Al Gore is BACK in an Inconvenient Sequel

[Tecumsehsbones]

So you believe in his claims of rising sea levels , good for you .

No, I don't believe anything. I know sea levels are rising because the data are quite firm and consistent.

Now please tell me how you find my position as foaming hatred ? That is a stretch even for one so used to playing word games as you .

You're one of the ones who "doesn't believe in AGW." And because your emotional set apparently leads you to reject objective facts, you undoubtedly follow the script, which includes the following mutually exclusive statements:

1. Ain't happening.

2. Ain't caused by humans.

3. Can't do nothing about it.

Looping back nicely to the conspiracy theory that the liberals (capital or small "L") are TRYIN' TO TAKE AWAY AHR RAHTS!, the insane thesis that all the researchers are bought-off and lying (except for the tiny majority who reject AGW, whom you have decided must be morally pure geniuses vastly above pressure or bribery), and probably that Al Gore is Satan

For the record (not that you'll listen or "believe") I don't "believe" in AGW. The average temperature of the planet is rising, sea levels are rising. Those are facts. CO2, methane, and H2O are greenhouse gases. Also a fact, demonstrated through experimentation. And I find these facts interesting.

Human industrial activity has increased the amount of CO2, methane, and H2O in the atmosphere. Probably, though it calls for a lot of unproven assumptions. If true, I find it concerning.

Human activity is the sole or primary cause of AGW. Sorry, far too speculative. Tries to make too much cloth out of too little yarn. Ignores far too many other possible contributing factors. Also smacks of the same emotion-driven "belief" that drives the deniers on the other side.

Solution? Continue research. And in the meantime, implement those "anti-AGW" measures that ALSO reduce pollution, because the link between breathing hydrocarbons and sulfur dioxide and gasping, coughing, turning grey, falling over, and ceasing cardiopulmonary function is established to the point of fact. So why do possibly-useful/possibly-useless stuff when there is plenty of stuff that will bring immediate, direct benefits while at the same time reduce AGW, if it turns out that AGW actually is a fact?

 

[mentalfloss]

The real hero of Al Gore's An Inconvenient Sequel

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Can't be that serious if AGW acolytes like Gore and Suzuki are buying and building homes on ocean fronts and islands. Gore bought his nice, ocean front Santa Barbara home AFTER his little tour with his first movie.
If sea...levels...are...that...serious, then why did Gore buy...ocean...front...property?

Because Gore's not especially bright? Hell, I don't know. Why don't you ask him?

And again, so what if sea levels are rising. They tend to do that as things warm up. But it still doesn't matter because no amount of money, no amount of preaching, no amount of "green" energy is going to stop it. Take a look around the world. There are plenty of examples of ancient ports, cities and towns now being underwater and have been for hundreds and hundreds of years. All without the "climate forcing" of human activity. You live on the coast, you takes your chances. It's been that way since the first humans decided the coast would be a great place to build a community.

And those who still have stock in coal and natags. :lol:

Addressed above.

Funny thing about the emotional deniers is they assume anybody who doesn't reject the objective, well-demonstrated facts must be a Gore disciple.

This goes back to Humphrey's Dictum: Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but no-one is entitled to their own facts.

Poor Hubert. He was so 1972.

 

[Jinentonix]

So, you reject objective facts because Al Gore has a big house?

Or you can just admit that you reject objective facts because you hate Al Gore.


To quote the T-shirt: "Hi. I don't care." Don't have much use for folk who let their dislike for a person lead them to reject objective fact.

Actually, the better question would be, Why should I listen to some tool who obviously rejects the same "objective" facts they're trying to push on me? When it comes to something big like this, all I can smell is "agenda" cooking on a burner somewhere.
Here's what the reality is. Climate change has become so politicized that the real raw data has been twisted and warped into propaganda. Now, there's absolutely zero chance that any real scientist would deny climate change is real. And I have no doubt that many if not most or all would agree that humans play some role in it. Hell, that's what we do. Everything we do has an effect on our environment to some degree.
But I know for a fact there's no consensus on the issue. It's actually a minority of scientists who have publicly declared that we are the primary cause of climate change.

