What intelligent person would not believe in global warming?

[OriginalWheelman]

A Princeton Physicist who formerly worked for the DOE until Al Gore fired him.

science will not intrude on public policy

Dr. Happer views climate change as a predominately natural process. "The earth's climate is changing now, as it always has. There is no evidence that the changes differ in any qualitative way from those of the past."

In 1991, Happer was appointed director of energy research for the US Department of Energy. In 1993, he testified before Congress that the scientific data didn't support widespread fears about the dangers of the ozone hole and global warming, remarks that caused then-Vice President Al Gore to fire him. "I was told that science was not going to intrude on public policy", he said. "I did not need the job that badly".

Happer's latest remarks were made yesterday, as he asked to be included in a Senate Environment and Public Works report of scientists disputing global warming alarmism. Happer joins 650 other scientists on the list, many of whom have been interviewed previously by DailyTech.

"Computer models used to generate frightening scenarios from increasing levels of carbon dioxide have scant credibility," Happer concluded.

In response to Happer's remarks, Senator James Inhofe, ranking minority member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, said, "The endless claims of a consensus on man-made global warming grow less and less credible every day".

So...1. Has Al Gore been covering up the other side to push his agenda?2. With Al Gore's friend running the climate models from NASA that have been repeatedly proved to contain flagrant errors, does he still have a leg to stand on?3. If this was a deliberate manipulation by Al Gore, should he be made to pay for all the unnecessary carbon cleaning that has been going on?

[AZhitman]

Algore is a purveyor of nonsense, a charlatan, a hypocrite, and a criminal.

I hope he gets eaten by a polar bear (right before they become extinct, lol)

[Cold_Zero]

Look. During the cold war, the world was going to come to an end by nuclear weapons. During World War I, the entire world was going to get caught up into war that the President of the United States thought that it would invoke the Second Coming (aka end of the world.). I am sure that every generation has had an apocalyptic dooms day scenario to scare people into do things. I guess I refuse to buy into the hype and fear. Should we take care of the earth to make sure we don't pee where we sleep? Its probably a good idea. Should we be responsible with the Earth that has been entrusted to us by God? Yes...

[OriginalWheelman]

Look. During the cold war, the world was going to come to an end by nuclear weapons. During World War I, the entire world was going to get caught up into war that the President of the United States thought that it would invoke the Second Coming (aka end of the world.). I am sure that every generation has had an apocalyptic dooms day scenario to scare people into do things. I guess I refuse to buy into the hype and fear. Should we take care of the earth to make sure we don't pee where we sleep? Its probably a good idea. Should we be responsible with the Earth that has been entrusted to us by God? Yes...

I'm far more worried about Apophis than Global Warming. If anything, we should be scared of that.

[Kalypso]

AIDS is still a "Political HOAX" in parts of africa.

[Bubba1]

Algore is a purveyor of nonsense, a charlatan, a hypocrite, and a criminal.

I hope he gets eaten by a polar bear (right before they become extinct, lol)

Well, I personally don't mind global warming. I kinda like Florida weather in Pennsylvania, plus I have only a few more years before my live-in snow shoveler goes off to college.

[Steady_One_S13]

It will be a major problem, but a person like AL Gore is trying to scare

Americans. He's trying to make this like the red scare of the 50's. He wants

to rid this country of poorly emission-control vehicles and others of course,

and gasoline powered vehicles that do have good emissions.

That's just my opinion.

[OriginalWheelman]

It will be a major problem,

No. This whole damned world could turn into a scorched desert and we have the tech to survive. If the planet heats up, it heats up. We are the least of it's problems. It's like finding a mosquito sucking on a guy with a gunshot wound, and when he dies from blood loss, blaming the mosquito.

[OriginalWheelman]

You know, all this gets me thinking, I wonder where Gore has his money invested...

[HashiriyaS14]

As I've repeatedly stated multiple times, the bottom line is that none of you dipshxts know the answer to this and thus it's impossibly silly to argue about it.

I, obviously, don't know the answer either.

Al Gore is, assuredly, using the issue for political leverage, as his "camp" is, as we all know, overly sensitive to any environmental issue.

