Thread: Do You Think GWB Hates Al Gore?

Originally Posted by JMS

But its soooo fun!

Where commentators (often called "pundits," which, for some reason, is pronounced "pundents") really shine is in medical reporting. They'll take a scrap of some early research, misinterpret it, and rush to air with some sort of headline like "New Research Cures Death" or something like that. The poor researcher -- assuming he didn't misrepresent himself in the first place to get a grant or something -- is left whimpering, "But I didn't say that," while his reputation twists slowly in the wind.

The state of the press right now is not pretty.

Now, back on topic.

j

Originally Posted by nun2sharp

Nord Jim, he couldve turned the award down or ask that it be passed on to someone more deserving, instead he used it to fuel his personal star.

Right. When did that happen last?

j

Originally Posted by Nord Jim

Right. When did that happen last?

j

Enough humility to do whats right? I doubt if he's ever had it.

Originally Posted by nun2sharp

Enough humility to do whats right? I doubt if he's ever had it.

Look, I accept that you don't like the guy. But if the Committee calls and says you're the Nobel Laureate, you accept graciously, especially if you believe in what you're doing, which Gore clearly does. Mother Theresa did it. Begin and Sadat did it. Desmond Tutu did it. Teddy Roosevelt did it. That's what they do.

I'm sorry if you don't believe in what Gore is trying to do. Personally, I'm glad he's working so hard to highlight what I believe is a huge potential problem. There are a lot of people who agree.

Word in DC, by the way, is that Gore would rather go to bed with fire ants than run for anything again, so I'm not sure what you think his hidden agenda is. Being the center of attention, sure. All politicians thrive on that.

j

Originally Posted by Nord Jim

Skepticism is fine, but it should probably be moderated if the clock is ticking as badly as we're told.

And everything I've read or heard confirms that there is, indeed, near-unanimity that climate is changing because of human activity. Scientists disagree on the exact mechanism, which gives the oil companies the chance to say 'See!"

While I do not disagree about climate change (I think it happens) I disagree with the assessment that humankind is specifically responsible (and for that matter, even if we were to the point the movie would lead one to believe, then it is too late...). Do we contribute? sure, but I've seen nothing quantifying that the *actual* level of change relative to human action is any way proportional to the claims they make. It's a money making trick, IMHO. Take natural events, which would have (IMHO) occurred anyway, let the population believe they are at fault, then magnanimously charge them for this. Like charging someone for dumping salt into the ocean, saying they ruined the fresh water there. We do have an effect, but I believe the natural forces far outweigh anything we've done cumulatively (climate-wise, anyway) to date. Take care of what we have? absolutely. Live cleanly and efficiently as possible. Send money to Al Gore for "carbon credits" or grant more power to the UN to oversee "global warming crises?" Never.

We are, in essence, listening to a man and a theory, who even if he is right to a small degree, felt it necessary to mislead through a shiny new movie, rather than tell the (less exciting) truth. Add to this that the more people who believe what they see [in the movie] the more money flowing into Mr. Gore's coffers. I also don't see any Oil companies going "see!" at all. I do see them bending over backwards, trying to be as environmentally conscious as they can on the one hand, but still produce what people demand from them on the other. We as a nation have become those who would bite the hand that feeds them. I believe wholeheartedly in conservation and even (my pet word) stewardship. That doesn't mean that I agree we need yet another enormous government bureaucracy (this time, perhaps, on a global scale) to tell us how to do so and to (of course) designate itself as the authority to levy fines, taxes, etc....

Originally Posted by Nord Jim

Its kind of like the evolution debate. Creationists take disagreements between scientists on the exact mechanisms of evolution and claim that these prove that the theory is false. It's not how science works.

actually...the two aren't at all similar, nor do all creationists believe there is no evolution. That is a different subject completely however.

Originally Posted by Nord Jim

If, on the other hand, you've heard something that suggests that scientists are NOT in agreement, well, then...

There was a thread a few weeks ago touting a petition of 30,000 scientists who claim to disagree with climate theory. I checked two names at random. The first was dead and the second, a college professor, claimed never to have signed and was outraged that his name was attached.

Not proof, with such a sample, but suggestive.

j

Which two names?
FWIW I wouldn't have expected a college professor to own up to signing such a thing, anyway. As I gather already a few climatologists have lost their jobs for questioning the government's new pet theory publicly, and to be honest it doesn't seem that anyone not toeing the party line is well thought of in universities, either-global warming=more funding, after all....
They aren't in it for the conservation, nor is the UN. They are seeing your wallet emptying in their general direction "for the common good" as well as your heavier reliance on, and indeed obedience of....them.