It was a small minority of "scientists" who tried to convince us tobacco was safe. It was a small minority who convinced a huge number of idiots that fat, not sugar caused obesity. We currently have a small minority telling us that f*cking with our food at the molecular level and introducing man-made chemicals to their DNA is perfectly safe for humans to consume.
And now, we have a small minority suggesting that we are doomed unless we quit fossil fuels today.

Sorry, but I don't play the advocacy science game. Science and math were my best and favourite subjects all through school. I have too much respect for science to fall for this advocacy bullshit.

We could have quit fossil fuels 30 years ago or more and sea level rise would still be an issue. Taxing the bejeezus even more out of people won't make it go away. Especially when your "plan" to combat it is to rely heavily on the fossil fuel industry.
I will say this though, out of the unreliables, I may be coming around on solar. Based on what I saw yesterday it was outperforming the hell out of wind power in Ontario.
Let me set (or re-set) the table for you. I found a site where you can see how much of each source of generation in Ontario is supplying to the grid. Yesterday was rather grey and overcast all day. Ontario has just shy of 4000MW of wind capacity and 380MW of solar capacity. Yet despite that, for the entire day, including peak hours, wind managed to supply a paltry 85MW(highest peak) or 2% of its capacity while solar was providing about twice the power or around half of its capacity. Then again, neither really contributed jack shit when compared to nuclear, hydroelectric and natgas.

 

[White_Unifier]

If a priest preached that child sexual molestation is wrong but then got caught molesting a child, who would say 'Oh the hipokrite! If even he who preaches against it does it, then I might as well get in on the action too?'

Same logic.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Actually, the better question would be, Why should I listen to some tool who obviously rejects the same "objective" facts they're trying to push on me? When it comes to something big like this, all I can smell is "agenda" cooking on a burner somewhere.

You shouldn't. I don't. Ain't hurt me none.

Sorry, but I don't play the advocacy science game. Science and math were my best and favourite subjects all through school. I have too much respect for science to fall for this advocacy bullshit.

Sure about that? I would suggest that if you sit around bitching about Al Gore, "playing the advocacy science game" is exactly what you're doing.

I don't give a damn about Al Gore. I didn't like him as VP, he ran the second-worst campaign in history for President (Hillary was the worst), and because of this I have little respect for him as a politician or policy maker. I have none at all for him as a scientist, because he's not a scientist.

Temperature rise and sea level rise are facts. Greenhouse gas contribution thereto is a correlation. EEE-vil greedy corporations killing all de widdle bee-bees and polar bears and flowers cuz they're EEE-vil and greedy is just another emotion-driven political whine.

I've already offered an interim solution while we gain a better understanding of climatology and planetology. Wouldn't mind hearing your criticism of my solution, long as it ain't based on bitching about the hippies.

 

[Dixie Cup]

[youtube]tx2l2du7Tdg[/youtube]

‘An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth To Power’ Review: Al Gore Back & More Vital Than Ever

Climate change deniers be damned. Former Vice President Al Gore is back taking his message of the increasing dangers of global warming — and possible solutions to the problems — directly to moviegoers in a rich and human sequel to his 2006 double-Oscar-winning documentary An Inconvenient Truth. That movie led to a Nobel Peace Prize for his determined efforts to warn of Earth’s eventual demise if something is not done to stem the tide(s).

This time around, original director Davis Guggenheim takes on a co-executive producer credit as new directors Bonni Cohen and Jon Shenk employ a new approach in showcasing Gore and his message — the slideshow in the first documentary replaced by more of a Direct Cinema approach. Gore, obviously trusting them, allowed unprecedented access. As I say in my video review above, the helmers find much new material to mine here by tracking Gore from Greenland and the melting ice caps to India, the Philippines, Paris and all over the U.S. as the former VP gives us visual evidence of our certain demise if nothing is done.

[WATCH] ‘An Inconvenient Sequel’ Review: Al Gore Back & More Vital Than Ever | Deadline

Whomever can't see that the climate has been changing over the centuries is a dumbkoff!! Of course it has been changing but that has not been the reason Gore and his ilk are championing it. It purely and simply a money grab, some for him - some for others and they want you to pay for it. It's the "do as I say and not as I do" scenario. If anyone honestly believes that all weather conditions are due to man kind and that we can actually have any control over it, then I guess the purchase of swamp land in Florida will be a good buy....eventually.


