Al Gore

[perunapower]

you want to cite a source for this British "High Court" whatever the hell that is-or did you just copy this [deleted] from the usual sources. The wording in several of those points is extremely deceptive. For example no Island has had to be EXVACUATED. Maybe not but I've seen several detailed long stories about a particulatr island in the Pacific that shows this is just an inevitable reality-that 3/4th of the islanders have already left and the water has already swollowed up a majority of the island-believe it was on 60 Minutes. Another deceptive point-about how long it will take for the ocean to rise 20 feet. Come on-do you know how much 20 feet is. The Sea doesn't have to rise 20 feet to do catastrophic damage to low lying areas on coastal regions which include some of the most densely populated areas of the US and the World. based upon the wording of your points alone, I'm sure this conservative think tank non-sense. Or we could just trust the Bush Administration-they have such a wonderful record at predictions.

You need to relax. The story was on ABC.com, if you don't think it's legitimate then I suggest you take up your fight against them. I posted one link to that story and one link to a site rebutting or agreeing with those arguments with citations. I'm not sure what you'd like me to do. The wording in Gore's arguments is extremely deceptive in parts. I'm certainly not arguing that global warming is a pile of crap because that's not what I believe. It is very real and something needs to be done, but I don't think that overexaggeration of the facts and half-truths are the way to go about initiating change. That is why, unfortunately, we can't trust every word we hear. We have to do our own research to either validate or invalidate the figures and data. Numbers and data can be manipulated and skewed to fit any point deemed worthy.

Now, I suggest you go unwad your panties and LOOK at the two links I provided (perhaps even read them) and realize that I presented two countering viewpoints to be impartial. I didn't find a story off some right-wing propaganda website and present it as fact, I found it on ABC.com, whether you like what the judge had to say or not is irrelevant. But do NOT accuse me of being a blind idiot willing to follow whatever this administration may present or dismiss as fact or fiction. I am plenty capable of calculating my own opinions using the knowledge and common sense that I possess, so shut your face and freakin' READ what I posted.

[Stallion]

there are about 100 articles on the internet saying its deceptive. Take your pick. No. 1 you forgot to mention that the Court ruled against the plaintiff and held that the concept of global warming has worldwide consensus support in the scientific community. The decision has been trumpeted by massive e-mail campaigns by right wing groups financed by special interests. apparently, the actual order of the Court will not be finalized until next week. Therefore, it is hard to get a first hand account of the actual words of the Court. This source below has the most comprehensive analysis of the actual words used by the Court that I can find on the internet. The idea that a British trial judge would attempt to make definitive rulings on intricate scientific studies is laughable in itself-in fact the judge wrote that he was not making any scientific rulings. In any event the Judge referred to "alleged errors"(as in asserted by the plaintiff) which have been taken out of context. Kicking at the knees of a "strawman" is real impressive and shows conservatives are simply attempting to use global warming as a political football rather than attempting to deal constructively with the science of global warming. They are on the losing end of this argument and have been for years. As the Judge himself held the presentation of global warming in the film was found to be generally accurate.

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/10 ... _thing.php

[Ponymon]

you want to cite a source for this British "High Court" whatever the hell that is-or did you just copy this [deleted] from the usual sources. The wording in several of those points is extremely deceptive. For example no Island has had to be EXVACUATED. Maybe not but I've seen several detailed long stories about a particulatr island in the Pacific that shows this is just an inevitable reality-that 3/4th of the islanders have already left and the water has already swollowed up a majority of the island-believe it was on 60 Minutes. Another deceptive point-about how long it will take for the ocean to rise 20 feet. Come on-do you know how much 20 feet is. The Sea doesn't have to rise 20 feet to do catastrophic damage to low lying areas on coastal regions which include some of the most densely populated areas of the US and the World. based upon the wording of your points alone, I'm sure this conservative think tank non-sense. Or we could just trust the Bush Administration-they have such a wonderful record at predictions.

I guess you also believe in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and the Easter Bunny?

[davidsmu94]

you want to cite a source for this British "High Court" whatever the hell that is-or did you just copy this [deleted] from the usual sources. The wording in several of those points is extremely deceptive. For example no Island has had to be EXVACUATED. Maybe not but I've seen several detailed long stories about a particulatr island in the Pacific that shows this is just an inevitable reality-that 3/4th of the islanders have already left and the water has already swollowed up a majority of the island-believe it was on 60 Minutes. Another deceptive point-about how long it will take for the ocean to rise 20 feet. Come on-do you know how much 20 feet is. The Sea doesn't have to rise 20 feet to do catastrophic damage to low lying areas on coastal regions which include some of the most densely populated areas of the US and the World. based upon the wording of your points alone, I'm sure this conservative think tank non-sense. Or we could just trust the Bush Administration-they have such a wonderful record at predictions.

I guess you also believe in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and the Easter Bunny?

I dislike Gore as much as the next guy. I also believe all this hype about global warming is a load of bunk. The reality is, however, that as stewards of the earth, we should be taking better care of the planet and being more responsible.

