Al Gore uses 20 TIMES as much electricity as you do

:rotfl: :rotfl2:

This whole thread is rediculous. It reminds me of the debate on whether OJ Simpson was guilty. Those that believe he was guilty will never believe he wasn't, those that believed he was innocent will never believe he was guilty. Its pretty futile.

Excuse me but I just had an urge to......

:rotfl: :rotfl2:

There I win.
 
My question is valid. The reason it is continually dismissed by the pro-global warming crowd is because it completely debunks their arguement.

Global "warming" compared to what?

Compared to the 1930's it's cooler. Compared to 1998, it's cooler. Compared to 1000, it's cooler.

The same data that showed were on the verge of another ice age are now saying that it's global warming. You can use the same data in different ways and get VERY different results.

So, is it global warming or global cooling? Every decade, according to the extreme left nutjob "environmentalists" the world is headed for catastrophy because of something mankind did. Depending on what the data du jour is, that's what they blame.

The world goes through cycles. There is very little, if anything, that mankind can do to truly affect the global temperature. Much of it has to do with weather patterns, solar storms, natural events (volcanoes, eg). Us trying to alter the global temperature is like peeing in the ocean and expecting to affect the tides.

It's funny how these "environmentalists" can predict with high degrees of accuracy what the world's weather will be like 50 years from now, but they can't predict local weather 5 days out.

Yeah but your arguments are way too logical to mean anything to people that refuse to believe the truth. They only want to believe what they want to believe. Any amount of studies or scientific research will just be met with....

"Yeah but that scientist is in the pocket of big oil"

:rotfl: :rotfl2:

Sorry, I love those!:rotfl2:
 
Yeah but your arguments are way too logical to mean anything to people that refuse to believe the truth. They only want to believe what they want to believe. Any amount of studies or scientific research will just be met with....

"Yeah but that scientist is in the pocket of big oil"
Ya' know, the thing is we never have to get to that point, 'cause instead of "Any amount of studies or scientific research" saying there's no global warming going on, what we actually have is essentially zero peer-reviewed studies or research that say such a thing.

But, hey, I'm sure that "Any amount of studies or scientific research" that actually exists will just be met with the rock-solid arguments of UserName.

But you go ahead and believe "the truth" as it exists to you.
 

This is going in circles, anyone fancy a real row, shall I start a thread on Gun Law?:rotfl:
 
This is going in circles, anyone fancy a real row, shall I start a thread on Gun Law?:rotfl:

I'm down with it. As long as you post a caviat to the mods that anyone participating in the debate cannot get banned as long as profanity is not used.:lmao:
 
Very well said! :)

Remember the Population Explosion doom and gloom.

Next time you use something "Made In China", just remember they solved their population explosion through forced abortions.
 
Ya' know, the thing is we never have to get to that point, 'cause instead of "Any amount of studies or scientific research" saying there's no global warming going on, what we actually have is essentially zero peer-reviewed studies or research that say such a thing.

But, hey, I'm sure that "Any amount of studies or scientific research" that actually exists will just be met with the rock-solid arguments of UserName.

But you go ahead and believe "the truth" as it exists to you.

The main thing I can not and will never be able to get passed, is suppose that you prove that we are experiencing warming. Ok, even if you can prove that, how do you ever conclusively link that with any man-made activities?

How do you prove its not from Solar activity, or volcanic activity, or gamma ray activity from outside the solar system, and any other factor like that which is a huge list of things that exist that are going on at the same time.

You can not scientifically isolate those things, so how do you prove what is what? Seems to me the only thing that could possibly be proved (and that's a huge maybe) is that we are experiencing warming, or cooling.

However, given the fact that certain areas experience different level of climate change at any given time, I'm not sure how you can even do that. See what I'm saying?
 
Gosh, you're right!! You've opened my eyes!! All of those scientists just missed this point!!
Why even go to school and get those silly advance degrees or waste time actually doing research. All of these poor scientists are going to feel so silly that they wasted all of the time getting an education and doing research when all of their work can be dismissed by someone who had no training or uunderstanding of the facts if that person can get someone else on an internet board to agree with them. Why worry about peer reviews and research when there are people willing to substitute their judgment based on some silly talking points for valid scientific research.
 
"He wants you to curb your lifestyle drastically, but on the record he’s doing everything he doesn’t want you to do, and doing it extravagantly. "

Link, please. Show us where Al Gore told people to curb their lifestyle drastically.

President Bush walks the walk. Anyone want to give him credit, or does your hatred for him not allow that?

Is "walk the walk" the new rightwing tough guy talk? :lmao:

Again, come up with some proof to back up your accusations.
 
Again, the point is that Al Gore is a hypocrite...

