Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 136

Thread: Al Gore KOs the "Flat Earth Society"

  1. #1

    Al Gore KOs the "Flat Earth Society"

    [B]Gore's Message To Climate Change Skeptics[/B]

    March 27, 2008

    [url]http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/27/60minutes/printable3974389.shtml[/url]

    [I](CBS) Self-avowed "P.R. agent for the planet" [B]Al Gore says those who still doubt that global warming is caused by man - among them, Vice President Dick Cheney - are acting like the fringe groups who think the 1969 moon landing never really happened, or who once believed the world is flat.[/B]

    The former vice president and former presidential candidate talks to 60 Minutes correspondent Lesley Stahl in an interview to be broadcast this Sunday, March 30, at 7 p.m. ET/PT.

    Confronted by Stahl with the fact some prominent people, including the nation’s vice president, are not convinced that global warming is manmade, Gore responds: "[B]You're talking about Dick Cheney. I think that those people are in such a tiny, tiny minority now with their point of view, they’re almost like the ones who still believe that the moon landing was staged in a movie lot in Arizona and those who believe the world is flat,” says Gore. "That demeans them a little bit, but it's not that far off," he tells Stahl.[/B]

    Gore’s campaign to make the world more aware of man’s role in global warming won him the Nobel Peace Prize last year. [B]He donated the $750,000 prize money to The Alliance for Climate Protection, the non-profit he started to help him on his quest. He and his wife, Tipper, tell Stahl they not only matched the Nobel money with their own, but they are also donating to the organization the significant profits from his book and Oscar-winning documentary film about global warming, "An Inconvenient Truth." The funds will help The Alliance for Climate Protection execute a new $300 million ad campaign on global warming set to start next week. [/B]

    Some of the ads will feature unlikely alliances to drive home the message that people of all stripes are concerned about global warming. These include the Rev. Al Sharpton and the Rev. Pat Robertson, Toby Keith and the Dixie Chicks, and Nancy Pelosi and Newt Gingrich.

    Stahl also visits the Gore's Nashville home, [B]recently refitted with touches that include roof solar panels that make it more environmentally friendly. [/B]She asks him his feelings on the Supreme Court ruling that handed his opponent, George W. Bush, the electoral votes of Florida and the presidency.

    Stahl also asks Gore, an uncommitted superdelegate of the Democratic Party, who he supports for his party’s nomination.[/I]
    Last edited by intelligentjetsfan; 03-27-2008 at 07:14 PM.

  2. #2
    algore's a fraud.

    KO? Umm no. I think he just swung wildly and missed....

  3. #3
    [QUOTE=DeanPatsFan;2453106]algore's a fraud.

    KO? Umm no. I think he just swung wildly and missed....[/QUOTE]

    did you at least read the article this time? Its interesting that you and your sister at this forum claimed that Gore's only interest in doing this was for financial gain. Yet this conspiracy theory was addressed in this piece. Just like the conspiracy theory that Gore was only involved in this to position himself for another run at the White House :zzz::zzz:
    Last edited by intelligentjetsfan; 03-28-2008 at 09:14 AM.

  4. #4
    Hall of Fame
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    Borgo's House
    Posts
    4,598
    all i know is that when an exchange of dialogue is dismissed as unnecessary by the majority, simply becasue they are the majority - that's usually the kind of thing that ends badly.

    the "everybone else thinks so" argument is for school bullies and zealots.

    i fear al gore and his apostles.

  5. #5
    [QUOTE]When Al Gore lost his bid to become the country’s first “Environment President,” many of us thought the “global warming” scare would finally come to a well-deserved end. That hasn’t happened, despite eight good reasons this scam should finally be put to rest.


    It’s B-a-a-ck!

    Similar scares orchestrated by radical environmentalists in the past--such as Alar, global cooling, the “population bomb,” and electromagnetic fields--were eventually debunked by scientists and no longer appear in the speeches or platforms of public officials. The New York Times recently endorsed more widespread use of DDT to combat malaria, proving Rachel Carson’s anti-pesticide gospel is no longer sacrosanct even with the liberal elite.

    The scientific case against catastrophic global warming is at least as strong as the case for DDT, but the global warming scare hasn’t gone away. President Bush is waffling on the issue, rightly opposing the Kyoto Protocol and focusing on research and voluntary projects, but wrongly allowing his administration to support calls for creating “transferrable emission credits” for greenhouse gas reductions. Such credits would build political and economic support for a Kyoto-like cap on greenhouse gas emissions.