[Ponymon]

there are about 100 articles on the internet saying its deceptive. Take your pick. No. 1 you forgot to mention that the Court ruled against the plaintiff and held that the concept of global warming has worldwide consensus support in the scientific community. The decision has been trumpeted by massive e-mail campaigns by right wing groups financed by special interests. apparently, the actual order of the Court will not be finalized until next week. Therefore, it is hard to get a first hand account of the actual words of the Court. This source below has the most comprehensive analysis of the actual words used by the Court that I can find on the internet. The idea that a British trial judge would attempt to make definitive rulings on intricate scientific studies is laughable in itself-in fact the judge wrote that he was not making any scientific rulings. In any event the Judge referred to "alleged errors"(as in asserted by the plaintiff) which have been taken out of context. Kicking at the knees of a "strawman" is real impressive and shows conservatives are simply attempting to use global warming as a political football rather than attempting to deal constructively with the science of global warming. They are on the losing end of this argument and have been for years. As the Judge himself held the presentation of global warming in the film was found to be generally accurate.

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/10 ... _thing.php

Here is the link to a Newsweek article dated 1975 that showed worries of Global COOLING!

http://www.denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm

Please explain to me how we went from Global Cooling to Global Warming in the span of LESS than 40 years? Inquiring minds want to know! There is NO way that we have the technology to determine WHAT the exact temperature of the earth. If we do have it, I think you need to show us the proof and also show us the proof that the temperature difference is caused by Man and not by the sun, volcanic activity, or some other natural source before you and your fellow comrades try to take us back to the STONE AGE. There is NO way that someone who FLUNKED OUT of DIVINITY SCHOOL has the knowledge or background to discuss this subject intelligently. (Flunking out of Divinity School might just might make him OVERQUALIFIED to be an ATTORNEY, however!) Nevertheless, he could be lumped in with some of the world's better TELEVANGILISTS especially flying around the world in his GulfStream and saying in one of his 14,000 sq. ft. mansions. Oh, I forgot! He is CARBON NEUTRAL because he gives money to a company that plants TREES in Africa that OFFSETS his own pollution! Amazing. What's even more amazing is that he owns the company that does this and is the only one that can utilize this means to stay carbon neutral so he can continue to drive around in his big SUV. In the meantime, the rest of us will have to be content with being downsized into Yugos to satisfy this idiot and his mesmerized followers!

[perunapower]

Haha. Stallion, you are relentless and you STILL have yet to read what I wrote. I didn't post the court's ruling as a whole because I assumed that you could go to the ABC website by following the link I provided and read the story in its entirety. Then the most amusing part, to provide a differing, more comprehensive view I linked to the blog, that you tout in your last post, because I found it interesting as well.

See now I'm amused that you want to argue because for whatever reason you thought I presented an article from some load of crap, right-wing propaganda website that has no credibility in the journalistic world. I never said I wholly agreed with what the judge said, you assumed that. Quit assuming you know what I believe and quit trying to change me from my "evil" ways and accept the "truth". If you didn't think you were so intellectually superior to the rest of us on here and feel the need to prove each and every single one of us wrong, you wouldn't look like such an [deleted] here.

[Ponymon]

you want to cite a source for this British "High Court" whatever the hell that is-or did you just copy this [deleted] from the usual sources. The wording in several of those points is extremely deceptive. For example no Island has had to be EXVACUATED. Maybe not but I've seen several detailed long stories about a particulatr island in the Pacific that shows this is just an inevitable reality-that 3/4th of the islanders have already left and the water has already swollowed up a majority of the island-believe it was on 60 Minutes. Another deceptive point-about how long it will take for the ocean to rise 20 feet. Come on-do you know how much 20 feet is. The Sea doesn't have to rise 20 feet to do catastrophic damage to low lying areas on coastal regions which include some of the most densely populated areas of the US and the World. based upon the wording of your points alone, I'm sure this conservative think tank non-sense. Or we could just trust the Bush Administration-they have such a wonderful record at predictions.

I guess you also believe in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and the Easter Bunny?

I dislike Gore as much as the next guy. I also believe all this hype about global warming is a load of bunk. The reality is, however, that as stewards of the earth, we should be taking better care of the planet and being more responsible.

Please DEFINE good stewards of the earth? I think that is a phrase that is GROSSLY overdone as the result of all the pollution that comes out of HOLLYWOOD. For instance, lumber companies are always criticized for chopping down too many trees. However, the lumber companies determined early in the last century that if they cut down all the trees, what would be left to grow their business. People don't realize that when they clearcut a forest they replant it more efficiently than nature can. Within 20-30 years you will see a much more vibrant forest than before as a result with a greatly reduced chance of a forest fire destroying it. Why? Because all the underbrush and dead wood is removed allowing the young seedlings access to light. Additionally, the chances of a fire are reduced by the reduction in flamable dead wood to feed it. Don't tell me that it shouldn't have been cut down in the first place, because this country needs the wood to build houses, furniture, etc. As a matter of fact, by stopping the cutting in the "Ancient" forests of the Northwest, the lumber companies have had to accelerate their cutting in states like Texas and Louisiana. Those trees are allowed to only grow for 30-35 years now compared to the 60 years previously.

