Al Gore is my idle

[ToddMa]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESxvY1tQHTo

I love this song too.

[justagirl]

That wasn't suprising at all.

[Titchou]

Your "idle?"

[PNG]

Your "idle?"

Must have gone to school in Louisiana!

[Dilfan]

The problem with this video is that it is one-sided. When you set out to arrive at a particular destination, it's just a matter of filling in the middle with pieces that support your cause.
Now, that said, please understand that I do not wholly support or condem Gore's theory. I personally believe that we need to be more active in researching cleaner, and more renewable, energy sources. I also believe that each of us has an impact on the environment and that we can, and should, take steps that conserve energy usage and attempt to reduce each of our own carbon footprints. I've converted to CFL's and installed a tankless water heater, and will replace appliances with Energy Star rated units as necessary, and try to keep my AC set at 74 degrees or above, all without any major lifestyle changes.

[ToddMa]

Your "idle?"


Yes, His car was idling for 20 minutes.

At least that's my feeble attempt at an excuse for spelling the word wrong at 3am.

[Turbodog]

Al is the biggest hypoctrite, ever. He is not one to be taken seriously.

[justagirl]

Don't worry Turbo, he isn't.

[PNG]

He does enjoy being a resident of Fantasy Land.

[Suzy Wong]

HATERS!;)

If it wasn't for him, you wouldn't even be able to post here, because AL GORE INVENTED THE INETRNET:laughup:

al gore=village idiot

(The first 2 comments are JOKES) The last, is intentional

[PNG]

Sorry. I thought Obama had done that. I feel so ashamed...................

[Schuarta]

Checkout his gas guzzling plane and energy guzzling estate.

How about a simple Biology lesson. Plants take in (live on) carbon dioxide and release oxygen as a plant waste product. People (animal life) take in (live on) oxygen, and release carbon dioxide as a waste product. Remove the CO2 and the plants will die. Then what will happen to us?

[PNG]

A few facts for Gore to use on picking his next project to save the world:

The following is a list of causes of death in the USA for the past ten years along with number of people killed in the USA over that time period by each:

Y2K: 843,900,271
SARS: 1,873,023,001
Ozone Depletion: 7,992,200,348
Alien Abduction: 872,901,027
Thermal Nuclear Attacks: 982,871,123,042
Terrorist Attacks: 681,922,304
Legionaire's Disease: 76,194,065
Anthrax: 8,071,520,001
Illegal Alien Attacks: 34,000,837
Genetic Engineering: 127,320,981,003
Ebola: 999,999,999,992

There are many other causes, but I think that this list will give him a starting point.

[ChoWeb]

How about a simple Biology lesson. Plants take in (live on) carbon dioxide and release oxygen as a plant waste product. People (animal life) take in (live on) oxygen, and release carbon dioxide as a waste product. Remove the CO2 and the plants will die. Then what will happen to us?

If by simple, you mean so oversimplified its wrong? No one is suggesting that we "remove" CO2 entirely. That's impossible unless we all stop breathing!

I'll agree Al Gore is a hypocrite, but your grasp on gas exchange in the atmosphere is about as elementary as it gets, which I'm sure is about the same knowledge the average American has right now. This is the struggle scientists are having now. Dealing with a populace that lacks understanding of the complex chemical and biophysical mechanisms at work, and so the people look to the politicians to fill in the gaps. If they hate the politician that is telling them one thing, they'll categorically denounce anything he's saying, and call the science bunk based off of someone else's editorialized "facts." I'm not just picking on one political demographic here. I think the Dems and Repubs do the same thing.

It sucks when serious issues like environmental health, which should be the concern of everyone as it has a great impact on our own health and wealth, are turned into political weapons. Nothing ever gets done.

[PNG]

Nothing ever gets done regardless. This is the USA.

[ToddMa]

Nothing ever gets done regardless. This is the USA.

Until we are attacked by terrorists or gas prices hit $4.00.

Then, everyone has an opinion.

As for Global Warming/Climate Change, I will become concerned when the average temperature starts increasing.

[ChoWeb]

Heh. That's like saying "I'll worry about a fire in my house until it starts getting warm." The things you don't understand are going to be much more insidious, and once they are here will be very difficult to rectify. It has little to do with warming, too.

