On The Coldest Day In America In 20 Years, Here Are Al Gore’s Stupidest Global Warming Quotes

reply to post by bobs_uruncle


I didn't care to read any reply to your post ... but you have to keep in mind that global warming concerns the whole planet (you failed to mention, for example, that temperatures in Rio de Janeiro are unusually high ... more then 50ºC). You have to see the planet as a whole and model what is happening as a whole and locally to begin to understand that our development path is unsustainable.
... But I don't even imagine the cold you are experiencing.

Climate Change doesnt mean that there can be only warm or only cold global temperatures. It means that the original climate of a certain area on the planet drastically changes. That has an effect on all other areas and cause a change in them also. If you cant think further than looking at the thermometer and thinking that the ultimate answer is in your hands, you are wrong. There are not only 2 ways to go here... Where I live in East Europe, my country used to have huge amounts of snow every winter. Now we can only hope to see a white Christmas, and even then the snow usually melts within 1-2 weeks. This year it's even worse. I can walk around in a pullover outside, because my jacket is too warm. And on top of that, every single day there is fog. It's like the ground is being heated and it keeps losing humidity at a rapid pace.

reply to post by catswithbigpaws

we have proof that we have hurt the atmosphere and climate with greenhouse gases when we used CFCs back in the day. Still to this day, CFCs are eating away the ozone layer, especially in Antarctica, which allows more harmful radiation to enter the atmosphere.

Repairing it's self over time and it was also note that the damage Help Curb your Global Warming Doom and Gloom.

As the level of atmospheric CFCs began to drop, the ozone layer started repairing itself. While the going is slow—a lot of the CFCs we released in the 1970s and 80s are still floating around doing damage—scientists hope the ozone layer will be back to normal by the end of this century.

Oddly enough, the depleted ozone layer did have one positive side effect: It helped curb global warming. The thinned ozone of the Antarctic led to brighter clouds that reflected some of the sun’s radiation away from Earth. Cutting out this effect may give global warming a slight boost, but scientists are quick to note that we’re far better off with a healthy ozone layer.

What ever happened to the Ozone Hole

Measurements indicate the hole in the ozone layer is the smallest it has been in 10 years, and could be completely gone within a few decades.

So why is it shrinking? The hole was originally said to be caused by human-made chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), chemicals that, until they were banned in the 1980s, were commonly used in aerosols. By getting rid of CFCs, we've allowed the ozone layer to slowly repair itself, the European Space Agency reports.

Is the hole in the Ozone closing?
Well maybe some people shouldn't Preach as the Gospel what the read from Huff and MSNBC or hear on NPR.
there are other news out lets that are so Doom and Gloom or should I say, They don't lean towards Al Gore and Obama!

2timesOO
reply to post by bobs_uruncle

 

I didn't care to read any reply to your post ... but you have to keep in mind that global warming concerns the whole planet (you failed to mention, for example, that temperatures in Rio de Janeiro are unusually high ... more then 50ºC). You have to see the planet as a whole and model what is happening as a whole and locally to begin to understand that our development path is unsustainable.
... But I don't even imagine the cold you are experiencing.

Interesting, do you live in Rio de Janeiro?
I looked up the seasonal temps. and Hell, even in January, the average Ocean water temp. was 25C or 77 degrees.
The air temp. with humidity and all things considered is no uncommon to be 42C or 104 degrees and it often reach's 50C or 122 degrees.

Thus the monsoon-like climate has dry and mild winters and springs, and very wet and warm summers and autumns. As a result, temperatures over 40 °C (104 °F), that may happen about year-round but are much more common during the summer, often mean the actual temperature feeling is over 50 °C (122 °F), when there is little wind and the relative humidity percentage is high.

Rio de Janeiro
It is Summer time there I understand.

reply to post by bobs_uruncle


Back in the 70s Professor Lovelock came to the conclusion that the earth was cooling. Maybe he was right. If it is cooling from a natural point of view and warming from a man made point of view there will be tension between these two opposing tendencies and the result may be more storms.

reply to post by EnPassant


Ok enough is enough- several posters think more government is the answer- and it should take large scale actions, control everything. Do you think the world-wide sale and exchange of carbon allotments is a good idea- can anyone show a socialized country that improves the lives of all? There are no examples, Greece comes to mind as what happens or worse. A poster several pages ago trumpeted the French model of shorter work weeks (and longer vacations). Too much productivity is that our problem?

