Al Gore - An Inconvenient Truth
#1
01-01-2009, 08:03 PM
#2
01-01-2009, 08:45 PM
Diesel Bomber
And you believe Al Gore? I'll pass.
For all of you that have bought into the whole man caused global warming, and it is caused by the internal combustion engine, what the heck melted the glaciers that covered North America Thousands of years ago?
Also I heard on the radio the other day that now that the number of scientist saying we are heading toward an ice age is growing.
I believe in being environmentally friendly but this crap is getting out of hand.
Global warming cult is nothing more than a money making scheme started by the rich to have more control over the poor.
For all of you that have bought into the whole man caused global warming, and it is caused by the internal combustion engine, what the heck melted the glaciers that covered North America Thousands of years ago?
Also I heard on the radio the other day that now that the number of scientist saying we are heading toward an ice age is growing.
I believe in being environmentally friendly but this crap is getting out of hand.
Global warming cult is nothing more than a money making scheme started by the rich to have more control over the poor.
Last edited by redneckbuckeye; 01-01-2009 at 08:50 PM.
#3
01-01-2009, 09:13 PM
And I'm sure the National Inquirer just snapped a pic of Jimmy Hoffa walking around...
Yes, the earth has gone through many ice ages and many warm periods. But in the last 50-100 years the numbers are amazingly different. How didn't man cause global warming? The population in the world has grown astronomically in the last century. All the automobiles, power plants, chemicals etc etc... the Earth went through many normal cooling and warming periods, until the whole industrial revolution set in and no one realized the consequences of emissions....
I believe a lot of people are misinformed about this and those who turn a blind eye may regret that decision in 10, 20, 50 years if this does continue. The Facts that Al Gore had in this are scientific fact. If you were to actually see this and have an open mind that maybe the radio is wrong, I believe it may change your thinking....
Yes, the earth has gone through many ice ages and many warm periods. But in the last 50-100 years the numbers are amazingly different. How didn't man cause global warming? The population in the world has grown astronomically in the last century. All the automobiles, power plants, chemicals etc etc... the Earth went through many normal cooling and warming periods, until the whole industrial revolution set in and no one realized the consequences of emissions....I believe a lot of people are misinformed about this and those who turn a blind eye may regret that decision in 10, 20, 50 years if this does continue. The Facts that Al Gore had in this are scientific fact. If you were to actually see this and have an open mind that maybe the radio is wrong, I believe it may change your thinking....
#4
01-01-2009, 09:26 PM
The problem is there are just as many facts and scientists that are saying the opposite is true. Who can we believe?
#5
01-01-2009, 09:33 PM
That movie is a bunch of fictional political propaganda, intended to force us to allow more govt control over our lives. Lots of sceintific evidence to the opposite view, heres just a little I found on a quick search. WEBCommentary(tm) - More Inconvenient Facts You can find lots more yourself.
Also search "global cooling" Thats how man was killing the planet in the 70's. Guess what was causing it? Hint, the same things that they say are causing warming now!!!!!
Don't believe anything a politician says, EVER!
Also search "global cooling" Thats how man was killing the planet in the 70's. Guess what was causing it? Hint, the same things that they say are causing warming now!!!!!
Don't believe anything a politician says, EVER!
#6
01-01-2009, 11:35 PM
One direction that I like to go with the global warming debate...
It is accepted that mankind has been the prime contributor to carbon dioxide emissions for the past 100 years and that carbon dioxide levels correlate with global warming. It is further accepted that both global warming and CO2 levels vary sinusoidally over time, and that while man's burning of fossil fuels has accelerated the rate of climate change, the ultimate level of atmospheric CO2 cannot exceed natural levels that have occurred previously, before the destruction and sequestering of vast amounts of plant life 40 million years ago.
Carbon is a resource with an enclosed life cycle, much like the water cycle. CO2 exists in the atmosphere as result of dead organic matter being decomposed, burned or processed through cellular respiration. It is taken from the atmosphere and turned into organic matter when plants perform photosynthesis. It is then used as the most basic form of energy for all higher life forms and mechanical economies.
