Why does AL GORE demand I drive an electric car and read by candlelight?

[RDD_1210]

He wants you to drive a horse and buggy, search for your dinner in the leaves found naturally in the forests of America and wear hemp underwear. You know why he wants you to do all these things? Because he makes a hell of a lot of money pushing this bs on people.

Literally nothing you said is true. Did you do that on purpose?

 

[Derelict_Drvr]

None of your whining or belly aching changes anything. The science is real and not up for debate anymore.

But that is debatable. Man made global climate change is still theory. You didn't mention that when it stopped warming about 10, or more, years ago, te narrative changed from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change".

Of course the climate changes. It's been doing so for eons, and it has more to do with the wobble in earth's orbit than it does with man. Volcanic activity, methane coming off the oceans, the sun's pulsing, etc contribute more than man,

The conjecture is that Algore, and associates, saw an opportunity to make money, all they had to do is find a way to scare the weak minded and ignorant citizenry, and they found it in global warming. If you had paid attention in your high school science class, you would know that earth's climate goes in cycles. If you're younger, our public schools don't teach indepth science, and they don't even touch on the earth sciences.

I don't disagree that man MAY contribute in an infinitesimal way to global warming, but to say we CAUSED global warming is unrealistic and contrived.

 

[RDD_1210]

None of your whining or belly aching changes anything. The science is real and not up for debate anymore.

But that is debatable. Man made global climate change is still theory. You didn't mention that when it stopped warming about 10, or more, years ago, te narrative changed from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change".

Of course the climate changes. It's been doing so for eons, and it has more to do with the wobble in earth's orbit than it does with man. Volcanic activity, methane coming off the oceans, the sun's pulsing, etc contribute more than man,

The conjecture is that Algore, and associate, saw an opportunity to make money, all the had to do is find a way to scare the weak minded and ignorant citizenry, and they found it in global warming. If you had paid attention in your high school science class, you would know that earth's climate goes in cycles. If you're younger, our public schools don't teach indepth science, ad tey don't even touch on the earth sciences.

I don't disagree that man MAY contribute in an infinitesimal way to global warming, but to say we CAUSED global warming is unrealistic and contrived.

Man has caused the shift that is outside the "normal" fluctuations. We know this from actual data. That is the issue and not really debated anymore outside of the lunatic anti-science crowd that seems to like to post on this site.

 

[BlindBoo]

None of your whining or belly aching changes anything. The science is real and not up for debate anymore.

That's where you're wrong. There is precious little real science supporting the theory. What there is, is a tremendous amount of computer derived fiction. Anti science lunatics, such as yourself, have a hard time understanding that computer models are not data. It must be some sort of mental defect with you people.

There is a huge amount of science supporting the theory.

The Scientific Evidence, with a 95% Level of Certainty, Points to Human Causes for Observed Warming over Past Half Century

"Carbon comes in three flavors: the very rare and radioactive carbon-14 that is made by cosmic rays and decays away in about 40,000 years, and the relatively rare carbon-13 and much more common carbon-12, both of which are stable. Plants take in at least a little of all three, but ‘prefer’ the easier-to-use carbon-12 and so have a slightly higher ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-13 than is found in shells or volcanoes. Living and recently dead plants include some carbon-14, but all of it has decayed before plants are converted to fossil fuels, or before plants or shells or other things are taken deeply enough in Earth to feed an erupting volcano. As CO2 levels in the air have increased since the Industrial Revolution began, carbon-12 has become more common in the atmospheric CO2 and carbon-14 less common. Volcanoes melt a lot of shells to make CO2, but melting doesn’t use oxygen whereas burning does, and we see the drop in oxygen that corresponds to the rise in CO2. Hence, the atmospheric shift toward CO2 is coming from the burning of long-dead plants,......"

 

[Derelict_Drvr]

None of your whining or belly aching changes anything. The science is real and not up for debate anymore.

But that is debatable. Man made global climate change is still theory. You didn't mention that when it stopped warming about 10, or more, years ago, te narrative changed from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change".