[perunapower]

Actually Ponymon, I think that most people believe that the Earth was cooling because of a phenomenon called "global dimming". Global dimming, in a nutshell, is where the amount of particulate in the atmosphere actually reflected sunlight back into space reducing the sunlight that actually reaches the Earth's surface, thus "cooling" the Earth. But, as a result of the laws and trends to reduce the particulate released into the atmosphere, there is less sunlight reflected back into space. With less sunlight reflected back into space, more of the sun's energy reaches the Earth's surface and gets trapped as a result of the carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sun/dimming.html

Check out the link above. There is an interactive timeline that explains this phenomenon in greater detail.

[davidsmu94]

you want to cite a source for this British "High Court" whatever the hell that is-or did you just copy this [deleted] from the usual sources. The wording in several of those points is extremely deceptive. For example no Island has had to be EXVACUATED. Maybe not but I've seen several detailed long stories about a particulatr island in the Pacific that shows this is just an inevitable reality-that 3/4th of the islanders have already left and the water has already swollowed up a majority of the island-believe it was on 60 Minutes. Another deceptive point-about how long it will take for the ocean to rise 20 feet. Come on-do you know how much 20 feet is. The Sea doesn't have to rise 20 feet to do catastrophic damage to low lying areas on coastal regions which include some of the most densely populated areas of the US and the World. based upon the wording of your points alone, I'm sure this conservative think tank non-sense. Or we could just trust the Bush Administration-they have such a wonderful record at predictions.

I guess you also believe in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and the Easter Bunny?

I dislike Gore as much as the next guy. I also believe all this hype about global warming is a load of bunk. The reality is, however, that as stewards of the earth, we should be taking better care of the planet and being more responsible.

Please DEFINE good stewards of the earth? I think that is a phrase that is GROSSLY overdone as the result of all the pollution that comes out of HOLLYWOOD. For instance, lumber companies are always criticized for chopping down too many trees. However, the lumber companies determined early in the last century that if they cut down all the trees, what would be left to grow their business. People don't realize that when they clearcut a forest they replant it more efficiently than nature can. Within 20-30 years you will see a much more vibrant forest than before as a result with a greatly reduced chance of a forest fire destroying it. Why? Because all the underbrush and dead wood is removed allowing the young seedlings access to light. Additionally, the chances of a fire are reduced by the reduction in flamable dead wood to feed it. Don't tell me that it shouldn't have been cut down in the first place, because this country needs the wood to build houses, furniture, etc. As a matter of fact, by stopping the cutting in the "Ancient" forests of the Northwest, the lumber companies have had to accelerate their cutting in states like Texas and Louisiana. Those trees are allowed to only grow for 30-35 years now compared to the 60 years previously.

Sigh... ok

[Ponymon]

Sorry David, not trying to beat you down. I'm just frustrated with the media hounds using that cliche' to beat everyone that is not a journalist or an attorney over the head as if they are the only ones who know HOW to live their life.

[Ponymon]

BTW, the Newsweek link contained another link that should be reviewed that details how the public has been manipulated over time by the fearmongers of climate change. Here is the link to that article:

http://www.businessandmedia.org/special ... andice.asp

[davidsmu94]

Sorry David, not trying to beat you down. I'm just frustrated with the media hounds using that cliche' to beat everyone that is not a journalist or an attorney over the head as if they are the only ones who know HOW to live their life.

I understand. All I'm saying is that you should do the right thing because it's the right thing, not because of impending doom.

[EastStang]

According to the Bush Library and the Women's Golf Team, this topic has lots of people on both sides of the issue, each armed with quite a bit of science. Stallion, just for you, the a group of Danish Scientists has found that global warming is primarily due to an cosmic activity including a warming of the sun which is cyclical.

http://www.spacecenter.dk/research/sun-climate/other/global-warming-and-cosmic-radiation

Additionally, while the plaintiff lost, the defense has to now show the movie with a disclaimer as to the 11 cited inaccuracies in the film. The Court also found that the film is political not scientific.

My personal view is beer is the main cause. The world popluation has nearly tripled in the last 100 years. Many of those people drink beer. Beer is a well known cause of flatulence. Flatulence emits methane. Methane adds carbon to the atmosphere which links with oxygen molecules and creates CO and CO2. Ergo, we must ban beer to save the environment.

[jtstang]

My personal view is beer is the main cause. The world popluation has nearly tripled in the last 100 years. Many of those people drink beer. Beer is a well known cause of flatulence. Flatulence emits methane. Methane adds carbon to the atmosphere which links with oxygen molecules and creates CO and CO2. Ergo, we must ban beer to save the environment.

Wrong.

http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/foru ... read/4313/

[EastStang]

jt, the site only dealt with heating beer bottles it did not deal with the issue of the passing of methane gasses due to consumption of beer. Anyone who has lived in a frat house or an upper class dorm and walked into it on a Saturday or Sunday morning, knows that you should not attempt to light a match due to the heavy concentration of methane present.