Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We can't sue him.....but we could go back to previous threads and make a list of all the people on CD who thought he was a genius. We can compare that to some of the other stupid stuff they now believe.
We can't sue him.....but we could go back to previous threads and make a list of all the people on CD who thought he was a genius. We can compare that to some of the other stupid stuff they now believe.
I hope that the people who believed him are the ones stuck at the airports.....the rest should not be stuck and feel good that they used common sense and didn't waist money on the book or movie.
We can't sue him.....but we could go back to previous threads and make a list of all the people on CD who thought he was a genius. We can compare that to some of the other stupid stuff they now believe.
I agree. Some of the elitists posts on here get very tiring.
I love the posters that call people on sentence structure and spelling as they spew ideas with no foundation. And those that continually bring up the Fox news case without having any idea what it represented. It never ends. Yet they worship people like Gore that was able to take advantage of their gulible nature.
"Why are climatologists speaking out about the dangers of global warming? The answer is that virtually all of us are now convinced that global warming poses a clear and present danger to civilization. That statement may seem like hyperbole, but there is now a very clear pattern in the scientific evidence documenting that earth is warming, that warming is due largely to human activity, that warming is causing important changes in the climate, and that rapid and potentially catastrophic changes in the near future are very possible. This pattern emerges not, as is so often suggested, simply from computer simulations, but from the weigh and balance of the empirical evidence as well." Lonnie G. Thompson, World Renowned Glaciologist
Quote:
"There was a real hoax, for sure -- perpetrated on the public by people who prefer business-as-usual, people who concocted a misinformation campaign. They want the public to think that the science is suspect. Doubt is all they need. Their tactics included swift-boating and character assassination, using e-mails stolen from scientists' computers. They did an effective job. Now policy makers continue to sit on their hands, leaving fossil fuel subsidies in place, allowing fossil fuel companies to call the tune -- and the devil with young people and nature.
Yes, the stolen e-mails exposed bad behavior by scientists, notably a reluctance of some scientists to give deniers the input data for global temperature analysis. That allowed global warming deniers to assert that global climate change was “cooked†data. But that assertion is nonsense. The NASA temperature analysis agrees well with the East Anglia results. And the NASA data are all publicly available, as is the computer program that carries out the analysis. Look at it this way: If anybody could show that the global warming curve was wrong they would become famous, maybe win a Nobel Prize. All the measurement data are available. So why don't the deniers produce a different result? They know that they cannot, so they resort to theft of e-mails, snipping private commentsout of context, and character assassination. IPCC's “Himalayan error†was another hoax perpetrated on the public. The perpetrators, global warming deniers, did a brilliant job of playing the scientifically obtuse media like a fiddle. Here is how they did it.
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) produced a series of thick reports, several thousand pages long. Of course it is possible to identify minor flaws in it -- it is inconceivable that some flaws would not exist within those thousands of pages. The task of the deniers was to find a minor flaw or flaws, and then work the media so as to make the public suspicious of the entire report. They did their dirty work masterfully, for weeks continually releasing tidbits about possible flaws or uncertainties in the report, dutifully reported by the media even though none of the tidbits altered conclusions about the significance of global warming.
The biggest flaw that global warming deniers could find in the IPCC reports was a statement that all Himalayan glaciers may disappear by 2035 if greenhouse gas emissions continued to increase. Actually, because of the great altitude and size of Himalayan glaciers, some of them almost surely will survive longer than twenty-five years. The estimate of 2035 for glacier demise was not even in the main IPCC report on the physical climate system, but rather in a less-scrutinized report discussing practical implications of global warming.
Here is the real-world situation: Glaciers are melting rapidly all around the world -- in the Rockies, the Andes, the Alps, and the Himalayas. All glaciers in Glacier National Park in the United States will be gone in about twenty-five years if greenhouse gas emissions continue to increase. We will need to rename it Glacierless National Park.
Observed rapid loss of glaciers confirms global warming -- it is not a reason to question it! Glacier loss also shows the importance of global warming. During the dry season about half the water in rivers such as the Indus and Brahmaputra is provided by glacier melt. If the glaciers disappear there will be more spring snowmelt and greater floods, but a dangerous reduction of fresh water in dry seasons. Hundreds of millions of people depend on these rivers for fresh water. Yet climate change deniers scored a coup by trumpeting that IPCC had made an error, turning scientific evidence on its head. Melting glaciers, properly a cause for concern, became a propaganda tool to befuddle the public. A capable media would have exposed the trick. Instead the media facilitated it, spreading “news†that the IPCC report was flawed.
IPCC scientists had done a good job of producing a comprehensive report. It is a rather thankless task, on top of their normal jobs, often requiring them to work sixty, eighty, or more hours per week, with no pay for overtime or for working on the IPCC report. Yet they were portrayed as incompetent or, worse, dishonest. Scientists do indeed have deficiencies -- especially in communicating with the public and defending themselves against viscous attacks by professional swift-boaters.
The public, at some point, will realize they were hoodwinked by the deniers. The danger is that deniers may succeed in delaying actions to deal with energy and climate. Delay will enrich fossil fuel executives, but it is a great threat to young people and the planet." James Hansen A conversation with Bill McKibben | Grist
The scientists who work on climate change via their area of expertise are NOT getting rich. What's at stake? Your kids and grand kid's lives on this planet.
It's interesting how confused people are over climate change. The deniers have been hoodwinked by very slick people (who ARE RICH) with billions at stake.
Gore's documentary stretched truths and sensationalized effects, but at the core we know that climate change is real, and that more than likely humans have at least a small effect on it.
No we don't all believe that climate change is real. Keep reading and you will see there is a huge amount of evidence that contradicts Gore's propaganda.
Gore's film was full of sensationalism and half truths. As I recall, the courts in the UK banned it because of the lies.
The scientists who work on climate change via their area of expertise are NOT getting rich. What's at stake? Your kids and grand kid's lives on this planet.
It's interesting how confused people are over climate change. The deniers have been hoodwinked by very slick people (who ARE RICH) with billions at stake.
It's interesting how confused people are over climate changes. The AGW supporters have been hoodwinked by very slick people (who are rich and are raking in millions on this hoax) and yes, billions are at stake.
Can we file a class action lawsuit against Al Gore for the inconvenient truth of Glabal Warming?
Sure, you can bring a law suit against Jesus, God, a Ham Sandwich, the weather, or your television set, why not Nancy Reagan for marrying a man who believed that trickle down economics was anything more than citizens getting some warm recycled trickle from above? Certainly you can sue Al for what exactly?
It is America, when in doubt sue someone. My coffee is too hot, McDonalds makes my kid fat, the floor was wet at the store, the floor is dirty at the store, etc... etc...
I tend to question people who are SO sure of their stance on something that nothing else could possibly be true.
Do I believe in global climate change? Yeah, I think there is some very convincing evidence that is it happening and is being accelerated by our (humanity) actions. Do I believe it to be 100% true and nothing else could be going on? No.
I think people need to open their minds a little more to the possibility that they may be wrong. On both sides. Global climate change is scary enough that even if there is a possibility that we are contributing to it, we need to make some changes. If we're wrong, what's the worst that can happen? Our earth is a little cleaner? I see nothing wrong with that...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
