Al Gore hypocrisy

responding to "really?"

the anthropogenic warming question (how much of the warming is caused by human activities?) is a reasonable one. the best evidence I am aware of that supports anthropogenic warming is from climate models. this chart shows modeled contributions from various sources, including greenhouse gases and solar variation. the forcing from solar alone isn't enough to account for the magnitude of the warming we have observed this century. notably, the forcing from greenhouse gases alone isn't enough either.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png

if you don't trust the models, I don't know where to point you, but there are still two uncontested data points in the argument: 1. human activities have increased the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. 2. atmospheric CO2 does trap heat. it's possible that the degree to which CO2 traps heat is smaller than scientists currently believe, but those two statements are safe.

regarding carbon taxes. any reasonable carbon tax proposal will be revenue-neutral, so it won't actually cost society net money. if done right, in fact, it will make the economy more efficient by internalizing external costs (currently society as a whole bears those costs off the balance sheet. if the responsible party pays, they change their behavior and reduce the costs to society by more than the amount they pay.)

If climate change was actually a simple enough concept that the wormbrained letsrun mooks could understand it, nobody would be debating it or doing anything about it.

We're talking about people who believe that God put fossils in the ground to test their faith, that Saddam had nukes but asked Iran to hide them for him before the invasion, that trickle-down economics actually work when there's a regression, and that Lance Armstrong was so dominant in the Tour simply because he wanted it more.

Really, what more do you need to know about this debate?

LOL, you hit the nail on the head. this is the same 'intelligent design' crowd that believes the earth is 6,000 years old, believes in exorcism, fairly tales and trickle down economics.

straight talk espresso wrote:

If climate change was actually a simple enough concept that the wormbrained letsrun mooks could understand it, nobody would be debating it or doing anything about it.

We're talking about people who believe that God put fossils in the ground to test their faith, that Saddam had nukes but asked Iran to hide them for him before the invasion, that trickle-down economics actually work when there's a regression, and that Lance Armstrong was so dominant in the Tour simply because he wanted it more.

Really, what more do you need to know about this debate?

Friend, you are a scary guy! I can't believe how uptight you could be without knowing the facts about anything. You really need to relax and I am not joking. Look up Steve Claredy, or something close to it. My wife and I just did a total restore on our 6 year old computer and am going by memory.

The guy had pictures and yes there was close to 3 foot of snow. The OP was correct or very, very close to it. If there weren't 3 foot drifts, they were amazingly close. You've gotten to upset over nothing. Your data proves nothing, the pictures that I saw is the proof in the pudding, so to speak. They obviously couldn't record the levels of every drift. Wind plays a major role and is very different from location to location. Why do you think I even looked it up? Because I was skeptical myself.

But I'm not getting into it with you, you are very, very upset and probably got all A's in school and don't have people tell you that you are wrong very often. I'm just calling it as I see it.

God be with you friend, you've got to loosen up. I'm not arguing global warming, you've all done a good enough job with that and no one has come out the winner, although a few of you are VERY educated, and that's a good thing.

Mkj

Mkj wrote:

I know nothing about global warming and won't argue it with you or anyone else.

...

I personally don't believe it, but I have nothing to back it up scientifically.

I had to read this twice. Really. It is stultifying in its ignorance. I can't believe someone would admit to not knowing anything about a topic but steadfastly believes the exact opposite of the current scientific consensus. At the very least, you should be agnostic on the subject.

You have by your own admission absolutely no reason to believe what you do, yet you continue to do so. Now why do you suppose that is?

You are a stupid and insecure person Anne, extremely. My thoughts on global warming are no different than anyone elses.

But...you can't write what you can't back up. You obviously know nothing more than anyone else or you, ANNE ENGINEER, as you claim, HAVE THE ANSWERS and we should all be "looking to you". Is that correct ANNE? I didn't think so.

We can all talk about the scientific part of it, but unless you are truly qualified, AND CAN PROVE IT, then what gives you the right to think that you have the answers. I will contact NASA as soon as possible and tell them that they should be hanging onto your every word, because you ANNE have figured out if global warming does or doesn't exist, haven't you? I didn't think so.

I head up an IT program near Penn State and graduated MCL(can you figure the acronym ANNE). I don't pretend to be an expert on something I'm not, unlike you, but I did graduate top of my class. What are your qualifications ANNE!

If you needed my post to make you feel better, than I'm happy that it made your day. You know nothing about me and I know nothing about you. Post your email for all to see and I'll send you my background and what I've accomplished by age 28. How about you?

You are a pretender ANNE, go back into your hole.

Mjk

My wife and I are still waiting for your email address ANNE! Where oh where could it be? Please share your expert background for all to see so you will get the credit for solving the truth about Global Warming. Still waiting ANNE. Ding.

You obviously haven't read the post, dude. There are qualified people on this site who know what they are talking about. I'm calling Anne out you, she's not calling me out. I never claimed to be an expert in global warming, are you? I'll wait for you to post your big boy credentials, and then I'll follow. I'll start, I make over $175,00 per year and head-up the division, how about you little man. You and your buddy Anne are both being called out run for the sun, or should I say "Anne in disguise"?

