Results 1 to 12 of 20

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Tenuous
    Posts
    4,920

    Gore puts Climate Change denier back in her fog

    How many times does Gore have to explain to carbon burning proponents that he doesn't make profit off of his advocacy for green energy? Out of all the conservative platforms, I just can't understand why anyone would be so ideological against clean burning, renewable energy.

    http://tpmtv.talkingpointsmemo.com/?id=2419912









  2. #2

    Re: Gore puts Climate Change denier back in her fog

    Quote Originally Posted by Galen Sevinne View Post
    How many times does Gore have to explain to carbon burning proponents that he doesn't make profit off of his advocacy for green energy? Out of all the conservative platforms, I just can't understand why anyone would be so ideological against clean burning, renewable energy.

    http://tpmtv.talkingpointsmemo.com/?id=2419912
    Not against it, per se, but not overly concerned. Climate change was NEVER more hten a minority scientific opinion that was propoghanda--style pushed as fact when it is far from it. This is not like Evolution being pushed despite being proven, at least that has been a majority scientific opinion for decades. Manmade Climate change has ALWAYS been a minority Scientific opinion.

    Connies are more interested in Nuclear Power as it would dramattically reduce our dependance on foreign oil in short order.





  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Southern PA
    Posts
    6,854
    Blog Entries
    3

    Re: Gore puts Climate Change denier back in her fog

    This is a pretty good article about the absurdities in Gore's "Documentary"

    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/mo...oreerrors.html





  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Tenuous
    Posts
    4,920

    Re: Gore puts Climate Change denier back in her fog

    I agree that there is no proof for either side in this debate. Climate change is a theory...man-made climate change more a theory. That being said, a theory can be true. I am not sure how you could actually prove it. It would be hard to prove evolution but I don't think that diminishes the liklihoood of the theory being true.

    I am one who believes in climate change, have read a zillion links and know a couple people who i trust with their backgrounds who feel pretty confident in man-made climate change. We had a really good debate about it on this board last year with many good links.

    So my point isn't to any longer debate climate change or man-made climate change but to question what is the purpose of so admantly denying it? If we can all agree that it is a theory and woul dbe very hard to prove either way, wouldn't it be better to err on the side of caution?

    There is plenty of anecdotal evidence that something in the climate has at least changed. Huge chucks of antartica keep breaking off, increase in wildfires, increase in intensity and frequency of hurricanes. Just backpacking in Glacier Nat. Park a couple years ago, they have photos of the Glaciers 50-100 years ago and many are competely gone while others are greatly diminshed. Yes that can be a natural cycling and it could man-made.

    People on the right are so adamant to disprove climate change but why? What negative comes from erring on the side of caution? Someone answer that question while I answer what positve comes from going with the idea of man-made climate change;

    1. A competely new energy economy...new jobs...new technology...the chance to create and build something tangible which we need.

    2. Move away from a finite source of energy which the world will have to someday anyway...that is inevitable. Maybe not in our lifetime but our children or grandchildren's lifetime.

    3. Stop paying the Middle East, Russia, Venezuela etc for their oil.

    4. Preserve our National Parks and coastlines.

    5. Lower pollution and haze.

    6. lower carcinogens in the environment

    7. And if there is a link between burning fossil fuels and global warming, we need not worry anymore.

    Sounds pretty reasonable to me.

    So now the arguments for assuming that climate change is bunk and its all about Al Gore getting rich;

    1. Exxon, Mobil, et al. will not have to look for alternative products to sell

    2. The Cato Institute, Heritage Foundation can continue to push their conservative agendas through funding by the big oil companies.

    3. Al Gore will have to find a new hobby.


    Comparing these lists I feel confident that without clear proof in either direction that promoting the idea of man-made climate change is the socially conscious way to go. When I see individuals like you see in the video above trying to suggest that Al Gore has some ulterior motive in his work seems so odd...unless of course there is some payment coming her way by objecting to his stance. I don't get it.









  5. #5

    Re: Gore puts Climate Change denier back in her fog

    Quote Originally Posted by Galen Sevinne View Post
    I agree that there is no proof for either side in this debate. Climate change is a theory...man-made climate change more a theory. That being said, a theory can be true. I am not sure how you could actually prove it. It would be hard to prove evolution but I don't think that diminishes the liklihoood of the theory being true.

    I am one who believes in climate change, have read a zillion links and know a couple people who i trust with their backgrounds who feel pretty confident in man-made climate change. We had a really good debate about it on this board last year with many good links.

    So my point isn't to any longer debate climate change or man-made climate change but to question what is the purpose of so admantly denying it? If we can all agree that it is a theory and woul dbe very hard to prove either way, wouldn't it be better to err on the side of caution?

    There is plenty of anecdotal evidence that something in the climate has at least changed. Huge chucks of antartica keep breaking off, increase in wildfires, increase in intensity and frequency of hurricanes. Just backpacking in Glacier Nat. Park a couple years ago, they have photos of the Glaciers 50-100 years ago and many are competely gone while others are greatly diminshed. Yes that can be a natural cycling and it could man-made.

    People on the right are so adamant to disprove climate change but why? What negative comes from erring on the side of caution? Someone answer that question while I answer what positve comes from going with the idea of man-made climate change;

    1. A competely new energy economy...new jobs...new technology...the chance to create and build something tangible which we need.

    2. Move away from a finite source of energy which the world will have to someday anyway...that is inevitable. Maybe not in our lifetime but our children or grandchildren's lifetime.