    At the state level, some 23 states have already adopted caps on greenhouse gas emissions or goals for replacing fossil fuels with alternative energy sources. These efforts are doomed to be costly failures, as a new Heartland Policy Study by Dr. Jay Lehr and James Taylor documents. Instead of concentrating on balancing state budgets, some legislators will be working to pass their own “mini-Kyotos.”


    Eight Reasons to End the Scam

    Concern over “global warming” is overblown and misdirected. What follows are eight reasons why we should pull the plug on this scam before it destroys billions of dollars of wealth and millions of jobs.

    1. Most scientists do not believe human activities threaten to disrupt the Earth’s climate. More than 17,000 scientists have signed a petition circulated by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine saying, in part, “there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” (Go to [url]www.oism.org[/url] for the complete petition and names of signers.) Surveys of climatologists show similar skepticism.

    2. Our most reliable sources of temperature data show no global warming trend. Satellite readings of temperatures in the lower troposphere (an area scientists predict would immediately reflect any global warming) show no warming since readings began 23 years ago. These readings are accurate to within 0.01ºC, and are consistent with data from weather balloons. Only land-based temperature stations show a warming trend, and these stations do not cover the entire globe, are often contaminated by heat generated by nearby urban development, and are subject to human error.

    3. Global climate computer models are too crude to predict future climate changes. All predictions of global warming are based on computer models, not historical data. In order to get their models to produce predictions that are close to their designers’ expectations, modelers resort to “flux adjustments” that can be 25 times larger than the effect of doubling carbon dioxide concentrations, the supposed trigger for global warming. Richard A. Kerr, a writer for Science, says “climate modelers have been ‘cheating’ for so long it’s almost become respectable.”

    4. The IPCC did not prove that human activities are causing global warming. Alarmists frequently quote the executive summaries of reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a United Nations organization, to support their predictions. But here is what the IPCC’s latest report, Climate Change 2001, actually says about predicting the future climate: “The Earth’s atmosphere-ocean dynamics is chaotic: its evolution is sensitive to small perturbations in initial conditions. This sensitivity limits our ability to predict the detailed evolution of weather; inevitable errors and uncertainties in the starting conditions of a weather forecast amplify through the forecast. As well as uncertainty in initial conditions, such predictions are also degraded by errors and uncertainties in our ability to represent accurately the significant climate processes.”

    5. A modest amount of global warming, should it occur, would be beneficial to the natural world and to human civilization. Temperatures during the Medieval Warm Period (roughly 800 to 1200 AD), which allowed the Vikings to settle presently inhospitable Greenland, were higher than even the worst-case scenario reported by the IPCC. The period from about 5000-3000 BC, known as the “climatic optimum,” was even warmer and marked “a time when mankind began to build its first civilizations,” observe James Plummer and Frances B. Smith in a study for Consumer Alert. “There is good reason to believe that a warmer climate would have a similar effect on the health and welfare of our own far more advanced and adaptable civilization today.”

    6. Efforts to quickly reduce human greenhouse gas emissions would be costly and would not stop Earth’s climate from changing. Reducing U.S. carbon dioxide emissions to 7 percent below 1990’s levels by the year 2012--the target set by the Kyoto Protocol--would require higher energy taxes and regulations causing the nation to lose 2.4 million jobs and $300 billion in annual economic output. Average household income nationwide would fall by $2,700, and state tax revenues would decline by $93.1 billion due to less taxable earned income and sales, and lower property values. Full implementation of the Kyoto Protocol by all participating nations would reduce global temperature in the year 2100 by a mere 0.14 degrees Celsius.

    7. Efforts by state governments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are even more expensive and threaten to bust state budgets. After raising their spending with reckless abandon during the 1990s, states now face a cumulative projected deficit of more than $90 billion. Incredibly, most states nevertheless persist in backing unnecessary and expensive greenhouse gas reduction programs. New Jersey, for example, collects $358 million a year in utility taxes to fund greenhouse gas reduction programs. Such programs will have no impact on global greenhouse gas emissions. All they do is destroy jobs and waste money.