Of course the climate changes. It's been doing so for eons, and it has more to do with the wobble in earth's orbit than it does with man. Volcanic activity, methane coming off the oceans, the sun's pulsing, etc contribute more than man,

The conjecture is that Algore, and associate, saw an opportunity to make money, all the had to do is find a way to scare the weak minded and ignorant citizenry, and they found it in global warming. If you had paid attention in your high school science class, you would know that earth's climate goes in cycles. If you're younger, our public schools don't teach indepth science, ad tey don't even touch on the earth sciences.

I don't disagree that man MAY contribute in an infinitesimal way to global warming, but to say we CAUSED global warming is unrealistic and contrived.

Man has caused the shift that is outside the "normal" fluctuations. We know this from actual data. That is the issue and not really debated anymore outside of the lunatic anti-science crowd that seems to like to post on this site.

And in they 70's they were screaming that we were heading into an ice ae ad we were all going to freeze to death (or move to Mexico), how did tat trn out.

I used to have several hone calls from people trying to convince me f man made climate change. I argued them to a stand still and they never called me back. Many of them reverted to name calling and insulting my heritage, as liberals are apt to do .

You can deny us, but the truth is that man made climate is only theory. There is only conjecture based on evidence that the temperature was climbing slightly, so the surmised that because man was using more fossil fuel (they they hated, by the way) that just HAD to be the reason why.

Back in the 70's and the ice age scare, when the temperature dropped slightly, they were scrambling to figure out why we were losing green house gasses. They finally hypothesized that we were were getting a thinning stratosphere, causing green house gasses to escape into space. They were never able to prove that, just now where they can't prove that man is CAUSING global warming.

 

[BlindBoo]

None of your whining or belly aching changes anything. The science is real and not up for debate anymore.

But that is debatable. Man made global climate change is still theory. You didn't mention that when it stopped warming about 10, or more, years ago, te narrative changed from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change".

Of course the climate changes. It's been doing so for eons, and it has more to do with the wobble in earth's orbit than it does with man. Volcanic activity, methane coming off the oceans, the sun's pulsing, etc contribute more than man,

The conjecture is that Algore, and associate, saw an opportunity to make money, all the had to do is find a way to scare the weak minded and ignorant citizenry, and they found it in global warming. If you had paid attention in your high school science class, you would know that earth's climate goes in cycles. If you're younger, our public schools don't teach indepth science, ad tey don't even touch on the earth sciences.

I don't disagree that man MAY contribute in an infinitesimal way to global warming, but to say we CAUSED global warming is unrealistic and contrived.

Man has caused the shift that is outside the "normal" fluctuations. We know this from actual data. That is the issue and not really debated anymore outside of the lunatic anti-science crowd that seems to like to post on this site.

And in they 70's they were screaming that we were heading into an ice ae ad we were all going to freeze to death (or move to Mexico), how did tat trn out.

I used to have several hone calls from people trying to convince me f man made climate change. I argued them to a stand still and they never called me back. Many of them reverted to name calling and insulting my heritage, as liberals are apt to do .

You can deny us, but the truth is that man made climate is only theory. There is only conjecture based on evidence that the temperature was climbing slightly, so the surmised that because man was using more fossil fuel (they they hated, by the way) that just HAD to be the reason why.

Back in the 70's and the ice age scare, when the temperature dropped slightly, they were scrambling to figure out why we were losing green house gasses. They finally hypothesized that we were were getting a thinning stratosphere, causing green house gasses to escape into space. They were never able to prove that, just now where they can't prove that man is CAUSING global warming.

So the alarm went out and scientist began to study the climate and found the opposite to be more likely. Why do you think the scientist who proved that the rise in co2 concentrations is due to our burning of fossil fuels hate those fuels?

 

[Derelict_Drvr]

None of your whining or belly aching changes anything. The science is real and not up for debate anymore.

