Al Gore, Please explain to me.......

My son's physics class watched "An Inconvient Truth". The idea was that they would watch it, then talk about the science used to come to Gore's conclusions. The only conclusion they came to was that there wasn't any science involved.

The only conclusion they came to was that there wasn't any science involved.

Even more than his movie is the PC people that we have to accept!  As they get more radical, they get stupider.

Some people will swallow anything hook, line, and sinker. It basically just proves that the PC people are just a bunch of thoughtless clods incapable of any sort of critical thinking. They merely parrot what is fed to them without ever understanding any of it. But it makes them feel so smart.

It basically just proves that the PC people are just a bunch of thoughtless clods incapable of any sort of critical thinking.

Like the sheep in Animal farm.  Still it boggles my mind that people can be so stupid - and at that level of responsibility!

I would like to ask what you refer when you talk about "PC"?

Good question. PC literally means politically correct. IN this case, I used it to mean the people that cannot tolerate opposing viewpoints on Global Warming.

I see.

Even if mostly everywhere in the world (save the U.S.) global warming man-made has been accepted as a fact?

Mostly, I see the negationisms as victims of the heavy polluters's propaganda.. and/or people who just want to get rich not caring about the environnement. Here in Canada, it's moslty the Albertans, and surprise-surprise, they are getting rich (as a state) on heavy-pollution oil exploitation.

Well, slowly, but surely, the facts are getting to them about G.W., and it's becoming easier and easier to convince them. How about U.S.A.? are you governement/lobbies still hammers that the topic is "still debated among the scientific community"? Because it's been a few years the debate stopped about the actual existence of GW, and I think the U.N.'s official scientist panel will actually officialise the man's responsability in it.

Only in politics - not in science. In science a fact is a very precious thing. And is not open to debate or concensus. So your statement again is a non-sequitar. Show me where any scientist accepts it as fact, and I will show you a charlatan.

Anyway, this was not about whether GW was real or not (please show me where anyone, least of all me, denied it). This was about an impossibility that the UN was trying to pass off as the big bad wolf. And any scientist will tell you that they are full of piss and poop.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

does that count? Oh, sorry, my bad, that was written in 2004...

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009625

this was written this febuary, about the IPCC's most recent estimates, which agrees that the Global Warming is worse than expected, and human activity is responsible for it.

The actual existence of Global Warming has been accepted as a fact by the IPCC since 2001. But no hard and solid proof were there to actualy know as a fact that human activity is responsible.

the IPCC is a very conservative study group, and usually take position on the most solid grounds possible

Again you are confusing belief with facts. None of your sources stated or even alleged that Global Warming was a scientific fact. Because it is not (it may prove to be one, yet it has not been to date).

And whether GW warming is real or a fake, one thing is certain. The UN report is a bunch of hogwash (the reason for this blog to begin with). Water is not going to disappear with Global Warming. Period. It may not be in the same form and proportions as it is today, but it will still be here.

actually, i addressed this whole thing in a recent article ...WWW Link

My god, you're head's harder than adamantine. I would like to know what event would make you consider global warming a scientific fact? I mean, except graphs and projections, there isn't a goddamn thing to measure climate!



no. However, drinkable water is going to disapear, as the water mass is moving out of the land, and into the sea. Lands are becoming dryier every year, deserts are progressing and wetlands are disapearing.

Missed it on the first go round. But the problem with those trying to squelch debate (off topic I know), is that until GW becomes a scientific fact, it MUST be questioned so that all possibilities can be examined and rejected, or incorporated into the observable data.

So even if we all believe global warming is occuring, scientist, based on the scientific method, cannot call it a fact until it is proven to be one.

guy, you know that everything in this debate has to do with the future, and no one can give a 100% guarantee. questioning is one thing, but the "anti-GW" crowd isn't questioning, they are nitpicking and claiming that if they can do a "gotacha" when someone over-reaches a lil with their claims, that the whole thing is just a bunch of hooey and we should just do nothing.

i disagree. despite "the debate" it is clear that the enviromental harm that we cause is most likely unprecedented. unless of course, the dinosaurs had big ol SUV's and chemical plants that our archeologists somehow missed.

doing nothing leads to nothing. waiting till everything is 100% guaranteed might be too late, imho.

doing some things, prudently and pragmatically, addressing the most obvious of concerns, in my opinion will only lead to more innovation that could and would have a positive impact on many things in our lives. in my article, i compared it to the space program and kennedy's "moon vision" that lead to some 30,000+ innovations and still continues to reap benefits.