[ToddMa]

Heh. That's like saying "I'll worry about a fire in my house until it starts getting warm." The things you don't understand are going to be much more insidious, and once they are here will be very difficult to rectify. It has little to do with warming, too.


That's a "convenient" way of looking at it. There's no consistent evidence, but if we throw everthing in the pot, we've got a great argument to scare people senseless.

I'll use your share of the oil supply.

[ChoWeb]

Try reading some of the scientific journals. There's some great online ones for free, otherwise you can go to your local university and search what they have in their library. They're pills to read, but worth it if you really want to understand the issues.

I can understand why you believe what you do. I understand that its confusing and convoluted particularly if your resources are mainstream media which reduces the data into digestible sound bytes for the masses and, often, goes through the filter of the views of whomever is writing it. No, I don't buy into scaring people. I have nothing to gain from this, and I do believe some change is inevitable. I'm concerned about protecting my home, my wealth, my well-being. That's all.

[ToddMa]

Try reading some of the scientific journals. There's some great online ones for free, otherwise you can go to your local university and search what they have in their library. They're pills to read, but worth it if you really want to understand the issues.

I can understand why you believe what you do. I understand that its confusing and convoluted particularly if your resources are mainstream media which reduces the data into digestible sound bytes for the masses and, often, goes through the filter of the views of whomever is writing it. No, I don't buy into scaring people. I have nothing to gain from this, and I do believe some change is inevitable. I'm concerned about protecting my home, my wealth, my well-being. That's all.

Then support energy independence.
End of story.

[Dark and Stormy]

Hey I read journals. And am familiar with things like complex systems, feedback, nonlinearity and the shortcomings of computer modelling. Seems that every day I find myself in more and better company when I assert human caused climate change is, at best, a negligable term in the equation.

Here is an interesting paper:
http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm


And before Cho comes in with the peer review stuff, here is the author's response to the APS putting that crap at the top of the article (only after it got attention):
19 July 2008

The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley
Carie, Rannoch, PH17 2QJ, UK
monckton@mail.com

Arthur Bienenstock, Esq., Ph.D.,
President, American Physical Society,
Wallenberg Hall, 450 Serra Mall, Bldg 160,
Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA 94305.

By email to artieb@slac.stanford.edu

Dear Dr. Bienenstock,

Physics and Society

The editors of Physics and Society, a newsletter of the American
Physical Society, invited me to submit a paper for their July 2008
edition explaining why I considered that the warming that might be
expected from anthropogenic enrichment of the atmosphere with carbon
dioxide might be significantly less than the IPCC imagines.

I very much appreciated this courteous offer, and submitted a paper. The
commissioning editor referred it to his colleague, who subjected it to a
thorough and competent scientific review. I was delighted to accede to
all of the reviewer's requests for revision (see the attached
reconciliation sheet). Most revisions were intended to clarify for
physicists who were not climatologists the method by which the IPCC
evaluates climate sensitivity - a method which the IPCC does not itself
clearly or fully explain. The paper was duly published, immediately
after a paper by other authors setting out the IPCC's viewpoint. Some
days later, however, without my knowledge or consent, the following
appeared, in red, above the text of my paper as published on the website
of Physics and Society:

"The following article has not undergone any scientific peer review. Its
conclusions are in disagreement with the overwhelming opinion of the
world scientific community. The Council of the American Physical Society
disagrees with this article's conclusions."

This seems discourteous. I had been invited to submit the paper; I had
submitted it; an eminent Professor of Physics had then scientifically
reviewed it in meticulous detail; I had revised it at all points
requested, and in the manner requested; the editors had accepted and
published the reviewed and revised draft (some 3000 words longer than
the original) and I had expended considerable labor, without having been
offered or having requested any honorarium.