Additionally, conservatives are ALSO using it for political leverage as their camp is overly reactionary to any environmental issue.

Neither of those political efforts have *anything* whatsoever to do with the objective fact of whether or not man-made emissions are having an effect on the global climate.

You can't say it's not happning just because Gore happens to be a huge douche (as I'll admit he is).

Additionally, you can't say it IS happening just because conservatives you dislike say that it isn't.

None of you (nor I), nor them, f**king know whether it's happening or not. This is simply not an issue on which there is a broad scientific consensus. There is far too much theoretical dissonance for anyone to be able to argue it intelligently.

You can't argue about objective fact when the fact is not a known quantity as no one can ever surely be right or surely be wrong.

All we can argue about is the policy implications. People can argue about whether or not they want to err on the side of not hampering the economy or not tempting fate in regards to climate change. They can decide which they think is the greater potential ill and thus act accordingly, but they can't, and you can't, and I can't argue about whether it's happening or not.

EDIT: You can say that "Despite a near-total lack of concrete rationale, I think X, Y, and Z", I suppose. That would be a fanatically stupid thing to say, as it always is on any subject, but I suppose you could say that and at least not be technically "wrong", just ignorant.

This is why I continue to assert that these discussions more closely resemble religion than politics. People believe something because of what others have told them and yet neither they nor the others likely have any credible evidence that proves that they are right beyond a shadow of a doubt. "My God is better than your God". "My planet is warmed by man and yours is warmed by...whatever".

Same shxt different day.

I can't make you people stop blathering about it, but I surely can (and will) lampoon it, and you, at every available opportunity.

[WDRacing]

As I've repeatedly stated multiple times, the bottom line is that none of you dipshxts know the answer to this and thus it's impossibly silly to argue about it.

Actually HASH, I do know the answer...and now I'm not telling

[Bubba1]

Actually HASH, I do know the answer...and now I'm not telling

I know it too but I've already shared the cause ...TACO BELL..

[Bubba1]

Grrr. Borrowed computer seems to be making double posts. Sorry

[OriginalWheelman]

Thank you Cpt. Missed-the-point. This discussions not on "Global Warming". This discussion is on how Mr. Gore here used his political power to oppress the opposing views.

1. Has Al Gore been covering up the other side to push his agenda?2. With Al Gore's friend running the climate models from NASA that have been repeatedly proved to contain flagrant errors, does he still have a leg to stand on?3. If this was a deliberate manipulation by Al Gore, should he be made to pay for all the unnecessary carbon cleaning that has been going on?

There has been a lot of this human impact on GW crap going on EVERYWHERE. This person, one of the powerhouses behind the movement, manipulated the regulatory agency that determines a lot of energy policy by firing people that simply disagreed. This is abuse of power. A lot of these policies were founded on what is being found to be more and more shaky ground. So, if you can stop being but hurt about every thread about global warming maybe we can move on. Al Gore made sure a lot of change went through. I'm asking why.

[Bubba1]

Thank you Cpt. Missed-the-point. This discussions not on "Global Warming". This discussion is on how Mr. Gore here used his political power to oppress the opposing views.

There has been a lot of this human impact on GW crap going on EVERYWHERE. This person, one of the powerhouses behind the movement, manipulated the regulatory agency that determines a lot of energy policy by firing people that simply disagreed. This is abuse of power. A lot of these policies were founded on what is being found to be more and more shaky ground. So, if you can stop being but hurt about every thread about global warming maybe we can move on. Al Gore made sure a lot of change went through. I'm asking why.

You mean you found a politician that manipulated some facts to suit his political agenda? Omigosh, what a shocker!!!! > But as a non-politician I manipulated no facts with my Taco Bell causing global warming theory. I stand behind it...well upwind anyway.

[notslow]

the more fear that goes into global warming the more money is invested in it and the richer Al and the followers of his agenda get, simple as that.

[Steady_One_S13]

AL GORE s**ks!

[480sx]

As I've repeatedly stated multiple times, the bottom line is that none of you dipshxts know the answer to this and thus it's impossibly silly to argue about it.

I, obviously, don't know the answer either.

