Comments for Al Gore: New Thinking on the Climate Crisis »
Posted By Neophile 1 year, 8 months ago in Science & TechnologyIn Al Gore's brand-new slideshow, he presents evidence that the pace of climate change may be even worse than scientists were recently predicting, and challenges us to act with a sense of "generational mission" -- the kind of feeling that brought forth the civil rights movement -- to set it right.
Read Full Story at ted.com »
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentShowing 197 of 198 Comments
-
OnionHeadComment removed: Retracted by user20 Replies
-
Neutral
jovial1 year, 8 months ago
-
Neutral
Mdiar1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"As soon as the righties hear this story is about Gore, the spittle will fly."
Exactly why I think Mr. Gore should stay out of it. He has a right to do what he does, but it is my humble opinion that he has reached a point where he does more harm then good.
Reply-
Neutral
lovemylibs1 year, 8 months ago
-
Neutral
DropkickaLib1 year, 8 months ago
-
Neutral
DropkickaLib1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Coward, you care to back that up, leftwing? I didn't think so, B.S.er!
Al Gorebbels is the world's biggest propagandist. He didn't invent the Internet anymore than he understands the science he attempts to coopt for political purposes. He received the Nobel Prize as a political endorsement form Euro Lefties. While climate change may exist, the causes can't be identified in isolation from each other. The effect of man hasn't been quantified and I don't hear an actual recommended course of action coming from him but rather vague rhetoric on the existence of global warming. I'd like the leave my carbon footprint on his wide a$$!
Reply-
Neutral
BelaVrana1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Even if the effect of humans can't be precisely quantified, there is no doubt we have had an effect. And even if our effect is only, say, 25 percent, then that would be 25 percent we could do something about. So why would you do nothing, just because you don't know how much good it will do, when you do know it will do some good?
That makes as much sense as going ahead with drinking and driving just because not all car accidents are caused by drunk drivers.
Reply-
Neutral
DropkickaLib1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm not advocating for polluting, but I am saying that we can't justify some of the hair-brained schemes for rolling back the effects of global warming in the absence of an understanding of man's actual impact on the climate and the impact of any climate tinkering we may consider. The projected costs are astronomical even by the advocates. It is important to actually know what to do before spending trillions, right?
Reply -
-
-
-
-
Neutral
bearbonz1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Actually, Gore was EXTREMELY instrumental in bringing about the Arpanet (the military/educational institution project) that later became called the "Internet" as we know of it today. Without the work he did at the beginning of the Arpanet, and his work in congress to educate the morons who run our government about it, we would NOT have the Internet today.
Reply-
-
-
Neutral
MajJohn1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
And he invented what actually? Or was he politically instrumental in some way, and if that's what your talking about, did he do this in a vacuum or were other politicians involved? Why is he the only one with his thumbs under his suspenders?
Reply-
Neutral
Goppy1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
My understanding is (and bearbonz & Dionys seem to understand this more fully) that Al Gore, was the only politico in DC who understood and grasped what the internet developers were trying to do.
If I remember my conversations with my computer science friends correctly, he was instrumental in clearing government impediments. Had he not been there at the time, the internet we now know and love so much would, at the very least, have been delayed.
Would it have happened eventually anyway? Prollaly.
But he was the governmental link who worked hand in hand with the guys who originally envisioned the world wide web.
What followed was 10 years of unprecedented economic growth.
Reply -
-
Neutral
PapaWolf1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
>>And he invented what actually? Or was he politically instrumental in some way
He never said he invented it. He was politically instrumental.
Check out snopes.com & do a google search. He sponsored bills & promoted the idea to the rest of congress.
But he never said he invented it.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
DropkickaLib1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Actually, many inventions originally with military applications have made it to civlian use, not just the Internet. The truth is that the academic and military community were involved in the development of the Internet before he became involved.
Reply
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Goppy1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Yes, thats what I have always understood, bearnonz.
Unfortunately, Mr. Gore's humorous, off the cuff remark, is the kind of remark (with it's inherent hubris) that can be manipulated by those who are ignorant of the big picture.
This is 'Negative Branding'. And it's something that the Republican Media Machine is best at. Republicans are so much better at this than you Democrats.
