Al Gore can suck it

[mike_the_wino]

Talk about an inconvenient truth from a scientist disputing global warming.

[bruce90]

Interesting read. I saw something similar the other day on one of the satellite science channels. Apparantly a lot of ex 'alarmist' scientists are now changing their minds.

[Other Means]

It looks like NASA have displaying large bias in their data management to make it look like temperatures are going up, but they're not.

[easytarget]

yep, this is the forum i choose to blow this bombshell wide open to the world

[mike_the_wino]

yep, this is the forum i choose to blow this bombshell wide open to the world

[Tarquelne]

yep, this is the forum i choose to blow this bombshell wide open to the world

What's your problem? That first article is great. He's dead right about there having been no public debate on the cause of global warming. We've all been too damn busy for the last couple decades arguing about whether it exists at all. As for the second: Didn't you see the graphs!? Didn't you see how complicated NASA is making out simply reading the temperature to be? Just another case of scientists acting like something is too complicated for other people to understand. Like that whole quantum mechanics farce. "Spin once to rotate twice", my ass! And when the popular press oversimplifies something they act like it's not what they planned all along. No one else has that problem - reports of football games are crystal clear and there can be some *very* complicated plays.

Anyway, the world just sucks. All the "science" blogs/mags are still soooooo "on" about climate change. We have to read the Australian and IT rags like the Reg to get the truth!

I don't know the exact show bruce saw, but I've seen similar reports. If you look into them, though, generally the media's simply caved into Big Green. When you get more details of the report all they're usually talking about are scientists having doubts about a few of the particulars, not the whole ball of organic beeswax. Hell, even the guy in the Australian seems more into quibbling about CO2 vs. other sources of antro-change rather than demonstrating that the whole thing is a hoax. To his credit, though, at least he's taking on Al Gore... The head vampire, if you will. If you can cast doubt on Al Gore's movie the whole thing will just collapse. Like the internet, Al Gore has pretty much just made the whole thing up.

Anyway, I've seen some of the rebuttals to the pieces you guys linked to. For example here and here. They make it sound like there are very good reasons the linked-to articles in the previous posts represent relatively few "experts." (Or whatever Goddard is - "concerned", I guess.)

But - and here's the catch - it's information from practicing climate scientists representing the majority of such people. For f*cks sake, why the hell should we believe them? Do I go to a *doctor* for medial care? HELL NO! He makes money every time I get sick! Do I ask a geologist where I should dig or drill? HELL NO! She's made her career off the idea you can actually predict and/or control geologic forces. It's sheer hubris. So I'm a little portly, so my house is ah, "settling" and the mountain is smoking a bit. All that stuff with numbers is just to obfuscate the common-sense fact that there's no way I need to change what I do or think. Or that there's any way in hell a known liberals such as Al Gore or most scientists could be right. (You do see that, right? Most scientists are liberals. Most scientists support the "mainstream" GW interpretation. The partisan bias couldn't be clearer.)

Back to doctors, etc.: Yes, yes, there is something of a difference - doctors, etc say they can "prove" their effectiveness in a way a climate scientist can't. But it's the principle of the thing: If you're just hanging around waiting for proof you're conceding that you don't have the so-called expertise to participate in the debate. Or vote on the issues. And what are op-eds for, after all, but to give us the opinions we want about matters for which we don't actually have a clue?

The world, frankly, is a mess. I'm glad more and more people can see that homeopathic science is the only answer: For any issue with which you don't have personal training always side with the expert's *minority*. Especially if they have graphs. Especially if they aren't actually experts. This is the 21st century - You can't just cherry-pick personal anecdotes anymore.

Before adopting this position I used to think one of the most prolific posters here was a loon. Red? I'm practically crimson, I don't know where to look. But this forum is great - it has posts like the ones above, for example.

Now *that's* sarcasm. Make this place contrarian as you want... but one liners, frikin fake-posters? That's not sarcasm, that's whining.

You guys such lightweights - it's embarrassing.

[Pak40]

Guys,

Let's say for a minute that Al Gore and multitudes of scientists turn out to be wrong. What's the worst thing that can happen? We live in a cleaner and healthier environment? Damn that Al Gore for encouraging us to use cleaner energies so our kids can grow up safer!

Now let's compare Al Gore's push for awareness of Global Warming to George W. Bush's push to invade Iraq because Saddam has weapons of mass destruction. Bush turned out to be dead wrong and he even based he decision on "darn good intelligence". What's the worst thing that could happen? oops - scores of thousands dead including almost 5,000 coalition soldiers and many innocent women and children. I'm not even going to the financial draining that this war has caused on the U.S.