I have worked in and around the government for 40 years, managed millions in federal grants and hundreds of millions in state and local projects. While the private sector needs clear rules, government never ever matches the productivity of the private sector. Government is corrupted by many things, but one is universal - political patronage- hiring and retaining staff based on political favors and donations and not work ability. Government can do little well- period. My company competes with a public sector similar program, they cost 3 times more and do 1/3 the work, yet they get budget increases (a reward) and are secure and we can''t raise our rates to pass on real costs, and barely survive- its so abusive and government always puts it owns interest above the common good, worse than private companies.

A globally managed bureaucracy is Al Gore's idea to trade carbon credits and also pass more wealth to undeveloped nations. Would that be run well? would it work. Look at our foreign policy, seems to me we basically bride rulers in many places, examples, Pakistan and Egypt, to do what we want, which they don't, but they keep the money anyway- money we borrow from China by the way. Ok, enough of this rant- back to topic.

I posted a few pages back that the normal climate of the earth over the last million years is an ice age (ten of them lasting 100,000 years each +/-, with oceans 200-300 feet lower, and the habitable zone mostly Africa and Central & some of South American, maybe 1/2 to 1/3 of the US- maybe at best. THAT IS NORMAL, what we have now is a brief interlude and is probably going to end in the next 500 to 1,000 years, or maybe tomorrow. There is no keeping the once pristine climate of when, 300 years ago? 1,000, or what we even have now. So stop talking about government programs to stop climate change- IT IS GOING TO CHANGE ANYWAY on its own. Like a bunch of kids arguing over who gets the last cookie when the house is on fire.

I'm not saying I have an answer, I am saying stop these arguments that do not deal with the real fact that there will be another 1/2 mile thick ice sheet over 1/3 of the US in the near future (in geologic time frames) no matter what, and that needs to be discussed more than anything. We CAN NOT keep what we have now, its a temporary illusion, nor the climate we had for the past 10,000 years- that is not possible and pointless because its not our climate- do you get it now?

Suggestions- keep our population manageable (that's really the top problem to solve affecting most others), can government do that- no (though they try by wars which they bumble into). Plan and invest in space travel, we will need that within generations, yes we need clean energy, sustainable food and water supplies (in an ice age or space), but without population control those things are hopeless- and any climate recovery plans are meaningless- MEANINGLESS !!!! Earth is normally an ice age- think about what that means above all this other chatter.

reply to post by retsdeeps1


Sorry EnPassant, my rant was not at you, but to the overall idea here being kicked around - if there a global warming problem or not and what to do. My point about Ice Ages being the norm is that global warming even in the more severe scenarios may destroy us or maybe it could save us. Not enough is known about why we have ice ages and so much variability in climate over ions. But the long ice ages with short temperate periods in-between (like now) suggests orbital, solar, even galactic origins, over which we have zero control over what really drives our long term climate. Our species is adaptable, our ancestors lived through all the ice ages of the past million years, but in very small populations in the equatorial regions mostly, and maybe it was more surviving than thriving.

Ironically, though I am against government due to its inefficiency and corruption, we do need a Startrek vision of the management world wide problems to survive. We need less population, that's #1, and that will buy us time until we hopefully gain enough intelligence, technology, empathy for others, and rationality to have better managed and sustainable human society.

For now, government must set the "big goals and rules" but avoid endless regulations and control of details, and keep very limited government bureaucracies. Government should not perform work, just direct it. Avoid the socialist trap that everyone can be dependent on a parental government that takes care of all human needs, and therefore self reliance is punished and not encouraged. As much as I hate to admit it, I see only China taking the led in getting their population size under control, though they have a long way to go, and are not to be envied in so many other areas like most totalitarian regimes. After all, North Korea, the toilet of humanity, exists due to them, what is that all about China?

As to USA, keep in mind that "rule of law" (not people- the opposite of North Korea), is the shinning core value of Democracy.
But our founding fathers spoke often about keeping government on a leash, their words more salient today than ever.

We need sustainable energy,food and water and to shift away for polluting and harmful technologies, but again, all that's only helpful when the worlds population is greatly decreased to a sustainable level. Nature, or our Collective Consciosness or Spiritual Guides may do that for us, or maybe we do that to ourselves by the endless harm our civilizations pursue.

Geez, guess I'm good at killing a tread, but then there is no good counter argument to truth. Unless the science is wrong in my premise, not talking about the elephant in the room in climate change (that earth will soon change to an ice age again no matter what, and perhaps even that our current global warming is the only hope to prevent that), then everyone is missing the point- no come backs?

kix
reply to post by CaticusMaximus

There are many variables involved in climate that is impossible to forecast, if we can't forecast weather (locally for a year) is completely stupid to believe a politician can predict the whole earth climate and heating or cooling trends....

