Hey give him long enough and he might be able to match the energy efficiency of George Bush's ranch.
AlBore's Inconvenient Lies
- Thread starter Curiosity
- Start date
Hey give him long enough and he might be able to match the energy efficiency of George Bush's ranch.
I would imagine that Bush's ranch is heated mainly by hot air....;-)
In any case this topic was about Gore's lies. So far we haven't heard any, other than in generalities from the peanut gallery. We know of course that Bush doesn't lie.:roll:
Gores graph was a lie.
Just because you don't want it to be, doesn't make it so.
btw, I'm more of a walnut, not a peanut, but it's nice to see you behaving in a manner that you once spent a day hounding me for.
With this in mind, I can see how the hypocritical actions of your heroes, seem all more normal and righteous.
There's nothing wrong with the science Gore is co-opting, if there was he wouldn't be so thick with it. This is the way of big bussiness, in the end big oil and wall street will sell themselves as haveing always been in the forefront of environmental stewardship. That is if there not all shot before too long. In the case of environmental corporatism the product is highly profitable and as in all other cases a product they must totally control.
So while we applaud Mr Gores activism the foxes are eating the chickens. Oh and about the socialism and the clarity, you should realize that it's your moment and not mine. The light of day may penetrate even concrete from time to time.:lol:
Last edited:
Bear, you've been harping about some graph for weeks now. There seems to be a problem in understanding here. Maybe you should watch the movie.
Nobody says you have to like Gore, but there is nothing wrong with the science Gore used in his movie. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology approved of how Gore set out the problem.
Are you questioning MIT?
As I have said before, "I could care less about Gore".
PS If you want to put yourself in the peanut gallery, go for it. I named nobody.
I've seen the movie, I've seen the anti movie as well.
Gores big old graph, that"fits together", as he depicted it, CO2 leads the increase in temperatures.
That is a blatantly faulse assertion. That graph, you know the big one, that he uses the manlift at the end of to hilite the effects of CO2 on global temps.
Pretty scary stuff, wrong, but scary as he portrayed it.
The only problem with that graph is, heat has been preceding the rise in CO2 over the last 600,000 years, not the reverse as he asserts.
I could care less if Buggs Bunny narrated the movie, I'm not talking about the shill, I'm talking about the inconvenient truth, that is that graph and the assertions that CO2 has preceded the rising global temperatures, that is false. That is a blatant lie, according to well heeled, non oil industry funded professors of Paleoclimatology.
Bear
We are not talking about 600,000 years ago. We are talking about roughly the last 300 years. What science is telling us today, is that an increase in the level of C02 in the atmosphere causes an increase in global temperature. MIT agreed with this thinking. Why can't you? Global warming did not cause the use of coal burning steam engines. Coal burning factories spewed out C02 which caused a steady increase in global temperatures since the industrial revolution.
We are not talking about 600,000 years ago. We are talking about roughly the last 300 years. What science is telling us today, is that an increase in the level of C02 in the atmosphere causes an increase in global temperature. MIT agreed with this thinking. Why can't you? Global warming did not cause the use of coal burning steam engines. Coal burning factories spewed out C02 which caused a steady increase in global temperatures since the industrial revolution.
There is a another flaw. Temperature responds to an logarithmically to a change in CO2 not linearly. Therefore even if CO2 was the primary driver of temperature (which it is not) since CO2 is rising exponentially the graph looks a lot scarier then it actually is.
Are you intentionally avoiding addressing the lie?
The whole graph, from start to finish, 600,000 years ago, to present and then projected, was made out to look as though CO2 was driving the rise in temps. But it is the reverse, by 800 years. CO2 has followed temp increases.
Thanx, I think, I'm not sure what you said, lol, but it sounds supportive.
That really is my problem with Gores use of the graphs as well. To say that a rise in CO2 has a direct increase on temperature is a bit simplistic, and actually exactly the same flaw that Viscount Monckton used in his expose of the carbon dioxide influence on climate sensitivity. There is lag.
In the past, from the ice core data the lag of co2 from a corresponding increase in temperature lagged around 800 years. However, this does not prove that CO2 does not cause global warming. What this highlights is the time needed for natural forcings to accomodate the changes. There is a huge difference between the trends of thousands of years ago to now. Rises in CO2 are not being driven by natural climate warming.
You can think of the lag in this way. As temperature increases, 800 years after the onset of the warming began we see an increase in the CO2. Now on top of the other factors which drove the increases, we have CO2 compounding the heating. This leads to a further increase in CO2 release.
What is happening now is much the same, save for the fact that we are releasing carbon which was removed from the cycle millions of years ago. There is natural warming happening. That is not in question. Our increased emission of greenhouse gases has the unfortunate consequence of releasing the natural carbon dioxide from the sinks it was stored in, and thus driving temperature change.
Whethor or not you agree with the what the main cause is, the simple fact of the matter is that we are now an integral part of the climate sensitivity.
Well lard tunderin' jebus, now that made sense and I can pick up, what you're puttin' down.
Gore is popular press. I have yet to see any popular press that didn't take liberties in this discussion.
I'm hoping that those who have been energized by Gore will at least try to dig a little deeper. It's great to have people responding well to this issue. Not so great if this is what their entire basis for the problem is based on.
I'm hoping that those who have been energized by Gore will at least try to dig a little deeper. It's great to have people responding well to this issue. Not so great if this is what their entire basis for the problem is based on.
I still don't like being lied to, it's attempted manipulation of emotive response, I don't like it, I question the motives of the perpetrator, the people that defend said perpetrator and most all, it puts the whole group under greater scrutiny. Forcing me to view whatever may come from that camp with much skepticism and distrust.
Can you understand my skepticism Ton?
I completely understand skepticism. I'd be wary of anyone who isn't skeptical of the popular press.
If I were to make my own documentary, rest assured I would not resort to fighting fire with fire. I think water works much better personally, unless it's chemical/electrical.:lol:
Of this, I am a guilty party, I do tend to take the extreme opposite of things I see in conflict. I'm not sure why that is, perhaps a flaw in the personality trait dept., I'm not sure, but I'm working on it.
Kudos on the personal growth Bear. Being static is boring.
I would know, I have no flaws:laughing7:
I like being static sometimes, especially when I can make the wife jump out of her skin when I touch her nipple with a "ZAP", lmao.
No you have no flaws, well there was that time you were a bit "wishy washy", lol.
It is fine to say that blaming an increase in co2 levels for a rise in global temperatures is "simplistic" and talk about an 800 year lag. The problem is, that we don't have 800 years. We are talking about the 300 odd years since the industrial revolution, during which time, we have dumped trillions of tons of carbon dioxide into our atmosphere. During that same period there has been a corresponding rise in global temperatures. Core samples don't tell us about anything catastrophic that might have happened 800 years previous to the advent of Mr. Watt's steam engines. Those trillions of tons of carbon dioxide far outweigh any natural emission from natural souces. The combination of huge co2 emissions and the devastation of the rain forests are obvious culprits. We know for certain that GW did not cause the industrial revolution.