That's where you're wrong. There is precious little real science supporting the theory. What there is, is a tremendous amount of computer derived fiction. Anti science lunatics, such as yourself, have a hard time understanding that computer models are not data. It must be some sort of mental defect with you people.

There is a huge amount of science supporting the theory.

The Scientific Evidence, with a 95% Level of Certainty, Points to Human Causes for Observed Warming over Past Half Century

"Carbon comes in three flavors: the very rare and radioactive carbon-14 that is made by cosmic rays and decays away in about 40,000 years, and the relatively rare carbon-13 and much more common carbon-12, both of which are stable. Plants take in at least a little of all three, but ‘prefer’ the easier-to-use carbon-12 and so have a slightly higher ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-13 than is found in shells or volcanoes. Living and recently dead plants include some carbon-14, but all of it has decayed before plants are converted to fossil fuels, or before plants or shells or other things are taken deeply enough in Earth to feed an erupting volcano. As CO2 levels in the air have increased since the Industrial Revolution began, carbon-12 has become more common in the atmospheric CO2 and carbon-14 less common. Volcanoes melt a lot of shells to make CO2, but melting doesn’t use oxygen whereas burning does, and we see the drop in oxygen that corresponds to the rise in CO2. Hence, the atmospheric shift toward CO2 is coming from the burning of long-dead plants,......"

This from a paper I found that doesn't have a link:

Measurement of Pre-Industrial CO2 Levels
By Dr Timothy Ball
11/2008


Introduction

The hypothesis that global warming and climate change are due to human addition
of carbon dioxide (CO2) to the atmosphere became fact before research had even
begun. Instead of allowing the scientific method of testing a thesis before it is
accepted, scientists who dared to question were effectively silenced and labeled as
skeptics and deniers. The scientific method was thwarted and as result major
assumptions went essentially unchallenged.

A hypothesis is only valid if the assumptions are correct. Evidence continues to
accumulate and show basic assumptions are fundamentally wrong. One holds that
an increase in CO2 causes temperature to increase. The ice core record shows
exactly the opposite. A second critical assumption, because it provides the “human
signal”, has pre-industrial levels of CO2 at 280 parts per million (ppm) rising to
current levels of 385 ppm.

The Pre-Industrial Level

Ice cores are generally believed to be the primary source for the pre-industrial
levels. What most people don’t know is that thousands of direct measures of
atmospheric CO2 were made beginning in the Nineteenth Century. Joseph Black
had studied the properties of CO2 in the 1750s and Joseph Priestly published on
oxygen in 1775. These events were followed by attempts to measure the various
volumes of atmospheric gases with global measures of CO2 beginning in 1812.
Scientists took the readings with calibrated instruments and precise measurements
as the work of Ernst Beck has thoroughly documented in his paper:
“180 Years of Atmospheric CO2 Gas Analysis by Chemical Methods”.

In a paper submitted to the Hearing before the US Senate Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski states,

1. “The basis of most of the IPCC conclusions on anthropogenic causes
and on projections of climatic change is the assumption of low level of
CO2 in the pre-industrial atmosphere. This assumption, based on
glaciological studies, is false.”


2. Of equal importance Jaworowski states,

The notion of low pre-industrial CO2 atmospheric level, based on such poor
knowledge, became a widely accepted Holy Grail of climate warming
models. The modelers ignored the evidence from direct measurements of
CO2 in atmospheric air indicating that in 19th century its average
concentration was 335 ppmv[11] (Figure 2). In Figure 2 encircled values
show a biased selection of data used to demonstrate that in 19th century
atmosphere the CO2 level was 292 ppmv[12]. A study of stomatal frequency
in fossil leaves from Holocene lake deposits in Denmark, showing that 9400
years ago CO2 atmospheric level was 333 ppmv, and 9600 years ago 348
ppmv, falsify the concept of stabilized and low CO2 air concentration until
the advent of industrial revolution [13].

If you notice from the chart, CO2 levels rose due to warmer temperature for the last 400,000, before man played a role. So, from this you can figure out that the earth temperature as variations and CO2 concentrations rise and fall naturally according to temperature.

