Al Gore is a fraud

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Nick Leeson Jr, Mar 2, 2007.

  1. This seems brilliant on Al Gores part...He had to arrange things this way...before he came out of the Environmentalist closet...Now he uses show biz...too...interesting

    I must take another look at him...

    but wait Hillary has Bill...who will be the next pres...obama? or whoever Fox news chooses?
    #11     Mar 4, 2007
  2. I think Mitt Romney or Rudy G.

    The US wants change, but I don't see how any of the Dem candidates can possibly win nationally. Gore could, I think, but he isn't going to run.
    #12     Mar 4, 2007
  3. What else does the disgusting troll do on these boards?
    #13     Mar 4, 2007
  4. I applaud your critical thinking but your data is completely wrong. You need to watch Gore's movie again and also take a look at other outside research that has been around prior to Gore making a scene.

    Most of the studies do try to look back at least 100 years to capture the beginning of industrialization. And the correlations are clear. The reason the last 50 years are a focus, because right after World War II, CO2 emissions skyrocketed.

    Also, it's not as simple as CO2 = global warming. There are natural weather processes at hand which get affected. Like currents, which is the reason why Iceland is cooling. You have a larger area (Greenland) melting and sending ice into the currents which end up hitting a smaller area (Iceland) and bring a cooling effect.

    There are other issues, such as effects on plantlife due to increased CO2 levels, rising water levels, forest fires, "snow tracks" dissapearing, hurricanes, etc.

    It's just common sense at some point. If global warming was a leftist sham, then breating the exhaust of a car would have no negative effects. Try that and let me know how it goes.

    P.S. I do agree that Gore's personal actions do little good. It's the same as Orlando Bloom and Leonardo DiCaprio pretending to be environmentalists as they take private jets everywhere.
    #14     Mar 4, 2007
  5. and how do u reconcile the fact the whole solar system is heating up. every planet including the most distant ones are going trough massive changes in do u figure that out. not such a slam dunk case now is it.
    #15     Mar 4, 2007
  6. I too applaud the effort at separating the wheat from the PC chaff, but in this case, Gore's grandstanding aside, I think it's folly to either hope that greenhouse gas emissions are not and will not have a seriously adverse effect on the environment, or to say we must wait until the problem is obvious for everyone to see. That's kind of like saying 'Let's wait until the species is actually extinct before initiating conservation efforts - until then, how can we be sure that extinction is even a possibility?'.

    I believe that there are follow-on benefits to the legislation of greenhouse gas emissions by the biggest producers. The coal industry is embarking upon a huge PR campaign to convince people that it is an alternative to oil. This may be, but the strip mining of coal, which is by far the most efficient way to get at it, is disastrous for the environment as well. This is just one narrow example. Burning fossil fuels is a dirty business from start to finish.

    Having travelled a lot in the East, I know that controls are lax over there and that this problem, although important in terms of the world's biggest emitter, is not just in the USA's backyard.

    When it becomes clear to big business that there is a cost benefit to reducing emissions, they will do it. Unfortunately, they won't be doing it before that.

    Finally, the argument that the earth is resilient and that we can't really predict the effect of emissions cuts both ways. There is every chance that the (enormous) intensification of emissions during the past 75 years will have serious consequences hundreds of years from now, which Jayford rightly pointed out is only a tick of the second hand in geological terms.
    #16     Mar 4, 2007
  7. You are talking about multi thousand year weather patterns, if not longer versus a half century period. If you think none of this has been looked at by the many scientists researching this, you are very wrong.

    I am fully familiar about the solar system weather patterns and the fact that it is entering the "summer". But that is on a whole other time scale, which barely scratches the last 50 years.

    In my past 10 years I have noticed an abrupt weather change. Weather is more erratic, the winters are all over the place, the summers are heating up. In the last 10 years, US's exhausts have not slowed down, but the real problem is China, who was on a serious industrialization path with old technology coal plants popping up almost every week. There is a clear correlation, once again.

    If you want real proof, take observation of areas like LA and Moscow. Exhaust of gas burning automobiles obviously has an effect on the atmosphere. Have you ever been outside in downtown LA? There is a temperature difference. The earth's ability to cope with such exhausts is obviously not infinity.

    I do not understand this deathwish some of you global warming opponents. Do you really want to be proven wrong the hard way?

    Also, fossil fuels exhausts are not just CO2. N2O, SO2, CFC, HCFC and one other are of concern. SO2 is longest regulated emission, because acid rain effects are a little too sudden and devastating.

    It's just common sense, you are burning a substance that has obvious detrimental effects on carbon based lifeforms. This is why you cannot breathe fossil fuel exhausts. Just because you throw it into the atmosphere, does not mean it magically dissapears.
    #17     Mar 4, 2007
  8. it's a recent developement, 10 yrs or so, at least it has been noticed then, with accelerated warming taking place just recently and spotted on jupiter just a month ago.
    dont u recall people calling for a new ice age back in the 70s? i dont buy into it no more, too many scare tactics precedents. that said i am all in for the use of renewable energy and cut in carbon based emissions but not for greenhouse related global taxes...and they are going to come.
    #18     Mar 4, 2007
  9. You have made this point about breathing exhaust fumes a couple of times. Surely you understand that it is carbon monoxide in exhaust that will kill you, not CO2. CO2 is not a pollutant. It won't hurt you. Plant life would end without it. Unfortunately, much of the global warming debate orchestrated by Al Gore and other political hustlers rests on about the same level of scientific understanding.
    #19     Mar 5, 2007
  10. #20     Mar 5, 2007