So ask yourself which mistake would you rather have: One that promotes a cleaner and safer environment or one that kills thousands of people?

[gautrek]

Guys,

Let's say for a minute that Al Gore and multitudes of scientists turn out to be wrong. What's the worst thing that can happen? We live in a cleaner and healthier environment? Damn that Al Gore for encouraging us to use cleaner energies so our kids can grow up safer!

The problem with this view is that over in Britland we are getting "green " issues shoved down our throats by Gordon Brown making anything he can tax a "green" tax and i'm sick of it.He has brought in a new tax bracket for "NON green" vehicles.So you can drive a Prius round and pay next to no road tax but me in 2ltr family car is supposed to pay £400 a year for the pleasure.But he has made it retrospective so we are all stuffed.Instead of the tax being on petrol so the more you use the more you pay he has increased the road tax.So even if i leave my car at home and walk every where i still have to give him the bloody tax money for it.So my attitude is f*** public transport as i paid enough for my f***** car so i'm going to use it.

We are continually being told to stop throwing so much rubbish away as the land fill sites are all full,and its a green issue about how much we dispose off.But if the f***** shops didn't use so much packaging then i wouldn't need to get rid of so much crap would I.Plus so much crap wouldn't need making in the first place.If the standardised on chargers then we wouldn't need a new one for every bloody phone you buy.I have a bag full of unused phone chargers which will get thrown away.

There is so much wrong with the green issues and what we are doing to "fix" it its a joke.

BIO fuels anyone.

[Wolfpack]

Guys,

Let's say for a minute that Al Gore and multitudes of scientists turn out to be wrong. What's the worst thing that can happen? We live in a cleaner and healthier environment? Damn that Al Gore for encouraging us to use cleaner energies so our kids can grow up safer!

Or we could overcompensate and tip back over into that next ice age we're overdue for, but who cares about all those people up north anyway, they're overdue for moving south and getting a tan.

[Other Means]

American politics confuse and alarm me. That's where any discussion on world events with Americans immediately goes. And for that reason, I'm out.

[mike_the_wino]

Guys,

Let's say for a minute that Al Gore and multitudes of scientists turn out to be wrong. What's the worst thing that can happen? We live in a cleaner and healthier environment?

Yeah that would suck.

Damn that Al Gore....

Hear, hear.

...for encouraging us to use cleaner energies so our kids can grow up safer!

All for it. Screw the kids though, why not do it for ourselves? That's a message every American can get behind.

Now let's compare Al Gore's push for awareness of Global Warming to George W. Bush's push to invade Iraq...

Let's not.

[tiny_tanker]

Guys,

Let's say for a minute that Al Gore and multitudes of scientists turn out to be wrong. What's the worst thing that can happen? We live in a cleaner and healthier environment? Damn that Al Gore for encouraging us to use cleaner energies so our kids can grow up safer!

I suppose the fact that our biggest "green" movement of using ethanol is very quickly eating up food stuffs and the land used for growing food, and introduces Nitric Dioxide (and you thought carbon was bad) in large volumes to the atmosphere is a big improvement. Those "green" fuels are also harder on motors having a much lower lubricity, drying up your seals and gaskets decreasing engine life and gas mileage. I'm sure someone is a winner here but it isn't us or anyone's kids.

[JonS]

Ya, but that's because some moron took the "We must do something! This is something! Therefore we must do this!" approach to environmentally friendly policies.

[edgars]

We are continually being told to stop throwing so much rubbish away as the land fill sites are all full,and its a green issue about how much we dispose off.But if the f***** shops didn't use so much packaging then i wouldn't need to get rid of so much crap would I.Plus so much crap wouldn't need making in the first place.If the standardised on chargers then we wouldn't need a new one for every bloody phone you buy.I have a bag full of unused phone chargers which will get thrown away.

You seem to contradict yourself. First you're saying that the "green" measures are too tough, but in the next paragraph you seem to say that they're not tough enough since so much crap gets produced. So which way should it be? Since obviously there is a commercial reason for things to be that way, which means that any change will cost (probably calling for more complaints from your side).

Anyway, thanks for the links to the first posters, interesting read.

[Pak_43]

Ya, but that's because some moron took the "We must do something! This is something! Therefore we must do this!" approach to environmentally friendly policies.

There it is, right there, in a nutshell...