Al Gore is, assuredly, using the issue for political leverage, as his "camp" is, as we all know, overly sensitive to any environmental issue.

Additionally, conservatives are ALSO using it for political leverage as their camp is overly reactionary to any environmental issue.

Neither of those political efforts have *anything* whatsoever to do with the objective fact of whether or not man-made emissions are having an effect on the global climate.

You can't say it's not happning just because Gore happens to be a huge douche (as I'll admit he is).

Additionally, you can't say it IS happening just because conservatives you dislike say that it isn't.

None of you (nor I), nor them, f**king know whether it's happening or not. This is simply not an issue on which there is a broad scientific consensus. There is far too much theoretical dissonance for anyone to be able to argue it intelligently.

You can't argue about objective fact when the fact is not a known quantity as no one can ever surely be right or surely be wrong.

All we can argue about is the policy implications. People can argue about whether or not they want to err on the side of not hampering the economy or not tempting fate in regards to climate change. They can decide which they think is the greater potential ill and thus act accordingly, but they can't, and you can't, and I can't argue about whether it's happening or not.

EDIT: You can say that "Despite a near-total lack of concrete rationale, I think X, Y, and Z", I suppose. That would be a fanatically stupid thing to say, as it always is on any subject, but I suppose you could say that and at least not be technically "wrong", just ignorant.

This is why I continue to assert that these discussions more closely resemble religion than politics. People believe something because of what others have told them and yet neither they nor the others likely have any credible evidence that proves that they are right beyond a shadow of a doubt. "My God is better than your God". "My planet is warmed by man and yours is warmed by...whatever".

Same shxt different day.

I can't make you people stop blathering about it, but I surely can (and will) lampoon it, and you, at every available opportunity.

Yep.

Another thing to consider here however is there is more than CO2 going into the atmosphere. CFC's, although greatly reduced from what they once were are a great example. There are many other chemicals being introduced into our atmosphere which at present day works pretty well with its chemical composition. Why mess with something like that.. The less of the harsher chemicals, SOx, NOx, VOCs, as well as heavy metal for example emitted into the atmosphere the better off the earth is going to be, if you care about another generation. We dont know the long term effects of this for certain, but its pretty safe to say that the atmosphere is better of without this ish.

The whole idea of 'Well hey, we dont know 100 percent for certain that it does anything so lets keep on sending it up there' is pretty ****ty, and could have long lasting global consequences.

Thank you Cpt. Missed-the-point. This discussions not on "Global Warming". This discussion is on how Mr. Gore here used his political power to oppress the opposing views.

That might have been your narrow agenda, but the thread title, the tone and content brings up a much different issue than you originally intended to.

[OriginalWheelman]

That might have been your narrow agenda, but the thread title, the tone and content brings up a much different issue than you originally intended to.

My tone is because for years I've had to listen to a$$ environmentalists tell me that my truck is destroying the world, and that I need to take care of the planet. Why is it that I have been forced to put up with the "HIonGW is real" BS for years and now, as the cries of opposing scientist are not being swept under the rug for once, all the people that believed in it get mad. Personally, I think they're mad cause they were stupid enough to blindly believe and now they have to look at how they may be wrong. God I hate people who can't get passed the fact that someone has an opposing view and see the logic behind it. I understand it makes you feel good that you think you are "saving the planet" but when is the last time you really did something to help? When is the last time you went and cleaned up a nature trail? When is the last time you planted a tree?

"The answer" is simple for anyone with a grasp of math and the data.

Does man contribute to global warming? - Yes.Is it enough to make a real difference on the geological timescale? - No

Mankind does not put enough crap into the air / ocean to "destroy the planet". Now, we could do serious damage with nuclear war, but that was the thing to complain about in the 80s, so it's no popular anymore. That trend is out. There are asteroids hurtling through the inner solar system that could cause a massive extinction IN OUR LIFETIME, but lets worry about something that MAY EVENTUALLY add up to 2 degrees in global temperature.

As I've repeatedly stated multiple times, the bottom line is that none of you dipshxts know the answer to this and thus it's impossibly silly to argue about it.None of you (nor I), nor them, f**king know whether it's happening or not.