Do you seriously think that global warming, or "climate change" for that matter was the idea of Al Gore?

In all seriousness, global warming was already a subject in the mid 70s when I was a little boy.

You say it's stupid if a "politician can predict the whole earth climate"...is it NOT stupid if some person who has no idea of the extremely complex factors involvement what actually makes climate change looks at ONE single winter and the temps and then writes a post that "global warming is nonsense" based on that? THAT is even more stupid. "Oh look, it's -25 outside, so anyone who claims global warming must be an idiot". I am just glad that those people who ARE claiming that GW exists are not that stupid and come to their conclusions that way.

This thread would be A LOT more convincing if the claims about the "stupid GW supporters" would be backed by real data, rather than by a kindergarten mentality like opening the window and fell "it's pretty cold outside" and then say that based on that all GW theorists must be idiots.

By ignoring the "elephant in the room" I was not referring to the Republican elephant. But which is worse, G W Bush's hand-off lets "pollute ourselves to prosperity" or Al Gore 'proposal of a massive whole government led carbon trading system based on the great track record of government solving problems. We are just as bad off with limited intellect who does little than a smarter person who screws it up worse.

See you too ignored responding to my thesis- no answers? Ice Ages are our normal climate and we really can't stop that and its overdue to return. Given that, short term climate change issues and short sighted interventions to affect them, are all meaningless . We don't know if we need to make the planet even warmer than we are now.- maybe, maybe global warmer is very bad, or maybe very very good get it ? Yes we are playing with matches and may destroy ourselves, but maybe we need a whole lot of heat soon, we just don't know, and all this other stuff about what to do means nothing until we do now.

and yet in california, we are having one the warmest and driest winters in state history.

reply to post by blackthorne


Well do not think in terms of this year, or even in decades, or regional warming, but the ice ages are around the corner, and caused by things we can not control- simple point, we don't know IF global warming is good or bad, ok it is happening, I AGREE. My point is we can not say if that's good OR bad . If we are on the brink of another ice age and science would say we are,- my guess 50 to 500 years. Maybe at some point we can figure out what causes ice ages and know when the next one exactly is, only then can we judge if global warming is good or bad, but we can't yet. The next ice age will be a disaster for mankind. Global warming may save us, its all in the timing and in knowing causes. If the ice age is coming in 10 years or 50, we better keep the global warming up. If 500 years then we better back-off.

This thread is about Al Gores ideas right? Sure, the effects of industrialization and pollution were not his ideas, I was in the Sierra Club in 1960's. But he proposed a massive new program worldwide to stem carbon emissions, and politicians would run it. Better to stem population growth through tax incentives- more kids, more taxes as you use more of everything. Stop the governments giving things to people, and not getting something, if you are hungry, then government sponsored but privately run meal centers, and you DO something TO GET something (community service in exchange for food or housing) not food stamp giveaways. OK my rant getting off topic.

There is no chance for r climate to stay exactly as we are now- zero, but that's what most of you think we should strive to do, without understanding its impossible. Convince me I'm wrong. All I'm saying is we can't set any climate policy until we know if we may need to get warmer or not and when- who cares if its warmer here or colder there, or getting warmer quickly until we know that. We may need to get warmer a lot quicker than is occurring now- its the value behind it, good or bad for survival- we do not know, so how can you take action ?

In the meantime, focus on population control through benign disincentives since its population growth that accelrates climate change.

Its conveniently called ''Climate change '' now ,not Global Warming, so if it gets very cold ,oh its climate change ! if it gets damn hot ! oh its climate change ! One dumb Australian female Labor Politician was on tv recently and stated nearly twenty times in the interview ''Climate Change is real "" ! [really ]like we didnt know !!! its been changing since the formation of the planet, why do humans arrogantly expect climate to stay static to suit themselves ? The planet and our Star owe us nothing !! the mega fauna were wiped out by a sudden climatic catastrophe[there is proof of that ], not hunters as the sour graped archaeologists insist . The bigger the lie you tell, the more people are likely to believe it, and the more you REPEAT IT !!!!!!!!!! and if its presented the right way by the media to the public, they will just lap it up mindlessly, The powers that be love to keep the world in a constant state of fear ,Terrorism ,Global Warming etc

retsdeeps1
reply to post by EnPassant

 

Ok enough is enough- several posters think more government is the answer- and it should take large scale actions, control everything. Do you think the world-wide sale and exchange of carbon allotments is a good idea- can anyone show a socialized country that improves the lives of all? There are no examples, Greece comes to mind as what happens or worse. A poster several pages ago trumpeted the French model of shorter work weeks (and longer vacations). Too much productivity is that our problem?

