Al Gore

I heard that one of the scientist that received the Nobel Peace Prize (along side Al Gore) gave it back. This is unconfirmed. Just wondering if anyone else heard this.

Like I said i'm not 100% , but I believe it was because he felt the evidence was not clear on whether the current global warming trend was a naturally occurring cycle or caused by man.

So -- IF Global Warming is all some big scam and we all treat the world and enviroment better because we bought into the scam --- what would be the outcome?

Oh yeah. Cleaner air, water, alternate energy sources ... who wants that stuff?

We all want that "stuff" but please don't try conning me and the rest of the public to get it.

I would put my 2 cents here, but according to my restraining order (due to my unhealthy obsession with Mr. Gore); I must refrain from commenting on any message that mentions his name.;-)

I would put my 2 cents here, but according to my restraining order (due to my unhealthy obsession with Mr. Gore); I must refrain from commenting on any message that mentions his name.;-)

It seems the people who want to deny global warming are also the ones driving the fat ass Yukons, pouring Co2 emissions into the atmosphhere, and at the same time stuffing the pockets of radical armed Muslims in oil producing countries. They want to deny both the cause and the effect.

The Prophet Al Gore was actually driving a Cadillac Escalade in one of the scenes from An Inconvenient Truth and he was also flying in a private jet in one or two of the scenes. His mansion in Tennessee also uses a tad more energy than the homes of most Americans. So, it's not only the folks you refer to above that drive environmentally unsound vehicles. It's also the hypocritical global warming prophet himself. Oh, I forgot, he buys carbon offsets to make things right.

You made the mistake of using reason and those who deny global warming exists don't often utilize that principle.

Nobody here denies that global warming exists. In fact, if you see An Inconvenient Truth, you will note the large graph of data that Al points to in his lecture that the earth has gone through numerous cycles of cooling and warming over the last 650,000 years. Unfortunately, Al focuses only on the last few years in making his leap of faith theory that says man is the primary cause of THIS cycle of warming which has only been going on for a few seconds (relatively speaking in geologic terms). He also fails to point out that we are still way, way below the zenith of temperatures that have occurred numerous times over the last 650,000 years. He also fails to point out that when the temperatures were much higher in the past, man wasn't around to cause this warming. Maybe, just maybe, you should consider that what is happening today is simply part of the natural cycle. Skunk is right, this is a political issue, with not much science to back it up.

Well that's just . I don't ever remember seeing the totem pole with scientific data on it. Perhaps you could find that pic for me? To equate tons of verifiable, reproducible, and in some cases tested; research and data to "thunder gods" is rediculous.

Ha! No matter how many time I read this post it still makes me giggle.

OK, so 100% of the research and data supports the CO2 equals global warming hypothesis? That isn't how I understand it;perhaps you can cite a study that elevates the 'theory' to a 'law'. Let me save you a trip to Google...none exist.

Is it possible that Al Gore is right? Yes. But extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence and that evidence does not yet exist. People get very emotional because politics have been injected into this and hyperbole fans the flame of debate among well meaning people.

Please view this clip, I think there is an analagous relationship to the global warming petition. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yi3erdgVVTw

I'll be honest - I'm not watching the video because I have slow internet connection and it would simply take to long. Send me an article to read, I'll read it, really.

Um, this wonderful thing that we all rely on everyday... The science that helped create computers, make better cars, planes, and so many things that seemed like science fiction a few years ago. It takes time for people to agree on things sometimes. I'm not holding my breath that 100% will agree on anything when it comes to science, especially when there is money to be made on both sides.

I hate to break it to you, but I don't really do politics. I don't have a fave canidate to 2008, I don't consider myself to really be a part of any party. I do have views and opinions on a lot of things in life.

I feel strongly about this because I don't see believing that Global Warming is real hurts anything. I would rather be wrong than run the risk of not believing, not making changes in my life, and suffering greatly for it.

You made the mistake of using reason and those who deny global warming exists don't often utilize that principle.

It finnally clicked how I know your "name"! I so miss that show!

Nobody denies we are experiencing a warming trend. Those with intellectual curiousity wonder if there is an explanation other than the hypothesis that mankind is to blame. Isn't that reasonable?

Nothing wrong with wondering. Nothing wrong with questioning motives, numbers, etc, etc. I think we all have to admit that we have changed the world forever. Our impact will live on beyond what we can ever imagine. How big that impact is, can be argued but my personal goal is lessening my impact. I do it at home, I do it at work, and I love sharing and learning about it.

We all want that "stuff" but please don't try conning me and the rest of the public to get it.

Or.. Sometimes we need to be shocked and scared to get people up and going. Is it right? No. Is it truthful? Unfortunately.