Course, when your polticical philosophy has so many moral holes, learning how to compare and contrast your opponent as being EVEN WORSE than yourself is an essential survival technique.
Reply -
-
-
Neutral
PapaWolf1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
>>Was that before or after he invented the Internet?
Implying that Al Gore said this statement proves how much you toe the party line. You have posted this lie may times since I've been on these boards, & too many people have refuted it - including links to the actual statement & subsequent conversations.
Keep spouting this & ALL of your arguments can, and will, be dismissed as nothing more than partisan propaganda.
Reply-
-
Neutral
PapaWolf1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I'm almost always in good company - especially on these boards. The majority of posters here, as well as the American public, knows the truth. You, on the other hand, keep spouting this same lame, discredited & debunked fabrication of a story - even after you've been proven wrong.
Keep posting this lie, and you'll just show yourself as the partisan shill we all believe you are- especially when you don't post any supporting evidence.
BTW, look at http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp or google "Al Gore Internet". You'll see plenty of sites that refute your statement.
Now you can't say you haven't been told.
Reply-
-
Neutral
PapaWolf1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Not a DNC hack. I just like knowing the truth. Whether it toes the DNC line nor not.
You, on the other hand, can't accept an unbiased source like SNOPES, awa any number of other websites to refute your bogus line about Al Gore & the internet.
If you can't face this simple truth, how can anyone expect you to face any other truths?
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Goppy1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
First of all, how do you know its fake?
Secondly, if you are readin it and sayin it in your haid, YOU are the one giving it an accent. Dig?
And I have never mocked the religious beliefs of others.
NEVER.
Perhaps you are interpreting my point that our nations Christian Conservative citizens consistently vote in ways contrary to the spirit of Jesus teachins.
Thats not mockin. Thats simple observatin.
But since you seem to be takin it as such an offense, you must be a Christian Conservative that is 'politically saved' as opposed to 'spiritually saved'.
If THATS the case, then, once again, you are creatin the mockin inside your own haid.
MAN ALIVE, you shure got a lotta weird stuff goin on between your ears.
Maybe its tiem you stepped up and took accountability for it, eh Droppy?
Reply-
Neutral
DropkickaLib1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
We Conservatives hold ourselves accountable on a daily basis. You Libtards are the ones looking for excuses and scapegoats. You, of course, are the ultimate authority on the teachings of Jesus...in spite of having missed church for the last 30 years.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
AnteUp1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Thanks for the headsup, Neophile, and for maybe bringing
me back to Earth. Last night, I went through my current
Newsweek, with the green leaf cover and the focus on the
environment. I came across a two page ad. Page one shows
men (I thought they looked Latin American)cheering with
raised AK-47's and dressed in camouflage, with the
caption,"How do you discourage a rogue leader who wants to
flex his muscles?"
Page two has a way-cool close-up pix of a stealth bomber in
the clouds with the caption,"Flex back."
As I closed the magazine I just didn't think the environment
was relevant - there's no way we are coming through this
mess without the big boys using their toys. You need some
type of faith in the future to care about "Green".
Gore acknowledges the optimism it takes to care in his
first few statements - wise man. Tossing in the towel is for
babies, Im going back to listen to the whole thing now.
Thanks - Neo.
Reply -
-
libsRfunnyComment removed: Hard Banned1 Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
Charlson1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I'm afraid our generation will be known as the generation that could have changed the world but didn't. No one knows how to sacrifice for the greater good anymore because we have leaders that think riches and power is more important.
Reply-
-
Neutral
AnteUp1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
not2needy ~
I marvel at times at how naive we were - that would be MY
generation.......Boomer. You know, somewhere between my
youth and being a "blue hair" now! We thought we had really
changed things - believed it. The idea that we would enter
the 21st Century with a Middle East Viet Nam? That our civil
right's would be fair game? We needed to learn more about the
ways of the world and lay a foundation to preserve and
advance the gains we made. Many thanks to the wiser ones
who did, or we'd be in worse shape than we are now.
Reply-
Neutral
bearbonz1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Right. What "Civil Rights"? We have none, and have NEVER had any. The Patriot Act (what a laugh) took away the Bill of Rights, and the Military Commissions Act of 2006 took away our right of trial by jury and habius corpus (the right to see the evidence against you, and even the right to have a lawyer). But, the fact is that we have really NEVER had any rights. As George Carlin put it, we have only had "privileges" which could be taken away at any time. Look up "Japanese Americans 1942" and see how over 100,000 American citizens, born right here, were imprisoned by our government (military) without trial or representation, and without any charges being brought against them.
