Al Gore hypocrisy

DCBasedVigilante wrote:

Water absorbing more heat means that the water temp. would increase causing more icebergs to melt causing the water level to increase... This means that coastal areas that are at the current water level will be under water because the wtaer level will be higher.

This is simply not true. Ice melting will not raise the water level if that ice was already floating in the water.

Water in the solid state is more dense, therefore in the liquid state will occupy more area.

The relocation argument is relevant, though obviously not dispositive. And from the tongue and cheak presentation, was not intended as being persuasive of the issue. I was just trying to keep from being too dry.

It is relevant because inherent in the global warming debate is consequences and balancing the burden of acting with the potential consequences of not acting. Thus, I would readily argue that the burden of shifting to renewable non-carbon energy sources is justifiable based on the extreme hardship that could materialize if global warming proceeds unabated. Or put another way, how much would a ticket to Rigel 7 cost?

yes you are a moron wrote:

Water in the solid state is more dense, therefore in the liquid state will occupy more area.

Actually this is wrong. Water in the solid state is less dense, that's why it floats.

Water is actually most dense at 4 degree Celsius. It's not intuitive, I know.

And the last lame argument: humans just can't change the environment.

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/features/going_green/story.html?id=6c880c59-4068-49d2-80e4-e0fdb36c6fa9&k=71777

Anthropocene. Sorry, more big words.

We have a BINGO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Thanks for the post.

If you move away form the Global Warming debate and look at the other negative issues that the US has because the US depends so much on fossil fuels...

Because the US economy relies so much on Fossil Fuels and not renewable forms of energy... when the price of oil goes up the price of everything goes up....

When you buy food at the store.. how did the food get to the store so that you could buy it?

Say it is produce.

The farm equipment used to grow the produce runs on Oil based fuel.

The truck that takes the produce from one place to another runs on oil-based fuel. (Farm to MiddleMan to other MiddleMan to Store's distrubution Center to the store that you purchased the produce.)

Each time the price of gas goes up... the cost to transport the goods that we purchase goes up which impacts the price that we pay for the item.

It is interesting because during the last couple of years several food companies have been repackaging products to contain less quanity for the same price... hiding the price increase.

Can you name a way the our supply system moves goods from one location to another with out using fossil fuels?

Big T wrote:

[quote]Gore????? wrote:

Ever hear of the earth doing it's thing, naturally? NO one can claim with total evidence that it is real, NO ONE!!!! We had an extremely cold winter last year and the year before. Oh, that's right, if you live in the Ohio area, it skips every 3 years. Yeah, that's global warming!!!! Missouri had a 3 foot dump in one shot! That's global warming!

/quote]

You're referring to regional, anecdotal evidence that has nothing to do with the measured trends in the global climate (not weather), which is the source of all this debate.

Yes and Gore is basing his case on bias Scientist, so trend weather pattern (the loose definition of climate) seems a better source than someone making Windfall profits off your ignorance. Gore is not a scientist he is a profiteer.

As for your point about anecdotal evidence, what the hell do call Gore's crap about drowning polar bears... there isnt evidence to back that one up. So are you saying anecdotes by a politician are better than factual measurements? because that's really what it comes down to, whose anecdotes do you believe... so if you're choosing Mr. "I invented the internet", then you are by definition an American Idiot... because you can say science backs your claims, but you cant name 10 non-bias sources with scientist who name,reputation, and funding isnt based off their sky is falling, Global Warming crap. Do you know what IPCC means? (International Panel on Climate Change) Then how can you sit there and try to say that someone who decides to work for them isnt biased, that they are going to interpret data in a manner suggesting Climate Change?

Now if you look at the opposition to "Global Warming", these are individuals who've lost major funding, and respect of the scientific community, essentially being black balled for their suggestion that the bureaucratic, industry funded Corporations are wrong... Yes Im calling the IPCC a Corporation, show me where the scientists and Gore havent made windfall personal gains, by both reputation and funding (or research or personal profits)... These Scientists are now considered authority for at best a game of Statistical significance (which by definition is only a suggestion), a game of T-Tests etc. How do you have the gall to expect people to heed this number game, and look down upon them from your high horse for not taking it as absolute truth?

