Jump to content

Copenhagen


Recommended Posts

There is the little matter of the passage of years in between these events.

Whatever that means.

But, Gore MUST be evil in order for your argument to make sense, right ?

Your question is merely an attempt at deflection to prevent you from taking a stand on the opinion I posted. Good try.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 506
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Whatever that means.

Your question is merely an attempt at deflection to prevent you from taking a stand on the opinion I posted. Good try.

What it means is that something that was published in 1991, saying there wasn't enough evidence may have changed by 1997.

My opinion is that we should be able to determine a course of action without the character sketches that people insist on piling onto their arguments.

Now - does your argument stand if Gore isn't an evil conspirator or not ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What it means is that something that was published in 1991, saying there wasn't enough evidence may have changed by 1997.

Thank you. That's clearer.

My opinion is that we should be able to determine a course of action without the character sketches that people insist on piling onto their arguments.

We weren't talking about a course of action. We were talking about Gore the money-making opportunist.

Now - does your argument stand if Gore isn't an evil conspirator or not ?

Whether Gore is evil or not is beside the point. I have no opinion one way or another of his evilness or lack of evilness and neither do I care. If that isn't clear, please feel free to re-word that same question for the third time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you. That's clearer.

We weren't talking about a course of action. We were talking about Gore the money-making opportunist.

Whether Gore is evil or not is beside the point. I have no opinion one way or another of his evilness or lack of evilness and neither do I care. If that isn't clear, please feel free to re-word that same question for the third time.

You seem to support an idea that he's lying to make money for himself, though ? And you're bringing it into a climate discussion.

Can we discuss climate change effectively without bringing Al Gore's personality into it ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm gonna reply to the 1st post.

Yes, we are headed to a New World Order

which is a one world government and a one world financial system

The social elite have their agenda which is the New World Order, and they are now creating problems that will push towards their agenda, like global warming, which over 30,000 scientists say is not man made, but you know Al Gore says there is a consensus so there must be...Climategate anyone?

If a treaty is signed at Copenhagen, it will be the first steps to a world government.

This Recession is a Depression, we should be listening to people like Peter Schiff who predicted the financial meltdown with the sub prime mortgages years before it happened. He is saying things will be getting worse. I don't know if any of you are paying attention to the commercial real estate market in the states, it isn't doing good.

All these bailouts are doing is pumping billions into the economy which will lead to inflation, hence why gold is on the rise, and possibly hyperinflation. Interest rates shouldn't be at 0, we should be encouraging savings by raising interest rates, not encouraging spending by loaning, that is what caused the bubble in the first place.

This financial meltdown was planned, the endgame, one world currency. Possibly.

A quote from sum41 "Blissful and blind, it's all we are".

You guys have to wake up.

I would encourage people to look up The Venus Project, it is how society should be ran. We don't need money

right now with our current monetary system, it is and will continue to be Profit before People.

We've put man on the moon and haven't solved poverty. Wake up people, this isn't how it's suppose to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm gonna reply to the 1st post.

Yes, we are headed to a New World Order

which is a one world government and a one world financial system

...

"New World Order" conspiracy type discussions should be in their own thread. I hope you start one, because a lot of what you posted here isn't right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You seem to support an idea that he's lying to make money for himself, though ? And you're bringing it into a climate discussion.

Can we discuss climate change effectively without bringing Al Gore's personality into it ?

what's really strange no one who supports the theory that we are experiencing AGW ever mentions Al Gore as an authority on the subject or base their stance on his knowledge...not in this forum nor any other that I've been to have AGW theory supporters ever used Gore to support their point of view...whereas the denier crowd has no hesitation using any crack pot blog site as a sources of "expert" reference...

Edited by wyly
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can we discuss climate change effectively without bringing Al Gore's personality into it ?

Don't be so childish. You know that any discussion on global warming inevitably brings references to Al Gore. If you are so disturbed by such references why do you spend so much time engaging posters who mention him?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't be so childish. You know that any discussion on global warming inevitably brings references to Al Gore. If you are so disturbed by such references why do you spend so much time engaging posters who mention him?

Yes, of course I know that.

Your question is ridiculous - are you suggesting that if I'm disturbed by bad arguments I should ignore them ? What exactly is the point of a discussion board ?

Was my third question good enough ? It seems to have been because you didn't ask for another, yet didn't answer it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The link between Al Gore and global warming is awesome. His weight gave the entire mass velocity. The funny thing is that there was a hidden agenda. We are just now seeing what that is. It is a transfer of wealth from the people to the governments and from the first and second world to the third world. Strangely it all comes back to investment capital, the public sidebar is global warming and the private reality is dollars and cents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

what are you talking about, over 30,000 scientist don't believe global warming is man made.

