^^^ Exactly.

^ They get so "bent out of shape" because the truth hurts. Gore can take a flying fuck at a rolling doughnut on a gravel road. Seriously.

PS: ^^^, ^^, and ^ Thanks.

12/12/2006 2:00:25 AM

So...when it comes to global warming, what is the truth?

12/13/2006 3:50:20 PM

The Shadow is, in reality, Lamont Cranston, wealthy young man-about-town

12/13/2006 3:59:10 PM

Quote :

"How about people who A) point to hurricanes as proof of global warming B) point to lack of hurricanes as proof against global warming should both be made fun of? "

Brilliant!

12/13/2006 4:09:44 PM

The earth had no storms and was 72 degrees farenheit 24/7 at all latitudes before god damn automobiles and evil corporate factories

12/13/2006 4:16:10 PM

Quote :

"How about people who A) point to hurricanes as proof of global warming B) point to lack of hurricanes as proof against global warming should both be made fun of?"

12/13/2006 4:27:01 PM

I'm always curious as to why you make extreme generalizations like that?

Its really no secret that Humans have altered the planet's ecosystem. Do you honestly think billions of tons of chemicals spewing into the air has absolutely zero effect on the environment?

12/13/2006 4:28:02 PM

do you have any empirical proof that all the human emissions have had any significant and irreversible impact on the always-adapting Earth?

12/13/2006 4:33:46 PM

Quote :

"Its really no secret that Humans have altered the planet's ecosystem"

It's also no secret that most of the changes were beneficial.

12/13/2006 4:40:59 PM

Quote :

"do you have any empirical proof that all the human emissions have had any significant and irreversible impact on the always-adapting Earth?"

Are you going to deny that there is any sort of air pollution due to emissions today? Don't bring up Al Gore-style global warming in this. Simple question. Do you deny that there is some sort of air pollution caused by human beings?

12/13/2006 4:50:33 PM

Which changes specifically were beneficial, LoneSnark?

Twistah, you didn't answer my question directly. Please do so before asking your own.

12/13/2006 4:59:50 PM

trillions of gallons of fossil fuels burned and released into the air

simple law of conservation of matter, just because we burn fuel doesn't mean it goes away

12/13/2006 5:02:34 PM

Well, our growing season is longer and plants grow more vigorously in a higher CO2 environment. This has boosted food production for both man and beast, driving marginal farmers out of business and freeing up more land for abandonment. Not to mention all the physical changes that made it more habitable to human beings, such as mines, factories, cities, roads, etc. Central Park has never looked so nice.

12/13/2006 5:07:03 PM

LoneSnark, Noted.

12/13/2006 5:10:46 PM

Pink and Sand...only a fool would deny that humans have made changes to the ecosystem...what I question is how much...ie

Quote :

"significant and irreversible impact "

Which we dont know

12/13/2006 5:13:49 PM

How much do you think we've done?

Specifically, how much good or bad?

12/13/2006 5:19:04 PM

i dont know

but what i think doesnt matter because its just what i think, hence why i asked if there was any empirical evidence that quantified the impact which would be pretty difficult to get, considering how the scientific community has only scratched the surface on even understanding the co2 cycle and how its transferred from the oceans to the air and vice versa

It's hard to come to good conclusions when the data you're working with is incomplete and not very well understood, which is why my stance has always been relatively agnostic on global climate change. Some people probably think I firmly believe global warming is a myth. Not so. They just think I think its a myth because I don't immediately accept any theories that sound plausible to them

I wrote Environmental Impact Statements and all types of research papers in coastal science, many pertaining somewhat to climate change, gas cycles, etc. And I couldn't definitely conclude alot. Its pretty complex. Not something that can be belittled by jumping to conclusions based on a miniscule amount of data

[Edited on December 13, 2006 at 5:30 PM. Reason : .]

12/13/2006 5:24:22 PM

My purpose in asking wasn't to verify the Scientific community, but rather to point out you were more or less aligned against environmentalism just to be aligned against environmentalism.

As in, there's really no scientific basis for your beliefs (or in this case, lack there of).

