Comments on: Gore urges scientists to warn public about global warming
Global warming is going on, says Al Gore, and scientists need to help spread the word.
Most Popular
Latest tech news headlines
- Facebook, Twitter: How we chose to live in public
January 1, 2010 12:16 PM PST
- Ex-Googler Lee sees Apple tablet debut in January
January 1, 2010 9:20 AM PST
- U.S. trade agency eyes Samsung-Sharp spat
January 1, 2010 7:31 AM PST
- See all headlines
RSS Feeds
Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.
More feeds available in our RSS feed index.
- Markets
Related quotes
day, Al Gore is using now. Trying to befriend the youth, going
on MTV and acting as the comman man and a friend of hip hop
stars. Gore trying to censor the scientists who disagree with
him, refusing to include them in his movie. And just like
Goebbels, behind it all he is a fraud, Gore lives in a huge
mansion and flys around in a private jet.
The people will wise up to Gore's propaganda and lies soon
enough, people are already asking what happened to the big
2006 Hurricane Season that the Gore Propaganda machine
predicted would happen ?
Take a look at who Gore hangs around with, the French guy
Kerry who has 6 mansions and a private jet and huge yacht, the
Kennedy Crime Ring Family who live in huge compounds and
who are AGAINST wind-turbines to create energy.
Gore and his huge food-obsessed wife won't know what to do
when the American people get sick of his lies and stand up to
him, just like when we stood up to Hitler and Goebbels not to
many decades ago.
It's a disgraceful comparison, made worse by the fact that they
truly aren't that similar.
Now, Goebbels and say, Bill Kristol. You might have something
arguable there.
Climate is an AVERAGE condition of weather in a specific place over a long period of time. It is measured in terms of temperature, precipitation, wind velocity, etc. over a period of many years.
Weather is an IMMEDIATE or current state of temperature, precipitation, wind velocity, etc. at a specific place at a given time. Many, many measurements of weather go into defining the condition we call "climate".
A hypothetical example: Today it is raining in the Dry Desert (this is WEATHER). In the past 20 years it has rained 200 times in the Dry Desert (this is CLIMATE). The difference is that climate reflects the average weather. Rain in the desert one day DOES NOT imply rain in the desert the next. The average weather over a long period of time CAN be used to predict daily weather to some degree.
Climate change is a change in the AVERAGE WEATHER for a specific area measured over a long period of time. Weather changes very quickly. Climate generally changes very slowly. What has caused many Earth scientists alarm is that climates are changing at an accelerated rate.
My point is this: The weather that we see on a daily basis is NOT a good indication for or against climate change. The long-term study of weather, that defines the idea of "climate", is. Under a climate change scenario, local climates will not change uniformly (meaning that global temperature won't just raise 1 degree everywhere from the North Pole to Indonesia). Changes will register differently in different places. This is the way it has always worked when the Earth's climate changes. Some places will become drier and others wetter. Places near the equator may see a raise in average temperature of 0.5 degrees while polar regions may see an increase in average temperature of 6 or 7 degrees (a condition that would devistate ecosystems).
Please, when you think about climate change, consider the difference between weather and climate. Also, please consider that many scientists have dedicated their entire LIVES to measuring and studying weather and the climatic conditions that it reflects. Scientists are trained to be cautious because their word carries weight. When a scientist speaks out for a cause like climate change, it is because he or she feels strongly that the data support that cause. When most scientists in an entire discipline speak out, it means that we should pay attention to what they have to say.
Then, consider the fact that the Earth has gone through many massive climate cycles - how many were attributable to man? (Answer=none). What about cycles of the Sun? There are probably dozens of overalpping cycles that know nothing about! Then why does Gore do it? Because it's not about the environment.
Global Warming was designed as an elaborate, predatory trade strategy to level the American and European economies.? Consider, Margot Wallstrom, the Swedish vice president of the European Commission, who said the Kyoto Protocol was ?not a simple environmental issue . . . this is about international relations, this is about economy ? about trying to create a level playing field.? Why use Kyoto and all of the Gloabl Warming rhetoric for something other than the environment? Read this: http://www.timbro.com/euvsusa/pdf/EU_vs_USA_English.pdf
Timbro is a Swedish think tank. "In 1959, for example, 22 per cent of all Americans were living below the then poverty line. Today only 12 per cent are living below the present-day poverty line." And most importantly: "...40 per cent of all Swedish households would rank among low-income households in the USA, and an even greater number in the poorer European countries would be classed as low income earnings by the American definition." Europe is falling further and further behind. We worry about the Chinese. Imagine what the European socialists are thinking as their economies are rigid, lower producing, and aging.
Read this too: http://www.michaelcrichton.com/speeches/complexity/complexity.html
If you can get over the emotion of Gore's whining, you'll see that he is flat wrong.
messenger.
Those who can't comprehend evidence ignore it. Do you want to be
in that camp?
I would like to try to keep the emotion out of this and stick to science. I read another article (last week?) that covered the UN lowering the predicted effects of global warming. You can tell it?s politicized because the scientist didn?t want his named used in the story.