And as I have told you more than once, speak for your screwing self. I'm in school for the sciences, as is my wife. If you'd like to discuss the physics / chemistry of it, we'd love to bore you.

And Hash, this thread WAS about the policy, and the reason AG put it into effect. Maybe, we can discus that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...ement

According to this, AG one of two heads of a corp that is "a global collaboration to "find, fund and accelerate green business, technology and policy solutions with the greatest potential to help solve the current climate crisis." Sounds like they wouldn't have much work without this seemingly non existent climate crisis.

http://newsbusters.org/node/11149

Former Vice President Al Gore has built a Green money-making machine capable of eventually generating billions of dollars for investors, including himself, but he set it up so that the average Joe can't afford to play on Gore's terms. And the US portion is headed up by a former Gore staffer and fund raiser who previously ran afoul of both the FEC and the DOJ, before Janet Reno jumped in and shut down an investigation during the Clinton years."

...

However, as Riehl pointed out, this story is even juicier:

To add insult to injury, Gore chose Peter S. Knight, an old friend and colleague some are sure to recall, as the US President of GIM.

Peter S. Knight, formerly Managing Director Met West Financial, lawyer, Chief of Staff for Senator Al Gore (D-TN) from 1977-1989, and Campaign Manager for President Clinton's successful re-election in 1996, is President of Generation U.S.

This would be him: Reno Rejects Inquiry Into a Clinton Aide

Atty Gen Janet Reno decides against any further investigation of Peter Knight, Pres Clinton's 1996 campaign manager in connection with office building development in nation's capital; such an investigation could have led to naming independent counsel to look further into activities of Knight, who is also former top assistant to Vice Pres Al Gore.

Yes, thanks to Janet Reno, no one ever found out how $20,000 in stock turned up in an account for Knight's then 13 year old child.

Dispute over Democratic Party campaign-financing shifts to Zachary Knight, 13-year-old son of Peter S Knight, Clinton-Gore campaign chairman in 1996, who was given $20,000 in stock by William Haney 3d, chairman of Molten Metal Technology Inc; Republicans believe gift, which came after father was named chairman of campaign, was really payment to Knight, who had worked as $7,000-per-month lobbyist for company; Knight denies involvement in any impropriety;

...

When you add it all up, this is a flimflam of epic proportions:

* First, Gore sets up a company that will invest in other companies that will benefit from global warming alarmism * Second, Gore gets some Hollywood types to fund and produce a movie designed to scare the c-c-carbon out of the population * Third, Gore travels the world promoting this movie, while pushing the view that a cataclysm is imminent if the world doesn't immediately act * Fourth, an adoring media falls for the con hook, line, and sinker. Rather than debunking the flaws in the theories, the media promote every word of it while advancing the concept that Gore's views represent those of an overwhelming majority of scientists * Fifth, scared governments and citizens across the globe invest in alternative energy programs driving up the shares of companies Gore's group has already invested in * Sixth, Gore and his cronies make billions as they laugh all the way to the bank at the stupidity of their fellow citizens

Modified by OriginalWheelman at 9:43 AM 12/29/2008
Modified by OriginalWheelman at 9:45 AM 12/29/2008

[480sx]

My tone is because for years I've had to listen to a$$ environmentalists tell me that my truck is destroying the world, and that I need to take care of the planet. Why is it that I have been forced to put up with (More crying inserted here)

Well dont get all butt hurt because we bring up the agenda you really had in mind. Your making an argument that basically is saying that global warming is a non issue and should be treated as such. Your argument has been eviscerated, vivisected, and thrown in the trash a million times over so im not going to get into it. You obviously feel very heated about this subject and this is not going to be a lighthearted thread, i dont think it began that way either.

"The answer" is simple for anyone with a grasp of math and the data.

Does man contribute to global warming? - Yes.Is it enough to make a real difference on the geological timescale? - No

Lol, geological time scale.. Do you know how meaningless that is if what we are emitting into the ozone really is severely detrimental to human life? Your absolutely right though, who cares on a geological timescale. Some other form of life that has adapted to live in a climate much different than our own can deal with a new segment of the geological time scale. A climate that could have been prevented if we curbed emissions today. They can call this time 'h0m0-selfdestructus'.