I still contend that man made global warmimg is a hoax.

 

[BlindBoo]

None of your whining or belly aching changes anything. The science is real and not up for debate anymore.

That's where you're wrong. There is precious little real science supporting the theory. What there is, is a tremendous amount of computer derived fiction. Anti science lunatics, such as yourself, have a hard time understanding that computer models are not data. It must be some sort of mental defect with you people.

There is a huge amount of science supporting the theory.

The Scientific Evidence, with a 95% Level of Certainty, Points to Human Causes for Observed Warming over Past Half Century

"Carbon comes in three flavors: the very rare and radioactive carbon-14 that is made by cosmic rays and decays away in about 40,000 years, and the relatively rare carbon-13 and much more common carbon-12, both of which are stable. Plants take in at least a little of all three, but ‘prefer’ the easier-to-use carbon-12 and so have a slightly higher ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-13 than is found in shells or volcanoes. Living and recently dead plants include some carbon-14, but all of it has decayed before plants are converted to fossil fuels, or before plants or shells or other things are taken deeply enough in Earth to feed an erupting volcano. As CO2 levels in the air have increased since the Industrial Revolution began, carbon-12 has become more common in the atmospheric CO2 and carbon-14 less common. Volcanoes melt a lot of shells to make CO2, but melting doesn’t use oxygen whereas burning does, and we see the drop in oxygen that corresponds to the rise in CO2. Hence, the atmospheric shift toward CO2 is coming from the burning of long-dead plants,......"

This from a paper I found that doesn't have a link:

Measurement of Pre-Industrial CO2 Levels
By Dr Timothy Ball
11/2008


Introduction

The hypothesis that global warming and climate change are due to human addition
of carbon dioxide (CO2) to the atmosphere became fact before research had even
begun. Instead of allowing the scientific method of testing a thesis before it is
accepted, scientists who dared to question were effectively silenced and labeled as
skeptics and deniers. The scientific method was thwarted and as result major
assumptions went essentially unchallenged.

A hypothesis is only valid if the assumptions are correct. Evidence continues to
accumulate and show basic assumptions are fundamentally wrong. One holds that
an increase in CO2 causes temperature to increase. The ice core record shows
exactly the opposite. A second critical assumption, because it provides the “human
signal”, has pre-industrial levels of CO2 at 280 parts per million (ppm) rising to
current levels of 385 ppm.

The Pre-Industrial Level

Ice cores are generally believed to be the primary source for the pre-industrial
levels. What most people don’t know is that thousands of direct measures of
atmospheric CO2 were made beginning in the Nineteenth Century. Joseph Black
had studied the properties of CO2 in the 1750s and Joseph Priestly published on
oxygen in 1775. These events were followed by attempts to measure the various
volumes of atmospheric gases with global measures of CO2 beginning in 1812.
Scientists took the readings with calibrated instruments and precise measurements
as the work of Ernst Beck has thoroughly documented in his paper:
“180 Years of Atmospheric CO2 Gas Analysis by Chemical Methods”.

In a paper submitted to the Hearing before the US Senate Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski states,

1. “The basis of most of the IPCC conclusions on anthropogenic causes
and on projections of climatic change is the assumption of low level of
CO2 in the pre-industrial atmosphere. This assumption, based on
glaciological studies, is false.”


2. Of equal importance Jaworowski states,

The notion of low pre-industrial CO2 atmospheric level, based on such poor
knowledge, became a widely accepted Holy Grail of climate warming
models. The modelers ignored the evidence from direct measurements of
CO2 in atmospheric air indicating that in 19th century its average
concentration was 335 ppmv[11] (Figure 2). In Figure 2 encircled values
show a biased selection of data used to demonstrate that in 19th century
atmosphere the CO2 level was 292 ppmv[12]. A study of stomatal frequency
in fossil leaves from Holocene lake deposits in Denmark, showing that 9400
years ago CO2 atmospheric level was 333 ppmv, and 9600 years ago 348
ppmv, falsify the concept of stabilized and low CO2 air concentration until
the advent of industrial revolution [13].