I have worked in and around the government for 40 years, managed millions in federal grants and hundreds of millions in state and local projects. While the private sector needs clear rules, government never ever matches the productivity of the private sector. Government is corrupted by many things, but one is universal - political patronage- hiring and retaining staff based on political favors and donations and not work ability. Government can do little well- period. My company competes with a public sector similar program, they cost 3 times more and do 1/3 the work, yet they get budget increases (a reward) and are secure and we can''t raise our rates to pass on real costs, and barely survive- its so abusive and government always puts it owns interest above the common good, worse than private companies.

A globally managed bureaucracy is Al Gore's idea to trade carbon credits and also pass more wealth to undeveloped nations. Would that be run well? would it work. Look at our foreign policy, seems to me we basically bride rulers in many places, examples, Pakistan and Egypt, to do what we want, which they don't, but they keep the money anyway- money we borrow from China by the way. Ok, enough of this rant- back to topic.

I posted a few pages back that the normal climate of the earth over the last million years is an ice age (ten of them lasting 100,000 years each +/-, with oceans 200-300 feet lower, and the habitable zone mostly Africa and Central & some of South American, maybe 1/2 to 1/3 of the US- maybe at best. THAT IS NORMAL, what we have now is a brief interlude and is probably going to end in the next 500 to 1,000 years, or maybe tomorrow. There is no keeping the once pristine climate of when, 300 years ago? 1,000, or what we even have now. So stop talking about government programs to stop climate change- IT IS GOING TO CHANGE ANYWAY on its own. Like a bunch of kids arguing over who gets the last cookie when the house is on fire.

I'm not saying I have an answer, I am saying stop these arguments that do not deal with the real fact that there will be another 1/2 mile thick ice sheet over 1/3 of the US in the near future (in geologic time frames) no matter what, and that needs to be discussed more than anything. We CAN NOT keep what we have now, its a temporary illusion, nor the climate we had for the past 10,000 years- that is not possible and pointless because its not our climate- do you get it now?

Suggestions- keep our population manageable (that's really the top problem to solve affecting most others), can government do that- no (though they try by wars which they bumble into). Plan and invest in space travel, we will need that within generations, yes we need clean energy, sustainable food and water supplies (in an ice age or space), but without population control those things are hopeless- and any climate recovery plans are meaningless- MEANINGLESS !!!! Earth is normally an ice age- think about what that means above all this other chatter.

edit on 9-1-2014 by retsdeeps1 because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-1-2014 by retsdeeps1 because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-1-2014 by retsdeeps1 because: (no reason given)

The government isn't the answer but just look how powerless we are.
We can't even agree on global warming (which is not the right word but allas) and we all look at the government for our problems since it's like the big castle(s) we had in Europe controlling the local people/farmers in the dark ages.
The company's are holy and so is money and that is most important, so we and the government can't deal with this problem.
Governments only come up with money sollutions with co2 tax, that's about it!
And we (the people) 2 busy with just trying to try to make enough money to pay our bills and complain and complain about the government, jobs and taxes, you name it.

Less people should be an answer but yea less people is bad for the economy and just isn't something the government or even we can discuss about, just face it nothing will be done only when things get so bad, there is no other way to start over again as we did after ww2 (for example).
Hopefully we will be wise enough then for not taking the same path, although mostly history just repeats and repeats (if we are still arround then that is).

But that said you can get angry, feel powerless but then when realising enjoy the time you have since worrying and being angry won't change anything.
Nothing will be done. Period.

Exactly- my point about the impotency and inefficiency of government. Those advocating for Al Gore's massive "Cap & Trade" worldwide program think politicians could manage that well. A carbon tax is a simpler solution yet would hurt the economy, but at least it would keep government in its area of expertise- collecting taxes. They do that well enough, but are even better at spending it.

My point is its overpopulation feeding more climate change and resource depletion, therefore rather than tax breaks for having more kids and larger families, there should be tax disincentives to steer towards a smaller population and therefore more sustainability. And as to climate, our normal climate is ice age. In 4 posts here, no one responds to that issue- not a peep. Some want aggressive action to stop climate change caused by mankind, but the climate will change on its own and not for the better.
We are overdue to return to the norm - an ice age, so though we are making the planet warmer now, that could be a good thing, we just do not know enough.