I would put my 2 cents here, but according to my restraining order (due to my unhealthy obsession with Mr. Gore); I must refrain from commenting on any message that mentions his name.;-)

Doesn't posting that notice go against your restraining order? :shock::leaving:

OK, so 100% of the research and data supports the CO2 equals global warming hypothesis? That isn't how I understand it;perhaps you can cite a study that elevates the 'theory' to a 'law'. Let me save you a trip to Google...none exist.

Is it possible that Al Gore is right? Yes. But extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence and that evidence does not yet exist. People get very emotional because politics have been injected into this and hyperbole fans the flame of debate among well meaning people.

Please view this clip, I think there is an analagous relationship to the global warming petition. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yi3erdgVVTw

Since we are all about analogies now...

As a medical professional I ask you if you are torn as to the cause of AIDS? I mean there is some scientific evidence showing that it is caused by HIV, but there are those that feel it is not and is just a ruse by the drug companies or perhaps some other environmental cause.



I realize this is way off the beaten path, but I'm just trying to get a point across. In addition that I would like to state that to the best of my knowledge HIV causes AIDS and one should always use safe sex practices unless in a monogamous committed relationship.

Since we are all about analogies now...

As a medical professional I ask you if you are torn as to the cause of AIDS? I mean there is some scientific evidence showing that it is caused by HIV, but there are those that feel it is not and is just a ruse by the drug companies or perhaps some other environmental cause.



I realize this is way off the beaten path, but I'm just trying to get a point across. In addition that I would like to state that to the best of my knowledge HIV causes AIDS and one should always use safe sex practices unless in a monogamous committed relationship.

There will always be fringe nut groups, but all one must do is innoculate a lab animal with HIV and monitor subsequent white blood cell counts to see the animal progress to AIDS. That is a simple cause and effect. To my knowledge cause and effect has not been established regarding humanity's impact on global climate. Nobody denies that over the lifespan of this planet there have been climate fluctuations, so are we convinced that during the latest fluctuation we are responsible? The jury is still out.

Furthermore, barrier protection to prevent HIV transmission works because we understand how HIV is transmitted. I worry about people getting caught up in the spirit to 'fix' global warming in an analagous fashion as 1)The cause of the Earth's latest warming trend has not been established 2)It makes no sense to remedy a problem that isn't a factor in climate change, especially when the fix is expensive and has dubious efficacy.

I drive a 1997 Honda Civic and bet you I have a smaller carbon footprint than you do. Want to put your theory to the test?

Actually,
I only own a Vespa now--I borrow a Nissan Versa to go to VPS Arprt. (round trip) once a week-you tell me.
Additional Options

The Prophet Al Gore was actually driving a Cadillac Escalade in one of the scenes from An Inconvenient Truth and he was also flying in a private jet in one or two of the scenes. His mansion in Tennessee also uses a tad more energy than the homes of most Americans. So, it's not only the folks you refer to above that drive environmentally unsound vehicles. It's also the hypocritical global warming prophet himself. Oh, I forgot, he buys carbon offsets to make things right.

Wow..I think I was just busted--just tell me you don't drive a Yukon, so I dont feel any worse!

Actually,
I only own a Vespa now--I borrow a Nissan Versa to go to VPS Arprt. (round trip) once a week-you tell me.
Additional Options

Yeah, I used to have a TNG which got 70 MPG but got rid of it, wish I still had it. You must support frequent consumption of jet fuel so I am thinking my impact is smaller. Just a guess. But then again, carbon footprints mean nothing, so have a guilt free trip to VPS.

Yeah, I used to have a TNG which got 70 MPG but got rid of it, wish I still had it. You must support frequent consumption of jet fuel so I am thinking my impact is smaller. Just a guess. But then again, carbon footprints mean nothing, so have a guilt free trip to VPS.

I was BUSTED AGAIN! once by Fisher and now by Skunkape. I will have to do better homework!

I was BUSTED AGAIN! once by Fisher and now by Skunkape. I will have to do better homework!

Better use recycled paper and eco-friendly pencils for that assignment.;-)

AL: GORE TAKES MASS TRANSIT TO PICK UP PEACE PRIZE!!! Go Albert!

AL: GORE TAKES MASS TRANSIT TO PICK UP PEACE PRIZE!!! Go Albert!

Let me see if I understand this. Al Gore has a theory that the emission of CO2 as a byproduct of fossil fuel combustion results in increased global temperatures. He has parlayed this theory into a movie, a lucrative speaking tour and a Nobel prize. He then travels across the Atlantic in a jet, burning God knows how many gallons of jet fuel in the process to accept the prize. Then he has a photo op at the train leaving the Oslo airport and this is somehow impressive symbolism and sacrifice?! This is no different than somebody going belly up to an all-you-can eat soul food buffet and thinking they have somehow impacted the caloric disaster by washing down three plates of fried chicken with a diet coke. Please.