Gore is a hypocrite. But he's a hero to the lefties. More "do as I say, not as I do."
Again, you are WRONG. Amusing but WRONG. http://www.anonymousliberal.com/2007/02/gores-energy-use.html
The press release claimed that Al Gore's home in Nashville consumed 221,000 kilowatt hours (kWh) of electricity last year compared to a national average of 10,656 kWh per household. I have no idea whether the number cited for Gore's house is correct, but let's assume it is. The 10,656 number comes from data published by the Department of Energy. But it's an average of all households nationwide (including apartment units and mobile homes) and across all climate regions. As it turns out, the region in which Gore lives--the East South Central--has the highest per household energy usage of any climate region in the country, a good 50% higher than the national average quoted in the press release (I assume this is due to the combination of cold winters and hot, muggy summers). So that's misleading in and of itself.

Moreover, Gore lives in a large home (10,000 sq. ft.). If you look at the data, it's clear that Gore's energy usage per square foot (even assuming the 221,000 kWh number is accurate) is well within the average range for his climate region. So all this accusation boils down to is a claim that it is somehow "hypocritical" for Al Gore to live in a large house.

That's awfully weak. Gore's a former Senator and Vice President of the United States. Does he have to move into a studio apartment before he has the right to talk about climate change?

And more importantly, as Think Progress reports, even this watered-down hypocrisy charge entirely misses the point. What Al Gore wants people to do is reduce the carbon footprint of their residence as much as possible and then purchase carbon offsets to reduce the remaining footprint to zero. Gore has installed solar panels in his home, he uses fluorescent light bulbs and other energy saving technology, and he purchases his energy from Green Power Switch, a provider which utilizes solar and wind power. He then purchases carbon offsets to reduce his remaining carbon footprint to zero.

Could Gore use less overall energy if he and Tipper moved into a one-bedroom apartment? Of course. But he's not asking people to move into smaller homes. He's asking them to reduce their carbon footprints, which is exactly what he has done. He practices what he preaches.

And last but not least, I'm always amazed by the triumphalism displayed by right-wingers when they think they've managed to humiliate a messenger, as if doing so somehow undermines the message itself. It's bizarre. I mean, suppose Al Gore was caught tomorrow driving around the country in a fleet of Hummers that run on solid coal. Would that somehow invalidate decades of scientific research? Could the inhabitants of low-lying Pacific Islands suddenly breath a sigh of relief? It's sad what passes for logic these days on the Right.
You talking points have been shot down. Vice President Gore is doing exactly what he is advocating for and so he is walking the walk.
 
The main thing I can not and will never be able to get passed, is suppose that you prove that we are experiencing warming. Ok, even if you can prove that, how do you ever conclusively link that with any man-made activities?

How do you prove its not from Solar activity, or volcanic activity, or gamma ray activity from outside the solar system, and any other factor like that which is a huge list of things that exist that are going on at the same time.

You can not scientifically isolate those things, so how do you prove what is what? Seems to me the only thing that could possibly be proved (and that's a huge maybe) is that we are experiencing warming, or cooling.

However, given the fact that certain areas experience different level of climate change at any given time, I'm not sure how you can even do that. See what I'm saying?
Wow, a fairly rational post. And no smileys?

The amount of human effect appears to still be a matter of some dispute (I believe there is a consensus for some effect). I'm no scientist, and I don't know how they'll go about trying to prove it. I have seen stories that the solar effect has been specifically researched and discounted, so apparently they think they have some ability to isolate some influences.

If it's possible that something really bad is happening, and we can do something about it, shouldn't we at least be pursuing the question? And how can we do that if we can't even get past the points that the scientists think are not really in dispute any longer.
 
This entire thread goes back to the point I was making on the "What is a Liberal" thread a few days ago, that being that conservatives seem to be completely incapable of recognizing the complexities of any issue. They insist on comparing Gore's house - including the security, office space, and size differences - to an average American household, and think that they are thereby proving something. Despite the obvious logical fallacies, they continue to spout their nonsense about Gore being a hypocrite. They see the issue only as black and white.

So...thanks to those of you proving my point about conservatives. :thumbsup2 It's much appreciated. :lmao: The only sad part is that there seem to be so many people gullible enough to be taken in by the simplistic argument, rather than looking at the whole picture.
 
How do you prove its not from Solar activity, or volcanic activity, or gamma ray activity from outside the solar system, and any other factor like that which is a huge list of things that exist that are going on at the same time.
It is called the scientific method. Look it up. You measure the variables. For example, there is a theory that galactic cosmic radiation was responsbile for global warming. A scientist posted his theory and other scientists looked at it. The theory fell apart in that the data did not support the theory (the first scientist did not control for El Nino) and more importantly, galactic cosmic radiation had been measured for some time and there was no coorelation (i.e. cause and effect) between GCR and recent changes in the tempatures of the world. Other theories have been looked at and the sceintific method applied.

