Al Gore Gives Us About 90 More Years

page: 5
25
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by newcovenant
reply to post by khimbar
 


OK. Why argue with a rock. You're right. Let us let the planet go down the tubes so Al Gore doesn't make any money. Might I also add that home schooling is going to be the death of this great country of ours as we slide down the list of best educated over the wold. This will explain also why half of us are still in denial of the facts and trying to make Global Warming something Al Gore made up.




Aah the arrogance of Americans at it's finest. 'Country of ours'.

Not my country and my country seems to be doing just fine education wise, thanks very much.

I never said Al Gore made it up, I'm saying I'm not taking environmental advice from someone who has carefully managed and orchestrated global outrage to make money.

Believe what you want. But allow others the same right.

Oh and you don't seem to have answered my question.

How is Al Gore stopping 'global warming killing us all'?
edit on 12-11-2012 by khimbar because: (no reason given)
edit on 12-11-2012 by khimbar because: (no reason given)
edit on 12-11-2012 by khimbar because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 12:42 PM
link   
HOW STUFF WORKS > POLLUTION


Pollution, the presence of harmful or irritating substances, called pollutants, in the environment. As the term is generally used, a pollutant is a substance introduced into the environment as a result of human activities. Pollution is especially serious in technologically advanced and heavily populated areas.

Water—in wells, lakes, rivers, and oceans—may be polluted with untreated sewage, garbage, factory wastes, laundry detergents, pesticide residues, and oil spillage. The air of most cities is laden with automobile exhaust, fumes, fuel oil smoke, and chemicals from factories. The land is contaminated with litter, junk, pesticides, and radioactive wastes.

In the last part of the 1960's the public became concerned with the need for preserving or improving the quality of the environment. People became aware that the resources of the earth—land, air, and water—that are needed to sustain life were being threatened by pollution. Scientists warned that the biosphere (the part of the earth that sustains life) can absorb only a limited quantity of pollutants before becoming unfit for living organisms.

Although the wastes created by primitive peoples can be objectionable, they do not accumulate because such wastes are reintegrated into nature by the action of microbes and by other natural processes. There is, however, no natural process that can reintegrate into nature the wastes of modern technology, such as discarded automobiles, television sets, plastic bags, and beer cans; and the chemical components of exhaust fumes and most pesticides.

Experts agree that effective pollution controls at local, national, and international levels require massive efforts by individual consumers, industry, and government. In the United States, the Environmental Protection Agency was established in 1970 to attack on the federal level the problems of air and water pollution, solid waste management, pesticides, radiation, and noise.



there is concern that air pollution—primarily large amounts of carbon dioxide and smoke—may have long-range effects on climate.



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 

if humanity had no role then what would KYOTO mean ! climate change is far more scaring that wars ! I think humanity should halt killing each other and do something about weather then as this issue gets solved then they can continue killing eachother !

www.nature.com...

edit on 12-11-2012 by maes2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 07:46 PM
link   
I don't know, apparently climate change has happened before for natural reasons. We have been wrong on this subject in the past. I remember global cooling being mongered around. Now global warming and climate change.

i do not believe that driving a SUV is going to end humanity. I do believe that we need to find a better source of energy. There is only a finite amount of fossil fuel in the world and if we do not put it to good use we will be up a creek without a paddle when it runs out.

Sometimes i think we are really wasteful with our current energy usage. Not too long ago my wife wanted to drive across town to buy coconut popsicles from a particular store. As i was driving I began to think how many people like me are driving around doing unimportant things like buying a specific popsicle while wasting a finite amount of a resource.

I think the misuse of fuel is a problem and the pollution that goes into the environment is a problem but I do not believe that it is a problem to the extent where we have to freak out about humanity ending. it will not...

If you believe in evolution you should not fear this, the same goes if you believe in a creator. In both instances life will find away. Either by evolutionary adaptation or by the creator stepping in.

Finding and using alternatives to fossil fuel will not happen till it runs out or it stops being profitable. To be honest Oil is the only thing keeping the USA as top dog in the world. It helps our currency. Having everyone switch to an alternative energy source would really put a damper on our status.







at algore trying to be relevant again
edit on 12-11-2012 by votan because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 07:48 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 

Heres one,I hear over and over.We are doomed when Greenlands ice sheet melts.Well this summer over 90% of that icesheet melted.No rise in sea level from any reports I know of.



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 07:59 PM
link   
The scary part is that no one really knows, because no one knows the level of damage already done.

I think that once the tipping point is reached, it will be over very, very quickly.

I believe it's going to be one of those things that starts slow, then builds up a head of steam very quickly and will be over very suddenly with a very different world left afterwards, kinda like an avalanche or mudslide.

