U.N: Global warming crisis overblown

1104light

SloAnPainful
reply to post by 1104light

 

I at least laid out some facts for you to consider. All you have done is demand people to do research for you and provide numbers that are impossible to know the exact figures... I'm not wasting my time replying to your posts any longer.

-SAP-

This is what asking people to back up the claims they make on ATS gets you.
Then Cynic runs around telling everyone he is not here to help, calls them trolls and offers nothing.

Is this what you all consider discussing things?

Just when did I say I was not here to help?? I never said that, please provide the quote from me.
I called you a troll because you have no practical debating skill and most importantly, you come off as a self important blow hard responding to valid arguments.
If the truth has pissed you off, tough sh*t.

reply to post by 1104light

How much of this money went into Gore's pockets? When grants are given to build things, the money is not pocketed and then the things are built by magic. Show me numbers.

Plenty.

Go to this article and click all the links.

The proof is there and is undeniable

Kleiner Perkins and its partners, including Mr. Gore, could recoup their investment many times over in coming years. ............


""""
“Do you think there is something wrong with being active in business in this country?” Mr. Gore said. “I am proud of it. I am proud of it.”

In an e-mail message this week, he said his investment activities were consistent with his public advocacy over decades. ..............
""""


He is a founder of Generation Investment Management, based in London and run by David Blood, a former head of Goldman Sachs Asset Management (the firm was quickly dubbed Blood and Gore). Mr. Gore earns a partner’s salary at Kleiner Perkins. He has substantial personal finances invested at both firms, officials of the companies said.

follow all the links here

etc. etc. etc.



Here's Big Al's investment Company:

Climate Solutions Strategy

Generation launched the Climate Solutions Strategy in 2007, seeking to capitalize on opportunities to invest in growth stage private and publicly listed businesses that are generating value by contributing towards the transition to a low carbon sustainable economy.

Generation Investment Management LLP

also a simple google " al gore global warming profits " will be sufficient.

talklikeapirat
reply to post by Kali74

 

You're confused because you still pretend you understand the science well enough to discuss it with other that do. I'm sure you understood that.

Assessment of the first consensus prediction on climate change

This is the paper, you've never read it.

You have no idea how climate models really work. You better don't engage in discussions about it until you do.

edit on 18-9-2013 by talklikeapirat because: omg

I have read it, I don't know why you keep linking it. It seems kind of funny that anyone that disagrees with you is either dishonest or stupid. I don't understand climate models well enough to be a climate scientist, you are correct... otherwise I would be one, I have a learning disability with math... I've said as much before. But what I am really fking amazing at is understanding ENGLISH, what I'm even better at is detecting BS, so as long as a paper is written or translated into in ENGLISH, I do understand. Try a little coherency sometime and maybe we can have this discussion you seem so desperate for!

From what I can tell, you disagree with an article that disagreed with the opinion of a paper in a climate science journal... I agreed with the article. Somehow that makes me an ignorant liar? mmmmk

reply to post by Kali74


Post a link to the paper that is not paywalled, you don't have a Nature subscription. You're right i think you're being dishonest.

Somehow that makes me an ignorant liar?

I didn't say ignorant.

talklikeapirat
reply to post by Kali74

 

Post a link to the paper that is not paywalled, you don't have a Nature subscription. You're right i think you're being dishonest.

Somehow that makes me an ignorant liar?

I didn't say ignorant.

You are making NO SENSE whatsoever. I have the friggin link you gave me 10 million times. And you did say I was ignorant.

W T F DUDE

Kali74

talklikeapirat
reply to post by Kali74

 

Post a link to the paper that is not paywalled, you don't have a Nature subscription. You're right i think you're being dishonest.

Somehow that makes me an ignorant liar?

I didn't say ignorant.

You are making NO SENSE whatsoever. I have the friggin link you gave me 10 million times. And you did say I was ignorant.