Reply-
Neutral
AnteUp1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
bearbonz ~
I know of those perversions - and more, but I do feel
we had a better chance to acquire representation and
raise a stink. The ACLU has been demonized - Liberals and
Progressives have been called traitors and accused of
aiding and abetting the enemies of the USA.
A real climate of fear has been fostered. If the CIA
looked at my library usage - my emails - listened to my
domestic phone calls - searched my house or frankly -
if they just came in someday and spirited me away to
God-knows where.......would anyone squawk? Not to
impugn the character of my neighbors, but would they
question? be outraged? believe I was a "person of interest"
in some vague plot? I honestly do not know.
IMO - these are very scary times and the liberties
at risk are greater than ever before....for ALL of us.
Reply
-
-
-
-
Neutral
GoldStandard1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"No one knows how to sacrifice for the greater good anymore."
Ah, yes..."the Greater Good". That altar to which so many tyrants, slave-drivers, and brutes have sacrificed the good, the productive, and the successful. How many innocent individuals have suffered or perished in the forced pursuit of serving a "greater good"? Fascist, Nazi, Socialist, Communist and Theocratic states have all operated under this principle. It is the one link shared by all of these destructive systems. Think about that.
Reply-
Neutral
Dionys1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Jesus loves the rich for the common good. "
Jesus wasn't too big on the rich:
No slave can serve two masters;for a slave will either hate the one and love the other,or be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth. (Luke 16:13)
How hard it will be for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God! It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.(Mark 10:23,25)
Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God. (Luke 6:20)
If you wish to be perfect, go, sell your possessions, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. (Matthew 19:21)
He said to them, "When I sent you out without a purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?" They said, "No, not a thing." (Luke 22:35)
Reply-
Neutral
Dionys1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust consume and where thieves break in and steal; but store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust consumes and where thieves do not break in and steal. (Matthew 6:19-20)
Reply -
Neutral
DropkickaLib1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I wouldn't say that. His followers included Nicodemus and Joseph of Aramathea, two really wealthy guys. Jesus was even buried in Joseph's tomb, which you'd find out if you read the Bible for content instead of political ammunition. Jesus warned about the pitfalls of being too attached to the things of this world. He didn't attack people for working hard and succeeded honestly.
Reply-
Neutral
Dionys1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I don't read it for political ammunition or I'd be telling you that you shouldn't be 'Gay' while ignoring the other Levitican no-nos like planting two kinds of grass seed in your lawn or mixing two kinds of fibres in your fabrics.
Christ usually asked his disciples and followers to give up their wealth, or at the very least to share it among those in need. While he may have had wealthy followers, and been buried in one of their tombs, that does not mean they were following his example or his guidance neccessarily. The earliest Christian communities are probably the best and strongest examples of true socalism at work.
Jesus looked at him and loved him. "One thing you lack," he said. "Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me." (Mark 10:21)
Reply-
Neutral
Dionys1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You also have to remember that Christ and these others were members of an extremely high-context society, one which focused on the greater good of the community and the communal over the individual. Our society (and therefore your subconscious context) is a low-context society where the individual reigns supreme.
Reply -
Neutral
DropkickaLib1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Some of the early Christian religious services occurred in the homes of Roman military officers...not known for their commitment to socialism. Sure early Christian groups shared but didn't own property jointly. Not exactly socialism. Jesus made that last statement to someone who was too enamored with wealth. It's point wasn't to turn him into a socialist, it was to teach him to release the things of this world and see what is most important.
Reply-
Neutral
Dionys1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
They were continually devoting themselves to the apostles' teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. Everyone kept feeling a sense of awe; and many wonders and signs were taking place through the apostles.
And all those who had believed were together and had all things in common; and they began selling their property and possessions and were sharing them with all, as anyone might have need. (Acts 2:42-45)
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
BelaVrana1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Um, what about Americans having things rationed during WWII to help with the war effort? What was that for if not "the greater good"? Just because something has been used successfully in propaganda doesn't mean it always is propaganda.