Biggest problem I see is that mankind is still arguing about causes, and has NEVER been able to influence weather on a planetary scale. This is beyond human efforts to contain, and is an inevitable happenning.

It's no longer a case of is it happening, although it could still be debated as to whether man made or natural event), and it's no longer a case of what we can do about it. All we can do at this stage is sit back and watch.



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 12:02 AM
link   
When they can accurately predict the snow fall that Loveland, Colorado is going to receive during the next storm, I'll begin to listen to what they're saying will happen in a hundred years. Until then, it's just another doomsday prediction by a wealthy snake oil salesman.



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 12:08 AM
link   
If Al Gore had his way we'd all be cooking under global warming, iradiated by the sun, 100 ft under rising tides, death and destruction everywhere. He's nuts! All he's doing is backtracking now that people realized he's just a global warming profiteer, and all his predictions were phoney science that's been debunked, and all his predictions were dead wrong.

I new he was dead wrong. The reason is I live in Canada and our winters are still as cold as ever and they still come at the same time and melt at the same time each year. 2 yrs ago we had record snow falls, The year before that we had record lows. -46C which is -56F. If you say outside for 3 hours your dead. Global warming my azz!

YOu know what everyone up here say was saying???

PLEASE BRING US GLOBAL WARMING, PLEASE BE RIGHT AL GORE WE'RE SICK OF FREEZING EACH WINTER, and we're sick of 2 months of summer!



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 12:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by r2d246
If Al Gore had his way we'd all be cooking under global warming, iradiated by the sun, 100 ft under rising tides, death and destruction everywhere. He's nuts! All he's doing is backtracking now that people realized he's just a global warming profiteer, and all his predictions were phoney science that's been debunked, and all his predictions were dead wrong.

I new he was dead wrong. The reason is I live in Canada and our winters are still as cold as ever and they still come at the same time and melt at the same time each year. 2 yrs ago we had record snow falls, The year before that we had record lows. -46C which is -56F. If you say outside for 3 hours your dead. Global warming my azz!

YOu know what everyone up here say was saying???

PLEASE BRING US GLOBAL WARMING, PLEASE BE RIGHT AL GORE WE'RE SICK OF FREEZING EACH WINTER, and we're sick of 2 months of summer!



So you won't believe it until its hot in Canada.
Oh this should be good...



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 12:46 AM
link   
reply to post by newcovenant
 


Talk to anyone up here, we're all PRAYING FOR GLOBAL WARMING. It's already -10C out and a half foot of snow and the roads are iced over. Our winters start at the beginning of Nov and end at the beginning of May. All that time is snow. Then before and after it's still cold out in spring and fall. Summer is like 3 months long. It sucks. Like I said... Global warming my azz!
edit on 13-11-2012 by r2d246 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 12:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by newcovenant

ElectricUniverse -


Something tells me you have a vested interest in this.


I don't care about your investments.


Don't care what stocks will tumble.


I don't care about MISTAKES we make seeking alternative energy.



Like always the same BS story line from people like you... I don't own ANY stocks in ANY company... I am not a CEO, or bank director, or international bankster... I don't have a "vested interest" in staying with the energy sources we currently use, but it is obvious that because you don't have a concise argument, or counter-argument, you have to fall back with claiming: "oh, he must be an oil kook, or works for x company to try to disinform poor old me"...


People like you CLAIM to care for the environment, but in reality you just care for forcing people to do your will because you "feel" you are right, when in fact you are wrong.

If you really CARED that much for the environment, you wouldn't be in the bandwagon of sequestering atmospheric CO2, or puting caps on CO2 emissions which happens to be PLANT FOOD, meanwhile there is no "international call to ban, or sequester REAL TOXIC CHEMICALS AND GASES..."


Originally posted by newcovenant
I care about the planet and the ecosphere, survival of the species.


You don't think I care about the environment?... You have no idea what I have done to help the environment, but unlike you I let real science, and my rational mind do the thinking for me instead of using my emotions such as people like you do.

I am sorry, but all I see you care about is the new age religion that AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) has become, and of course to FORCE people to do your will... That's what you really care for...



Originally posted by newcovenant
Listen, Electric, Even if there were not global warming,

Even if there were not man made global warming concerns,


And again, how many times do we have to show the lies that Mann, Jones, Tremberth, Hansen, et al have been trying to sell and which people like you buy just because "you feel it is the right thing to do"?...

The IPCC has been caught lying, trying to pass thousands of policymakers and other people who work for governments as scientists, when in fact most of them do not even have a degree in any science related to Climate Change...