W T F DUDE

Please get help with your issues Kali74
Your Current meds simply aren't cutting it.

Cynic

Kali74

talklikeapirat
reply to post by Kali74

 

Post a link to the paper that is not paywalled, you don't have a Nature subscription. You're right i think you're being dishonest.

Somehow that makes me an ignorant liar?

I didn't say ignorant.

You are making NO SENSE whatsoever. I have the friggin link you gave me 10 million times. And you did say I was ignorant.

W T F DUDE

Please get help with your issues Kali74
Your Current meds simply aren't cutting it.

Still no rebuttal for the points I made on your link?

reply to post by Kali74


The points you made?
What a joke.
Get help, you need it.
Seriously.

reply to post by Cynic


So you have no rebuttal?

Kali74
reply to post by Cynic

 

So you have no rebuttal?

No, just a statement of fact.
You're insane.

reply to post by Kali74


Finally. How could you've read the paper before you've posted the article if i gave you the link after
you did post the article. Coherent enough?

I suggest always reading a paper cited in an article or blog for yourself, don't trust anyone else to interpret it for you... it's rare that they get it right.

History comes back first time as tragedy and second time as farce.

reply to post by talklikeapirat


The pdf link is available at google scholar ...

reply to post by Cynic


Deflect more...

Cynic

Just when did I say I was not here to help?? I never said that, please provide the quote from me.
I called you a troll because you have no practical debating skill and most importantly, you come off as a self important blow hard responding to valid arguments.
If the truth has pissed you off, tough sh*t.

Looking at your posts I see no contribution other than calling people names. If that strategy has been working for you, you must have a lot of friends that are as ignorant as you. Please show me one post of yours that actually contributes something factual and I will reply to it in kind.

reply to post by xuenchen


I asked for a simple number and proof behind it. I do not understand you offering a link without actually stating the pertinent information. I am guessing that even after reading those links, you have no answer. I am not looking to argue just to argue. I am simple asking people to back up what they say. Why does that bother all you old timers? Are you just used to people believing whatever you claim as long as you say it more than once and offer some kind of internet link? Just give me a number and back it up. Your next response to me should contain that number in the first sentence or it is obvious you have no idea.

reply to post by Kali74


Why? So you can redirect the discussion?
You're still insane.

reply to post by Kali74


I apologize for calling you a liar.

reply to post by talklikeapirat


Thank-you.
Accepted.

Two points to consider:

The warming trend did not stop. Instead, the heat was absorbed by oceans which aren't accounted for as computer models look at air surface temperature:

"Human activity continues to warm the planet over the past 16 years"

www.skepticalscience.com...

Finally, the reason why the UN wants to see less distressing data is that it works for businesses, just like governments. Hence,

"How the IPCC Underestimated Climate Change"

www.scientificamerican.com...

"Climate Risks Have Been Underestimated for the Last 20 Years"

www.alternet.org...

Count on deniers to disagree, though, especially given Big Business on their side:

"Frank Luntz in the Denial Machine (CBC - Fifth Estate)"



Or even the fact that the independent study that they funded to debunk AGW ironically confirmed the same:

"Summary of Findings"

berkeleyearth.org...

CALGARIAN

Next month the UN bureaucracy in charge of global warming, called the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, will release its first major scientific report in six years. Word has leaked out that they have revised downward their projections for global temperatures.

U.N: Global warming crisis overblown

Good. Finally some common sense.

Sure, we're to blame for polluting our atmosphere (o-zone layer and such), but our Earth, and Sun, go through major changes every few decades. Example, ice ages come and go..

If temperatures rise, then let's look to the sun (not literally. avert your eyes!), before we start assuming it's due to our human carbon foot print.

chadderson
reply to post by CALGARIAN

 

They have already made their money off of this scam, on to the next one...

REALLY? Are we still doing this?! Really?

Get with it, People!






reply to post by monkeyluv


Excellent post, sir!