Reply -
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
texangelwings1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
We had all better hold-on because it is going to be a bumpy ride, the next few years! Al Gore needs to keep this subject alive, in order to try to prevent a crisis!
I wonder what the increase in number of roads and traffic by way of the NAFTA superhighway that is being scheduled to be built, will have on our climate?
Thanks Neo!
Reply-
Neutral
ecotourusa1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"I wonder what the increase in number of roads and traffic by way of the NAFTA superhighway that is being scheduled to be built, will have on our climate?"
Texas-
they're already building that highway. and, what about the increase in air traffic world-wide?
not only is it polluting, you have to wonder when the next one will fall out of the sky...I play poker so I'm familiar with odds.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
GoldStandard1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Dr. Keith Lockitch of the Ayn Rand Institute said it best:
"Despite the constant claim that 'the debate is over' on climate change, it is nowhere near a proven fact that HUMAN carbon emissions are causing a 'planetary emergency.' But it IS a fact that carbon-based energy is a LIFE-AND-DEATH NECESSITY in today's world...
We, in the West, take our abundant energy for granted. It is hard for us to imagine what life would actually be like under the sort of draconian restrictions on energy use that global warming activists are demanding...
Let those who claim that we need to stop emitting carbon dioxide try spending a month shivering in the dark without heating, electricity, refrigeration; without power plants or factories, grocery stores or hospitals; without any of the labor-saving, time-saving, and therefore life-saving products that industrial energy makes possible."
Reply-
Neutral
jimdoze1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
If you are unsure and want to hedge your worries about CO2 emmission, the one choice that can quickly replace vast portions of carbon based industrial quantities of energy production is nuclear fission power plants. Even one of the great "greens", Sir James Lovelock, has been calling for it for several years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Lovelock
I love windmills, solar panels and I use flourescent bulbs... but, windmills and solar panels are generations from providing industrial quantities of energy, if ever.
Reply -
Neutral
CRYMTYPHON1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Goldstandard:
Do you see from your words, how you are deciding a scientific fact, whether carbon pollution from human activity is causing global warming, based on what you fear you may be asked to do, if you admit the truth?
Stop listening to idiots at the Ayn Rand Institute and start reading Ayn Rand. The author of the Fountainhead would not choose fear over truth.
Reply -
-
AtheismIsRealityComment removed: Retracted by user
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
jordan111 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Gore held the first congressional hearings on the subject in the late 1970s. This isn't something he picked up after his tenure to make an extra buck. He spent his time in Congress addressing our country's needs & future. Oh, wait. That's a concept you've yet to grasp. Sorry. Wouldn't want your head to explode trying.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
THOMNH621 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
ahh Onionhead is at it again, I love it. If Global warming is such an issue then why has the temperature continued to drop over the last 10 yrs by more than 1 degree f. Nasa and other organizations have proved it, up here in New England am I still waiting for GW after the harshes winter we have had in 10 yrs.
Reply-
-
-
Neutral
tbkennedy531 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I've read lots of evidence on both sides and have realized that there is still much to learn. To say it's an absolute fact is far fetched to say the least. So you still haven't given a single fact yourself so my question still remains. Referring to journals and PhD's funded by Shell are not giving facts.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Ruggaboo1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Gore and his disfunctional grab for the world spotlight are a sad charade. He jetsets around in his huge jumbo, leaving tons of contrails and pollution, yet the common man must change. He has several huge homes with signatures a thousand little people couldn't create but they need to change.
Global warming is pollution and the growth of developing nations. Al Bore is still just another liberal airbag with "the I know what's best for you elitist attitude."
Take the log out of thine own eye, so that you may see clearly to remove the speck from your brothers eye.
Reply -
Neutral
Ruggaboo1 year, 8 months ago
-
Neutral
Neophile1 year, 8 months ago
-
-
-
Neutral
Ruggaboo1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Nobody talking to you Mr. extended cranium.
is your name onion head?
Please don't ban me...
i hate to re-incarnate again and again and again.
Libs...I love the laughs on this site...you can't buy this kind of comedy and this is free!
Reply-
Neutral
Ruggaboo1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Is the chart in Braille, oh Neophite?
How does information get into your giant head?
Osmosis...pillow welts, Hindu mediative absorption?