View attachment 119260


If you notice from the chart, CO2 levels rose due to warmer temperature for the last 400,000, before man played a role. So, from this you can figure out that the earth temperature as variations and CO2 concentrations rise and fall naturally according to temperature.

I still contend that man made global warmimg is a hoax.

I still contend that we will adapt or die.

Your missing link.

https://friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FoS Pre-industrial CO2.pdf

The theory is not new either

In 1896 Arrhenius completed a laborious numerical computation which suggested that cutting the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by half could lower the temperature in Europe some 4-5°C (roughly 7-9°F) — that is, to an ice age level. But this idea could only answer the riddle of the ice ages if such large changes in atmospheric composition really were possible. For that question Arrhenius turned to a colleague, Arvid Högbom. It happened that Högbom had compiled estimates for how carbon dioxide cycles through natural geochemical processes, including emission from volcanoes, uptake by the oceans, and so forth. Along the way he had come up with a strange, almost incredible new idea.

It had (2)(By recent calculations, the total amount of carbon laid up in coal and other fossil deposits that humanity can readily get at and burn is some ten times greater than the total amount in the atmosphere.) So the next CO2 change might not be a cooling decrease, but an increase.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

 

[westwall]

None of your whining or belly aching changes anything. The science is real and not up for debate anymore.

That's where you're wrong. There is precious little real science supporting the theory. What there is, is a tremendous amount of computer derived fiction. Anti science lunatics, such as yourself, have a hard time understanding that computer models are not data. It must be some sort of mental defect with you people.

There is a huge amount of science supporting the theory.

The Scientific Evidence, with a 95% Level of Certainty, Points to Human Causes for Observed Warming over Past Half Century

"Carbon comes in three flavors: the very rare and radioactive carbon-14 that is made by cosmic rays and decays away in about 40,000 years, and the relatively rare carbon-13 and much more common carbon-12, both of which are stable. Plants take in at least a little of all three, but ‘prefer’ the easier-to-use carbon-12 and so have a slightly higher ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-13 than is found in shells or volcanoes. Living and recently dead plants include some carbon-14, but all of it has decayed before plants are converted to fossil fuels, or before plants or shells or other things are taken deeply enough in Earth to feed an erupting volcano. As CO2 levels in the air have increased since the Industrial Revolution began, carbon-12 has become more common in the atmospheric CO2 and carbon-14 less common. Volcanoes melt a lot of shells to make CO2, but melting doesn’t use oxygen whereas burning does, and we see the drop in oxygen that corresponds to the rise in CO2. Hence, the atmospheric shift toward CO2 is coming from the burning of long-dead plants,......"

No, there isn't. Look through all the literature (I have looked through most) and the overwhelming majority of it is based purely on computer models. That is an undeniable fact.

 

[westwall]

None of your whining or belly aching changes anything. The science is real and not up for debate anymore.

But that is debatable. Man made global climate change is still theory. You didn't mention that when it stopped warming about 10, or more, years ago, te narrative changed from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change".

Of course the climate changes. It's been doing so for eons, and it has more to do with the wobble in earth's orbit than it does with man. Volcanic activity, methane coming off the oceans, the sun's pulsing, etc contribute more than man,

The conjecture is that Algore, and associate, saw an opportunity to make money, all the had to do is find a way to scare the weak minded and ignorant citizenry, and they found it in global warming. If you had paid attention in your high school science class, you would know that earth's climate goes in cycles. If you're younger, our public schools don't teach indepth science, ad tey don't even touch on the earth sciences.

I don't disagree that man MAY contribute in an infinitesimal way to global warming, but to say we CAUSED global warming is unrealistic and contrived.

Man has caused the shift that is outside the "normal" fluctuations. We know this from actual data. That is the issue and not really debated anymore outside of the lunatic anti-science crowd that seems to like to post on this site.