It bears note that about 40 or 50 years ago, scientists uncovered a mastodon completely frozen. Which, oddly enough, they ate. Inside its stomach were tropical plants. Likewise tropical plants have been found in antarctic ice core samples from what I gather. This obviously has nothing to do with the evil Oil companies, and even Dick Cheney isn't *that* old. This has not been explained by many of these. Nor has the fact that the ice caps on Mars are also apparently melting(?) too. At any rate, it seems the tendency is to glaze over vast planetary mechanisms and blame it on the annoying gnat. The UN nor Gore's company can make money off of planetary action. On the other hand, if they blame us and only us....

Tell me to conserve because it is the right thing to do, and I will agree with you. Try and blame me for the sun seeming hot or the rain last week-only to tell me (yet again) the government will fix things, just send us your money....and my response is less positive.

It would seem the *only* explanation acceptable is the Gore/UN version and effort is being made not to find the truth but to prove the popular theory. Such is not science, it is Dogma.


John P.

John P.,

What do you think about the speculations on oil reserves? Do you believe we have reached "peak oil"? If we have indeed consumed that much oil and we know how polluting the consumption of oil is, why is it so far fetched to you that we have damaged the environment and we should be doing something about it?

Brad

You know, I often wonder with this global warming debate about the ability of humans as a whole to effect climate. We do give ourselves a lot of credit, especially when you consider that, historically, we've been told that "we know so little" about so many things in nature by scientists. Suddenly these same scientists are certain about this one. Someone must have perfected the crystal ball and not bothered to tell us.

Suppose we are headed for a greenhouse climate (or whatever it's called) like what they say it was like in the Cretaceous period. Then recycling your plastic bottles seems to me to be the equivalent of "duck and cover" at the hypocentre of a nuke.

Do you realise the biggest carbon emitting industry in Australia is not Aluminium smelters or coal-fired electricity generators? It's the cattle industry. All those Bovine flatus and burping events are sending us down. If we are serious about reducing our carbon footprint, we should all become vegetarians and force the beef industry out of existence.

Taking a bigger picture view - if we are hitting peak oil, then a good old greenhouse climate for a few millennia is just what the doctor ordered really. The Earth's way of getting some more oil back into the ground. Sure, our children won't benefit, or our children's children. But we have to be less selfish about this - the next dominant species that comes along will thank us for it in the long run as they drive their 2030 - 2,203,000 greenhouse period -generated oil-fired vehicular modes of transport. In fact, you could view our current greenhouse-generating actions as being the ultimate in self-sacrifice. Look beyond the "next generation". Start thinking "next species".

Do we really think our species will last forever? Do we really think our death-throes will be painless and happy? We are headed for Mad Max territory people!!

But hey, I do my bit. I regularly take a pee in the ocean.

James.

But hey, I do my bit. I regularly take a pee in the ocean.

That'll keep me away from the beach this summer!You are probably the guy melting the icecaps. In all honesty, I think it very arrogant to think that we can and are destroying the earth. In the eyes of mother nature we are ****ants. If she even notices. I do not believe that we have the ability to even scratch the surface of the details that would need to be known to make an accurate observation, one way or another. When they conquer the commom cold, call me. In the meantime its purely politics meant to divide the people into easily managable camps, so that people like Al Gore and GW can benefit. Ya gotta remember, Gore is an oilman too! So whats his angle?

Originally Posted by JohnP

While I do not disagree about climate change (I think it happens) I disagree with the assessment that humankind is specifically responsible (and for that matter, even if we were to the point the movie would lead one to believe, then it is too late...). Do we contribute? sure, but I've seen nothing quantifying that the *actual* level of change relative to human action is any way proportional to the claims they make. It's a money making trick, IMHO. Take natural events, which would have (IMHO) occurred anyway, let the population believe they are at fault, then magnanimously charge them for this. Like charging someone for dumping salt into the ocean, saying they ruined the fresh water there. We do have an effect, but I believe the natural forces far outweigh anything we've done cumulatively (climate-wise, anyway) to date. Take care of what we have? absolutely. Live cleanly and efficiently as possible. Send money to Al Gore for "carbon credits" or grant more power to the UN to oversee "global warming crises?" Never. .

What money did Gore ask for? None.