    8. The best strategy to pursue is “no regrets.” The alternative to demands for immediate action to “stop global warming” is not to do nothing. The best strategy is to invest in atmospheric research now and in reducing emissions sometime in the future if the science becomes more compelling. In the meantime, investments should be made to reduce emissions only when such investments make economic sense in their own right.

    This strategy is called “no regrets,” and it is roughly what the Bush administration has been doing. The U.S. spends more on global warming research each year than the entire rest of the world combined, and American businesses are leading the way in demonstrating new technologies for reducing and sequestering greenhouse gas emissions.


    Time for Common Sense

    [b]The global warming scare has enabled environmental advocacy groups to raise billions of dollars in contributions and government grants. It has given politicians (from Al Gore down) opportunities to pose as prophets of doom and slayers of evil corporations. And it has given bureaucrats at all levels of government, from the United Nations to city councils, powers that threaten our jobs and individual liberty[/b].

    It is time for common sense to return to the debate over protecting the environment. An excellent first step would be to end the “global warming” scam.[/QUOTE]
    .................................

  6. #6
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    [QUOTE=DeanPatsFan;2453106]algore's a fraud.

    KO? Umm no. I think he just swung wildly and missed....[/QUOTE]

    algore talks and his minions listen....

    I envision a tool like ignorantjetsfan peeing in his pants with hapiness as he read this article saying, "[I]yes!!!! yess!!!! this is it!!!!" [/I]do you really think he even read this garbage he posted???

    it's the usual and expected drivel....

  7. #7
    [QUOTE=Traitor Jay & the Woodies;2453116]all i know is that when an exchange of dialogue is dismissed as unnecessary by the majority, simply becasue they are the majority - that's usually the kind of thing that ends badly.

    the "everybone else thinks so" argument is for school bullies and zealots.

    i fear al gore and his apostles.[/QUOTE]

    Real debate is important and necessary. But when an argument is [B]created[/B] by one of the most powerful entities in the world for the sole puropose of greed, that is a manufactured debate. I could fill this space with countless reports of how the Bush Administration strong armed scientists to contort their findings. There are also hundreds of sites that document people working for the "environmental" wing of the Bush Adminstration only to leave these posts to get jobs working for ExxonMobile, Shell etc.

  8. #8
    [QUOTE=DeanPatsFan;2453118].................................[/QUOTE]

    This was the most ridiculous part of your article;

    [B]The global warming scare has enabled environmental advocacy groups to raise billions of dollars in contributions and government grants. It has given politicians (from Al Gore down) opportunities to pose as prophets of doom and slayers of evil corporations. And it has given bureaucrats at all levels of government, from the United Nations to city councils, powers that threaten our jobs and individual liberty.[/B]

    Lets think about this; To what end does Al Gore gain by presenting himself as "prophets of doom and slayers of evil corporations". I could almost buy this trash if he ran for public office again. The only people being threatened are the CEOs of these oil companies and the politicians that they bought and paid for.

  9. #9
    [QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;2453150]This was the most ridiculous part of your article;

    [B]The global warming scare has enabled environmental advocacy groups to raise billions of dollars in contributions and government grants. It has given politicians (from Al Gore down) opportunities to pose as prophets of doom and slayers of evil corporations. And it has given bureaucrats at all levels of government, from the United Nations to city councils, powers that threaten our jobs and individual liberty.[/B]

    Lets think about this; To what end does Al Gore gain by presenting himself as "prophets of doom and slayers of evil corporations". I could almost buy this trash if he ran for public office again. The only people being threatened are the CEOs of these oil companies and the politicians that they bought and paid for.[/QUOTE]

    Al(Fraud)Gore is laughing all the way to the bank when sheeple like you buy his carbon credits. That's why he can afford to fly around on a private Gulf Stream while telling the rest of us to ride bicycles.

  10. #10
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    [QUOTE=DeanPatsFan;2453162]Al(Fraud)Gore is laughing all the way to the bank when sheeple like you buy his carbon credits. That's why he can afford to fly around on a private Gulf Stream while telling the rest of us to ride bicycles.[/QUOTE]

    you think Lesley Stahl had the guts to ask algore if it was man made causes which led to global warming on Mars??? Jupiter??? Pluto???