Our present fossil fuel deposits formed 40 million years ago when a celestial extinction event shocked our carbon economy; large quantities of alginic plant life died due to a lack of sunlight and were buried before being utilized by consumers higher in the food chain. As our ecosystems collapsed, carbon in ancient alginic and plantonic lifeforms was buried and has remained isolated from our ecosystems since.
The goal of humanity over the past five thousand years has been to maximize the efficiency of cultivation. By re-introducing sequestered carbon into the atmosphere we have made the Earth much more habitable, with plants growing easier and ecosystems having more resources at their disposal than ever before. As a fringe benefit, we have secured a higher rate of return on agricultural investments for the rest of mankind's life span on this planet.
There are tradeoffs. As a cost to recharging our planet's life support systems, we have accelerated planetary warming. This will result in more stratified ecosystems; wetter places will be wetter, dryer places dryer. Ultimately this will allow animals to more completely specialize into individual niches and form more efficient ecosystems, but in the short term areas of cultivation may need to be altered and existing population centers may require increased irrigation. Another problem with global warming is that, due to melting of glaciers and thermal expansion of the oceans, many of the world's low-lying and coastal regions will be submerged. While greatly increasing the vitality of the Earth's fisheries and coral reef ecosystems, rising water levels will be devastating in areas such as Bangladesh, and it is suggested that the United States of America immediately intervene with large quantities of monetary capital, corporate investment and political organization to stave off disaster. Of tragic note is that the Bay Area of San Francisco might be swamped by tidal action; while I express my total regret at the loss of such a vital section of America, such sacrifices are required for the welfare of the Earth's ecosystems.
I am pleased to say that, for the past 5 decades, America has been the uncontested leader in carbon emissions. Never before has a country been more thoroughly dedicated to bettering its world, and I am proud to advocate the continued reintroduction of the carbon required to aid the growth of our most basic of lifeforms. Our suppressed plant life, having lived long without resources last sequestered with the late Devonian extinctions millions of years ago, will thrive due to our stewardship. And, due to our efforts, the human population will until the next major extinction event have the advantage of the most efficient cultivation powers the world has ever seen.
Emissions of toxins and other pollutants, along with deforestation, poor land management, and lack of investment in third world agriculture remain great problems facing our planet. But, thanks to the efforts of three generations of Americans, we have successfully returned to Mother Nature resources that will benefit us all.
With our mission almost completed, we must have the foresight to make the transition from a sequestered carbon economy to a renewable carbon economy. We have made the investment by giving plants that which they need to grow, and now we must not be too blinded to reap the returns.
Carbon is a resource with an enclosed life cycle, much like the water cycle. CO2 exists in the atmosphere as result of dead organic matter being decomposed, burned or processed through cellular respiration. It is taken from the atmosphere and turned into organic matter when plants perform photosynthesis. It is then used as the most basic form of energy for all higher life forms and mechanical economies.
Our present fossil fuel deposits formed 40 million years ago when a celestial extinction event shocked our carbon economy; large quantities of alginic plant life died due to a lack of sunlight and were buried before being utilized by consumers higher in the food chain. As our ecosystems collapsed, carbon in ancient alginic and plantonic lifeforms was buried and has remained isolated from our ecosystems since.
The goal of humanity over the past five thousand years has been to maximize the efficiency of cultivation. By re-introducing sequestered carbon into the atmosphere we have made the Earth much more habitable, with plants growing easier and ecosystems having more resources at their disposal than ever before. As a fringe benefit, we have secured a higher rate of return on agricultural investments for the rest of mankind's life span on this planet.
There are tradeoffs. As a cost to recharging our planet's life support systems, we have accelerated planetary warming. This will result in more stratified ecosystems; wetter places will be wetter, dryer places dryer. Ultimately this will allow animals to more completely specialize into individual niches and form more efficient ecosystems, but in the short term areas of cultivation may need to be altered and existing population centers may require increased irrigation. Another problem with global warming is that, due to melting of glaciers and thermal expansion of the oceans, many of the world's low-lying and coastal regions will be submerged. While greatly increasing the vitality of the Earth's fisheries and coral reef ecosystems, rising water levels will be devastating in areas such as Bangladesh, and it is suggested that the United States of America immediately intervene with large quantities of monetary capital, corporate investment and political organization to stave off disaster. Of tragic note is that the Bay Area of San Francisco might be swamped by tidal action; while I express my total regret at the loss of such a vital section of America, such sacrifices are required for the welfare of the Earth's ecosystems.