You both can rest assured of one thing the rest of your entire lives...no one will ever accuse you of being intelligent, you're idiot, who lives on Letsrun to make you feel better. Good boy, now go fetch!

you're AN idiot, and a big one at that!

Wow. If you are making $175,00 (is that some new numerical financial system that IT people get paid in?), then it certainly isn't because of your charm or tact.

You are the one who posted the stupid comment that you don't believe in global warming but don't have any science to back it up. Now you are trying to backpedal with some goofy argument about credentials? (That is if anyone can discern an argument between all of the high school insults.) And if the debate is about credentials, shouldn't it be a debate about credentials relevant to climatology? What difference does it make how much you make or what your title is, except to your very frail ego?

For me, my credentials are that I can read and have made coherent arguments with citation to reliable sources. That is all that is required to post in this thread. If you want to post counterarguments with citation to opposing sources, please do. That is called debating.

But, you have admitted that you can't cite any science, posted endlessly debating a single day snow event in Missouri and now want everyone to post their income and job title for no reason other than to make you feel like you are superdude. And I am the idiot?

Anne 1, Mkj 0, Missouri single day snowfall totals: irrelevant

Run for the Sun, aka Anne, -1 and falling.

Mjk, major advantage and pulling away fast!

I did not post the Missouri snow story, the first guy did and I researched because I do woodworking as a hobby. It lead me to sites that I had never been on before and the OP was correct about the guy and his shop.

You are embarrassed of your low salary and meaningless exsistence. I bet Letsrun is all you have, isn't Anne? If it makes you feel better, you are irrelevant and have added nothing to the discussion but your lack of intelligence.

I have no problem listing my salary and my initials, because even with a search engine and the obvious hint of where I work, you are far to stupid to easily verify it.

I admitted that I did not know alot about global warming, for that I have been throw off the train. Apparently you know nothing about it ANNE (run for the sun), or too much of anything else. You have my pity! Quit while you're behind, or, just keep digging the hole deeper. Eventually your voice won't be heard and thousands will cheer.

The next time I'm by McDonalds, I'll say hi as you give me and my beautiful wife our fries. Have fun and good luck with your future, you're gonna need it Anne (run for the sun).

Mkj, I think you need to get on your meds. First, my comment would be appropriate no matter the subject. It is not tied specifically to global warming/climate change. If a person doesn't know anything about a topic, how can they possibly make up their mind about it in a rational fashion? I mean, I could understand someone who was just lazy or uninterested and said "Oh, if that's what the experts say then I'm fine with it", but to go against the consensus opinion of experts for no reason perhaps other than to align yourself with or against other people you do/don't like, political or religious dogma, and similar? That's just nuts.

There are plenty of places where you can get good, factual data and analyses from people who do this sort of work, and aimed right at a reasonably intelligent citizen, so you don't have to be an expert. I'm not a climate scientist (nor do I play one on TV) but I have gone to many of those sites, read relevant articles in science magazines, etc., and it all seems to pretty cogent to me.

And for the record, yes, I really am an engineer. Have been for a long time. I also have a graduate degree in computer science and have done a fair amount of research in my areas of interest. I don't make $175k/year (not that I need to) but I did graduate with a 3.96 out of 4.0. Does that count for anything? Don't bother, I'll answer my own question: No, it doesn't count for anything here. As I said, this has nothing to with credentials. It has solely to do with intellectual laziness on a grand scale. You stated publicly that you knew nothing about the topic and have no supporting reasons for not believing the consensus scientific opinion, yet you continue to do so. Claims of academic credentials only deepen the embarrassment for you have no excuse. In contrast, if you were completely unschooled or maybe graduated from Liberty University or Regent, perhaps we could let it slide.

Ball's in your court Binky.

civic driver wrote:

Al Gore is a joke and always has been. When he moves out of his giant mansion and into an 1100 sq. ft. house like mine, or sells his huge Lexus(no, wait...it's a HYBRID!) and buys a civic like mine, maybe I'll listen to him. Practice what you preach, Al.

It will be interesting see how much Al Gore will preach about global warming and the evil U.S. empire if his fellow Democrat Obama gets elected. In his fiction video the "Inconvenient Truth" I thought it was very convenient at how big Al critisized the George H. Bush administration for global warming, had nothing to say about it during the 8 years of Billy boy Clinton, and then mentions how George

W. Bush is now screwing up the planet. Apparently global warming took a break during the wonderful 8 years of the Bill and Algore show. And if Obama gets elected, global warming will miraculously stop until the next Republican is elected. Is this guy for real or what? Would someone please tell him that the 2000 election is over and he lost.

What are you doing? This is a global warming thread. Your MCL credentials should have given you the smarts to figure that out. We have been trying to debate global warming and you are researching Missouri snowfall totals because of your interest in woodworking? This is relevant to a global warming thread because . . . ? Your income is relevant to a global warming thread because . . . ? Your job status is relevant to a global warming thread because . . . ?