For real guy, like its been said a million times over. WE DONT KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THE FVK WE ARE DOING TO THE EARTH. NOT ENOUGH DATA. To say that there is no way that we could possibly be making a difference to the quality of life on earth(be it short term or long) by pumping a wide variety of emissions into the atmosphere is a statement made in willful ignorance.

God I hate people who can't get passed the fact that someone has an opposing view and see the logic behind it.

Not a single post in this thread in any way justified this remark. It just goes to show me your so polarized on this issue and used to taking a one sided stance that you yourself have become exactly what you hate.

/Sub-Thread

Now if you want to get back into the hypocrisy or ridiculousness of Al Gore or something, go for it. I personally think the guys a tool but at the same time he raised a global awareness for our impact on the Earth. He can be a hypocritical douche all he wants, he still gets respect from me for bringing this issue onto the global table in a big way. Could care less about him as a person, or how hes exploited it, what he did was great.

Oh, and to top it all off. That article you listed with the 'FlimFlam'.. You know what that is buddy? Capitalism. He capitalized in a big way. Hate all you want, he had his plan, carried it out and is now reaping more benefits than he could have ever imagined.
Modified by 480sx at 9:13 PM 12/29/2008

[marlin29311]

I'm far more worried about Apophis than Global Warming. If anything, we should be scared of that.

Didn't the SG-1 team from Stargate kill him?

Al Gore laughs at this discussion from his private jet.

[HashiriyaS14]

Now, we could do serious damage with nuclear war, but that was the thing to complain about in the 80s, so it's no popular anymore. That trend is out.

PHEW

Wow, for a minute there I thought we still all had to worry about the implications of nuclear exchange, but I'm very happy to hear that "that trend is out".

Be sure to tell that to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. I'm not sure he's gotten the memo.

[OriginalWheelman]

I DID NOT START THIS THREAD TO TALK ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING. THE TITLE WAS IN REFERENCE TO A COMMENT I HAD HEARD EARLIER THIS WEEK IN PASSING. WHEN Steady_One_S13 STARTED TALKING ABOUT GW I ADDRESSED IT, AND TRIED TO GET BACK TO THE SUBJECT AT HAND. MY REAL AGENDA WAS TO FIND OUT WHAT AL GORE'S AGENDA IS.

GO screw YOURSELF.

[HashiriyaS14]

I DID NOT START THIS THREAD TO TALK ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING. THE TITLE WAS IN REFERENCE TO A COMMENT I HAD HEARD EARLIER THIS WEEK IN PASSING. WHEN Steady_One_S13 STARTED TALKING ABOUT GW I ADDRESSED IT, AND TRIED TO GET BACK TO THE SUBJECT AT HAND. MY REAL AGENDA WAS TO FIND OUT WHAT AL GORE'S AGENDA IS.

GO screw YOURSELF.

LOL!

Dude, calm down. I yielded that Gore is indeed a huge douchebag, you'll get no argument from me there.

I understand the intention of your thread, but the tone of the thread was sort of going towards a more traditional MMGW discussion anyway so I said my piece, it wasn't necessarily directed right at you personally.

Al Gore's agenda is to get himself famous and to make himself money, like just about anyone else. We don't need a 10 page discussion to reach that conclusion and it doesn't take a PhD to point it out.

People throw elbows in the Politics forum, you need to learn to get used to it and just rib people back instead of taking it personally. I've told you this before.

[480sx]

I DID NOT START THIS THREAD TO TALK ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING.

Title of thread : What intelligent person would not believe in global warming?

You fail.

PHEW

Wow, for a minute there I thought we still all had to worry about the implications of nuclear exchange, but I'm very happy to hear that "that trend is out".

Be sure to tell that to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. I'm not sure he's gotten the memo.

BAHAHAHAHA! Or NK, possibly China/Russia(lol @ both) or damn who are those people that were always at war with and in the news. Oh yea, Terrorists.

Don't think a terrorlst can get a nuke? Your really, really, really wrong. They might not have gotten one, but the key word here is yet. Who's country do you think the 'Holy Grail' of Jihad is going to be aimed at?