Yet despite showing you the truth about the IPCC, the truth behind the claims that "97% of scientists agree with us", and the fact that there is no real concensus on AGW, you keep believing Mann, Hansen, Tremberth, Jones, and Al Gore among a few...



Originally posted by newcovenant
Making companies pay (I don't care who they pay) for polluting the atmosphere & the air we all breathe, with toxic emissions - according to and in direct proportion to the degree that they pollute the atmosphere with, is quite a fantastic idea for a lot of reasons. This being the first...


Except that AGAIN, all that is happening is that OTHER rich people are getting richer, such as Al Gore... There are even companies who make up false companies which don't have any CO2 emissions, and they just transfer the carbon credits from the dummy company to their other company which does have CO2 emissions...


Revealed: scandal of carbon credit firm

April 8, 2011


Ben Cubby

A SYDNEY carbon credits company thought to have been running some of the world's biggest offsets deals appears to be a fake, shifting paper certificates instead of saving forests and cutting greenhouse emissions.

Shift2neutral says it has made high-profile events such as the Australian PGA golf championship and the Sydney Turf Club's world-first ''green race day'' carbon neutral.

When pressed for examples of any specific project that has cut emissions to generate the carbon credits the company offers for sale, he was unable to provide even one

But deals to generate more than $1 billion worth of carbon credits by saving jungles from logging in the Philippines, the Congo and across south-east Asia do not seem to exist.

The global network of investors and carbon offset certifiers supposed to be brokering deals with foreign presidents and the World Bank can be traced to a modest office in a shopping village in Westleigh, staffed by shift2neutral's founder, Brett Goldsworthy.
...

www.smh.com.au...

That's just one of other companies which have been caught doing this, and there are several companies which cover their tracks pretty well and are getting away with these AGW/Carbon Credit deals.

But you see, you are not aware of these facts because you are ruled by your emotions. You don't do any proper research, and you don't really care about science, or the environment. You just care about your "feelings", and how you "think" those "feelings" are going to "save the world"...



Originally posted by newcovenant

Now, if you want to discuss where the money goes from there - we can.
Otherwise I am done discussing this with you.


I don't even think you care about having an honest intellectual discussion. I know this because of your past responses to facts that you just don't want to accept. You are like millions of other people who are ruled by their emotions, and not by a rational, clear thinking mind.

I don't want to be mean, but it is the truth.

edit on 13-11-2012 by ElectricUniverse because: errors.



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 01:07 AM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 





posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 01:18 AM
link   
Earths Biosphere at Risk



In the next fifty years, the global population will use more energy than the total consumed in all previous history.

Humanity faces a future of radical change - either in the way we produce energy or in the health of our planet.

Most energy today comes from burning fossil fuel to make electricity, run factories, power vehicles and heat homes.

Fossil resources - coal, oil and natural gas - are being consumed so fast as to be largely exhausted during the 21st century. Dead fish in dry lake, showing impacts of global warming.

With all fossil energy, waste products are dispersed directly into the air. Much of this waste takes the form of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide. Each year fossil fuel waste adds 30 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. This equates to 80 million tonnes each day - or 950 tonnes a second.

...scientists agree that increased greenhouse gases are causing the Earth to capture more solar heat. For most climate scientists, man-made greenhouse gases explain why the decade of 2000-2009 was the warmest on instrumental record of global surface temperature (since 1850).

Climate experts are virtually unanimous in warning that the build-up of the greenhouse gases could, in the century ahead, become catastrophic.

Rising sea levels, extreme temperatures, violent storms, devastating droughts and the spread of disease would destroy food production and human habitability in many regions.

These experts warn that radical climate change could eventually destabilize the entire biosphere.



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 01:21 AM
link   
reply to post by babybunnies
 


Except that those who have a real vested interest are not telling you the truth behind the ongoing Climate Change.

First of all, for the past 80-100 years the Sun's activity was at the highest it has been in over 1,000 years.

Now Al Gore says we have maybe 90 years?... Kind of funny that he is puting the timeline that far ahead, AGAIN...

Do you think perhaps it has something to do with the following?...


Ribbon at Edge of Our Solar System: Will the Sun Enter a Million-Degree Cloud of Interstellar Gas?
ScienceDaily (May 24, 2010) — Is the Sun going to enter a million-degree galactic cloud of interstellar gas soon?

Scientists from the Space Research Centre of the Polish Academy of Sciences, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Southwest Research Institute, and Boston University suggest that the ribbon of enhanced emissions of energetic neutral atoms, discovered last year by the NASA Small Explorer satellite IBEX, could be explained by a geometric effect coming up because of the approach of the Sun to the boundary between the Local Cloud of interstellar gas and another cloud of a very hot gas called the Local Bubble. If this hypothesis is correct, IBEX is catching matter from a hot neighboring interstellar cloud, which the Sun might enter in a hundred years.
...

www.sciencedaily.com...