No, we do not. There is a correlation between temperature rise and CO2 level increase. And CO2 LAGS temperature rise by hundreds of years. There is more evidence that supports the theory that the current rise in CO2 is tied to the global temp rise during the Medieval Warming Period (this theory is supported by Vostock Ice Core data) than there is empirical data to support man as the cause for the current rise. The one fact that we do have is mankind is responsible for less than 5% of the global CO2 budget. That is a fact that can't be refuted.

 

[Doc1]

Those that know the issue, discuss it. Those that don't, talk about Gore. How old is this piece of "news" anyway? Aren't you ambitious enough to come up with something fresh? No lies like old lies, eh?

There is no "issue" only lies and those who buy them.

 

[Doc1]

None of your whining or belly aching changes anything. The science is real and not up for debate anymore.

Says you and Al.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Holy Shit...will someone tell AL GORE that he looks like he has turned into fossil fuel?

What a bloated old pervert. How's your sacral shakra, AL? Raped any masseuses lately?


...while he flies all over the planet in private jets and his primary residence, a 10,000 square foot mansion consumed 20 TIMES the energy of the average household.

The Nashville Electric service report says that Gore’s house used 221,000 kwh of electricity in 2006, more than 20 times the national average of 10,656 kwh. The report says the natural gas usage of Gore’s home is high as well, and that the Gores spent more than $30,000 in combined electricity and natural gas bills in 2006.

Then he has his 8500 square foot Ocean Villa in Montecido.

Why is Al Gore such a hypocritical cUUUUNT? (Money)

Why do moron snowflakes fall for his bullshit lies? (THEY ARE FUCKING STUPID)



Just do what your hero TELLS you to do....not what HE does.

DERP!!

/---- AlBore wants us to ride bicycles wearing a Mao jacket like the Chinese. And you should read by sunlight. Candles causes sea levels to rise.

 

[Cellblock2429]

None of your whining or belly aching changes anything. The science is real and not up for debate anymore.

That's where you're wrong. There is precious little real science supporting the theory. What there is, is a tremendous amount of computer derived fiction. Anti science lunatics, such as yourself, have a hard time understanding that computer models are not data. It must be some sort of mental defect with you people.

Where did you get your degree in climatology?

And before you ask, No, I don't have one either. That's why I listen to what the experts tell me. Everything you just said above is pure opinionated bullshit. Let me know when you have something concrete to look at.

/---- I got my degree in climate change from the same school AlBore did.

 

[BlindBoo]

None of your whining or belly aching changes anything. The science is real and not up for debate anymore.

But that is debatable. Man made global climate change is still theory. You didn't mention that when it stopped warming about 10, or more, years ago, te narrative changed from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change".

Of course the climate changes. It's been doing so for eons, and it has more to do with the wobble in earth's orbit than it does with man. Volcanic activity, methane coming off the oceans, the sun's pulsing, etc contribute more than man,

The conjecture is that Algore, and associate, saw an opportunity to make money, all the had to do is find a way to scare the weak minded and ignorant citizenry, and they found it in global warming. If you had paid attention in your high school science class, you would know that earth's climate goes in cycles. If you're younger, our public schools don't teach indepth science, ad tey don't even touch on the earth sciences.

I don't disagree that man MAY contribute in an infinitesimal way to global warming, but to say we CAUSED global warming is unrealistic and contrived.

Man has caused the shift that is outside the "normal" fluctuations. We know this from actual data. That is the issue and not really debated anymore outside of the lunatic anti-science crowd that seems to like to post on this site.

No, we do not. There is a correlation between temperature rise and CO2 level increase. And CO2 LAGS temperature rise by hundreds of years. There is more evidence that supports the theory that the current rise in CO2 is tied to the global temp rise during the Medieval Warming Period (this theory is supported by Vostock Ice Core data) than there is empirical data to support man as the cause for the current rise. The one fact that we do have is mankind is responsible for less than 5% of the global CO2 budget. That is a fact that can't be refuted.

