Al Gore's 24 Hours of Reality Climate Change

by 61 replies
75
It starts tonight at 7PM EST (11PM GMT) i'd like to hear your take on this program or if anyone plans to watch this series.
#off topic forum
  • Al Gore was already outed as a fraud on this issue. Did they pass around more Kool-aid again?

    Someone go tell him it's time to turn off his city worth of electric.
    • [ 5 ] Thanks
    • [2] replies
    • And they still let him keep the Noble Peace Prise although Pete Rose makes a
      bet and can't get into the Baseball's Hall of Fame???

      Strange world indeed!

      ~MM~
      • [ 3 ] Thanks
    • Al Gore was "outed" by Art Robison, the extremist "scientist" that also believes radiation from nuclear plants is good for us. He calls it "hormesis".

      Art Robinson's "30,000" scientists actually include only about 150 climatologists, plus his petition has some very serious issues concerning credibility on this issue.

      For anyone taking Art Robinson as their source of info, I suggest you listen to him personally. This is the lead "scientist" that debunks global warming.

      Hope you like your radiation...

      ART ROBINSON vs RACHEL MADDOW pt.1 - YouTube
      ART ROBINSON vs RACHEL MADDOW pt.2 - YouTube
      Art Robinson Tells David Pakman Rachel Maddow Attacked Him - YouTube
      • [ 3 ] Thanks
  • Let me get this straight...

    #1:The climate on this planet is not changing for the worse.

    &

    #2: If it is, man has nothing to do with it.

    Is that correct?????????????????????


    TL
    • [ 2 ] Thanks
    • [1] reply

    • No, that's NOT it on either count.

      I'd answer, but then we delve into politics. So I will say nothing further
      • [ 1 ] Thanks
      • [1] reply
  • I can go into it without hitting politics, TL.

    Yes the climate is getting wild. It appears that we are coming out of the interglacial period - which is a natural cycle. We were able to populate to almost 7 bil because of the warm climate that allowed us to grow enough food, etc and so forth.

    Second - yes people have a lot to do with the climate, but if CO2 was the main issue, we could just plant more trees to take care of it -- which is pretty much what many countries are doing now. You see - people are the cause of some of the negative changes, but not in the way that it is handed to us.

    What has happened is a natural occurrence in all biomes when conditions are very good for the dominant species -- we over populated. The result is that we are stripping the land which is becoming desertificated. We have cleared so much ground that we have put ourselves into the 6th major extinction - and corporations are still hell bent on clear cutting rain forests. Down in S. America they are lifting some laws that have protected those rain forests (I, for one, don't think they should be allowed to do this as it will effect the climate of the whole planet). So look for more chain reactions - and not good ones.

    One of these is the widely shouted "glacial melting". India was very upset with the IPCC for anouncing the Himalayas were melting - the scientists that are actually there on the glacier studying it say it is just fine and normal. There are, however, glaciers that are not doing well. Not because of heat, but because all the forests in the area have been cut and forests provide moisture for snow - so it's not a heat problem, it's a lack of moisture that is shrinking the glaciers.

    Many countries are trying everything they know how to mitigate extinctions and desertification of their biomes now. It may be too late, and there isn't much we can do until it gets cold enough that we can't grow enough food to support the over-carrying capacity numbers of our species. Population control methods were discussed at the UN but they decided that if leaders went the Chinese route they would just end up with massive revolts, so they are trying education instead.

    So - it's not looking good, but the only real answer is to restore biomes and ecosystems and we can't do that very well with people clearing everything in their path. Any other answer or "solution" you hear is merely more elite money making scheming and will be totally ineffective.

    Frankly, until we can reverse population growth (and damned soon) there's not much we can do about the situation. If it gets cold enough fast enough - problem solved, but it won't be pleasant.
    • [ 4 ] Thanks
    • [1] reply
    • Old topic - same arguments from the same people. It's a topic where you believe what you decide to believe and you can find "facts" to back you up on either side.

      It's sad it's become a political issue as that will pretty much guaantee nothing will ever be done about it unless there's money to be made or votes to be had.

      What I never understand is why people argue endlessly to prove they are "right" on the issue. Climate change is no longer an interesting debate because people have chosen "sides" to argue - so it's only rhetoric.

      One thing I won't pay attention are the nutjobs on the fringes. They do come out of the woodwork on issues like this.
      • [ 3 ] Thanks
  • The vast majority of scientists believe that humans are contributing to climate change, with or without Al Gore in the picture.
    • [ 1 ] Thanks
  • In the 70's, we were told that all our industrialization and invasive activities were leading to a Global Cooling that, in 20 or 30 years, would return ice-age like temps to the world.

    Now it's global warming.

    Next year it will be 2012.

    And after that doesn't happen, Gore will say an alien invasion from the stars is all but guaranteed.

    I wouldn't waste 60 seconds listening to this clown who is so desperate to remain topical.