And here is where we can debate (and take this on a tangent). I believe that doing "something" when you do not understand the problem is worse than doing nothing. It is like the surgeon taking out a kidney when the problem is the spleen. Until we can determine what the cause truly is (and since Mars is showing a proportional rise in temperatures it could be due to the high solar activity that man has nothing to do with), then doing "something" may make the problem worse, or even if it does not, over correct when solar activity goes back to normal.

I dont think anyone in the debate is saying that controlling polution is not a good idea. But using a shotgun, when a scalpel is needed, is not the answer either.

yeah, if we had no clue, that would be accurate. but i see areas where there is broad agreement (maybe not 100% but damn close)and simple pollution reducing plans are not going to harm us, i suspect. it might cause some big wigs a few bucks, but i'm not cryin for them.

working on renewable energy sources is not going to make things worse. aside from enviromental benefits, i believe the sooner we become independent in that area, the better. if people want to do it because they are sick of OPEC financed terrorism and such, and not because of the climate change threats, fine with me. and i think there are other areas where there can be more than 1 good reason to do something.

i understand that some on the far right are never going to accept anything that (as they perceive it) looks like it's coming from "those left wing kooks." but i think that there are many things that can be accomplished if we perhaps start to look at other benefits some of these ideas might create.

if i understand your analogy,,,,maybe a shotgun is too much, but a scalpel too small,,,maybe we need a screwdriver and a pair of pliars...(somewhere in the middle)

It wont cost them a farthing. It will cost you.

As for your suggestions, I dont know anyone arguing against looking for other energy sources, or reducing pollution. As I said, that is not the issue. The Issue is the whacky crap that is coming out from the greens where we have to stop food production (virtually - go back to all organic), ELIMINATE all polution (which means going back to pre-industrial society), installing mirrors on mountains, etc. etc. etc.

Cleaning up the environment is a good and noble thing - unless taken to extremes. We can remove 99% of the mercury from our rivers at a reasonable cost. To remove the last 1% would cost more than the GDP of the US, and would accomplish no real benefits (since all polution is present to some degree in nature to begin with). Yet the Al Gore's of the world would have us eliminate 100% when the benefits just are not there, and the costs enormous. Until they can prove that eliminating 100% will save us from armegeddon, I do not see ruining the economy of our nation, and all nations, since that would cost more lives than a few sunburns ever will.

well, as far as energy goes,,,no one argues it very often, you are right there. but it's kind of like the darfur situation (and so many others, just an example, not trying to change the subject), much more lip service and nothing never really gets accomplished. if we put our mind to it, we could be energy independent in less time than it took brazil (i think it took them roughly 15 years or something like that). but we won't in most likelihood, because it will continue to be lip serviced by corporations (like those "it's a start" ads by BP, which have been going for almost a decade now) and government.

Ever read Friedman and Williams? Gore is not far off with his carbon credits (although since he owns the company that is a sham). Tax Pollution! You want something done? Make it economical for something to get done. Tax pollution!

Heard that in DC lately? Ever? Doubt it. But that will spur private investment to do the right thing. And they will do it, not government.

Now, these people a just crazy, and I don't really want to listen to them. They are about as stupid as the people protesting against seal-hunting in the Canadian North.

Which doesn't mean the whole idea of reducing chemical production, or trying to find greener energy sources (or better, fiscaly favoring green company) is wrong.

I think that the Carbon Market is the best idea to actually impliment in an efficient way the whole anti-warming patent. People who will work hard and be clever ennough to find non-polluting way to transform industries will make a BIG BUCK out of it...

IF the Carbon Market is implimented. It's already in Europe, but I'm sure many people would get rich in the USA (and not that much would get poor) if it was implimented 100% in North America.



that's a pretty stupid assumption. So far, I've seen Al Gore to be more of a realist when he's talking about what the compagnies can do. Sure, some stupid eco-fanatics can always come and cry that there is still mercury in water, but as long as toxic level are within safety parameter (god, that sounded so Trekkier.. arg..), I don't see the problem about "polluting".

YOu should get out more and listen to him and the likes of him. You would not say that was stupid or an assumption, just a summation of his lunacy.

if ya notice, i don't even address anything concerning al with you guy...i know how you feel, you know how i feel. minds will not be changed here. i have enjoyed discussing the issue with ya tho:)

I do, and that was directed at cikomyr. I think overall we agree on most, perhaps just not in the level that we need to go to.

i agree, it's a matter of details and degrees ratehr than a black and white disagreement. i'm sure we'll have that on another thread, lol