  11. #11
    Don't get the KO part. Why, because he called Cheney a 'flat earther?' If anything, the Climate Changer crowd is the establishment(flat earthers).

    copied from another thread, but still relevant:

    [url]http://www.dailytech.com/Researcher+...ticle10973.htm[/url]

    Didn't see this posted yet....:

    New derivation of equations governing the greenhouse effect reveals "runaway warming" impossible

    Miklós Zágoni isn't just a physicist and environmental researcher. He is also a global warming activist and Hungary's most outspoken supporter of the Kyoto Protocol. Or was.
    That was until he learned the details of a new theory of the greenhouse effect, one that not only gave far more accurate climate predictions here on Earth, but Mars too. The theory was developed by another Hungarian scientist, Ferenc Miskolczi, an atmospheric physicist with 30 years of experience and a former researcher with NASA's Langley Research Center.

    After studying it, Zágoni stopped calling global warming a crisis, and has instead focused on presenting the new theory to other climatologists. The data fit extremely well. "I fell in love," he stated at the International Climate Change Conference this week.

    "Runaway greenhouse theories contradict energy balance equations," Miskolczi states. Just as the theory of relativity sets an upper limit on velocity, his theory sets an upper limit on the greenhouse effect, a limit which prevents it from warming the Earth more than a certain amount.

    How did modern researchers make such a mistake? They relied upon equations derived over 80 years ago, equations which left off one term from the final solution.

    Miskolczi's story reads like a book. Looking at a series of differential equations for the greenhouse effect, he noticed the solution -- originally done in 1922 by Arthur Milne, but still used by climate researchers today -- ignored boundary conditions by assuming an "infinitely thick" atmosphere. Similar assumptions are common when solving differential equations; they simplify the calculations and often result in a result that still very closely matches reality. But not always.

    So Miskolczi re-derived the solution, this time using the proper boundary conditions for an atmosphere that is not infinite. His result included a new term, which acts as a negative feedback to counter the positive forcing. At low levels, the new term means a small difference ... but as greenhouse gases rise, the negative feedback predominates, forcing values back down.

    NASA refused to release the results. Miskolczi believes their motivation is simple. "Money", he tells DailyTech. Research that contradicts the view of an impending crisis jeopardizes funding, not only for his own atmosphere-monitoring project, but all climate-change research. Currently, funding for climate research tops $5 billion per year.

    Miskolczi resigned in protest, stating in his resignation letter, "Unfortunately my working relationship with my NASA supervisors eroded to a level that I am not able to tolerate. My idea of the freedom of science cannot coexist with the recent NASA practice of handling new climate change related scientific results."

    His theory was eventually published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal in his home country of Hungary.

    The conclusions are supported by research published in the Journal of Geophysical Research last year from Steven Schwartz of Brookhaven National Labs, who gave statistical evidence that the Earth's response to carbon dioxide was grossly overstated. It also helps to explain why current global climate models continually predict more warming than actually measured.

    The equations also answer thorny problems raised by current theory, which doesn't explain why "runaway" greenhouse warming hasn't happened in the Earth's past. The new theory predicts that greenhouse gas increases should result in small, but very rapid temperature spikes, followed by much longer, slower periods of cooling -- exactly what the paleoclimatic record demonstrates.


    However, not everyone is convinced. Dr. Stephen Garner, with the NOAA's Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (GFDL), says such negative feedback effects are "not very plausible". Reto Ruedy of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies says greenhouse theory is "200 year old science" and doubts the possibility of dramatic changes to the basic theory.

    Miskowlczi has used his theory to model not only Earth, but the Martian atmosphere as well, showing what he claims is an extremely good fit with observational results. For now, the data for Venus is too limited for similar analysis, but Miskolczi hopes it will one day be possible.

  12. #12
    [QUOTE=Come Back to NY;2453175]you think Lesley Stahl had the guts to ask algore if it was man made causes which led to global warming on Mars??? Jupiter??? Pluto???[/QUOTE]

    Hell no.

    He knows she will throw him softball questions, hence she gets the interview. Anyone asking tough questions will expose him for the fraud he is and his minions would be heartbroken .

  13. #13
    [QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;2453101][B]Gore's Message To Climate Change Skeptics[/B]

    Al Gore says those who still doubt that global warming is caused by man - among them, Vice President Dick Cheney - are acting like the fringe groups who think the 1969 moon landing never really happened, or who once believed the world is flat.[/B][/QUOTE]

    Wow, Al Gore says it, so it MUST Be true. After all, his weath of PHD's and deep and long record of research has no......what? You mean he has never done a second of research, and he is not an educated Climatologist? Who knew, the way his word is taken as Law.......