There is no consensus.

http://www.videosift.com/video/Weather-Channel-30000-scientists-sue-Al-Gore-for-fraud

this brings back my point of supporters of the AGW Theory never using Al Gore as an expert on AGW while the Denier crowd resort to quoting unqualified talking heads to make their case...

John Coleman evening weatherman(journalist) has no scientific credentials-NONE...the American Meteorological Society the weather guys with the scientific credentials are onside with the AGW Theory...those 30,000 in the petition Coleman said supported his claims, do no such thing..I've read the petition it states that there is AGW but it's dangers are exaggerated and implies CO2 is not a GHG :rolleyes:...and those 30,000 petition signers dentists, structural engineers, MD's absolutely anyone with a science degree, knowledge in Climatology was not required(that's like asking a Geologist his opinion on your swollen prostrate) there was no verification procedure as to who signed the petition...let us know how many Climatologist you find on that list, then list the number of peer reviewed papers they've presented on the subject...I'll wait...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm suspicious.

Not because Al Gore is NOT a scientist.

That's true enough.

Not because of ClimateGate, though the

scandal maybe the tip of the iceberg.

Pun not intended but welcome.

I'm suspicious for one thing because there are climate (ice-core & tree ring) records going

back to the last ice-age.

Apparently there was Global Warming some 7-9000 years ago.

We couldn't blame humans for that.

Plants love and NEED CO2.

I'm suspicious because the earth's climate aand biosphere, and its miraculously complex

system of checks and balances and environmental stabilization dynamics are far more complex

than any mainframe CRAY supercomputers could handle.

Our best and most powerful computers can't even accurately predict weather forecasts months

in advance, and yet we are being told by media circles (CBC incl;uded) to take the hysterical 'Global Warming' polemics, masked by its ambivalent 'scientific' charts and esoterica, as gospel.

I don't think so.

Worse! Even IF the worse case scenarios were (hypothetically) to be true, the proposed "cures" may

be worse than the "disease".

We could end up crippling the botanical world on which we depend by our "GREEN" tinkering and so-called environmental problem solving, and that would be a darn side worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

here is a list of some Canadian scientists who don't believe Global warming is man made

http://flaggman.wordpress.com/2007/02/06/global-warming-deniers-are-from-mit-princeton-uottawa-etc/

and I'll go back to climategate, their studies are lies, they are manipulating the data.

MIT'S Dr. Richard Lindzen Debunks AGW

http://astuteblogger.blogspot.com/2009/11/must-see-tv-mits-dr-richard-lindzen.html

Edited by maple_leafs182
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm suspicious.

Not because Al Gore is NOT a scientist.

That's true enough.

Not because of ClimateGate, though the

scandal maybe the tip of the iceberg.

Pun not intended but welcome.

I'm suspicious for one thing because there are climate (ice-core & tree ring) records going

back to the last ice-age.

Apparently there was Global Warming some 7-9000 years ago.

We couldn't blame humans for that.

Plants love and NEED CO2.

I'm suspicious because the earth's climate aand biosphere, and its miraculously complex

system of checks and balances and environmental stabilization dynamics are far more complex

than any mainframe CRAY supercomputers could handle.

Our best and most powerful computers can't even accurately predict weather forecasts months

in advance, and yet we are being told by media circles (CBC incl;uded) to take the hysterical 'Global Warming' polemics, masked by its ambivalent 'scientific' charts and esoterica, as gospel.

I don't think so.

Worse! Even IF the worse case scenarios were (hypothetically) to be true, the proposed "cures" may

be worse than the "disease".

We could end up crippling the botanical world on which we depend by our "GREEN" tinkering and so-called environmental problem solving, and that would be a darn side worse.

Some of these things have been covered in this thread already.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apparently there was Global Warming some 7-9000 years ago.
It is agreed that the planet was hotter than today 7000 years ago due to the sun but the alarmists insist that it can't be the sun causing the warming today. However, the fact that it was hotter demonstrates that the 'tipping points' used to scare us are extremely implausible (i.e. if melting permafrost caused run-away warming we would have see that happen 7000 years ago).
Our best and most powerful computers can't even accurately predict weather forecasts months
Alarmists claim that climate is predictable even if weather is not because climate is simply a matter of adding up the external forcings. That opinion is not shared by all scientists. Some do believe that climate, like weather, is not predictable.

One interesting fact that most people don't know: the earth's orbit is not predictable. i.e. the position of the earth cannot be calculated accurately in the future because there are so many small things that affect it. These small things add up over time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some of these things have been covered in this thread already.

There's one thing not covered: my memory.

I distinctly recall that in the years prior to the movie, 'Inconvenient Truth', scientific journals

were justifiably cautious about which way the proverbial wind blows.

