You can't really believe he is sincere when you take a look at his own energy consumption compared to the average American (his house, private jet, cars, etc).

The man does not live in an energy efficient house, does not drive a hybrid, etc.

Sorry you are wrong. He made several changes to his home and it is has been energy efficient for almost a year.

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/06/al-gores-mansion/

Bigdogg wrote:

You can't really believe he is sincere when you take a look at his own energy consumption compared to the average American (his house, private jet, cars, etc).

The man does not live in an energy efficient house, does not drive a hybrid, etc.
[/quote]

Sorry you are wrong. He made several changes to his home and it is has been energy efficient for almost a year.

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/06/al-gores-mansion/
[/quote]

Of course he did...after being outed as a flaming hypocrite.

He's still making millions off this scam.

Hardly what I would call a noble effort on his part.

Writerbuckeye wrote: He's still making millions off this scam.

Hardly what I would call a noble effort on his part.

You may very well feel justified in calling this a scam and Gore a hypocrite but I am not there yet. I congratulate you on your many talents including Hydrometeorology. You are a amazing individual.

One trip on a private jet thows more polutants into the air than my lifetime of driving.

He's a hypocrite. Period.

Bigdogg wrote:

Writerbuckeye wrote: He's still making millions off this scam.

Hardly what I would call a noble effort on his part.

You may very well feel justified in calling this a scam and Gore a hypocrite but I am not there yet. I congratulate you on your many talents including Hydrometeorology. You are a amazing individual.

Not so amazing (but thank you)

I just have a lick of common sense my momma instilled in me.

Bigdogg wrote:

Sorry you are wrong. He made several changes to his home and it is has been energy efficient for almost a year.

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/06/al-gores-mansion/

Well congratulations to him, he only got called a hypocrit for years and he finally did a renovation.

Bigdogg wrote:

believer wrote: Good ol' Al Gore....We're finally climbing out of a very snowy and cold winter and the world's largest Man-made Climate Change Twit is at it again: Is Al Gore a Douche Bag?

Al Gore is a wealthy man who doesn't need global warming to make him rich. I beleive Gore is sincere. He may or may not be wrong. The question is should anyone be concerned if he is correct?

Right or wrong no longer matters, since thanks to the arrogance and stupidity of those providing the "science," the credibility of the movement is crushed beyond repair.

I will glad to be proven wrong about man's effect on the climate, what will all of you who "know" it's junk science do if you are wrong?

I once had a college professor tell me that when the experts disagree, the rest of us idiots are free to choose. This is certainly the case here.

Bigdogg,

So when you have science tell you that the Earth has cooled and warmed several times in its history, and also the fact that other planet's temperatures rose the same time as Earth... what does that make you think?

Personally, it's next to impossible for me to believe or imagine that Al Gore/fandom has any relevancy.

CenterBHSFan wrote: Bigdogg,

So when you have science tell you that the Earth has cooled and warmed several times in its history, and also the fact that other planet's temperatures rose the same time as Earth... what does that make you think?

Glad you pointed that out. What you say is true. The earth has experienced many periods of extreme temperature changes. What you failed to say or just are not well enough informed is every period of extreme climate changed was the result of some major global catastrophe. Volcanic eruptions, asteroid earth impacts, methane gas, take your pick. To say man is not capable of causing major environmental damage which effects the Earth's climate is being extremely naive.

I am not ready to say with 100% certainly that the current proposals need to be implemented, but I am confident that the issue should not be political and it needs to be studied further.

Bigdogg wrote:

CenterBHSFan wrote: Bigdogg,

So when you have science tell you that the Earth has cooled and warmed several times in its history, and also the fact that other planet's temperatures rose the same time as Earth... what does that make you think?

Glad you pointed that out. What you say is true. The earth has experienced many periods of extreme temperature changes. What you failed to say or just are not well enough informed is every period of extreme climate changed was the result of some major global catastrophe. Volcanic eruptions, asteroid earth impacts, methane gas, take your pick. To say man is not capable of causing major environmental damage which effects the Earth's climate is being extremely naive.

I am not ready to say with 100% certainly that the current proposals need to be implemented, but I am confident that the issue should not be political and it needs to be studied further.

WRONG. Your answer was suppose to say that since the other planets temperature rose and fell at the same time Earth's did, the only logical answer is the sun causes our supposed "global warming", unless the tiny little martian men are pumping out some dangerous CFCs. lol

Bigdogg wrote: Glad you pointed that out. What you say is true. The earth has experienced many periods of extreme temperature changes. What you failed to say or just are not well enough informed is every period of extreme climate changed was the result of some major global catastrophe. Volcanic eruptions, asteroid earth impacts, methane gas, take your pick. To say man is not capable of causing major environmental damage which effects the Earth's climate is being extremely naive.

But then again, there's the science (as jmog and others have pointed out) that also says that other planets experienced the same elevations of temperature the same time as Earth.
So, are we to expect that those planets suffered the same things at the same time?

I'm very cynical of this and always have been.

I do acknowledge that man has perhaps interferred with the environmental effects - but I also acknowledge that so do cows. And THAT is the reason that I will probably never take stock into Al Gore's "science".