The IPCC has left some room for error in that they only rate the chance that man is causing global warming at 90%. That leaves some room for error but that is a very high proability from such a diverse group of scientists. BTW, some studies that have come out since the IPCC report tend to show that the IPCC report is conservative, i.e. the probability that humans are affecting the weather patterns is actually higher than 90%.

Again, you may not believe in the scientific method. That is your right just as it your right to believe that tobacco is good for you and that the earth is flat.
 
I've looked at a lot of the "terra forming" theories that are esposed about Mars. They think that green house gases that are bad on Earth, are what the doctor (not the Dis Doctor) :lmao: ordered for Mars, to make it liveable like the Earth.

Then there are theoretical plans to actually terraform Mars, by basically installing millions of carbon emission plants of some kind. Nice theory right? But its a pipe dream. It will NEVER happen, EVER. And even if we had a limitless supply of cash to do such a thing, is it really possible for man to "terra form" Mars? I seriously doubt it.

Its essentially the same theory in reverse here on Earth. I just don't believe that anything man is doing, short of massive nuclear testing or a nuclear war, is really doing anything other than an infintesimal effect on the planet.

Now does that mean that I want to see eternal combustion engine cars forever, spewing out black soot choking everyone, of course not. That's one reason I'm working on an alternative car design. But am I going to lose sleep over it that it is causing so much warming that the polar ice caps are going to melt.:rolleyes: Ahhhhhh.........no.
 
Not everything that exists in the Universe can be scientifically explained yet.
Again if you do not believe in the scientific method, then you may reach this conclusion as well as the belief that the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster really has the right answer.
piratesarecool4.jpg

Your lack of faith in the scientific method may help you to come to accept the Flying Spaghetti Monster as the true supreme being.
 
It is called the scientific method. Look it up. You measure the variables. For example, there is a theory that galactic cosmic radiation was responsbile for global warming. A scientist posted his theory and other scientists looked at it. The theory fell apart in that the data did not support the theory (the first scientist did not control for El Nino) and more importantly, galactic cosmic radiation had been measured for some time and there was no coorelation (i.e. cause and effect) between GCR and recent changes in the tempatures of the world. Other theories have been looked at and the sceintific method applied.

The IPCC has left some room for error in that they only rate the chance that man is causing global warming at 90%. That leaves some room for error but that is a very high proability from such a diverse group of scientists. BTW, some studies that have come out since the IPCC report tend to show that the IPCC report is conservative, i.e. the probability that humans are affecting the weather patterns is actually higher than 90%.

Again, you may not believe in the scientific method. That is your right just as it your right to believe that tobacco is good for you and that the earth is flat.

:rotfl: :rotfl2:

We've only been studying these things for a very very short period of time. There is no way that you can conclusively take the studies that we have and make any blanket conclusions like you want to do. It has not been studied long enough to have a clue.

It has nothing to do with the scientific method. YOU know nothing about the scientific method, otherwise you would know that we have not been studying these issues long enough to know. THAT is science.

NOT taking a few studies over the past few decades and coming to some knee jerk conclusion that man is causing global warming. THAT is NOT science. Its called JUNK science, which is the type of science you love.

And take another :rotfl2: for good measure :lmao:
 
Its essentially the same theory in reverse here on Earth. I just don't believe that anything man is doing, short of massive nuclear testing or a nuclear war, is really doing anything other than an infintesimal effect on the planet.

How nice for you. And...where did you get your degree in Climatology, again? Why is your opinion more important than those of the thousands of scientists that disagree with your assessment?

This is the problem with this argument in the public arena..people with no credibility are given the same weight as people with advanced knowledge of the situation. I don't mean to pick on you in particular, but your opinion - just like mine - shouldn't be given any weight on this subject. We simply do not have all the information needed to have an opinion worth listening to.
 
If it's possible that something really bad is happening, and we can do something about it, shouldn't we at least be pursuing the question? And how can we do that if we can't even get past the points that the scientists think are not really in dispute any longer.
One of the more amusing things is that after the IPCC report came out, both bush and EXXON accepted the concept of man caused global warming. EXXON had previously spent millions paying for fixed studies and bush had imposed a gag rule on NASA and most administration scientists on this issue. After the IPCC report, both bush and EXXON accepted the conclusions of the scientific community including the concept of man caused global warming.

It is no secret that I do not have a high opinion of bush's intelligence but here bush appears to be intelligent enough to accept the truth. Too bad others are not smart as bush is with respect to this issue.
 







New Posts









Receive up to $1,000 in Onboard Credit and a Gift Basket!
That’s right — when you book your Disney Cruise with Dreams Unlimited Travel, you’ll receive incredible shipboard credits to spend during your vacation!
CLICK HERE













DIS Facebook DIS youtube DIS Instagram DIS Pinterest DIS Tiktok DIS Twitter

Back
Top