Do note the time frame. The Sun will be well within this new interstellar cloud within 100 years.

At first the research suggested that it would take us anywhere from 10,000-50,000 years to reach this cloud, but recent research says we will be well within the cloud within the next 100 years.

I have also posted evidence that we have been already experiencing effects from small sections of this cloud which we have been encountering for many years.






The Sun traveling through the Galaxy happens to cross at the present time a blob of gas about ten light-years across, with a temperature of 6-7 thousand degrees kelvin. This so-called Local Interstellar Cloud is immersed in a much larger expanse of a million-degree hot gas, named the Local Bubble. The energetic neutral atoms (ENA) are generated by charge exchange at the interface between the two gaseous media. ENA can be observed provided the Sun is close enough to the interface. The apparent Ribbon of ENA discovered by the IBEX satellite can be explained by a geometric effect: one observes many more ENA by looking along a line-of-sight almost tangent to the interface than by looking in the perpendicular direction. (Credit: SRC/Tentaris,ACh/Maciej Frolow)

www.sciencedaily.com...


I mean, it is not like the magnetic field of the Earth has been weakening since about the 1840s, and it is now weaker than it has been in over 400,000-700,000 years...


The earth's magnetic field impacts climate: Danish study
(AFP) – Jan 12, 2009

COPENHAGEN (AFP) — The earths climate has been significantly affected by the planets magnetic field, according to a Danish study published Monday that could challenge the notion that human emissions are responsible for global warming.

........

www.google.com...




The red points of data above, and to the left of the graph, are showing the strength in the weakening fluctuation the Earth's magnetic field has been experiencing.

The Earth's magnetic field is getting so weak that large breaches are opening up in ways scientists didn't think could happen


A Giant Breach in Earth's Magnetic Field
12.16.2008

Dec. 16, 2008: NASAs five THEMIS spacecraft have discovered a breach in Earths magnetic field ten times larger than anything previously thought to exist. Solar wind can flow in through the opening to "load up" the magnetosphere for powerful geomagnetic storms. But the breach itself is not the biggest surprise. Researchers are even more amazed at the strange and unexpected way it forms, overturning long-held ideas of space physics.

"At first I didn't believe it," says THEMIS project scientist David Sibeck of the Goddard Space Flight Center. "This finding fundamentally alters our understanding of the solar wind-magnetosphere interaction."
........

science.nasa.gov...

Then there is the fact that any new region of space which the Solar System encounters has an effect on the Solar System dynamics, and on planets like Earth and do cause dramatic Climate Changes.

Scientists knew that the Solar System was going to encounter a new region of space back in 1978, and they though this new region of space was probably going to cause Climate Changes....


Title:
Is the solar system entering a nearby interstellar cloud
Authors:
Vidal-Madjar, A.; Laurent, C.; Bruston, P.; Audouze, J.
Affiliation:
AA(CNRS, Laboratoire de Physique Stellaire et Planetaire, Verrieres-le-Buisson, Essonne, France), AB(CNRS, Laboratoire de Physique Stellaire et Planetaire, Verrieres-le-Buisson, Essonne, France), AC(CNRS, Laboratoire de Physique Stellaire et Planetaire, Verrieres-le-Buisson, Essonne, France), AD(Meudon Observatoire, Hauts-de-Seine; Paris XI, Universite, Orsay, Essonne, France)
Publication:
Astrophysical Journal, Part 1, vol. 223, July 15, 1978, p. 589-600. (ApJ Homepage)
Publication Date:
07/1978
Category:
Astrophysics
Origin:
STI
NASA/STI Keywords:
....................
Abstract
....................
Observational arguments in favor of such a cloud are presented, and implications of the presence of a nearby cloud are discussed, including possible changes in terrestrial climate. It is suggested that the postulated interstellar cloud should encounter the solar system at some unspecified time in the near future and might have a drastic influence on terrestrial climate in the next 10,000 years.

adsabs.harvard.edu...

edit on 13-11-2012 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 01:22 AM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


I have to say,

Nice reply and a definite star from me.

I always wonder why do people seem to think that we need to pay for anything.

Why can't we just start being more efficient without all of the carbon credits and taxes?

There is no reason to think that we must pay to fix this. If we cut back a little at a time mother nature will balance it all out.

This right there tells me it is all a scam, just to make certain people more rich, because after all, " someone has to pay for it".