It is possible. Farm equipment can run on fuel cells or hydrogen.

http://www.iowafarmer.com/articles/2006/01/26/top_stories/02hydrogen.txt

Trucks can also run on fuel cells:

http://www.investindk.com/visNyhed.asp?artikelID=13657

And locomotives:

http://www.fuelcellpropulsion.org/Rail/Websites/RailProg.htm

Would it require massive investment in infrastructure, improvements in technology and (warning to Sen. Inhofe--don't read any further) conservation, yes. But it is possible.

MAN MADE Global Warming = biggest farce ever perpetrated on man-kind.

haha this fun...lets do an experiment...

take a bottle of water filled to the top and freeze it...

what happens??? whenever i do this the bottle ends up expanding...

so if we do the opposite and assume we have a bottle exactly half full of frozen water and we let it melt i bet the water level would end up being below the half line...

Let me get this straight. You think that switching to a propulsion system that releases water vapor into the air would reduce global warming? You do realize that water vapor is the number 1 greenhouse gas, accounting for 95% of all greenhouse gas found in the atmosphere. CO2 is roughly 3%.

And where would you get the H2 needed for the fuel cells? Currently the best raw material for creating H2 is petroleum. How does this decrease our reliance on foreign oil?

keep drinking the kool aid wrote:

MAN MADE Global Warming = biggest farce ever perpetrated on man-kind.

Thanks for your input, Captain Hyperbole.

run run run wrote:

haha this fun...lets do an experiment...

take a bottle of water filled to the top and freeze it...

what happens??? whenever i do this the bottle ends up expanding...

so if we do the opposite and assume we have a bottle exactly half full of frozen water and we let it melt i bet the water level would end up being below the half line...

Quite possibly the dumbest post ever (can we get a Dumbest Post of the Day button) It's people like this that scare me...

run for the sun wrote:

Ice reflects the sun's radiation back out into the atmosphere, just like the white shite. Water absorbs the sun's radiation and warms the planet, just like the black shirt.

you're not being real specific about the sun's "radiation" but you also said this before...

"1. CO2, methane and other gasses get trapped in the atmosphere and reflect heat back onto the Earth. Data has shown that temperatures in the atmosphere just above trapped greenhouse gasses have been cooling, demonstrating that more heat is being trapped in the Earth’s atmosphere and less heat is radiating back into space."

So in essence you're saying we're screwed...because the globe is warming and thus ice is melting and you have your story about whats going to happen as sea temps increase... but you're also saying that if the ice wasn't melting and it was reflecting the radiation it wouldn't matter because it would be getting trapped in the atmosphere and not go back into space?

Am I following you??

The example that "run run run" gave was correct according to the facts about water chemistry. Are the facts dumb?

Andrew Revkin at the NYTimes wrote a column in the DotEarth blog in January that generally outlines (with some citations) some basic and relatively well agreed-upon tenets of the global warming debate.

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/a-starting-point-for-productive-climate-discourse/#more-137

Such statements as "carbon dioxide is a heat-trapping gas" or "warmer times have generally had higher seas and smaller ice sheets" fall into this category. One he doesn't mention is "burning fossil fuels releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere." These statements are firmly backed up by scientific studies and are not suitable for debate.

Suitable for debate are questions about how much of a driver co2 is toward warming, how much of an effect (and in which direction) will warming affect our (humanity, americans, you in particular) standard of living, how much it would cost society to stop global warming, and whether it is worth doing anything about it. So, please, if you are going to decry the mania about global warming, do it right. Then we can have a sensible and productive debate.

run run run wrote:

thank heaven theres the antarctic as someone else mentioned early...

thank you nasa...

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/sea_ice.html

Yes, thank you NASA for that 2005 report.

Now, for this year's news, we go back to:

not a moron wrote:

This is simply not true. Ice melting will not raise the water level if that ice was already floating in the water.

True, but 98% of the world's ice is grounded, not floating. At least according to this guy:

I don't know if this is a reputable source, just something I found on Google.