Face the sun...Al Gore is a crooked scambot who has lined his elbow deep pockets off this crap. His speaking income alone would make any "honest man blush."
Reply
-
-
-
-
Neutral
bluenote15221 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
That's what I'm talking about. Great comments. Sometimes I think these blogs are filled with nothing but libbies. Then the voice of reason comes shining through.
We in Colorado have a Winter Storm Watch tomorrow night. Where is Global Warming when you need it???
Reply -
-
Neutral
SAAB76991 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
We all cried "Give us gas guzzling behemoth suvs."The auto
manufactures complied with our wishes.We all cried"Nuclear power is too dangerous to put in my neighborhood."The power
companies built fossil fuel burning power plants to appease
our electrial power wants.We all cried" I want to fly coast to coast comfortably in less than five hours"The airlines bought
jumbo jets capable of burning hudreds of gallons of fuel in a single flight.Any of our material possessions has an inpact
on the enviroment,when it is being manufactured,when we use it,when we finally dispose of it.They gave us what we asked for.We have no one else to blame but ourselves.
Reply -
Neutral
bill29361 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Al Gore needs to convince everyone that 'Global Warming' is coming faster. That way he can make more money from the 'Carbon Credit Scam' before everyone figures out it's a fraud. Note the snowstorms this week in Kansas and the midwest.
Reply -
-
Neutral
GHOSTWHOWALKS1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Wow Mr. Gore sure does bring out the worst in some people. I personally do not care if global warming is natural, or man made. The fact that it is occurring does. Argue until your blue in the face it doesn't change the fact that as a people living on the one planet-so far-we need to do something about the cause, or the effects will kill us all.
Reply-
-
Neutral
lvrofwolves1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
If man isn't the most important factor and it's nature, we can do things to help protect against that as well. We do take measures for things such as earthquakes, some flooding, hurricanes etc..not saying we can stop it but take measures to lower the destruction. And man is of course partially responsible.
I doubt anyone will ever know the exact percentage of what is nature and what is mans part, so I agree with GHOSTWHOWALKS
We don't know all the reasons for many diseases, but we know how to help or prevent it from getting worse. The cost of doing nothing is far more costly.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
BB641 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Warming? Perhaps you and Al would like to visit my home here in Wisconsin. I still have snow in my back yard. We've had over 100" of snow this season and with the current trending according to my meteorologist, we'll have another year or two of this. Add to that we're getting about 1 to 3" of rain over the next two days. So you want to talk about warming or climate change? Weather goes in cycles. Sometimes it's warmer some times it cooler.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
BB641 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I'm very troubled with anything presented by Mr. Gore. While I normally attack and insult him, let me simple ask a few questions.
Why is it not put on a real presentation showing how you came about your conclusion that the planet is doomed and we're all going to die because of Global Warming, Climate Change or whatever. This would include fully explaining his theory or hypothesis, case studies, evidence and then how the conclusion came about. We're seeing pretty computer mock ups, flashy Hollywood presentations with very little in the way of what I would consider scientific evidence. What he's showing us doesn't fit any know model of the "scientific method." He's taking a planet that's about 4 billion years old and using 100 years of information to draw a conclusion along with a solution to a problem that can't be confirmed. At least with the facts presented.
This debate is hardly over contrary to Mr. Gore's wishes. To quote an old movie, show me the evidence.
Reply-
Neutral
amazed1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
yes, and once again, graphs are shown that you cannot read the legends on -- if these graphs (more hockey sticks) are really showing what they purport to show, why are we not allowed to see the scales? That was my big problem with the "Inconvenient Truth" also. You couldn't see the legends on the graphs. Maybe they really DO show what he's saying, but why not show the whole graph rather than showing the graph on a screen behind him with the legends (if they're even there) illegible?
This is especially troubling because I've seen other graphs from the NOAA that actually show the temperatures as being just about flat when compared to their earliest data -- with a dip in the thirties -- forties and warming in the more recent years -- bringing us back to where they started. In others words -- most likely cyclical change.
Also, this same study claimed that many of these thermometers showing warming had been placed near heat sinks -- paving, buildings like that.