Money, money, money, that is all the global warming " climate change" do-gooders trying to pass laws want. Just money, a new scheme for new fools at a new time.

That is my opinion.
edit on 13-11-2012 by liejunkie01 because: phone spelling, sorry



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 01:35 AM
link   
Global Warming and Climate Change

www.world-nuclear.org...

There is clear evidence of changes in the composition of the greenhouse gases in the lower atmosphere, with CO2 in particular steadily increasing to its present level of about 390 ppm.

It has increased by one third in the last 200 years, and half of that in the last 30 years.

Ice core samples show that both carbon dioxide and methane levels are higher than at any time in the past 650,000 years - CO2 there being 170-300 ppm.



Eleven of the last twelve years (1995-2006) rank among the 12 warmest years in the instrumental record of global surface temperature (since 1850).

Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely (90%+ probability) due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.

The average temperature of the global ocean has increased to depths of at least 3000 m and that the ocean has been absorbing more than 80% of the heat added to the climate system. Such warming causes seawater to expand, contributing to sea level rise.

Mountain glaciers and snow cover have declined on average in both hemispheres. Widespread decreases in glaciers and ice caps have contributed to sea level rise

Global average sea level rose at an average rate of 1.8 mm per year over 1961 to 2003. The rate was faster over 1993 to 2003, about 3.1 mm per year.

Average Arctic temperatures increased at almost twice the global average rate in the past 100 years.

More intense and longer droughts have been observed over wider areas since the 1970s, particularly in the tropics and subtropics.

Widespread changes in extreme temperatures have been observed over the last 50 years. Cold days, cold nights and frost have become less frequent, while hot days, hot nights, and heat waves have become more frequent

The global atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has increased from a pre-industrial value of about 280 ppm to 379 ppm in 2005. The atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide in 2005 exceeds by far the natural range over the last 650,000 years (180 to 300 ppm) as determined from ice cores.

The primary source of the increased atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide since the pre-industrial period results from fossil fuel use, with land use change providing another significant but smaller contribution.

The IPCC predicts that, based on a range of scenarios, by the end of the 21st century climate change will result in :

A probable temperature rise between 1.8°C and 4°C, with a possible temperature rise between 1.1°C and 6.4°C.
A sea level rise most likely to be 28-43cm
Arctic summer sea ice disappearing in second half of century
An increase in heatwaves being very likely
A likely increase in tropical storm intensity.

The second part of the 2007 report dealt with impacts, adaptation and vulnerabilities. It concludes that climate change will have significant impacts including increased stress on water supplies and a widening threat of species extinction.

edit on 13-11-2012 by newcovenant because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 01:37 AM
link   
reply to post by newcovenant
 


Do you have any idea of how much CO2 is released naturally?... The average is 720 billion tons, meanwhile anthropogenic sources are still releasing about 26-27 billion tons.

But the fact is that the natural CO2 emissions are not constant, they change from year to year, and such changes from year to year do exceed the 26-27 billion tons of anthropogenic CO2 OVER the average 720 billion tons of natural CO2.

What this means is not only that nature emits far more CO2 than mankind, but from this year to the next the natural emissions can increase over the average natural emissions of 720 billion tons, to add another let's say 30-40 billion tons more, exceeding the emissions more than all anthropogenic sources.

Natural emissions are not constant, unlike what the AGW camp would try to tell you.



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 01:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by liejunkie01
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


I have to say,

Nice reply and a definite star from me.

I always wonder why do people seem to think that we need to pay for anything.

Why can't we just start being more efficient without all of the carbon credits and taxes?

There is no reason to think that we must pay to fix this. If we cut back a little at a time mother nature will balance it all out.

This right there tells me it is all a scam, just to make certain people more rich, because after all, " someone has to pay for it".


Money, money, money, that is all the global warming " climate change" do-gooders trying to pass laws want. Just money, a new scheme for new fools at a new time.

That is my opinion.
edit on 13-11-2012 by liejunkie01 because: phone spelling, sorry



WE don't have to pay.

The polluters have to pay.

Boy - are people misinformed about this issue.



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 01:40 AM
link   
reply to post by liejunkie01
 


Thank you, and you are right. You have to follow the money to find out what this scam of AGW is all about.

But, you won't get anyone who has jumped in the AGW bandwaggon admit to this no matter how much evidence you put right in front of them.



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 01:41 AM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


Erm, we've been in the same interstellar cloud for the past 45,000 years, and will continue to be so for some time yet.

You link a source back from the 70's, that uses hypotheticals and speaks in terms of possibilities, yet speak as if there's absolute proof.

Rubbish


Interstellar cloud
edit on 13-11-2012 by unityemissions because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
25
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join