    3. Stop paying the Middle East, Russia, Venezuela etc for their oil.

    4. Preserve our National Parks and coastlines.

    5. Lower pollution and haze.

    6. lower carcinogens in the environment

    7. And if there is a link between burning fossil fuels and global warming, we need not worry anymore.

    Sounds pretty reasonable to me.

    So now the arguments for assuming that climate change is bunk and its all about Al Gore getting rich;

    1. Exxon, Mobil, et al. will not have to look for alternative products to sell

    2. The Cato Institute, Heritage Foundation can continue to push their conservative agendas through funding by the big oil companies.

    3. Al Gore will have to find a new hobby.


    Comparing these lists I feel confident that without clear proof in either direction that promoting the idea of man-made climate change is the socially conscious way to go. When I see individuals like you see in the video above trying to suggest that Al Gore has some ulterior motive in his work seems so odd...unless of course there is some payment coming her way by objecting to his stance. I don't get it.
    Climate change itself is not bunk, it's a fact. Our Earth's climate has been very Cyclic in nature, just how it is occurring now.
    I also see NO REASON not to exercise conservation, renewable energy sources and pollution reduction. Nothing but good can come, you are correct.

    BUT DO NOT frame it under the guise of stopping manmade global warming. Now YOU are the one that should be wearing a tinfoil hat. Our climate can be scientifically proven to be cyclic in nature, and that we are currently at a NOT ABNORMAL peak, on the way back down.

    An inconvenient truth, has clearly made your side look bad here. It was clearly a propaghanda piece similar to "Reefer Madness" and the longer your side avoids that truth, the worse you look. IT is FULL of clear cehrry picking of data DESPITE many signs in the other direction.

    AT THE VERY LEAST, I'd liek to see Gore stripped of his Peace Prize. I absolutely agree with the people that have turned down the award since. If I were smart enough to win one, I would ABSOLUTELY decline the option while Gore remained in posession of his.

    Again, let's be green and EFFICIENT, but I am not going out of my way to be the first in spite of the second. EFFICIENCY is what is lacking in oru society. More government only makes that worse.

    I repeat, build as many windmill's as you can, keep refining solar power technology, etc. I'm even not against Ethanol despite its net energy loss at the moment, becuase there is CLEARLY gains to be found in the technology. The moment we can turn stalks and husks into ethanol is the moment we have been happy to have begun the program.
    I am very pro Nuke power, though I would imagine you are not. I would liek a FEW DOZEN nuke plants built this decade.

    "An inconvenient Truth" was yellow hournalism at best and set the "greenies" back a decade at BEST. It is sort of like PETA. The message is good, but the delivery is so EXTAVAGANTLY POOR, that many ignore hte message. People don't like to be lied to. Talking to peopel responsibly, thruthfully and reasonably will accomplish far more then blatant scare tactics.





  6. #6

    Re: Gore puts Climate Change denier back in her fog

    "An inconvenient Truth" was yellow hournalism at best and set the "greenies" back a decade at BEST. It is sort of like PETA. The message is good, but the delivery is so EXTAVAGANTLY POOR, that many ignore hte message. People don't like to be lied to. Talking to peopel responsibly, thruthfully and reasonably will accomplish far more then blatant scare tactics.


    Blatant scare tactics? Wow, Isn'tthat all we hear these days? especially from the RIGHT?
    Seriously, though, the cycles that this earth has gone through for billions of years are, as far as I'm concerned, well documented, and those cycles have not likely been affected by humans.... for the first 4 billon years or so. But for us to say, as most who poo-poo climate change do, that there's nothing humans could do to affect change, I believe that to be at best, naive. We've only been burning fossil fuels for just over 100 years."
    Prior to the advent of gasoline engines, the burning of fuels of any kind was limited to cooking, heating the tepee, and for a couple of hundred years, smelting, etc. But our world has changed. In the second half of the 20th century, we burned many THOUSANDS times the amount of fuel as we had in the previous 10,000 years. There MAY NOT be any incontrovertial proof that we are affecting the earth's patterns, but it would seem that the marked change in the amount of fossil fuel burning would cause even the most obstinate person to wonder. Just using simple logic would cause ANY RATIONAL PERSON to believe the idea has merit. WE have burned millions upon millions of gallons of fuel in a hundred years, which is maybe 10,000 times the amount burned in the previous 10,000 years? Without even compiling ANY evidence, the idea seems almost too sane to refute...without real evidence to the contrary
    Oh, and we are in a down period in sunspots... which means we SHOULD be experiencing colder weather... which is what was predicted in the '70's... but we're not, it's getting warmer... Doesn't that explain your statement about.... it was supposed to be getting colder, now they say warmer and climate change.. That statement helps support the global warming phenomena, not refute it.
    Err on the side of caution, I always say... especially when it is so vital to the survival of our planet, humankind, etc.





  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Mt. Arrogance in the middle of the .11 rolling acres of The Windbag Estates
    Posts
    13,616

    Re: Gore puts Climate Change denier back in her fog

    Quote Originally Posted by Galen Sevinne View Post
    Climate Change
    All I need to note is these two words.

    On the first earth day we were warned the earth would have cooled 10 degrees by 2000. Then we got global warming. Now, climate change.

    LOL.

    Yes, the climate is changing, and it has been since the world has existed.





Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Link To Mobile Site
var infolinks_pid = 3297965; var infolinks_wsid = 0; //—->