    You would think that if he believes this as deeply as he seems to, he'd be the first to truly change his own energy intake. Guess that tells the true tale, given that even today he uses up vastly more enegry per day than average folks like me use in a month, or in some cases, a year.

  14. #14
    [IMG]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqUHM2gf5g4[/IMG]


    At some point in this video, Gore says something like "it's a stronger concensus than on practically anything, except, perhaps, gravity".


    What a clueless douchebag.


    1 degree celcius over a 100 year period!!! That's all. That's how much warming there's been.

  15. #15
    [QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;2453112]did you at least read the article this time? Its interesting that you and your sister at this forum claimed that Gore's only interest in doing this was for financial gain. Yet this conspiracy theory was addressed in this piece. Just like the conspiracy theory that Gore was only involved in this to position himself for another run at the White House :zzz::zzz:[/QUOTE]

    I use to be a vocal advocate for the acknowledgement of global warming on this forum. I don't do it as much because it exhausting for me to argue this topic to no end. The constant cutting and pasting of articles gets under my skin.

    However, I even get tired of hearing about it from both sides. Although this is just a football forum, the sad fact is that this is exactly how Congress deliberates the issue. Absolutely awful in my opinion, largely because I am firm believer that you can't ram stuff down people's throats. They're bound to throw it up.

  16. #16
    [QUOTE=finlee17;2453200]I use to be a vocal advocate for the acknowledgement of global warming on this forum. I don't do it as much because it exhausting for me to argue this topic to no end. The constant cutting and pasting of articles gets under my skin.

    However, I even get tired of hearing about it from both sides. Although this is just a football forum, the sad fact is that this is exactly how Congress deliberates the issue. Absolutely awful in my opinion, largely because I am firm believer that you can't ram stuff down people's throats. They're bound to throw it up.[/QUOTE]



    I think you can believe in it without being a catastrophist.

    The Earth would be warming if there were NO humans on Earth because it's caused by the sun and water vapor.

  17. #17
    [QUOTE=SanAntonio_JetFan;2453203]I think you can believe in it without being a catastrophist.

    The Earth would be warming if there were NO humans on Earth because it's caused by the sun and water vapor.[/QUOTE]

    I don't consider myself a catastrophist. Although I consider the threat serious, I'm not predicting doom. Largely because I have a lot of faith in our ability to mitigate the effects.

    Although the sun is the primary mechanism for our energy, it hasn't gotten brighter in the past 100 years or so. Heat doesn't travel through the vacuum of space, so the sun has to get brighter and not warmer.

    Also, as I have attempted to point out many times before, water vapor is not something that has drives climate pattern because when it accumulates to high levels in the atmosphere, it rains out almost immediately.

    That said... to me the evidence is overwhelming. I just don't see the point in trying to ram this down society's throat by blaming everything on warming patterns. Just a few weeks ago, I heard something about the dinosaurs going extinct because of global warming. I felt a little puke come up...

  18. #18
    [QUOTE=finlee17;2453213]
    Although the sun is the primary mechanism for our energy, it hasn't gotten brighter in the past 100 years or so. Heat doesn't travel through the vacuum of space, so the sun has to get brighter and not warmer.

    [/QUOTE]

    Heat travels through the vacuum of space by infrared radiation.

  19. #19
    All League
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Middlesex County, NJ
    Posts
    3,368
    [QUOTE=DeanPatsFan;2453223]Heat travels through the vacuum of space by infrared radiation.[/QUOTE]

    Heat travels from Algores mouth....His hot air can be blamed for global warming....In reality though, I wouldn't be sitting here typing to an internet forum if it weren't for his inventing the internet.

  20. #20
    [QUOTE=DeanPatsFan;2453223]Heat travels through the vacuum of space by infrared radiation.[/QUOTE]

    From my understanding, there is no infrared radiation coming in to Earth from space. There is plenty of shorter wavelength sunlight from the sun that is reflected back as infrared radiation. Hence my sun has to get brighter comment. If the sun got hotter, as many have claimed, we wouldn't get the heat.

    I could be wrong. At the moment, I've got to run to the airport and pick up my fiance. She's coming in for the weekend. If this thread is still alive on Monday, I'll comment again on this.

    later...

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us