You were slammed for spouting off about not believing in global warming while admitting that you know nothing about it. Why should any of us care what you believe if you have nothing to back it up? Oh yeah, because you make $17,500 as a manager at Geek Squad near one of the 18 Penn State campuses in Pennsylvania.

And if you are such a MCL genius, why don't you know when to use "too" instead of "to"? And if you are such a high roller IT guy, why are you taking your wife to eat at McDonalds? (ooohh, burn!)

Either post something on global warming or start a new thread entitled "I am so much more awesomer than everyone. I am to cool for school."

Wait, Mary in accounting forgot how to unlock her computer. You need to get over there and tell her to control/alt/delete. Be sure to tell her that she is AN idiot. That will help you get bumped up to corporate. And Mary will appreciate the emphasis so she will understand that she is a single idiot.

And for this thread, time to kick some life back into it.

Congress has revealed that the White House ignored an EPA proposed finding that there is compelling and robust evidence showing that man-made greenhouse gasses are causing global warming. By ignoring the finding, the White House effectively kept this information from the public.

http://www.courant.com/news/nationworld/hc-epa0725.artjul25,0,5584555.story

Ok doubters, if there is such solid science out there to refute global warming, why would the Bush adminstration have to effectively suppress its own executive branch findings on the subject? And you can't discount this one on instutional bias. The EPA is an executive branch agency. Those are all people working for the President, not some UN panel.

Mkj, you can respond, even with your puny income and lame job credentials.

I don't like the ad hominem attacks on Gore, but there is a substantive policital point in your post, Mr. Invisible Hand.

Bill Clinton is just as culpable for global warming inaction, if not more so, than either Bush. Clinton was just interested in staying in power. He had no backbone for making a push on environmental issues. He could have raised CAFE standards, boosted renewables research funds, or worked on strong Federal energy efficiency standards. He did little on those issues. He should have, could have done so much more. But, at least he did not take active measures to harm the environment like W has.

As for Gore, his failure is that he wants everyone to feel bad about global warming but not feel obligated to make any sacrifices to solve the problem. So, in a way, he does deserve the chiding for the big house because it is indicative of his flawed notion that we can all go on being energy pigs.

The way to combat climate change is to reduce emmissions to the lowest levels possible. This will require sacrifices by everyone, especially in wealthy countries that are the biggest energy pigs. But these sacrifices are worth it because a secure energy and environmental future is something we have a duty to pass on to the next generation. Just think of the sacrifices people made during WWII. Ration cards, 80% tax rate for the wealthy. The sacrifices needed to transition to non-carbon energy is nothing compared to what people had to go through to rid the world of Hitler, Musolini and the Emperor.

So, maybe Al Gore is a poopie head, in a way. But his hypocracy is little more than a pr bump for doubters.

If there was a FINITE answer to global warming and a place to look for it, we wouldn't be having this discussion now would we?

Chew on that Anne, and run for the sun, your pal, or is it alter ego?

I'll say this once: I am not "run for the sun". I have never posted by that name, ever.

And why does there need to be a single place to look for an answer? I'd think having multiple sources and discussions would be a good thing, but apparently you subscribe to the incorrect notion that science is a big book with all of the answers in it.

Sorry, but there are actually two different people slapping you down on this thread.

"If there was a FINITE answer to global warming and a place to look for it, we wouldn't be having this discussion now would we?"

Great googli moogli. I guess epistemology was not part of your MCL course work at U. Phoenix. What in the world are you saying?

There is no definitive proof of global warming, therefore we shouldn't debate the issue? Huh???

It is impossible to know whether there is global warming? Are you just global warming agnostic? If so, does that necessarily preclude debate on the issue?

Or is you point more of a bizarre existential question?

What in the world are you talking about???

Or maybe I need to state the obvious for you. We are posting our thoughts, comments and opinions on the issue of global warming in order to learn from, challenge and discuss opposing viewpoints. That is called a debate. And as I have stated in a previous post, unless we have a laboratory with a couple hundred actual replicas of the planet Earth and run numerous tests, we will probably never know with complete definitive empirical certainty whether global warming exists and, if it does, whether the cause(s) of global warming is anthropogenic. Thus, it is important to debate the issue rather than just shut yourself off from the world, proclaim that you don’t believe in global warming and anyone who wants to discuss the issue has to show you their W2s.

No stupid, you can debate it all you want, but you don't have the finite answer because you don't know what you're talking about.

You cannot debate about something if there is only one answer, which you claim to have. Therefore, it's just your mindless, pathetic, peabrain opinion that is hoping it'll get backed by at least one person so you'll feel good about it and finally get a good night sleep without being so insecure about your lack of this and lack of that. Can you figure that out oh wise one?

You know nothing about global warming except for what you googled prior to your post and then plagerized the thoughts of others who have more intelligence than you'd ever have on your best day. You get the stupid of the year award, and moron of the year is not far behind Anne, aka run for the sun. You are absolutely brain dead. What's your qualification big guy? Where did you go to school? What's your REAL name? That's what I thought, keep hiding behind your keyboard going from porn sites and back to Letsrun and then back again. You must live in a hole. Enjoy!

Mkj