I am pleased to say that, for the past 5 decades, America has been the uncontested leader in carbon emissions. Never before has a country been more thoroughly dedicated to bettering its world, and I am proud to advocate the continued reintroduction of the carbon required to aid the growth of our most basic of lifeforms. Our suppressed plant life, having lived long without resources last sequestered with the late Devonian extinctions millions of years ago, will thrive due to our stewardship. And, due to our efforts, the human population will until the next major extinction event have the advantage of the most efficient cultivation powers the world has ever seen.
Emissions of toxins and other pollutants, along with deforestation, poor land management, and lack of investment in third world agriculture remain great problems facing our planet. But, thanks to the efforts of three generations of Americans, we have successfully returned to Mother Nature resources that will benefit us all.
With our mission almost completed, we must have the foresight to make the transition from a sequestered carbon economy to a renewable carbon economy. We have made the investment by giving plants that which they need to grow, and now we must not be too blinded to reap the returns.
#8
01-02-2009, 04:08 PM
Funny that all the models they use to prove global warming exists don't work in reverse to make global cooling. Also a bunch of the scientists that believed in global warming are now changing there minds. There are no facts in global warming there is only a supposedly a "scientific conscious". And if you don't remember there was once a scientific conscious that the world is flat. The global warming crowd really have a heck of a thing going on they try and blame any weather abnormality on global warming.
#9
01-03-2009, 04:19 PM
I can't wait for the day that Al Gore falls into the hole created by his carbon footprint!
There is no empirical evidence of global warming. As a matter of fact there are 650 scientist that are now disagreeing about GW as can be seen here. If you read that report you'll see that the last decade was actually the coolest in the past century. And which decade was the warmest? The 1930's.
Al Gore is a hypocrite. We've all heard about his house and how much energy it consumes. Here's a comparison of his house and George Bush's. Who seems more concerned about the environment? And Gore is heavily involved in many of the carbon offset companies. So who stands to gain if carbon credits become a requirement? Gore.
And now we have Congressional Motors (CM) who are going to be able to dictate to to auto manufacturers what cars to build. Everyone says we need more electric vehicles. So if that becomes a reality what can we expect? Here's how I see it. With current battery technology we have an electric car can go about 30-40 miles before needing to be recharged. We'll use Los Angeles as an example. Most of the workers in LA commute from places like the San Fernando Valley, the Inland Empire, etc. Most of those commutes are 30 or more miles. So those workers get to work in their cars but they'll need to be charged before going home. I don't know about you but I don't think that many employers have outlets in the employee parking lot. So, now they have to provide a place for the vehicles to be recharged. Are they going to provide that electricity for free? Or will the workers have to pay part of their salary to their employer to cover the cost?
LA in the summer is subject to rolling black/brown outs. Now you've got hundreds of electric vehicles plugged into the power network to recharge during the day. So on a hot day in LA you've got all the regular things draining the network, plus all these cars. How do you fix that? You need more power. But the NIMBY crowd won't let you build anymore power plants. I mean face it, those things are ugly. America is the Saudi Arabia of coal. And with current technology our clean burning coal plants are one of the cheapest and cleanest forms of energy. But with the stigma of coal you can't build those. Nuclear? Don't even get me started. Guess we could build more wind turbines. Have you ever seen the wind fields near Palm Springs? They cover vast acres and, while they do produce energy, are reliant on a constant wind. No wind, no electricity. Solar power works well. When the sun is shining. But with the cost of solar panels now days you'll reap no benefit from them because the ROI is almost negative. With the current effective life time of a solar panel being 12-15 years by the time they were at the end of their effectiveness is about the time that they would have paid for themselves.