"Carbon comes in three flavors: the very rare and radioactive carbon-14 that is made by cosmic rays and decays away in about 40,000 years, and the relatively rare carbon-13 and much more common carbon-12, both of which are stable. Plants take in at least a little of all three, but ‘prefer’ the easier-to-use carbon-12 and so have a slightly higher ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-13 than is found in shells or volcanoes. Living and recently dead plants include some carbon-14, but all of it has decayed before plants are converted to fossil fuels, or before plants or shells or other things are taken deeply enough in Earth to feed an erupting volcano. As CO2 levels in the air have increased since the Industrial Revolution began, carbon-12 has become more common in the atmospheric CO2 and carbon-14 less common. Volcanoes melt a lot of shells to make CO2, but melting doesn’t use oxygen whereas burning does, and we see the drop in oxygen that corresponds to the rise in CO2. Hence, the atmospheric shift toward CO2 is coming from the burning of long-dead plants....."

Why does AL GORE demand I drive an electric car and read by candlelight?

 

[westwall]

None of your whining or belly aching changes anything. The science is real and not up for debate anymore.

But that is debatable. Man made global climate change is still theory. You didn't mention that when it stopped warming about 10, or more, years ago, te narrative changed from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change".

Of course the climate changes. It's been doing so for eons, and it has more to do with the wobble in earth's orbit than it does with man. Volcanic activity, methane coming off the oceans, the sun's pulsing, etc contribute more than man,

The conjecture is that Algore, and associate, saw an opportunity to make money, all the had to do is find a way to scare the weak minded and ignorant citizenry, and they found it in global warming. If you had paid attention in your high school science class, you would know that earth's climate goes in cycles. If you're younger, our public schools don't teach indepth science, ad tey don't even touch on the earth sciences.

I don't disagree that man MAY contribute in an infinitesimal way to global warming, but to say we CAUSED global warming is unrealistic and contrived.

Man has caused the shift that is outside the "normal" fluctuations. We know this from actual data. That is the issue and not really debated anymore outside of the lunatic anti-science crowd that seems to like to post on this site.

No, we do not. There is a correlation between temperature rise and CO2 level increase. And CO2 LAGS temperature rise by hundreds of years. There is more evidence that supports the theory that the current rise in CO2 is tied to the global temp rise during the Medieval Warming Period (this theory is supported by Vostock Ice Core data) than there is empirical data to support man as the cause for the current rise. The one fact that we do have is mankind is responsible for less than 5% of the global CO2 budget. That is a fact that can't be refuted.

"Carbon comes in three flavors: the very rare and radioactive carbon-14 that is made by cosmic rays and decays away in about 40,000 years, and the relatively rare carbon-13 and much more common carbon-12, both of which are stable. Plants take in at least a little of all three, but ‘prefer’ the easier-to-use carbon-12 and so have a slightly higher ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-13 than is found in shells or volcanoes. Living and recently dead plants include some carbon-14, but all of it has decayed before plants are converted to fossil fuels, or before plants or shells or other things are taken deeply enough in Earth to feed an erupting volcano. As CO2 levels in the air have increased since the Industrial Revolution began, carbon-12 has become more common in the atmospheric CO2 and carbon-14 less common. Volcanoes melt a lot of shells to make CO2, but melting doesn’t use oxygen whereas burning does, and we see the drop in oxygen that corresponds to the rise in CO2. Hence, the atmospheric shift toward CO2 is coming from the burning of long-dead plants....."

Why does AL GORE demand I drive an electric car and read by candlelight?

When they start the paragraph with an intentionally misleading "fact" such as "decays away in 40,000 years" it makes it hard to take anything they say seriously. The well known half life of Carbon 14 is 5730 years. Thus to make a claim like this ignores reality, and relies on the scientific ignorance of the person reading it.

Carbon Dating

 

[2aguy]

Holy Shit...will someone tell AL GORE that he looks like he has turned into fossil fuel?