Please either remove the offending red-flag text at once or let me have
the name and qualifications of the member of the Council or advisor to
it who considered my paper before the Council ordered the offending text
to be posted above my paper; a copy of this rapporteur's findings and
ratio decidendi; the date of the Council meeting at which the findings
were presented; a copy of the minutes of the discussion; and a copy of
the text of the Council's decision, together with the names of those
present at the meeting. If the Council has not scientifically evaluated
or formally considered my paper, may I ask with what credible scientific
justification, and on whose authority, the offending text asserts primo,
that the paper had not been scientifically reviewed when it had;
secundo, that its conclusions disagree with what is said (on no
evidence) to be the "overwhelming opinion of the world scientific
community"; and, tertio, that "The Council of the American Physical
Society disagrees with this article's conclusions"? Which of my
conclusions does the Council disagree with, and on what scientific
grounds (if any)?

Having regard to the circumstances, surely the Council owes me an
apology?

Yours truly,
THE VISCOUNT MONCKTON OF BRENCHLEY

[ChoWeb]

I do, Todd. I absolutely do and always have.

D&S, when I'm done moving and have time, I'll digest the article. Its a lot of data to sort through. If it adequately supports the conclusion, it is very interesting findings.

However, as for his assertion that is peer-reviewed: I'd like to know if APS rescinded their position.

[PNG]

Until we are attacked by terrorists or gas prices hit $4.00.

Then, everyone has an opinion.

As for Global Warming/Climate Change, I will become concerned when the average temperature starts increasing.

Global warming is officially over. The record high temperature in Houma today was 97 in 1934. Todays high temperature was 88. Global warming seems to have peaked out in 1934 and is no longer an issue.

[PNG]

Try reading some of the scientific journals. There's some great online ones for free, otherwise you can go to your local university and search what they have in their library. They're pills to read, but worth it if you really want to understand the issues.

I can understand why you believe what you do. I understand that its confusing and convoluted particularly if your resources are mainstream media which reduces the data into digestible sound bytes for the masses and, often, goes through the filter of the views of whomever is writing it. No, I don't buy into scaring people. I have nothing to gain from this, and I do believe some change is inevitable. I'm concerned about protecting my home, my wealth, my well-being. That's all.

I know quite a lot about many issues and I almost never listen to any press. We catch one local channel on the television. We do not even catch the New Orleans stations. I do not need to go to the library for information, I know many people personally who work in different areas of study. Fantasy Land is still a wonderful place though. Scaring people generates lots of cash.

[Schuarta]

Try reading some of the scientific journals. There's some great online ones for free, otherwise you can go to your local university and search what they have in their library. They're pills to read, but worth it if you really want to understand the issues.

I can understand why you believe what you do. I understand that its confusing and convoluted particularly if your resources are mainstream media which reduces the data into digestible sound bytes for the masses and, often, goes through the filter of the views of whomever is writing it. No, I don't buy into scaring people. I have nothing to gain from this, and I do believe some change is inevitable. I'm concerned about protecting my home, my wealth, my well-being. That's all.

Cho, I have been reading and digesting scientific journals for 40 years. I have belonged to several scientific organizations. I have written and presented papers at conferences in the U.S., Canada, Switzerland, and Australia.

Now I am retired, and I tend to think and speak in more simplistic terms. I know what I believe and that which I don't. The press (Twinkys on evening TV) in their ignorance often speak as if CO2 was so bad that it must be totally done away with. Al Gore is out to make big money but actually knows little real science. BHO knows even less about how to manage anything - a business or a country. Cell phones increase the risk of brain cancer. NOLA is a fantastic place for fine dining. New Orleans Eats is more fun, more civilized, more pleasant than TOB. My wife is always right.

I don't need to get into detailed debate or argue semantics any longer. It's not fun. I, too, am concerned about protecting my home, my wealth, my well-being. I think I just do it in a lighter fashion. Now if the market would just resume its positive climb, I could plan my next trip to the Crescent City.

[ChoWeb]

Schuarta,

You're absolutely right. I'd rather not get drawn into a long debate too. I'll concede this: while I don't think research into climate change should be dismissed out of hand, I am not 100% sold on it, either. That said, I think there are issues concerning our environment that are more immediate, and more definite a concern than climate change. Perhaps some refocusing is necessary.

[PNG]

Always remember, scientific journals are like the bible; if one page says "yes" another page will so 'no." Defining a definite conclusion on a subject will cause the grant money for studying that subject to stop flowing. Controversy keeps that grant cash flowing.