Al Gore GW Flim-Flammery

Al Gore made millions off of this fraud.

 

You mean he was one of those rich "job creators?" No taxes for him....

 

I assume he paid a ton of taxes. This is the wrong thread to discuss the fallacy that the rich don't pay their fair share. The rich pay all of the taxes.

 

Yeah, it makes absoulte sense that those with all the money pay taxes. How can people who have little money pay all the taxes? And you should know that, being an accountant and all.

 

You'd think the dude that invented the internet would present better research ... or at least not fake the results. I'm really disappointed with Bill Nye ... I don't expect politicians to be honest but COME ON ... the SCIENCE GUY CHEATED?!?!?

 

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp

 

Do I really need to put a damn smiley for every joke?

 

I'm all for reducing pollution. It's dirty, and I like things clean. But these zealots like Gore are all about hysteria and not about reality. They are no better than religious zealots who preach nothing but hellfire and brimstone. Their goals are highly suspect.

I believe Gore is not a 100% horrible man. But he's no saint, and his particular hobby horse is not one that I think people should start riding until they have vetted it carefully on all sides. If he really wants to get my attention, he'll swear off using all fossil fuels and follow a 100km diet and also stop using the internet, all electricity, and plumbing. Until then, he and his ilk, with their "we've all got to make DRASTIC CHANGES" crap, can just STFU. I've got bills and taxes to pay, and I don't have the time to slavishly follow their sanctimonious crap.

 

I'm not with either group on this one. I do not think it is impossible to believe 1) That the earth is warming, and that there may be ecological consequences to it and 2) That the consequences will not be of the catastrophic scale that many are predicting.

 

I've always been curious ... what has the biggest effect on climate?

Is it solar flares, volcanic activity, industrial processes, natural occuring gasses, or some process we don't fully understand (perhaps some cyclic oscillations)?

I think the biggest deficiency in the climate debate is the ability to quantify all the effects (or a least a significant portion) and really inform us how our actions are affecting the climate -- instead they seem to ignore all other causes and give very extreme answers to any issues.

 

Al Gore has become a laughingstock. Whether you agree with him or not, it's impossible to escape this fact.

Gore's political enemies have done a spectacular job of marginalizing and ridiculing him. A marginalization, it should be noted, aided and abetted by no one more than Gore himself. His personal mannerisms and perceived hypocrisy only serve to put in sharper relief the few examples of him fudging the data in a desperate attempt to make a point - as BTA's article demonstrates. Al Gore's wounds are largely self-inflicted.

Having said all that – the fact that Gore has become a net-negative spokesman for his cause is the real tragedy here, not how much of his message is bunk. The fact is the majority of the case Gore makes to the public is accurate. And even if you discount the "world is going to end" stuff, most of us can agree that pollution and habitat erosion are bad things. The steps that need to be taken to reverse those trends also happen to be the same needed to prevent ecological catastrophe. Namely: consume less, pollute less, waste less, dispose of waste responsibly, use available alternatives to harmful compounds even if it means a slightly-smaller profit margin. The tragedy of Al Gore is that these utterly benign concepts of conservation and responsibility have become synonymous with the caricature of the snotty, know-it-all, elitist liberal that conservatives like to ascribe to anyone left of center, easily mocked and readily dismissed; a caricature, unfortunately, embodied by Al Gore.

In short: Al Gore rubbing one the wrong way is enough to make a great many people skeptical and dismissive of any and all environmental concerns. It's so common these days for people to knowingly be wasteful and flippantly say "don't call Al Gore on me." Environmentalism is now a punchline. Thus, despite his extremely-high profile, Gore would do his cause more service by simply disappearing.

 

Be that as it may but the problem with Global warming is that it is you, know, global. It affects everything. Throwing pcp into a lake wreck that lake and possibly a few more. The climate changing affects everyone, everything, everywhere. I have said it before and I will say it again either the world is the victim of hte biggest conspiracy ever a conspiracy with the malevolent goal of making us consume less, travel less, take more responsibility all with the aim of taking out those poor maligned fossil fuel providing corporations who have done so much for the world. A conspiracy created by greedy, evil "scientist" eager to grab every bit of funding they can get to become obscenely wealthy and live in abundant excess. I mean, it is not like all those scientists if they were in it for hte money, or Al Gore for that matter wouldn't have been able to maybe make even more money by claiming the opposite. I wonder what pays the best, the energy lobby, corporations and countries or your average university.

I am not qualified to look at the numbers but something does not add up there. People in it for their own gain would make so much more playing for the other team than they could ever do on research grants.

 

The corprations, lobby groups and politicians control a large portion of the flow of information as well. It's difficult for real scientists to get their message to the public, with all the corporate media money and internet hacks chattering [like the link in the topic], for those doing the real research to overcome. Good luck trying to figure out the real deal.

 

I'm sorry, but this seems like much ado about nothing to me. It was clear from the beginning of Gore's video that the thermometers shown in the dramatization were not from the actual experiment -- since when they showed the jars, there was no background behind them, and the thermometers weren't right next to each other. It should be clear to any objective observer that the alternate background was used for dramatic effect or clarity. If Al Gore was really trying to trick someone, he'd have done a better job.

That insufficient instructions were provided for an adult global warming skeptic to faithfully reproduce the results of the experiment does not mean that the experiment was invalid, or that the results couldn't be reproduced by a high schooler. In fact, a simple google search turned up a cute little kid from Cleveland that didn't seem to have any problem reproducing the expected results with a very similar experiment.