I know these examples aren't about GW but with the hype that the alarmist have put on the world, these are the kind of solutions that are going to be happening. And they are not cheap. One of the main parts of solar panels is silica. That means, more has to be mined (using diesel mining equipment). More has to be transported to the manufacturing facility (using diesel locomotives). Manufacturing facilities have to work longer hours to keep up with the demand (using more electricity). I'm not saying that it's a no win situation, but it's going to be expensive.
Most of the rant above is based on my opinion from what I see going on in the world. But until they can show me empirical evidence to support their claims, I remain a skeptic. Does that mean that I'm out blowing smoke and burning huge bonfires? No. I do believe that we need to take care of the planet. I just don't think that buying into the hype and blowing things all out of proportion is the way to do it.
---AutoMerged DoublePost---
Here is another article that disputes Al Gores rants with.... Facts! Amazing what science can teach you.
There is no empirical evidence of global warming. As a matter of fact there are 650 scientist that are now disagreeing about GW as can be seen here. If you read that report you'll see that the last decade was actually the coolest in the past century. And which decade was the warmest? The 1930's.
Al Gore is a hypocrite. We've all heard about his house and how much energy it consumes. Here's a comparison of his house and George Bush's. Who seems more concerned about the environment? And Gore is heavily involved in many of the carbon offset companies. So who stands to gain if carbon credits become a requirement? Gore.
And now we have Congressional Motors (CM) who are going to be able to dictate to to auto manufacturers what cars to build. Everyone says we need more electric vehicles. So if that becomes a reality what can we expect? Here's how I see it. With current battery technology we have an electric car can go about 30-40 miles before needing to be recharged. We'll use Los Angeles as an example. Most of the workers in LA commute from places like the San Fernando Valley, the Inland Empire, etc. Most of those commutes are 30 or more miles. So those workers get to work in their cars but they'll need to be charged before going home. I don't know about you but I don't think that many employers have outlets in the employee parking lot. So, now they have to provide a place for the vehicles to be recharged. Are they going to provide that electricity for free? Or will the workers have to pay part of their salary to their employer to cover the cost?
LA in the summer is subject to rolling black/brown outs. Now you've got hundreds of electric vehicles plugged into the power network to recharge during the day. So on a hot day in LA you've got all the regular things draining the network, plus all these cars. How do you fix that? You need more power. But the NIMBY crowd won't let you build anymore power plants. I mean face it, those things are ugly. America is the Saudi Arabia of coal. And with current technology our clean burning coal plants are one of the cheapest and cleanest forms of energy. But with the stigma of coal you can't build those. Nuclear? Don't even get me started. Guess we could build more wind turbines. Have you ever seen the wind fields near Palm Springs? They cover vast acres and, while they do produce energy, are reliant on a constant wind. No wind, no electricity. Solar power works well. When the sun is shining. But with the cost of solar panels now days you'll reap no benefit from them because the ROI is almost negative. With the current effective life time of a solar panel being 12-15 years by the time they were at the end of their effectiveness is about the time that they would have paid for themselves.
I know these examples aren't about GW but with the hype that the alarmist have put on the world, these are the kind of solutions that are going to be happening. And they are not cheap. One of the main parts of solar panels is silica. That means, more has to be mined (using diesel mining equipment). More has to be transported to the manufacturing facility (using diesel locomotives). Manufacturing facilities have to work longer hours to keep up with the demand (using more electricity). I'm not saying that it's a no win situation, but it's going to be expensive.
Most of the rant above is based on my opinion from what I see going on in the world. But until they can show me empirical evidence to support their claims, I remain a skeptic. Does that mean that I'm out blowing smoke and burning huge bonfires? No. I do believe that we need to take care of the planet. I just don't think that buying into the hype and blowing things all out of proportion is the way to do it.
---AutoMerged DoublePost---
Here is another article that disputes Al Gores rants with.... Facts! Amazing what science can teach you.
Last edited by usmc0681; 01-03-2009 at 04:19 PM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
#10
01-03-2009, 07:26 PM