12/13/2006 5:29:41 PM

I'm against blind environmentalism. aka People who get so enthusiastic and feel so strongly about something that they dont know anything about except the news blurb they read on the internet or heard on the news. I've studied with professors with PhD's in various atmospheric sciences. I've done more than go watch an Al Gore flick and hang on his every misleading word

12/13/2006 5:30:57 PM

Fair enough.

12/13/2006 5:40:04 PM

Good ol' Snarky. It all boils down to numbers and what's better for humans to him. He must have been a fan of the failed commercial in either the 80s or 90s put out by the oil lobby that championed how a warmer planet was far better than a cooler one.

12/13/2006 5:48:12 PM

why does it always have to be about environmentalists versus energy companies?

thats not real science

12/13/2006 5:50:52 PM

I wouldn't lump all energy companies into this category. There are some that are actually able to see beyond the ends of their pocketbooks. But by and large it is big business and the oil lobby that seek unrestricted waste dumping and environmental rape and pillage in the name of the economy.

12/13/2006 6:42:03 PM

Quote :

"Good ol' Snarky. It all boils down to numbers and what's better for humans to him."

It is a philosophical answer you seek, go take a philosophy class or something. Is it not right to include the good done for human when calculating the total impact of human activity? Or are you implying that you are different: it all boils down to emotion and what's worse for humans to you.

We humans have made extensive changes to our planet, on the whole (at least in the industrialized world) the changes have been beneficial. Intelligent human life is perhaps the most important thing ever to come from this planet, protecting and supporting that species is not a crime. Especially when you consider we may form the only protection system the life on this planet has against the unforseen. Mass extinctions have been common throughout history, we can stop them, even giant rocks from space (A science-fiction writer once said if Gaia existed then mankind was her solution to extinction level meteorites).

12/13/2006 10:24:14 PM

Quote :

"We humans have made extensive changes to our planet, on the whole (at least in the industrialized world) the changes have been beneficial."

That's right, dumping mercury as well as a myriad of other goodies into our water sources, deforestation on an unprecidented scale, destruction of wild habitats for cattle, draining wetlands for housing developments, CFCs that ate away at our ozone layer which protects us from lethal radiation, perpetual release of chemicals into our atmosphere which cause smog and a host of respiratory ailments. Go us, we rock!

Quote :

"...what's worse for humans to you."

I have nothing against the betterment of humans unless it comes at the price of other spieces or the world in which we live.

12/14/2006 12:36:17 AM

To the ill-informed: This thread is about "Al Gore-style global warming." He's the one getting all the press, filling the coffers of left-wing special interest groups, and incessantly blowing the doom horn.

PS: I have used absurdity to counter absurdity. Perhaps the method is too advanced for some.

12/14/2006 12:46:25 AM

Ignorance is fun, isn't it HockeyRoman? Do you actually know the history of any of the stuff you listed? Mercury levels are at their lowest since records began being kept. Every year the EPA declares more rivers and lakes clean enough for swimming and fishing. You can fucking eat fish out of the East River in New York, one of the most densely populated cities in the world. The River was (unofficially) declared unsafe for man or beast shortly after the tanning and later dying industry took off, in the 17th century!!!

Aggregate Air Emissions are down 25% from 1970.


And, just to add insult to injury, the United States has more acres of forrest than anytime since 1920! That's right! 86 years of development, population growth, rising standards of living, and we use less land to do it all! That's right, all the land converted to urban and industrial uses has been more than offset by farmers abandoning their farmland back to nature.
http://www4.ncsu.edu/~gsparson/data/timber.jpg

And the occurrence of "Smog" has been largely eliminated in most American cities. "The number of Stage 1 smog alerts has declined from over 100 per year in the 1970s to almost zero in the new millennium."

And the "Ozone scare" was somewhat over-hyped. As real as the damage was, the actual impact was small, it merely exasperated a pre-existing condition of the polar regions: not enough direct sunlight to produce ozone, a problem not suffered by most of the planet.

[Edited on December 14, 2006 at 1:13 AM. Reason : sp]

12/14/2006 1:12:28 AM

^what can you thank for those things?

evironmental regulations, which increased in the 1970s.

