taygone

All I know is this one sheet of TP and maybe two for those PESKY trips isn't working. I'm from Texas and I like bbq and mexican food. Can I get some TP offsets?

Bulgaroctonus

You cite legitimate grounds for accusing Al Gore of a hypocritical lifestyle, which may or may not be true. However, I said it was disingenuous to accuse him of hypocrisy based on the waste caused by the Live Earth concerts. You have not refuted my point about that.

You impute Al Gore with a scare motivation. What, in your opinion, does Al Gore have to gain by pressing the issue of global warming? Why would he scare people?

Why do you think global warming is a hoax?

That is not a view endorsed by most scientists or by common sense. Earth is subject to human influence. It appears that our influence of late has been profound.

I am glad that you find it reasonable to conserve, even if only in economic terms.

Few, if any, climatologists claim that the Earth will come to end. Instead, the idea is that human influence will make the continuation of human civilization more difficult. Global warming will probably lead to erratic climate, which will wreak havoc on crops and water supplies. Furthermore, the rise in sea level will result in the displacement of millions of humans.

I don't have time to do that. I have followed a good amount of the debate. Usually it consists of conservatives on this board mistakenly claiming that global warming is hoax or a liberal conspiracy. The debate is usually cyclical, as the appearance of yet another global warming thread proves.

dalem

Sorry, jumping in here...

Al Gore himself has justified his use of hyperbole and scare tactics to motivate his disciples:

From here.

Because it hasn't passed any scientific tests.

Scientific consensus is a shelter for the foolish - it is neither scientifically rigorous or intellectually honest. And your comment about "common sense" is nonsense. To what "influence", especially "of late" are you specifically referring?

Yeah yeah, we've heard the preaching. Now prove it. Prove any of it.

Bullsh*t. You claim that human industry is affecting the global climate. Now prove it. Don't whine and claim you're enlightened, just simply prove it.

Prove.

It.

-dale

Bulgaroctonus

You are incorrect in your assessment of Al Gore's hypocrisy because you imply a false dilemma: that prevention of global warming demands cessation of modern society and the forfeiture of all material comforts. This is neither the position of Al Gore nor the position of conservationists. As the below excerpt form the Guardian shows, Gore has been reluctant to divorce Americans from their lifestyles:

Interview: Al Gore on his mission to save the planet | Special reports | Guardian Unlimited

The recommendations in An Inconvenient Truth were reasonable things like having properly inflated tires and insulated houses. These are hardly the rantings of some anarcho-primitivist.

Furthermore, Al Gore does take steps to reduce his load on the environment. It is true that he is not a saint. However, he is doing more than you or I to lessen global warming. This comes from the same Guardian article:

From a CNN Larry King Live interview with Al Gore (Aired June 13, 2006):
CNN.com - Transcripts

I saw your most recent post about global warming not passing any tests. How many documents do you want me to get to support global warming? Ten, a hundred, a thousand? I can easily do that to counter your mistaken claim. Let's settle for ten to start off. By Sunday, I will find ten good articles on global warming. You can find ten articles, preferably not from the American Petroleum Institute, that claim that global warming is not happening or is not due to human activity.

I know that you and many other conservatives view global warming as a hoax spawned by the amorphous 'left'. I ask you to put aside that for our debate, as hard as it may be. I don't mean this condescendingly. I think it is essential to stop viewing Al Gore and all the IPCC as adversarial.

I believe the climate crisis is not a political, but a moral issue.

taygone

I apologize to jump in as well. I am about to envoke two names that Robert Kennedy Jr. did with such disgust: Glen Beck and Rush Limbaugh. I heard on one of Glen Beck's shows a few months ago that the President of Yugoslavia (I think) disputed the IPCC as it had a political biased agenda. Also, on the Rush Limbaugh show the question of morality hits it right on the head with the matter of carbon offsets. I don't mind trying to clean things up, but what in the world is a carbon offset? How can you say if I buy something I can keep driving my SUV and do all the stuff that's bad for the enviornment? That sounds like double talk. You guys over here stop everything you're doing. You guys on my side do what those guys were doing, but buy these offsets and I absolve you from your sins. One other thing, I've even heard from people who believe in Global Warming admit to I believe 90% of the "green house gasses" were caused from water vapor... How do we stop water from evaporating?

gunnut

Bulgaroctonus, if global warming were real, why is it called "climate change" now?

Because even the global warming cult knows the facts don't support their religion. They changed the name of the religion to cover all contengencies. Warming. Cooling. Mild rain after onshore breeze. More hurricanes. Fewer hurricanes. Ocean rising. Ocean falling.

If most scientists believe global warming were real, they would have stuck to the global warming label. Why change it? You have the facts to back you up.

Most scientists believe evolution is real. It's been widely accepted over the last 150 years or so. The name hasn't changed, has it? Why don't we call it "gradual appearance" or something vague like that? Just to cover the contengency of god creating animals and placing them on this earth.

We don't need sophisticated test models or theories or experiments or observations or anything like that to question global warming. We just need to question the reason behind the name change. A good theory, or fact, doesn't get a name change within 5 years of it's introduction.

__________________
"Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

dalem

Bulgy, I have been following the "global warming" myth since the mid-80s. I don't care how many crackpot interpretations of well-intended science you care to trot out, and I dismiss any populist bandwagonning of same. If you believe human industry has affected global climate, you must show some proof.

And there is none.

Now, it MAY be true, to some degree, small or large. So far, it has not one iota of real science backing it, and there is a large body of data that contradicts it.

As far as Gore, who cares? He is a man looking for a mission and he has found it. Great. He can preach and prosleytize to his heart's content. But don't believe for a second that any of it has been proven, and that none of it has been easily refuted.

As far as claims, YOU are the one with a claim - you claim that human industry affects global climate.

Prove it.

-dale

Parihaka

Here's a couple for you to read as a starter Bulgar

1

2

__________________
In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz

Wooglin

The original source for (1) is even better:

Climate Feedback: Predictions of climate

also from nature.com re: climate models
Quantifying climate change [mdash] too rosy a picture? : article : Nature Reports Climate Change

Reo690

I would like to post a report debunking Global Warming made by a person named Souldrinker on another forum. I take no credit for this report.

__________________
"I am not gay ... but I did stay at a Holiday Inn last night."
-- Senator Larry Craig, Boise, Idaho

glyn

Reo690

Oh, well I guess I'll have to copy it and post it here.

EDIT: The file is too long!

EDIT: I had to host it on a freewebs account, which is http://www.freewebs.com/reo690/proof.htm here.

gunnut

I just noticed something. There is no opposing view to "global warming" or "climate change" on any of the Discovery Channel type programs.

Every single program that remotely deals with the earth invariably ends with how man is destroying this earth.

Ultimate ego stroke for man. We can destroy a planet!!! How ridiculous is that? The power of man is insignificant next to the power of nature.

Jeebus, I had to change the channel because I just couldn't take the puke spewed out by that show (Universe on History Channel).

Stan187

Penn & Teller's Bullsh!t

__________________
In Iran people belive pepsi stands for pay each penny save israel. -urmomma158
The Russian Navy is still a threat, but only to those unlucky enough to be Russian sailors.-highsea

dalem

And of course, who can forget Darth Vader's words RE the Death Star:

"Don't be too proud of this technological terror you've constructed. The ability to destroy a planet is insignificant next to the power of the Force."



-dale