In fact, the late Carl Sagan, in the years before his death, was postulating the EXACT OPPOSITE; a "nuclear winter" scenario from too may COMBUSTION PRODUCTS too quickly introduced into our atmosphere,

though the 'cause' in his theory was nuclear not industrial.

Cry wolf again over another theory soon to be discredited as well?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

here is a list of some Canadian scientists who don't believe Global warming is man made

http://flaggman.wordpress.com/2007/02/06/global-warming-deniers-are-from-mit-princeton-uottawa-etc/

and I'll go back to climategate, their studies are lies, they are manipulating the data.

MIT'S Dr. Richard Lindzen Debunks AGW

http://astuteblogger.blogspot.com/2009/11/must-see-tv-mits-dr-richard-lindzen.html

but where are the peer-reviewed papers disproving AGW????

first name on the list Dr Ian Clark- took part in "the great global swindle" a documentary that deliberately tampered with data...

Tad Murty, not a climatologist

Dr. R. Timothy Patterson-geologist, not qualified..my brother-in-law is a geologist and he says he's not a climatologist so is unqualified, his opinion is just that and an opinion...

I could go through the entire list but I'll stop at the favourite denier champion Lindzen...who supports AGW but questions the projections...

you come up with a dubious list of 60 while on this forum others have produced lists that have the backing of literally hundreds of thousands...but where it's most important among actual climatologists 97% back AGW...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's one thing not covered: my memory.

I distinctly recall that in the years prior to the movie, 'Inconvenient Truth', scientific journals

were justifiably cautious about which way the proverbial wind blows.

In fact, the late Carl Sagan, in the years before his death, was postulating the EXACT OPPOSITE; a "nuclear winter" scenario from too may COMBUSTION PRODUCTS too quickly introduced into our atmosphere,

though the 'cause' in his theory was nuclear not industrial.

Cry wolf again over another theory soon to be discredited as well?

The "Ice Age" argument has already been dealt with here. To bring you up to speed - most of us agree that GW is happening, but some are skeptical as to whether it is human-caused, or - if it is - whether anything can be done at this point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's one thing not covered: my memory.

I distinctly recall that in the years prior to the movie, 'Inconvenient Truth', scientific journals

were justifiably cautious about which way the proverbial wind blows.

In fact, the late Carl Sagan, in the years before his death, was postulating the EXACT OPPOSITE; a "nuclear winter" scenario from too may COMBUSTION PRODUCTS too quickly introduced into our atmosphere,

though the 'cause' in his theory was nuclear not industrial.

Cry wolf again over another theory soon to be discredited as well?

Sagan was a Climatologist was he???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As much as David Susuki...

and who refers to Suzuki as a expert on Climatology?...deniers point to the unqualified like Gore and Suzuki as experts they're not and they use non scientists like John Coleman as an expert denier and he's not...see the trend here... :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm suspicious for one thing because there are climate (ice-core & tree ring) records going

back to the last ice-age.

Apparently there was Global Warming some 7-9000 years ago.

We couldn't blame humans for that.

to my knowledge no scientist has ever claimed the climate was stable and hasn't changed before, and none have blamed humans for previous warmings...
Plants love and NEED CO2.
and we love and need oxygen but pure oxygen is toxic and can kill you just as pure CO2 will kill plants and us...
I'm suspicious because the earth's climate aand biosphere, and its miraculously complex

system of checks and balances and environmental stabilization dynamics are far more complex

than any mainframe CRAY supercomputers could handle.

Our best and most powerful computers can't even accurately predict weather forecasts months

in advance, and yet we are being told by media circles (CBC incl;uded) to take the hysterical 'Global Warming' polemics, masked by its ambivalent 'scientific' charts and esoterica, as gospel.

I don't think so.

here's a scientific fact that you don't need to be a scientist to understand and you don't need calculator let alone a super computer to understand...anytime you change the the percentage/quantities of a mixture you will change the properties of that mixture it is impossible for it to do anything but change...add salt to water and you change it's freezing point...increase the CO2 content of the atmosphere by 30% and you increase heat retention...
Worse! Even IF the worse case scenarios were (hypothetically) to be true, the proposed "cures" may

be worse than the "disease".

We could end up crippling the botanical world on which we depend by our "GREEN" tinkering and so-called environmental problem solving, and that would be a darn side worse.

what proposed cures?....how is trying to reduce CO2 emissions to pre industrial levels going to hurt the botanical world? not doing anything will definitely harm more than just the botanical world...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,744
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Mark Partiwaka
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • phoenyx75 earned a badge
      Collaborator
    • phoenyx75 earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • phoenyx75 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Collaborator
    • phoenyx75 went up a rank
      Rookie
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...