I just have too many scientist friends at the university level, all smart, rational, unbiased, who have varying opinions on the matter, that i just can't come to a conclusion.

Every single time i talk to them about it, when we're all in a group, i come away more unsure than i had been before the conversation, because of the compelling evidence that they offer up.

Same with the intelligent design/evolution debate. My best friend's husband is an evolutionary biologist, Harvard PhD. who is doing his post-doc at Oxford, and it is hard not to believe him when he takes part in the debate...but i've also seen interesting evidence from the other side as well.

I understand that we all need to have our opinions, and that is fine, just have a problem with people having such "definite" opinions when the evidence doesn't point definitively one way or another.

I understand that we all need to have our opinions, and that is fine, just have a problem with people having such "definite" opinions when the evidence doesn't point definitively one way or another.

Therein lies the crux of the matter.

Why in the name of God would be go forward and commit trillions of dollars to make sweeping changes to our economic system and our entire way of life -- when "the evidence doesn't point definitely one way or another"?

Only a moron would make such a move.

The science has to be bullet proof before we make such a catastrophic (and it would be catastrophic for many) change.

Many of you are too young to remember how the science was CERTAIN we were headed toward another ice age and virtually every reputable scientist was calling for countries to begin preparing for colder temperatures, shorter growing seasons and less food. There were dire predictions of starvation and related disasters.

This was only 40 years ago, and here we are all but repeating the same mantra -- except in the opposite direction.

Sincere and deep skepticism should rule the day.

I agree completely, Writer. Sorry, didn't mean to imply that i support such sweeping legislation on an issue that there is no consensus on, amongst those who study such things.

I am most certainly in agreement with you and others in regards to being against wide-ranging LEGISLATION and the like.

Writerbuckeye wrote: I understand that we all need to have our opinions, and that is fine, just have a problem with people having such "definite" opinions when the evidence doesn't point definitively one way or another.

Therein lies the crux of the matter.

Why in the name of God would be go forward and commit trillions of dollars to make sweeping changes to our economic system and our entire way of life -- when "the evidence doesn't point definitely one way or another"?

Precisely.

If the Anthropogenic Global Warming hypothesis is to meet accepted scientific standards and be elevated to the level of theory, then it must be supported by evidence, the cause and effect must be linked, and contradictory data must be explained within the context of the hypothesis.

Climate models are NOT evidence nor are they data.

The hypothesis of Anthropogenic Global Warming does not yet meet the basic scientific standards of proof needed to be accepted as a viable hypothesis, much less as accepted fact.

Germans waking up ........

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/03/29/achtung-germans-giving-global-warming/?test=latestnews

ttae8286 wrote:
Precisely.

If the Anthropogenic Global Warming hypothesis is to meet accepted scientific standards and be elevated to the level of theory, then it must be supported by evidence, the cause and effect must be linked, and contradictory data must be explained within the context of the hypothesis.

Climate models are NOT evidence nor are they data.

The hypothesis of Anthropogenic Global Warming does not yet meet the basic scientific standards of proof needed to be accepted as a viable hypothesis, much less as accepted fact.

Thank you; please weigh in more often.

bigmanbt wrote:

Bigdogg wrote:

CenterBHSFan wrote: Bigdogg,

So when you have science tell you that the Earth has cooled and warmed several times in its history, and also the fact that other planet's temperatures rose the same time as Earth... what does that make you think?

Glad you pointed that out. What you say is true. The earth has experienced many periods of extreme temperature changes. What you failed to say or just are not well enough informed is every period of extreme climate changed was the result of some major global catastrophe. Volcanic eruptions, asteroid earth impacts, methane gas, take your pick. To say man is not capable of causing major environmental damage which effects the Earth's climate is being extremely naive.

I am not ready to say with 100% certainly that the current proposals need to be implemented, but I am confident that the issue should not be political and it needs to be studied further.

WRONG. Your answer was suppose to say that since the other planets temperature rose and fell at the same time Earth's did, the only logical answer is the sun causes our supposed "global warming", unless the tiny little martian men are pumping out some dangerous CFCs. lol

So you are saying all of the climate changes over the past 3 billion years was due to the sun in our solar system? That's a new one on me.

Whoops ....................... what will Al say now ???

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/03/30/nasa-data-worse-than-climategate-data/

QuakerOats wrote: Whoops ....................... what will Al say now ???

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/03/30/nasa-data-worse-than-climategate-data/

Fox News LOL!

Yea, because they just make up fallacious news articles....

Bigdogg wrote:

QuakerOats wrote: Whoops ....................... what will Al say now ???

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/03/30/nasa-data-worse-than-climategate-data/

Fox News LOL!

Follow the links in the article. They lead directly to the NASA documents admitting the data is ratfucked.

You know what, libs? If you're gonna attack the source...at least have SOMETHING FACTUALLY IN ERROR to make your case.

When articles include things like dates, quotes, names, places and other verifiable information, it really doesn't matter WHO the source is.

Now if you want to attack purely OPINION pieces that don't include any factual basis, that's another story. I'll be right there will you when you post something from the dimwits at Kos or DU.