What a bloated old pervert. How's your sacral shakra, AL? Raped any masseuses lately?


...while he flies all over the planet in private jets and his primary residence, a 10,000 square foot mansion consumed 20 TIMES the energy of the average household.

The Nashville Electric service report says that Gore’s house used 221,000 kwh of electricity in 2006, more than 20 times the national average of 10,656 kwh. The report says the natural gas usage of Gore’s home is high as well, and that the Gores spent more than $30,000 in combined electricity and natural gas bills in 2006.

Then he has his 8500 square foot Ocean Villa in Montecido.

Why is Al Gore such a hypocritical cUUUUNT? (Money)

Why do moron snowflakes fall for his bullshit lies? (THEY ARE FUCKING STUPID)



Just do what your hero TELLS you to do....not what HE does.

DERP!!

Just be happy you aren't a massage therapist.....he seems to think he can molest them when he needs a release........

 

[2aguy]

None of your whining or belly aching changes anything. The science is real and not up for debate anymore.

But that is debatable. Man made global climate change is still theory. You didn't mention that when it stopped warming about 10, or more, years ago, te narrative changed from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change".

Of course the climate changes. It's been doing so for eons, and it has more to do with the wobble in earth's orbit than it does with man. Volcanic activity, methane coming off the oceans, the sun's pulsing, etc contribute more than man,

The conjecture is that Algore, and associate, saw an opportunity to make money, all the had to do is find a way to scare the weak minded and ignorant citizenry, and they found it in global warming. If you had paid attention in your high school science class, you would know that earth's climate goes in cycles. If you're younger, our public schools don't teach indepth science, ad tey don't even touch on the earth sciences.

I don't disagree that man MAY contribute in an infinitesimal way to global warming, but to say we CAUSED global warming is unrealistic and contrived.

Man has caused the shift that is outside the "normal" fluctuations. We know this from actual data. That is the issue and not really debated anymore outside of the lunatic anti-science crowd that seems to like to post on this site.

No...you don't....you have computer models that weren't able to predict the 18 years pause.......the only ones who say there isn't a debate are the ones looking to cash in on the lie.....

 

[Rustic]

Those that know the issue, discuss it. Those that don't, talk about Gore. How old is this piece of "news" anyway? Aren't you ambitious enough to come up with something fresh? No lies like old lies, eh?

The problem is progressives expect those they oppose to buy into their ideology, and if they don't they personally attack them over and over and over again. Why don't the progressives keep their political Ideology To themselves? They don't need the participation of those they oppose to go through with their utopia.
If they want to drive Prius' and have unisex bathrooms and a safe place On every corner, fine. Just keep that to themselves and leave the rest of us out of it.

 

[ColonelAngus]

Holy Shit...will someone tell AL GORE that he looks like he has turned into fossil fuel?

What a bloated old pervert. How's your sacral shakra, AL? Raped any masseuses lately?


...while he flies all over the planet in private jets and his primary residence, a 10,000 square foot mansion consumed 20 TIMES the energy of the average household.

The Nashville Electric service report says that Gore’s house used 221,000 kwh of electricity in 2006, more than 20 times the national average of 10,656 kwh. The report says the natural gas usage of Gore’s home is high as well, and that the Gores spent more than $30,000 in combined electricity and natural gas bills in 2006.

Then he has his 8500 square foot Ocean Villa in Montecido.

Why is Al Gore such a hypocritical cUUUUNT? (Money)

Why do moron snowflakes fall for his bullshit lies? (THEY ARE FUCKING STUPID)



Just do what your hero TELLS you to do....not what HE does.

DERP!!

Just be happy you aren't a massage therapist.....he seems to think he can molest them when he needs a release........

Good GOD...can you imagine what those poor massage therapists go through when they have to knead his wrinkled up doughy pale body...

.....so fucking gross.

Then he makes them jerk him off to release his sacral shakra.

So disgusting...no wonder Tipper divorced his PERVERT ass.

Al and Bill were perfect PICs.