It's simply disgusting. Now if you're talking about pollution, then that's a different story. We all want clean air, water, etc., etc. But that's not what this is about. It is simply about money - period!!


JMHO

 

[mentalfloss]

Some money grab.

The movie bombed. :lol:

 

[Dixie Cup]

Tucker Carlson Explains the Truth About 'False Prophet' Al Gore
https://pjmedia.com/video/tucker-carlson-explains-the-truth-about-false-prophet-al-gore/

Oh heck, I'm not surprised. I had seen a video years ago whereby they did a comparison between Gore and George Bush. Guess who is more "environmentally" responsible? It wasn't Gore!! Not by a long shot.


Hypocrisy is in I guess. No big deal. It is simply so disgusting that no one who actually believes in this crap doesn't call Gore or any other person on their use of "fossil fuels" - it's just all "joe average" who is to blame and must pay, and pay, and pay....


JMHO

Some money grab.

The movie bombed. :lol:

As it should!! Hopefully, people are finally coming to see what a hypocrite he is; and as stated by someone earlier, he's a liar and a thief. I agree wholeheartedly.


JMHO

 

[Jinentonix]

If a priest preached that child sexual molestation is wrong but then got caught molesting a child, who would say 'Oh the hipokrite! If even he who preaches against it does it, then I might as well get in on the action too?'

Same logic.

Nope, twisted logic. Point out anywhere where I even remotely suggested it's great just dumping oil all over the land and in our waters. Point out anywhere I said this world is our ashcan and nothing more.
I have, in fact, clearly stated on this forum more than once that doing stupid shit like burning oil to make electricity is a stupid waste of a precious resource. Same thing for anthracite.
Do you comprehend the fact that this entire green scheme cannot happen without the direct need for and use of oil, gas and coal? Are you getting it yet? Do you understand the difference between reality and pipe-dream?

Were you gullible enough to believe the tobacco industry's "scientists"? Were you gullible enough to believe the sugar industry's "scientists"? Were you gullible enough to believe the chemical industry's "scientists"?
Because this is preying on the same gullibility as those did. Oh, but this time the cause is phrased in a purely altruistic form so it must be true.
These people are relying on you not thinking this kind of stuff all the way through. And again, just in case you didn't pick up on it. We're talking about an idiot who is thoroughly enjoying the fruits of his labours telling the rest of us we're going to destroy the world if we enjoy the fruits of own labours.

To actually make your analogy accurate, it's like pedophile priest telling a bunch of pedophiles that what they're doing is wrong.
You see, because in your example, we're already in on the action and have been fully on-board for well over a century. The quality of life you enjoy is due in much part to fossil fuels. You can't deny it. The question is, how much quality of life are you personally willing to sacrifice to live without them?

 

[captain morgan]

Human activity is the sole or primary cause of AGW. Sorry, far too speculative. Tries to make too much cloth out of too little yarn. Ignores far too many other possible contributing factors. Also smacks of the same emotion-driven "belief" that drives the deniers on the other side.

... And herein lies the problem.

Deliberate measures taken to obfuscate the or over simplify this issue does more actual harm in understanding the general principles in addition to leading the solution-set down a path which has a greater probability of failing.

One can't help but speculate that there is an agenda in play, especially in that the solution is based on levying taxes... As Eagle puts it, how many money transfers will it take to stop global warming?

Solution? Continue research. And in the meantime, implement those "anti-AGW" measures that ALSO reduce pollution, because the link between breathing hydrocarbons and sulfur dioxide and gasping, coughing, turning grey, falling over, and ceasing cardiopulmonary function is established to the point of fact. So why do possibly-useful/possibly-useless stuff when there is plenty of stuff that will bring immediate, direct benefits while at the same time reduce AGW, if it turns out that AGW actually is a fact?

Pollution and GHG's are not the same

Also, having too much nitrogen or O2 in the atmosphere can lead to death.

Begs the question; how is it that CO2 (carbon) has been chosen to be the villain here?

Some money grab.

The movie bombed. :lol:

Bombed is a very kind way to describe it's actual performance at the box office

 

[Jinentonix]

For the record (not that you'll listen or "believe") I don't "believe" in AGW. The average temperature of the planet is rising, sea levels are rising. Those are facts. CO2, methane, and H2O are greenhouse gases. Also a fact, demonstrated through experimentation. And I find these facts interesting.

