani

Simplified:

Plants: absorb carbon dioxide, perform photosynthesis to create sugars, emit oxygen.

Animals: breathe in to get oxygen, 'burn' (oxidize) sugars for energy, breathe out carbon dioxide.

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 12:27 AM
link   

edit on 11-8-2011 by Bob Sholtz because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 12:31 AM
link   
reply to post by TheWalkingFox

Plants, like the majority of life on earth (some bacteria and most archaeans are exceptions) use Oxygen as a core part of their metabolism; aerobic respiration. Without oxygen, they cannot break down the sugars they produce via photosynthesis, obviously.

Obviously, they do not break down the sugars they produce; they use them for growth. Fauna break down those sugars (food) using aerobic metabolism in order to produce proteins and acquire energy for movement.

Any aerobic reactions inside the plant (and there are a few) are so small compared to the photosynthetic process as to be... you called it earlier.... 'irrelevant'!


Third time; it absolutely is true. Third time, again; plants use aerobic respiration, just like the vast majority of life on earth. if you were to seal a plant in a container with everything it normally has except oxygen, it would die, and it would die rapidly; it would starve to death because it would be unable to make its metabolism function.

Seems like an easy experiment to perform. Let me know your set-up and results (although I predict the plant would grow at several times its 'normal' rate).

I guess all those commercial greenhouses have been killing plants off all those years... the fiends! Then they sell them to us and tell us they're alive just because they are green and growing! Charlatans!


You're just shockingly uneducated about the subject, and should probably avoid chiming in until you learn at least the basics.

Yeah, I guess I am uneducated. Thank goodness you're here to correct me that plants now use oxygen to produce carbon dioxide and break down the sugars made by photosynthesis. I wonder, since you're so obviously well-educated... where do the sugars in the food we eat come from if not from plants?

(Let me help you out... plants absorb carbon dioxide from the air, obtain water from their root systems, and use sunlight to create simple sugars that form the structure of the plant itself. In the process they give off oxygen. When we eat plants for food, we use oxygen from the air to reduce those sugars, producing energy and carbon dioxide in the process.)

(Oh, and I assume you know that when I say 'simple sugars' I am speaking of various hydrocarbon chains, not the powdery white stuff you buy in the supermarket.)

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 12:45 AM
link   
After all that debate...I could sure use a massage.

Maybe that's whats wrong with Brother Al.... too much global warming and not enough deep penetrating massage.



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 12:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by Kitilani

Simplified:

Plants: absorb carbon dioxide, perform photosynthesis to create sugars, emit oxygen.


Right, they breathe.


Animals: breathe in to get oxygen, 'burn' (oxidize) sugars for energy, breathe out carbon dioxide.

TheRedneck


They breathe too. So does my flannel robe.I am really not at all sure what you are trying to "correct" me on.




top topics



 
7
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join