    Patrick

    P.S.
    see "Chicken Little".
    • [1] reply
    • Are you kiddng? If Gore can get certain climate taxes on the map, he stands to personally make billions. If I was about to make that much shake from a position I'd have my little global salvation show on the road, too.
  • Humans effect the atmosphere.

    So does cow plop.

    and everything else...




















    I predict enough hot air in this thread to melt an iceberg
    • [ 1 ] Thanks
  • Scientists that take the PC official view on global warming are NOT in the majority.

    Kurt - that is only one scientist in many. They are walking out of the ASP over this issue one by one - even nobel winning scientists. And while the 30,000 petition isn't all climatologists, it is all people with degrees in some area of science --- as apposed to some of the hair dressers and resteraunt owners that contributed to the 4,000 for the Kayoto pact. The petition itself explains why each category of science is included. Even if only 1/3rd of that 30,000 are actually directly in climatology, that's a lot more force than 4,000 of which only a fracton are climatologists. (Fallacy of omission is an extremely compelling bit of smoke and mirrors). And -- if you want the full take, it doesn't matter HOW many of any one field take a view -- what matters is who is RIGHT. Perhaps a lot of people just plain missed "climategate"? Or that satellite pics weren't updates? Or that there is more snow on top than in around 17 years now? Or glacial shrinkage is due to dry, not heat?

    Very often the predominant view of a situation is the view that is ALLOWED to be publicized and many who appear to be compliant with the view are not even very tolerant of it. If you go to each climatologist and ask their view of warming, you are going to be very startled if you have the idea that most support the carbon theory. Very. Almost as startled as you would be if you learned about some achaeological history that has been just "disappeared" from the Smithsonian because it doesn't agree with the PC official view of history. You would not believe the gold that's been melted down because the officials would not deal with it because of where it was found and the indications of it's age and origin. "Official" Science does not tell us the truth any more than any other sector of power. Any sector in power tells us what will keep them in power and wealthy.

    Believe what you want -- just go out of your way to cause as little pollution as possible, and pray they don't put a tax on carbon or our next extreme winter (which will probably be this one as the last two have produced record colds) may be extremely disastrous.
    • [ 1 ] Thanks
    • [1] reply
    • They are in the majority. Sorry.
      • [ 1 ] Thanks
      • [1] reply
  • Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    "An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities."
  • BTW did you know that CO2 is NEEDED to breath? We NEED CO2! It is almost like water. If we had no water, we couldn't breath! Funny how that works, but it does. And PURE oxygen, at least in your environment is DANGEROUS!

    They can't REALLY believe the rhetoric since they are, BY FAR, the biggest contributors. I mean ONE GUY! Just ******ONE******* single handedly, in MONTHS probably caused more CO and CO2 that I have in my ENTIRE life, and we are almost the same age!!!!!!! INCREDIBLE! And The subject of this thread in ONE of his homes uses more energy that probably EVERY hous on my street PUT TOGETHER! He EASILY uses more in a day than I do in a year! And he wants ME to cut back?

    BTW Interesting link I was sent today: http://www.climatedepot.com/a/12797/...Global-Warming

    Steve
  • It seems to me the global warming gang outed themselves when they falsified their data to support their theories.

    Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation - Telegraph
    • [2] replies
  • INTERESTING that they should use the term WHITEWASH! Weather stations were SUPPOSED to be, and have traditionally been, WHITEWASHED! TODAY They may even have latex, etc... The temperatures are simply not the same.

    You know what it is like? It is like the "professor" on gilligans island. He found the water was rising. OH NO!!!!!!! OH NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The island will be under water? WHAT WILL WE DO!?!?!?!? Everyone scrambled, etc.... The island was in an uproar! DISASTER! THEN, one day, the "professor" found out gilligan was using a little pole for his lobster traps! OH MY GOD, ALL IS OK!!!!!!! WHY? Because THAT pole was his POINT OF REFERENCE!

    Moral of the story folks? NEVER rely on relative data unless you have a KNOWN and FIXED point of reference! NOAA has NO such point! HERE! OH, for GROSS measurements it is OK. For RECENT history it is OK. But for predicting based on distant past, or predicting far into the future? FORGET IT!

    Steve
    • [1] reply
    • Interestingly - whitewashing cities is one idea that scientists have had in respect to heat. Cities do capture and retain high levels of heat. If you don't believe that just walk out of the city and into a forest and you won't need stats - you can feel the difference very distinctly. Anyhow - they want to make all cities white to reflect the heat and keep the cities cool. Not a bad idea actually.

      NOAA is the one that put together the team of scientists that are watching boime destruction chain reactions - it's their work that is targeting hotspot areas that will cause massive chain reaction extinctions if they aren't restored asap. The team is from NOAA and from several universities and natural science organizations, global, not national.

      All the effort to pull us out of the extinction before we become endangered ourselves and in the US Monsanto is being allowed to roam free like a snake in a hen house.