I'm with you so far.

Human industrial activity has increased the amount of CO2, methane, and H2O in the atmosphere. Probably, though it calls for a lot of unproven assumptions. If true, I find it concerning.

I have never suggested that humans don't contribute at all. I merely question the method to arrive at the conclusion that we are the primary driver of climate change.

Human activity is the sole or primary cause of AGW. Sorry, far too speculative. Tries to make too much cloth out of too little yarn. Ignores far too many other possible contributing factors. Also smacks of the same emotion-driven "belief" that drives the deniers on the other side.

Volcanoes were pointed out as a possible serious culprit but the idea was snorted at because of how few there are. First off, it's not about how many, it's about their chemistry. Secondly, if one takes a gander along our ocean floors, I think their perspective would change considerably considering how active it actually is. Even scientists have stated they're surprised by the amount of activity along the Mid-Atlantic ridge. And that's just one area. There are also constant earthquakes. Big or small they release voluminous amounts of gases that were locked up in those rocks.

Solution? Continue research. And in the meantime, implement those "anti-AGW" measures that ALSO reduce pollution, because the link between breathing hydrocarbons and sulfur dioxide and gasping, coughing, turning grey, falling over, and ceasing cardiopulmonary function is established to the point of fact. So why do possibly-useful/possibly-useless stuff when there is plenty of stuff that will bring immediate, direct benefits while at the same time reduce AGW, if it turns out that AGW actually is a fact?

I agree. I've never stated that we should just have a free-for-all with the world's resources, we just have to manage them much better. But the other side has to stop and realize that the modern world right now cannot exist without fossil fuels and it's likely going to be a long time before it does.
Wind and solar require back-up generation and that's usually found in the form of natgas which is methane. But by tying it to wind and solar, you actually make a modern cycle gas plant less efficient which translates into more particulate and more GHG emissions. Seriously, places like Ontario would be better off shutting down the wind power and letting the gas plants take up the slack. As counter-intuitive as that may sound, doing so would actually lower GHG emissions.

Today, as of 9:45AM, Ontario is generating 15000MW of power. Less than 2% of it is coming from wind, solar and biofuel. Less than 1% of which is coming from wind. That's what the province spent billions of dollars for.

 

[petros]

Today, as of 9:45AM, Ontario is generating 15000MW of power. Less than 2% of it is coming from wind, solar and biofuel. Less than 1% of which is coming from wind. That's what the province spent billions of dollars for.

Here is something to consider. Wynne Govt also subsidized wind projects outside of ON.

Red Lily as example.

 

[mentalfloss]

As it should!! Hopefully, people are finally coming to see what a hypocrite he is; and as stated by someone earlier, he's a liar and a thief. I agree wholeheartedly.


JMHO

It's moreso that people understand global warming now, so there is less desire to become educated.

 

[darkbeaver]

It's moreso that people understand global warming now, so there is less desire to become educated.

Yes they understand Global Warming as the worlds most persistent bullshjt.

 

[mentalfloss]

Enjoy your carbon tax.

 

[Jinentonix]

It's moreso that people understand global warming now, so there is less desire to become educated.

Says the king of the uneducated. "Duh, I don't understand dick about science but da science is settled when it come to dat globull warming stuff cuz my fellow proggies say so." And of course as we all should know by now, proggies are never wrong about anything.

The chemistry and physics are so far beyond your understanding you should just quit cheer-leading advocacy science. Every post of yours more and more displays your gross ignorance and lack of understanding of the world of real science.

[youtube]b6CPsGanO_U[/youtube]

See? This is exactly your problem. Bill Nye with the science guise is more like it.
Seriously, your authority on the subject is some character that was created for a sketch com show years ago called "Almost Live"? No wonder you fall for advocacy science. I bet you still believe tobacco is healthy or that animal fat is the root cause of obesity. :lol:

 

[mentalfloss]

Climate Change Now Impacting U.S., Government Report Warns

 

[mentalfloss]

 

[Walter]

Climate Change Now Impacting U.S., Government Report Warns

And Hillary is president.