Reply-
-
Neutral
BB641 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It's always pleasant discussing warming with you guys. Between the name calling and insults you never have a chance to respond. I've seen Mr. Gore's science and it wouldn't pass 8th grade science class. The pictures and flashy stuff are fine but I'd like to see hard evidence. He really has nothing. All of his studies failed to predict the huge snow fall we've had this year. In fact using his plan, it should be a 75 F here but it barely cracked 45. Scientific America also promoted going totally nuclear for power gen for everything from electricity to jet planes. They liked the idea of nuclear weapons too. Are you sure you want to quote them, then again you're probably not old enough to have read them when they came out.
Reply-
Neutral
BB641 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Midleft
As to the 80%, since you started the name calling lets call this the "Lemur" group. The first sign on knowledge it to question an assumed fact. Your presenting your global warming as fact, I'm questioning the science or actually the lack of science that you drew your conclusion. Unless the scientific method changed in the last 20 years, you're using 100 years of evidence to chart a course that's over 4,000,000,000 years old. 100 years? That's 0.00000000025 %. That's well below any margin of error much less enough time to actually base real findings. It's really not enough time to create a theory or hypothesis. Now I know you're going to bring up ice cores but I'm confused at how they're dating them. I understand Carbon dating material but you're working with ice, which is frozen water. That's not a stable media for carbon dating. Way too many variables.
Midleft will come back with a sharp barb or cheap shot because that's easier than actually prove the theory.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
joeblowe1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You know -- I think Big Al has lost weight. I also think someone edited out all the shouted "amen" outcries from the congreg - I mean, audience. I will say, Al does know how to present. Politics apparently WAS his calling.
Just one: If Venus and Earth are SOOOoooo much alike, have the SAME amount of carbon, and don't have significant differences of solar insolation, WHY is earth blue and green while venus is a hot-house? Could venus be terraformed by seeding in some CO2 gobbling bacteria? Then lichen... then... Pretty soon we'd have a WHOLE 'NOTHER PLANET with as much oil as ours. YEAH! Let's do it.
Reply-
-
Neutral
joeblowe1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Yesss... Al overlooked (intentionally?) the notion that Venus is, in fact, 25.8 MILLION miles closer to the sun, and has a VERY, VERY slow rotation rate. Which means that the part facing the sun could be expected to get VERY hot as the day goes on. Also, it is true that Venus has a lot of greenhouse effect heat retention. Of course, that may be because the atmosphere there is 97% CO2. Mercury has very little atmosphere - thus NO greenhouse effect. Although the MAXIMUM temperature on dayside Mercury is pretty close to Venus. By way of comparison, atmospheric CO2 on Earth is measured in parts per million and is less than - well under, in fact - ONE PERCENT. The comparisons between these three planets as far as greenhouse effect, surface temperature, etc. is VERY, VERY suspect. Like comparing apples to automobiles to rocks.
Reply-
Neutral
BB641 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Then why does every meteorologist I know think your science is a load of crap?
As to your swift boat comments, why bring them into this? I'm former US Navy and I served to protect the rights of free speech. The guys came out and made a very strong case against John Kerry, not Al Gore. Kerry never permitted his records to be released. That tells me his medals might not have withstood a real review by fellow vets. Like global warming, in the light of open and free exchanges of ideas and facts it wouldn't hold up.
And the only smell I've noticed is coming from the global warming crowed. It's the smell from the sales of carbon credits being audited.
Reply
-
-
-
-
Neutral
simonsez1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Not even 100 years, BB. High altitude measurements had to be taken by weather balloons through the sixties. These didn't transmit data; they had to be recovered and analysed over a period of months. It's only been the last few years that we had modern instruments to give us accurate data on atmospheric conditions.
There is not a computer in the world powerful enough to even come close to computing the billions of variables that would factor into a climate warming prediction covering 100 years.
We're not even very good at predicting hurricanes a year in advance.
Reply-
Neutral
amazed1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
no, it is NOT completely irrefutable-- simon's point is that we don't KNOW an average YEARLY temperature for the earth except for tha last 50 or 60 years -- maybe.
Yes, there are ice cores -- they tell us what the temp was in Antarctica or whereever for the last 10's of thousands of years -- they are NOT accurate for the entire planet (you guys don't even dispute that now -- "just because one glacier is advancing doesn't mean that most of them aren't melting") -- individual years can't possibly show, so what you have are averages of probably, at best, about a century or so at at time==for that spot on earth from which the ice core was taken.
and, btw, Al Gore and the global warming crowd stands to make tons of money on this if they can convince a few more people.