[gautrek]

You seem to contradict yourself. First you're saying that the "green" measures are too tough, but in the next paragraph you seem to say that they're not tough enough since so much crap gets produced. So which way should it be? Since obviously there is a commercial reason for things to be that way, which means that any change will cost (probably calling for more complaints from your side).

Anyway, thanks for the links to the first posters, interesting read.

No mate.

I object to people in governments ramming the green issue down my throat.The car tax in this country is touted as a green issue but its not.If it was it would be stuck on petrol so if you use more you pay more.A work mate of mine cycles to work and therefore does around 2000 miles a year in his car yet he pays the same road tax as me who does 8000 miles a year.So where is the logic in this green tax.

Plus taxing me on most things which are out of my control.I can't control how much packaging my local supermarket uses.Yet i am more than likely going to get taxed on my rubbish.

I have all ways turned down the offer of a carrier bag,We have always had a compost bin,We have always taken our recyclable stuff to the tip,I have never left all my electrical stuff on standby(i still unplug the TV from the wall).I don't drive a fuel guzzling car.We walk to the shops instead of taking the car when we can.Ditto taking the kids to school years ago.ETC ETC ETC.

Yet its still not good enough for some.We get politicians banging on about green issues and then they are flying off to watch the Olympic games,Cricket,football rugby. Talk about do what i say and not what i do.

We had Sienna Miller(not sure if that spelt right,But she is the slightly famous British actress) banging on about green issue the other week and then in the next breath she is saying how many times she had flown to the states for a film.Talk about hypocrisy

Its like Bono banging on about poverty.For f*** sake then mate give them some of your money then.

I am so f***** off with this green issue at the moment.If its such a big issue then get China,India and the USA to get their act together and sort it.The farting little bits i do have no effect when you read of yanks still driving round in cars which do less than 20 to the gallon.

[mike_the_wino]

Almost forgot this one about this one.

snipped cuz it was all wordy 'n stuff

Now *that's* sarcasm. Make this place contrarian as you want... but one liners, frikin fake-posters? That's not sarcasm, that's whining.

You guys such lightweights - it's embarrassing.

True, but my fake poster took all of 60 seconds to find and post. Your well thought out, funny post took much longer than that.....advantage me. ppppphhhhhhtttttt!!!!!

[howardb]

Thank you Tarquelne. Good post as always and that's not being sarcastic!

[Andreas]

There it is, right there, in a nutshell...

Afraid not. It was a case of the US farm lobby spotting a perfect new opportunity to feast on the public trough. US ethanol subsidies have nothing to do with the environment. They are about buying farming votes, dressed up either as:

a) National security improvement (if you are a right-thinking, honest-to-God, stout patriot) or

Environmental improvement (if you are a weak-willed, fifth-columnist, passport-holding, limp-wristed, atheist, Sierra Club member, multi-lingual liberal scum)

Either way, the farmers and the agriculture industry in the US are laughing all the way to the bank.

All the best

Andreas

[Stalins Organ]

Thus allowing the US to lower its "official" Agricultural subsidies for PR purposes with the WTO etc without actually lowering the amount of money paid to farmers at all?

[Dave H]

Thus allowing the US to lower its "official" Agricultural subsidies for PR purposes with the WTO etc without actually lowering the amount of money paid to farmers at all?

Farmers? The amount of federal subsidies that end up in actual farmers' pockets is approaching zero. In this country the name of the game is agribusiness and industrial farming. In 2004 30% of the subsidies went to the top 2% of the farms and over 80% of the subsidies went to the largest 30% of the farms.

The agricultural model in favor today has much more in common with the antebellum plantations than the traditional family farms.

[Abbott]

Al Gore loves selling carbon credits, it's his bread and butter.

[Stalins Organ]

Hi Dave - "agribusiness" and stockholders in same are farmers too - gotta go with the flow old boy...times are changing, and whoever farms is a farmer....not just those who fit whatever is the current nice romantic picture of what a farmer should or used to be.

Plenty of those big agri-businesses are farmer owned collectives after all.

but I'm happy to have it read "money paid to the farming sector" if you prefer - it makes no difference - the US agri-subsidies make it one of the biggest redistributers of wealth in the world - ranking right up there with pretty much any socialist country you care to mention.

[Andreas]

Most socialist countries would not be able to spend this sort of money on their farmers. Another tripumph of capitalism, clearly.

All the best

Andreas

[Stalins Organ]

Certainly - however one wonders how socialist spending can be a triumph of capitalism. Triumph of cronyism, pork barrel politics and a distorted market certainly.

Triumph of capitalism? Not so sure.