Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 41 to 48 of 48

Thread: The United States Survival is on the Line - Al Gore

  1. #41
    I found this a pretty interesting read on climate change..

    [url]http://www.seed.slb.com/en/scictr/watch/climate_change/causes_other.htm[/url]

  2. #42
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    4,146
    Thoughts? Yeah, I got some...

    Gore's ramblings are the classic fear-mongering tactics of uber-statists.

  3. #43
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2633689]For me? Sure it is.

    I'm a hard worker, gainfully employed, out of debt now, engaged and getting past all the mistakes of my youth.

    I think life is pretty good.

    What do you think I have to be concerned about?[/QUOTE]

    I feel that, personally I am in the same boat (except that I am still paying off my home....heck...I haven't even started technically.......new home owner...)


    here is one thing I worry about....I fear prices off all sorts of thing may continue to rise quicker than wages...which has been happening lately.....and sometimes that scares me a little.....

    I mean....milk and produce are sky rocketing (at least here on LI) and I needs me spinach!!!!

    I worry that although I am doing well, and will adjust as best I can to further myself, that things seem to be escalating faster than they ever have....

    I hope I am explaining myself clearly...

  4. #44
    I happen to be in China right now. The air quality is terrible, pollution is evident everywhere and the primary cause of it is economic growth. The US, Europe and Asia face a growing problem. We can't afford to take care of the social responsabilities we have in place to the elderly without a growing economy. If we continue to grow our economy and that of the worlds based on continued huge personal growth in the use of raw materials this planet will not be sustainable. The alternative is a massive reduction in world population through a pandemic or other natural or man made dissaster or a considerable poorer future for all of us.

    If we are to fuel the growth necessary to deal with our budgets and sustain and grow life style, we have to much more efficiently both use and conserve natural resources. I don't think that makes Al Gore a nut at all. If renewables help make us vastly more iffecient in our use of resources it will be a huge positive toward a much brighter future.

    Whether you believe in redistribution of income like the Democrats or in unleashing our potential one person at a time like some Republicans, without economic growth we will have less to strive for as individuals and less to redistribute as a society.

  5. #45
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    2,697
    Images
    142
    Once upon a time (while running for office), Al Gore stood in front of tobacco farmers and claimed solidarity with them, because he "was a tobacco farmer, too." And he was. The Gore family owned a tobacco farm, and Al worked on that farm.

    He took tobacco money for his election campaigns many times during his senate career. In 1984, his sister dies of lung cancer. Despite this, Gore remains a staunch supporter (and receiver) of big tobacco interests.

    Then, in the 1990s, when the writing is on the wall, and big tobacco is firmly in the public crosshairs, suddenly Al Gore is anti-smoking and anti-tobacco. Delivers a stirring, emotional speech about his sister's battle with cancer to the 1996 Democratic National Convention. He leaves out the part about using the tobacco lobby's money to win his place in national politics while she was dying.

    That's Al Gore. He takes money from the people who killed his sister, supporting their interests, until the public no longer tolerates them, then he sells them down the river.

    This is the same Al Gore who is now worth over $100 million dollars, as a result of his studious investment in the very climate crisis industry he invented, by running around on a private jet, going to Hollywood parties, telling anyone who will listen that "we" have to change. "We" apparently does not include him. Are you surprised?

  6. #46
    [QUOTE=SanAntonio_JetFan;2632608]It's pretty obvious that if we don't heed Al's advice, the sea level will rise 20 feet and people will start to spontaneously burst into flames.


    EDIT> A fun drinking game you can try at home: Listen to almost any democrat speak. Every time they use the word "crisis" take a drink. You won't last long.[/QUOTE]

    A funner drinking game... Put that same group up against another table drinking whenever a Con man utters "terror!!!"

  7. #47
    [QUOTE=Press_Coverage;2640964]A funner drinking game... Put that same group up against another table drinking whenever a Con man utters "terror!!!"[/QUOTE]


    John O'Neill went around crying "Al Qaeda", but no one would listen to him.

    What a fearmonger he was. :rolleyes:

    [URL="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/knew/"]http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/knew/[/URL]

  8. #48
    Back to the original thread topic, here's another scientist who doesn't think the debate is over.


    [URL="http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,24036736-17803,00.html"]http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,24036736-17803,00.html[/URL]


    [QUOTE=Dr. David Evans]
    I DEVOTED six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian Greenhouse Office. I am the rocket scientist who wrote the carbon accounting model (FullCAM) that measures Australia's compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, in the land use change and forestry sector.

    FullCAM models carbon flows in plants, mulch, debris, soils and agricultural products, using inputs such as climate data, plant physiology and satellite data. I've been following the global warming debate closely for years.