12/14/2006 10:32:45 AM

^so you're saying the current regulations are good enough

12/14/2006 10:54:08 AM

in certain areas, such as CFCs or some logging areas. regulation led to improved conditions.

in certain others, no.

[Edited on December 14, 2006 at 11:01 AM. Reason : .]

12/14/2006 10:59:03 AM

Chicken or the egg. Pollution levels in most U.S. cities (except for the new metropolises of the West coast) peaked in the 1940s. But go ahead, attribute falling pollution levels of the 50s and 60s to 70s legislation. Prior to the 1970s pollution was being battled very effectively by local and state governments targeting specific polluters. All the 70s did was eliminate all this effort with a hap-hazard one-size-fits-all EPA. Nevermind that the impoverished rural south was now saddled with Northern Environmental standards. It is an odd twist of National Politics just how much Federal policy has usually been dictated by North-Eastern manufacturers fearing outside competition, either from overseas (19th century mercantilism) or the south (20th century environmental and labor policies).

That's right, it is my assertion that national regulation in this case was pushed and lobbied for by greedy corporations seeking to hamper or prevent the rise of competitors. Just check the law if you don't believe me: existing polluters were largely EXEMPT from the law! That's right, if you were lucky enough to already be a rich factory owner in New York, where air pollution was at deadly levels, the law did not apply to you. But if you wanted to bring employment to a poor South Carolina or Georgia, where air-pollution was almost non-existent, then you faced prohibitive pollution controls.

You act as if I should be all "ooh, government bad, business good!" But I am not pro-business. You just fail to see the Government for what it is: a capitalist institution defending entrenched wealthy interests against competition. In my ideal world, if the state of New York has a problem with pollution then New York should regulate ALL pollution, not just new pollution. This is why I like pollution taxes, they can be applied to everyone equally, maintaining a level playing field.

12/14/2006 11:15:10 AM

Quote :

"It hardly seems reasonable--or even ethical--to assume that it is probably alright [sic] to keep driving up C02 levels."

Al Gore, Earth in the Balance

In an apparent effort to achieve a "carbon neutral" status , Gore is now flying all over the world--mostly in private jets that have higher carbon emissions per passenger per hour than most commercial jets--telling everyone to. . .uh. . .reduce carbon emissions. In addition, contrails are believed to contribute to global warming.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/06/060614-contrails.html

Please help to reduce our "carbon footprint"--ground All Gore.

2/19/2007 12:26:38 AM

So you're now accepting that global warming is caused by human activity, but only if it's Al Gore?

2/19/2007 12:33:07 AM

^^You didn't watch that idiotic partisan hack argument on Hannity today did you?

Al Gore is helping to start a global movement, which requires more resources. Is he supposed to go do his lectures across the world to start new global policies and drive across the Atlantic in a '93 Escort? I'm sure he's well aware of his own personal impact. I'm sure that he will more and make up for his air travel if his policies amount to billions or trillions of pounds of carbon mitigated as part of the policies he helps bring about. Gore puttering around in a small car and not getting the word out quickly is exactly what idiot pundits like Hannity want.

Hannity just wants to paint Gore as a hypocrite because he knows that science and reason are on Gore's side, and the people who watch Fox News can't be concerned with things like reason or fact when it doesn't fit into their extreme, irrational agenda.

[Edited on February 19, 2007 at 12:39 AM. Reason : .]

2/19/2007 12:37:20 AM

hooksaw's post has more truthiness, though.

2/19/2007 12:38:57 AM

truth that comes from the gut, not from books

2/19/2007 12:40:48 AM

truth comes from al gore

2/19/2007 12:41:49 AM

^^^ Hmmm. . .where to begin? You're questioning me about Hannity's show? You must have watched it, too. In addition, since Al Gore created the Internet, he could use a webcam. Ever heard of that?

[Edited on February 19, 2007 at 12:46 AM. Reason : ]

2/19/2007 12:45:36 AM

So could everyone.

The webcam has rendered transportation obsolete.