Wouldn't it have been more eco-friendly to just have the certificate e-faxed to him? After all, he did invent the, oh, never mind:roll:

Nobody here denies that global warming exists. In fact, if you see An Inconvenient Truth, you will note the large graph of data that Al points to in his lecture that the earth has gone through numerous cycles of cooling and warming over the last 650,000 years. Unfortunately, Al focuses only on the last few years in making his leap of faith theory that says man is the primary cause of THIS cycle of warming which has only been going on for a few seconds (relatively speaking in geologic terms). He also fails to point out that we are still way, way below the zenith of temperatures that have occurred numerous times over the last 650,000 years. He also fails to point out that when the temperatures were much higher in the past, man wasn't around to cause this warming. Maybe, just maybe, you should consider that what is happening today is simply part of the natural cycle. Skunk is right, this is a political issue, with not much science to back it up.

it's a political issue if you're a conservative Repub. If you're willing to listen, there is scientific evidence of global warming. My question has always been what threat do conservatives see in lowering our emissions/pollution?

it's a political issue if you're a conservative Repub. If you're willing to listen, there is scientific evidence of global warming. My question has always been what threat do conservatives see in lowering our emissions/pollution?

Are you seriously suggesting that it is not a political issue for liberals? Conservatives (and that term is not to be used interchangebly with Republicans) worry (rightly so) that there may be a rush for change that needlessly obligates OUR money (not government's money) to boondoggles. I don't think any one group advocates increased emissions or pollution. If you doubt that, please see some of Newt Gingrich's comments on global warming.

Are you seriously suggesting that it is not a political issue for liberals? Conservatives (and that term is not to be used interchangebly with Republicans) worry (rightly so) that there may be a rush for change that needlessly obligates OUR money (not government's money) to boondoggles. I don't think any one group advocates increased emissions or pollution. If you doubt that, please see some of Newt Gingrich's comments on global warming.

"Conservative and Republican are totally interchangeable." Just check out the repub debates--not counting the Libertarian dude.

.....And I suppose in your mind, investment in alternate fuel sources in advance of the rapidly depleted oil reserves counts as a "boodoggle..."

Eureka... I can predict your response to that already--it is a liberal left wing "conspiricy" that the oil reserves are rapidly dwindling..right?

"Conservative and Republican are totally interchangeable." Just check out the repub debates--not counting the Libertarian dude.

.....And I suppose in your mind, investment in alternate fuel sources in advance of the rapidly depleted oil reserves counts as a "boodoggle..."

Eureka... I can predict your response to that already--it is a liberal left wing "conspiricy" that the oil reserves are rapidly dwindling..right?

Seriously, you seem to have a very loose grasp on political reality. There are conservative republicans and liberal republicans, as there are conservative democrats and liberal democrats. If you want to see a conservative democrat, you need look no further than your own US Congressman (Mr Boyd).

I see no problem in investing in alternative fuel sources, not so much because the green libs lie about how quickly we will be 'dry' (;-)) but rather to lean less on foreign governments for our energy needs.

Seriously, you seem to have a very loose grasp on political reality. There are conservative republicans and liberal republicans, as there are conservative democrats and liberal democrats. If you want to see a conservative democrat, you need look no further than your own US Congressman (Mr Boyd).

I see no problem in investing in alternative fuel sources, not so much because the green libs lie about how quickly we will be 'dry' (;-)) but rather to lean less on foreign governments for our energy needs.

Yes, on the surface there are "conservative" Republicans and liberal Republicans--but like Juliani, they all meld together to become bricks in that great wall of Christain /Evangelical/Conservatism in an effort to claim very huge blocks of votes.

Yes, on the surface there are "conservative" Republicans and liberal Republicans--but like Juliani, they all meld together to become bricks in that great wall of Christain /Evangelical/Conservatism in an effort to claim very huge blocks of votes.

All the while liberal democrats do their best to avoid being labeled 'liberal' because it is political poison in a national election. Hard to win the presidency with electoral votes from two or three states...just ask Fritz Mondale or Mike Dukakis.

I signed it.

It always kills me that something like heavy snowfall triggers a "global warming is a hoax" crowd, but rediculously hot temperatures keeps them quit. I subscribe to the climate change theory. This means that you can have warming and freakish winters or strange erradic weather in general, i.e. record snowfalls after a record hot summer.

Thank you, gaiboi. The voice of reason.
Global warming triggers climate change. Which does not mean it is hot all the time everywhere. Why is that so hard to understand?

Does the phrase "as changeable as the weather" mean anything to y'all?

I've been working outside for the last 13 years. Weather reports? If I go outside and my hair gets wet, it's raining. If I go out and start sweating, it's hot. If I go out and start shivering, it's cold...and so on.

When someone can tell me what the weather will be next week (or even tomorrow) I will think about listening to what they say about the long-term forecast. (And I'm not sure what it will take to make me consider a former VPs credibility as a meteorologist...)