Originally Posted by JohnP

We are, in essence, listening to a man and a theory, who even if he is right to a small degree, felt it necessary to mislead through a shiny new movie, rather than tell the (less exciting) truth. Add to this that the more people who believe what they see [in the movie] the more money flowing into Mr. Gore's coffers. I also don't see any Oil companies going "see!" at all. I do see them bending over backwards, trying to be as environmentally conscious as they can on the one hand, but still produce what people demand from them on the other. We as a nation have become those who would bite the hand that feeds them. I believe wholeheartedly in conservation and even (my pet word) stewardship. That doesn't mean that I agree we need yet another enormous government bureaucracy (this time, perhaps, on a global scale) to tell us how to do so and to (of course) designate itself as the authority to levy fines, taxes, etc.....

That's just the point. It's not just "one man." It's practically the entire scientific community. And the oil companies aren't "bending over backwards." They're funding "think" tanks to come up with plausible reasons to disbelieve climate change theory. Don't believe it? Check with Sourcewatch.org to figure out where the money comes from for these "alternate views" -- if you can determine who comes up with these arguments at all.

Originally Posted by JohnP

actually...the two aren't at all similar, nor do all creationists believe there is no evolution. That is a different subject completely however..

The two are similar in their illustration of public misperception of scientific theory. In that sense -- which is the sense in which I used the example -- the comparison is total appropriate.

Don't believe it? Answer this: When did the notion that the earth is roughly spherical in shape pass from being "mere theory" into being accepted scientific fact?

Originally Posted by JohnP

Which two names? .

You think I'm making that up? Do some research on your own. I don't think the professor would appreciate further attention. I think that many people are pretty credulous on these "petitions."

Originally Posted by JohnP

FWIW I wouldn't have expected a college professor to own up to signing such a thing, anyway. As I gather already a few climatologists have lost their jobs for questioning the government's new pet theory publicly, and to be honest it doesn't seem that anyone not toeing the party line is well thought of in universities, either-global warming=more funding, after all.....

Actually, the only people who have suffered for this that I know of are people whose research was edited or suppressed by the current administration. Did you know that the administration even objected to the term "climate change," and wanted any discussion to be of "climate variation?"

Originally Posted by JohnP

They aren't in it for the conservation, nor is the UN. They are seeing your wallet emptying in their general direction "for the common good" as well as your heavier reliance on, and indeed obedience of....them..

I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous. What would be their motive? This is some sort of conspiracy theory.

Originally Posted by JohnP

It bears note that about 40 or 50 years ago, scientists uncovered a mastodon completely frozen. Which, oddly enough, they ate. Inside its stomach were tropical plants. Likewise tropical plants have been found in antarctic ice core samples from what I gather. This obviously has nothing to do with the evil Oil companies, and even Dick Cheney isn't *that* old. This has not been explained by many of these. Nor has the fact that the ice caps on Mars are also apparently melting(?) too. At any rate, it seems the tendency is to glaze over vast planetary mechanisms and blame it on the annoying gnat. The UN nor Gore's company can make money off of planetary action. On the other hand, if they blame us and only us.....

So? Climate can legitimately alter in 60,000 years. When it suddenly shifts within a century, though, I think we should figure out why.

Originally Posted by JohnP

Tell me to conserve because it is the right thing to do, and I will agree with you. Try and blame me for the sun seeming hot or the rain last week-only to tell me (yet again) the government will fix things, just send us your money....and my response is less positive..

Nobody's blaming you for anything -- although I do worry that 50 years from now, with the climate in shambles and the world in disorder, my grandchildren might ask me, "What did you do about the climate crisis, Grandpa?"

Originally Posted by JohnP

It would seem the *only* explanation acceptable is the Gore/UN version and effort is being made not to find the truth but to prove the popular theory. Such is not science, it is Dogma..

Be careful who you accuse of clinging to dogma. You've given me conspiracy theories, character assassination (of Al Gore and the UN) and mere disbelief. I weigh this against the science I've read on the subject, which is easily available to you, and wonder how you can believe as you obviously believe.

j

Originally Posted by Jimbo

Do you realise the biggest carbon emitting industry in Australia is not Aluminium smelters or coal-fired electricity generators? It's the cattle industry. All those Bovine flatus and burping events are sending us down. If we are serious about reducing our carbon footprint, we should all become vegetarians and force the beef industry out of existence.

It's true that cattle emit lots of carbon in the form of methane, but it's carbon that was just removed from the atmosphere by the grass that the cattle ate, through the mechanism of photosynthesis. In other words, it's a put-and-take proposition, which has been exploited by the oil industry to cast doubt on the greenhouse climate theory. Proves nothing. Has nowhere near the net effect that burning fossil fuels has, because that emits carbon that had been sequestered for millions of years.

j