2/19/2007 12:47:30 AM

Fact:

C02 Emissions Per Passenger

Boeing 737 Private Jets
89 lbs/hr 462 lbs/hr
189 seats 19 seats

Private jets do about four times the carbon emission damage.

Source: TerraPass

^ "Everyone" isn't running around saying the sky is falling--Gore is fear monger in chief.

^ PS: I haven't flown since 1989, and I have no plans to do so. I'm "saving the Earth" a hell of a lot more than Gore is.

[Edited on February 19, 2007 at 12:54 AM. Reason : ]

2/19/2007 12:50:37 AM

good thing his strip mines havent been rendered obsolete

2/19/2007 12:51:46 AM

^ Yes, indeed.

Quote :

"Public records reveal that as Gore lectures Americans on excessive consumption, he and his wife Tipper live in two properties: a 10,000-square-foot, 20-room, eight-bathroom home in Nashville, and a 4,000-square-foot home in Arlington, Va. (He also has a third home in Carthage, Tenn.) For someone rallying the planet to pursue a path of extreme personal sacrifice, Gore requires little from himself. Then there is the troubling matter of his energy use. In the Washington, D.C., area, utility companies offer wind energy as an alternative to traditional energy. In Nashville, similar programs exist. Utility customers must simply pay a few extra pennies per kilowatt hour, and they can continue living their carbon-neutral lifestyles knowing that they are supporting wind energy. Plenty of businesses and institutions have signed up. Even the Bush administration is using green energy for some federal office buildings, as are thousands of area residents. But according to public records, there is no evidence that Gore has signed up to use green energy in either of his large residences. When contacted Wednesday, Gore's office confirmed as much but said the Gores were looking into making the switch at both homes. Talk about inconvenient truths. Gore is not alone. Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean has said, 'Global warming is happening, and it threatens our very existence.' The DNC website applauds the fact that Gore has 'tried to move people to act.' Yet, astoundingly, Gore's persuasive powers have failed to convince his own party: The DNC has not signed up to pay an additional two pennies a kilowatt hour to go green."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-08-09-gore-green_x.htm



[Edited on February 19, 2007 at 1:01 AM. Reason : PS: Correct info as of 12/7/2006.]

2/19/2007 12:55:26 AM

Quote :

"I'm "saving the Earth" a hell of a lot more than Gore is."

Thats the stupidest, most ignorant argument I have ever heard. I bet you are also saving the earth by not writing books on solving environmental problems either because they use paper.

2/19/2007 1:00:36 AM

And clearly this all means that human-caused global warming is false

(oh noes! I just realized my PC uses electricity! I'm such a hypocrite.)

[Edited on February 19, 2007 at 1:02 AM. Reason : .]

2/19/2007 1:01:20 AM

my car is just as bad as a few strip mines!

2/19/2007 1:04:13 AM

^^^ I don't give a motherfucking donkey shit what you think is stupid or ignorant. A bunch of bullshit is what Gore has written. When's he going to give up the "internal combustion engine" that he wrote--in 1992--was headed the way of the dinosaur?

^^ And STFU with the stupid ass "oh noes" bullshit--[OLD].

[Edited on February 19, 2007 at 1:05 AM. Reason : .]

2/19/2007 1:04:27 AM

Quote :

"Gore is fear monger in chief."

ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah

isn't fear-mongering the M.O. of bush & co. pretty much all the time?

2/19/2007 1:08:46 AM

its not possible that both bush and friends as well as gore and friends are both fear mongering their own individual agendas?

2/19/2007 1:10:09 AM

^^ Global warming WON'T kill you, al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations will! And I note that the same old clique pops up here to defend Gore's lies--how laughable.

[Edited on February 19, 2007 at 1:12 AM. Reason : .]

2/19/2007 1:11:41 AM

sure. but fear-mongering in order to decrease pollution is far less harmful than fear-mongering to start wars/give up our rights.


[Edited on February 19, 2007 at 1:13 AM. Reason : and i hadn't posted in this thread in over 2 months, btw]

2/19/2007 1:11:43 AM