      Nothing makes sense anymore. Nothing. Like I said - no matter what people believe, if they just try to reduce their consumption and waste, at least we are all moving in a good direction no matter what the argument is and which side turns out to be the right. Who the heck knows - some previously unknown obscure scientist might just come up with something that proves us all wrong. It happens in science. Being conservation minded will help this planet no matter what the answers prove to be.
      • [1] reply
  • Banned
    This video might shed a bit of light on the subject:

    Global Warming - YouTube
    Personally, I believe we're being very irresponsible with our resources. And not with just the whole fossil fuel thing. The rain forest, for example, provides so much more than just wood, and should be treated with more care and respect.

    EDIT: I thought I'd add the links from the video:

    Links:

    Pacific Research Institute - watch the movie
    http://www.aconvenientfiction.com/
    http://environment.pacificresearch.org/latest-studies

    Reid A. Bryson - scroll down for ice cap article
    http://www.wecnmagazine.com/2007issues/may/may07.html

    Solar Activity: A dominant factor in climate dynamics - scroll down read sections in blue
    http://www.john-daly.com/solar/solar.htm

    BBC's The Great Global Warming Swindle
    http://video.google.com/videosearch?...+global+warmin...

    Other possible causes for global warming
    http://www.physorg.com/news11710.html
  • I knew climate changign was kind a myth but its not clear at 100 pct that its a myth, there does seem to be some good chances in the weather and overall ground on the earth.

    still al gore isnt someone who i think is always right
  • Clearly, the Koch Bros disinformation campaign against global warming has been very effective.

    Like it or hate it, most scientists believe that human activity is causing global warming:

    Global Warming: How Do Scientists Know They're Not Wrong? | LiveScience

    "From catastrophic sea level rise to jarring changes in local weather, humanity faces a potentially dangerous threat from the changes our own pollution has wrought on Earth’s climate. But since nothing in science can ever be proven with 100 percent certainty, how is it that scientists can be so sure that we are the cause of global warming?

    For years, there has been clear scientific consensus that Earth’s climate is heating up and that humans are the culprits behind the trend, says Naomi Oreskes, a historian of science at the University of California, San Diego.

    A few years ago, she evaluated 928 scientific papers that dealt with global climate change and found that none disagreed about human-generated global warming. The results of her analysis were published in a 2004 essay in the journal Science."
    • [ 2 ] Thanks
    • [1] reply
    • Who are the the Koch Bros???????????????????


      TL
      • [1] reply
  • HELP ME! HELP ME! PLEASE, SOMEBODY, HELP ME! I mean I can stand it OK, but I know my mother would have a REAL problem with this if she were here! It is INCREDIBLE! I got out and it was, to call it what my mother would have, ******FREEZING******! To REALLY appreciate how COLD it is, let's look at tomorrows forecast! 49degrees! That is Farenheit folks! Less than 10C! And my home? Well, tonight it will be about 3C! YIKES! And my mother figured anything below something above TWENTY was freezing!

    PLEASE HELP! It is RAINING! A FEW more degrees, and it will be SNOWING! I was told this wouldn't happen for at least another MONTH!

    Steve
    • [2] replies
    • Scientists who consider what is or is not PC - are not scientists.
      • [ 2 ] Thanks
    • Why should this be a surprise? Such unusal, wild weather pattern swings are as expected in the AGW model. Other parts of the country, notably Texas, have been searing in record heat and draught. A global view is not so silly and anecdotal.
      • [1] reply
  • Feng shui........................
  • Banned
    [DELETED]
  • Banned
    [DELETED]
  • @Heysal

    It's too late down-under, a universally overwhelmingly unpopular carbon tax is about to be foistered on the Australian people that will target the top 500 'polluters,' which in our case is the manufacturing and mining industry. As if the economic crunch wasn't bad enough with people being laid off, particular in the manufacturing and mining sector due to revenue loss, this tax will completely kill the industries competitiveness and cost thousands of people their jobs.

    The worst part is this new tax won't even reduce emissions at all, all it will do is cost jobs, drive up the cost of living, and suck out 71 billion a year out of the economy.

    -Chris
  • We could do with a little global warming where I am in the UK. It's cold and wet today. Anyone finds any, please send it over. :-)
  • It will be an interesting program no doubt, I would hope it would give ideas on how to diminish our harmful effects on the planet
    • [1] reply
    • Oh, should have read that first, my apologies, l will keep politics out of my threads from now on!

      I don't really hate my government, just concerned by some of their actions.

      Shane
  • George Carlin, and plastic. Classic.

    George Carlin - Saving the Planet - YouTube
    • [1] reply
    • Thanks Jasdon, l always cringe when l hear of some environmentalist talking about saving a rat with a white dot on it's head, becoming extinct.

      Does it really matter, and is the average person on the street really going to care?

      Shane
  • Professor Doctor Neil Finn of the Crowded House Institute Of Climatic Sciences, summed it up succinctly 'Four seasons In One Day.'

Next Topics on Trending Feed