    When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty good: CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the old ice core data, no other suspects.

    The evidence was not conclusive, but why wait until we were certain when it appeared we needed to act quickly? Soon government and the scientific community were working together and lots of science research jobs were created. We scientists had political support, the ear of government, big budgets, and we felt fairly important and useful (well, I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet.

    But since 1999 new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming, and by 2007 the evidence was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor role and was not the main cause of the recent global warming. As Lord Keynes famously said, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"

    There has not been a public debate about the causes of global warming and most of the public and our decision makers are not aware of the most basic salient facts:

    1. The greenhouse signature is missing. We have been looking and measuring for years, and cannot find it.

    Each possible cause of global warming has a different pattern of where in the planet the warming occurs first and the most. The signature of an increased greenhouse effect is a hot spot about 10km up in the atmosphere over the tropics. We have been measuring the atmosphere for decades using radiosondes: weather balloons with thermometers that radio back the temperature as the balloon ascends through the atmosphere. They show no hot spot. Whatsoever.

    If there is no hot spot then an increased greenhouse effect is not the cause of global warming. So we know for sure that carbon emissions are not a significant cause of the global warming. If we had found the greenhouse signature then I would be an alarmist again.

    When the signature was found to be missing in 2007 (after the latest IPCC report), alarmists objected that maybe the readings of the radiosonde thermometers might not be accurate and maybe the hot spot was there but had gone undetected. Yet hundreds of radiosondes have given the same answer, so statistically it is not possible that they missed the hot spot.

    Recently the alarmists have suggested we ignore the radiosonde thermometers, but instead take the radiosonde wind measurements, apply a theory about wind shear, and run the results through their computers to estimate the temperatures. They then say that the results show that we cannot rule out the presence of a hot spot. If you believe that you'd believe anything.

    2. There is no evidence to support the idea that carbon emissions cause significant global warming. None. There is plenty of evidence that global warming has occurred, and theory suggests that carbon emissions should raise temperatures (though by how much is hotly disputed) but there are no observations by anyone that implicate carbon emissions as a significant cause of the recent global warming.

    3. The satellites that measure the world's temperature all say that the warming trend ended in 2001, and that the temperature has dropped about 0.6C in the past year (to the temperature of 1980). Land-based temperature readings are corrupted by the "urban heat island" effect: urban areas encroaching on thermometer stations warm the micro-climate around the thermometer, due to vegetation changes, concrete, cars, houses. Satellite data is the only temperature data we can trust, but it only goes back to 1979. NASA reports only land-based data, and reports a modest warming trend and recent cooling. The other three global temperature records use a mix of satellite and land measurements, or satellite only, and they all show no warming since 2001 and a recent cooling.

    4. The new ice cores show that in the past six global warmings over the past half a million years, the temperature rises occurred on average 800 years before the accompanying rise in atmospheric carbon. Which says something important about which was cause and which was effect.

    None of these points are controversial. The alarmist scientists agree with them, though they would dispute their relevance.

    The last point was known and past dispute by 2003, yet Al Gore made his movie in 2005 and presented the ice cores as the sole reason for believing that carbon emissions cause global warming. In any other political context our cynical and experienced press corps would surely have called this dishonest and widely questioned the politician's assertion.

    Until now the global warming debate has merely been an academic matter of little interest. Now that it matters, we should debate the causes of global warming.

    So far that debate has just consisted of a simple sleight of hand: show evidence of global warming, and while the audience is stunned at the implications, simply assert that it is due to carbon emissions.

    In the minds of the audience, the evidence that global warming has occurred becomes conflated with the alleged cause, and the audience hasn't noticed that the cause was merely asserted, not proved.

    If there really was any evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming, don't you think we would have heard all about it ad nauseam by now?

    The world has spent $50 billion on global warming since 1990, and we have not found any actual evidence that carbon emissions cause global warming. Evidence consists of observations made by someone at some time that supports the idea that carbon emissions cause global warming. Computer models and theoretical calculations are not evidence, they are just theory.

    What is going to happen over the next decade as global temperatures continue not to rise? The Labor Government is about to deliberately wreck the economy in order to reduce carbon emissions. If the reasons later turn out to be bogus, the electorate is not going to re-elect a Labor government for a long time. When it comes to light that the carbon scare was known to be bogus in 2008, the ALP is going to be regarded as criminally negligent or ideologically stupid for not having seen through it. And if the Liberals support the general thrust of their actions, they will be seen likewise.

    The onus should be on those who want to change things to provide evidence for why the changes are necessary. The Australian public is eventually going to have to be told the evidence anyway, so it might as well be told before wrecking the economy.

    Dr David Evans was a consultant to the Australian Greenhouse Office from 1999 to 2005.

    [/QUOTE]

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