Reply -
Neutral
BB641 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
That's not how it actually works. At least if we're using the Ice Age concepts. We've found huge increases in CO2 to coincide with each ice age. That being said, unless you and the Reverend Al are using witchcraft, your science can't work. More CO2, we should see a cooling. By the way, that would be considered irrefutable.
Another example would be that billion dollar aquarium you guys had us pay for called Biosphere 2. When sealed up it proved that no matter how much science thinks it knows, we can't create a balanced environment. Now go ahead make some childish remarks and attack me. It's typical of the lefty warming crowd.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
Poulenc1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Gore-hatred is of a piece with the grand ol' American tradition of know-nothing anti-intellectualism /philistinism.
Don't believe what Gore says? Don't listen! Tune him out, as you might a bothersome commercial.
The vigilante rush to "kill" the man as well as the message salutes deep fears that have nothing to do with global warming.
One of which is the fear of having to give up something, even if it means making the world safer for the greater good.
Reply -
Neutral
BB641 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
We've played with you guys before and found you to be a bit of a git. In the 1970's we were building nukes but 3 mile island scared so you forced us to build coal plants. At the same time you told us about the new Ice Age. In the 80's it was acid rain. When Gore was VP funny, the movement stopped talking about the environment. Now it's global warming and the sky is falling. You've buried us in new environmental standards, making tons of stuff illegal to use in industry. But in the next breath you're forcing us to use CFC bulbs but they have mercury. You force us to use ethanol in our gas but that only causes more CO2 to be released and we now use more gas because the ethanol doesn't burn cleanly. You want us to cut back thinking fuel will decrease in costs but with China and India on line, they will pay for it.
I guess rather than attacking us, we're asking for proof before we once again spend billions for something we don't need.
Reply -
-
Neutral
BB641 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Well, I don't know the fight you seem to have with God and other people who believe in him but I can tell you this. For the last 100 years, science has spent billions trying to duplicate creating life from simple elements. They've never done it. Man in theory might be able to build an ocean but we'd never have the abilities to fill it with the wonders you can find in it. I am a believer.
However, I'm also an engineer and a lawyer who looks at your evidence. As mentioned before, by your standards Earth is 4 billion years old. I'll give you 100 years worth of weather data. The ice cores are not a reliable source, unless you explain why you guys never mention the ice cores that pulled up modern tropical plants from core samples supposedly around 1 million years old. They were modern plants so either your core samples were wrong age wise or there was a much larger warming period 50,000 years ago.
BTW-I'm no coward and I'm not an idiot. Show me your proof. 2nd request.
Reply -
Neutral
Poulenc1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I should add to my post just above that those who vilify Gore also fear that they'll be required to "scale-down" their way of life.
Scaling-down is considered un-American by some, who believe that the right to our hegemony in all matters is a given.
"Fitting in" to the larger world, taking a place IN it rather than leading it, is not an option as to them it implies WEAKNESS.
And to those folks, one must always demonstrate (what to them appears to be) strength.
Reply-
Neutral
BB641 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Actually one of your nutty global warming guys suggested population control. When pushed I think Turner was suggesting mass sterilization. How do you think that would poll? I'm guessing not that well.
As to your other communist sentiments, you're right, I don't think scaling down is possible much less American. Take your environmental solutions to energy. You want me to use ethanol. I'd rather not, but if you're stupid enough to want to use something that costs you 5 gallons of oil to produce 1 gallon of a mush less efficient ethanol, I'll sell you the plant. Wind machines are another scam from you guys. I make billions building them. They're high cost, dirty power and costly to maintain. The energy it take to build and maintain them rarely justifies the actual cost. Hydrogen is another scam. While it might burn clean it take tons of electricity to separate the 2H20 (it's a diatomic molecule hence the 2H2O not H2O) That means more coal plants.
Hug those trees!!!
Reply -
-
-
Neutral
joeblowe1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Hmmm- there went another 900 character comment to the Propeller oubliette. I wish they'd save up their pennies and REPLACE that damn TRS-80 server they are using...