The whole global warming movement silences any and all dissent instantly. Even if there is some connection between man and Global Warming, the subject has been so politicized by the so-called environmentalists that we can?t have good discussions. Thanks, -Al
I would like to try to keep the emotion out of this and stick to science. I read another article (last week?) that covered the UN lowering the predicted effects of global warming. You can tell it?s politicized because the scientist didn?t want his named used in the story.
The whole global warming movement silences any and all dissent instantly. Even if there is some connection between man and Global Warming, the subject has been so politicized by the so-called environmentalists that we can?t have good discussions. Thanks, -Al
The Tree Huggers have an agenda and for some stupid reason Al has picked this as his mantra....
The only good democrat is a non-voting democrat.
It's actually nicer to the environment if you fly a private jet and drive a hummer AND buy emissions from http://www.carbonfund.org/site/ - then flying a commercial jet and driving a hybrid and NOT buying emissions from http://www.carbonfund.org/site/ .
And yes, if everybody could afford a hummer and a private jet then we would be in deep sh*t anyhow.
But seriously, man - get out in the sunshine. You can, because we acted upon the ozone hole.
Of course, that's small cakes compared to what lies ahead of us. But are you a man or a mouse? Mice hide, men act.
Like those studies that doubt global warning is human-induced. Sure, we must look at that angle as well, but currently the data point to the fact that we - the human race - are at least partially to blame for the recent increase in temperature on our planet.
And you know - it doesn't matter if cows release a lot of CO2. They've replaced other animals that lived on the same ground where they graze - I doubt the animal biomass has increased vastly. And it would not matter much anyhow - because the grass they eat is biomass in circulation.
When you burn coal, gas or oil, then you re-introduce CO2 into circulation.
The cows natter because we now know that they contribute more gases than all forms of transportation combined! Why is this just coming out?
We are bombarded with messages that it's humans that caused it and lo and behold there is low hanging fruit that we can deal with. Instead of spending trillions on moving wealth around, why not spend some money to figure out how to a) reduce and b) capture some of this bovine gas???
The answer as I spelled out in other posts is that Global Warming isn't really about the environment. If it was, then these other issues would be considered. But in almost all cases, we're told that it's our fault - even with large amounts of data that show that the Earth has been through many climatic changes without humans.
Global Warming is a rush to judgement.
Global Warming is a vehicle used by Socialists to go after the capitalistic world. Why trade carbon when it hasn't been proven for it to be a cause of so-called Global Warming? High carbon could be a RESULT of higher temperatures too - not necessarily a cause. (For example, a slight increase in the Sun's output could be raising temperatures and thus there is more CO2.)
When were solar cycles ruled out as a contributor?
As you said, every appraoch should be tried and tested - including that humans aren't to blame.
The reality is there are too many holes in the theory and too many Socialists pushing this on us to believe that the threat is real. Don't forget that many of the Socialists of the 80's just moved over to the environment. They had to go somewhere after the Soviet Union collapsed. How could they continue to push such a failure on us? The answer is they would have to hide their motives and they found a great vehicle - Global Warming.
As Margot Walstrom of the UN admits, the issues of Global Warming are about leveling the playing field - not "just" the environment. In fact, it's not about the environment at all. She admits the main motivation is economic.
- What is shameful are the troll comments below
- by OregonRusalka August 28, 2007 7:19 PM PDT
- I was present at the Al Gore talk in San Francisco, and this article is an excellent reflection of what he said. It is pitiful that so many of the people commenting on this article cling to their animosity against Gore rather than question the rabid right-wing liars who have besmirched his reputation. He NEVER claimed to have invented the Internet. He claimed, correctly, that while a member of Congress he advocated the funding of the research and the development of the systems by DARPA. His grasp of technological issues, of the importance of something like the Internet to our future, and of the obstacles that stood against its funding (as pie-in-the-sky folly, so-called by many of the same people who are now only too happy to lie about Gore's role) was and is prescient. The issues Gore discussed in his SF speech are precisely and tragically illustrated by the willful ignorance, blindness, self-delusion and self-styled ubermenschen who have posted here (Randy Lado, in case you don't yet "get it", I mean YOU!). Gore is one of the best social critics we have, and if it weren't for electoral cheating, Repuglican lying, Exxon fake science and scientists, and Fox News baiting, he would have been our president for the past six+ years, all the brave Americans sacrificed for Bush's folly in Iraq would still be alive, and the world would not be on the brink of climate disaster at this very moment. Unfortunately, though, even when some people are repeatedly proven wrong, they still can't admit it. How cowardly they are!
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- It must suck
- by suyts December 15, 2007 6:57 AM PST
- to wake every morning with that bitterness. Your funny, you slam people that exaggerate the truth about a person that has no concept of the word, you then go on a tirade against a poster on this story, besmirch people that have the audacity to disagree with you point of view, then make up your own history and hypothesize about what would happen if something happened that didn't happen. Skepticism does not equate to cowardice. But lack of introspective is a form of cowardice.
- Like this
-
Showing 2 of 2 pages (115 Comments)