Anyway. Factoid? What the hell is a "factoid?" What I related are real, best-of-our-knowledge, scientifically determined FACTS. No unfair comparisons, no innuendo, no shady overlooking of other, relevant facts. Just FACTS. I did not choose to "interpret" those FACTS as Big Al did, just put them out there.
And - who says a little global warming is necessarily a BAD thing? OOOhhh - North pole ice cap is melting! So? Greenland is turning green! So? MAYBE we don't really NEED all that ice. Why, I can get as much ice as I need out of my freezer. A little extra growing season might help to feed all the starving kids in Africa I've heard so much about for years.
By the way, your irrational name-calling does you no credit.
Reply -
-
-
-
-
Neutral
bluenote15221 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
History of Greenland
Greenland was warmer in the tenth century than it is now. There were many islands teaming with birds off its western coast; the sea was excellent for fishing; and the coast of Greenland itself had many fjords where anchorage was good. At the head of the fjords there were enormous meadows full of grass, willows, junipers, birch, and wild berries. Thus Greenland actually deserved its name.
Reply -
Neutral
bluenote15221 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Go back to the mid seventies when Time magazine had many many covers on global cooling. The climate is always warming or cooling. That is called a cycle. A segment of that cycle is being defined as a trend. It is morning and the sun is rising does not mean it will continue to rise. A rooster get's conditioned to think that it creates the sunrise by it's call in the morning. He has no more affect on the sunrise than we have on global warming. Stop paying scientist to give you the results you want and they will become objective. If their next paycheck depends on there being a man made problem that is the conclusion they will try to make.
I have a dgree in Climatolgy and lived through the mid 70's Global Cooling Hoax. Wise up people!
Reply-
Neutral
CRYMTYPHON1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
If scientists are announcing their results based on bribes, shouldn't they be agreeing with the side with the most money to hand out?
Unless you think tree-huggers have more ready cash than the petroleum industry?
But it isn't even an even split. If you are a climate scientist, and you do not believe in global warming, then you are in serious disagreement with your peers.
And they do not take 'rooster metaphores' and 1970's magazine articles as rebuttal. They must want facts to counter the aregument they are presenting. What do you tell them?
Reply -
-
-
-
Neutral
CRYMTYPHON1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You did just say it.
But it doesn't mean much unless you present work that can be verified by the other scientists.
To be fair, there have been some studies showing that solar activity can change the climate.
But none refute the model of climate change produced by CO2 in the atmosphere trapping solar heat.
It's an honest race. If you have a genuine model of what is happening, publish and peer review it. You can't howl you are being silenced; this is the internet.
Reply-
Neutral
bluenote15221 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification. For example, Environment Canada brags about spending $3.7 billion in the last five years dealing with climate change almost all on propaganda trying to defend an indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets.
Reply
-
-
-
KvilleTXComment removed: Hard Banned
-
Neutral
bluenote15221 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
What about the Arctic and those poor polar bears? Well the polar bears can rest easy (if that's possible while sitting on a block of ice), the Arctic has gained back all of its ice. In fact comparing the years(1980-2008),the Arctic has about 1% greater ice concentration in January 2008 than it did in January 1980. Soon the bears will have so much ice they'll be starving from a lack of fish and that too will be blamed on "climate change"
Reply -
Neutral
bluenote15221 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The world is currently suffering under oppressive cold with many parts of the planet recording all time record low daily, monthly and seasonal temperatures (again, these records are since man's direct measurements began). Thousands are dying from the cold. With still no sun spot activity in Solar Cycle 24 predictions are for the cold temperatures to continue. But all the silly politicians and scientists on the dole care about is gaining power and money from global warming. But fear not all of their efforts to make the world a cooler place won't make the cold any colder any more than it would have made the warming less warm. They are simply wasting our tax dollars rather than preparing people for the cold that is coming.
Reply -
Neutral
CRYMTYPHON1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
We aren't talking about the existence of a diety here.
If man-made global warming is false, it should be provably false.
On the believers side, you have the majority of scientists involved in climate study. They have observations, they have variations of a model that explains the observations.
Deniers have to present more than the claim that it is a conspiracy. A working model of the earth's climate that shows why CO2 does not trap heat from sunlight, should be worth a Nobel.
Reply
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.