Al Gore Calls Out Obama, News Media on Climate Change

Discussion in 'Environment & Conservation' started by darckriver, Jun 22, 2011.

  1. darckriver

    darckriver New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    Messages:
    7,773
    Likes Received:
    239
    Trophy Points:
    0
    In a highly critical essay in the new issue of Rolling Stone, Al Gore takes President Obama to task for failing to push for "bold action" on climate change, and the news media for letting right-wing ideologues and major polluters get away with lying about it.

    "Green stimulus" - yep, cronies at GE did OK.
    "Cap and trade" funding decimated by Senate. Harry Reid did something right???
    "Drill, baby, drill" - "massive expansion of oil drilling in the US"? Like that's going to occur under the Obama administration.

    Al's whining is like fingernails on the proverbial chalkboard. Now, beyond all these tear jerkers, he's taking on yet another planetary apocalypse - overpopulation.

    [​IMG]
     
  2. jackdog

    jackdog Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2009
    Messages:
    19,691
    Likes Received:
    384
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Uncle Al 's latest lie


    [​IMG]
     
  3. bignose

    bignose New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2012
    Messages:
    9
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    <<< MODERATOR EDIT: OFF TOPIC >>>


    If you can't see the climate change with your own eyes , stop watching Fox News
     
  4. livefree

    livefree Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2004
    Messages:
    4,205
    Likes Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    48
    No. Heavy snowfall one winter doesn't change the facts about the declining ice and permanent snow and the melting glaciers.
    <<< MODERATOR EDIT: OFF TOPIC/INSULT >>>
    Survey shows that Mount Rainier has lost 14 percent of its ice and snow
    The Washington Post
    June 13, 2011


    Whole-edifice ice volume change A.D. 1970 to 2007/2008 at Mount Rainier, Washington, based on LiDAR surveying
    Geology

    abstract
     
  5. Grokmaster

    Grokmaster Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2008
    Messages:
    55,099
    Likes Received:
    13,310
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What flaming ifdiot declared the ice and snow on top of Ranier to be "permanent'?

    More Warmist ignorance. Notice...there is DORMANT VEGETATION under incorrectly named "permanent" snow and ice.
    How'd that get there? Der....


    Try common sense, instead of alramist hooey...
     
  6. livefree

    livefree Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2004
    Messages:
    4,205
    Likes Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Maybe the people who found out that the glaciers and permanent ice and snow had been there for centuries. Maybe people who, unlike you, know what they're talking about. BTW, in human terms, being there for centuries is 'permanent' enough.

    Mount Rainier
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Glaciers

    Glaciers are among the most conspicuous and dynamic geologic features on Mount Rainier. They erode the volcanic cone and are important sources of streamflow for several rivers, including some that provide water for hydroelectric power and irrigation. Together with perennial snow patches, the 26 major glaciers cover about 36 square miles (93 km2) of the mountain's surface and have a volume of about 1 cubic mile (4.2 km3).[14]

    Glaciers flow under the influence of gravity by the combined action of sliding over the rock on which they lie and by deformation, the gradual displacement between and within individual ice crystals. Maximum speeds occur near the surface and along the centerline of the glacier. During May 1970, Nisqually Glacier was measured moving as fast as 29 inches (74 cm) per day. Flow rates are generally greater in summer than in winter, probably due to the presence of large quantities of meltwater at the glacier base.[14]

    The size of glaciers on Mount Rainier has fluctuated significantly in the past. For example, during the last ice age, from about 25,000 to about 15,000 years ago, glaciers covered most of the area now within the boundaries of Mount Rainier National Park and extended to the perimeter of the present Puget Sound Basin.[14]

    Between the 14th century and 1850, many of the glaciers on Mount Rainier advanced to their farthest extent downvalley since the last ice age. Many advances of this sort occurred worldwide during this time period known to geologists as the Little Ice Age. During the Little Ice Age, the Nisqually Glacier advanced to a position 650 to 800 ft (200 to 240 m) downvalley from the site of the Glacier Bridge, Tahoma and South Tahoma Glaciers merged at the base of Glacier Island, and the terminus of Emmons Glacier reached within 1.2 mi (1.9 km) of the White River Campground.[14]

    Retreat of the Little Ice Age glaciers was slow until about 1920 when retreat became more rapid. Between the height of the Little Ice Age and 1950, Mount Rainier's glaciers lost about one-quarter of their length. Beginning in 1950 and continuing through the early 1980s, however, many of the major glaciers advanced in response to relatively cooler temperatures of the mid-century. The Carbon, Cowlitz, Emmons, and Nisqually Glaciers advanced during the late 1970s and early 1980s as a result of high snowfalls during the 1960s and 1970s. Since the early-1980s, however, many glaciers have been thinning and retreating and some advances have slowed.[14]



    Sure seems more like denialist ignorance, dude.



    Ignorant BS. Those glaciers have been there a long time.







    Try the facts instead of denier cult lunacy.
     
  7. jackdog

    jackdog Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2009
    Messages:
    19,691
    Likes Received:
    384
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Not sure why a year old thread was bumped , but I will play the game
    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/14/us/14snow.html?pagewanted=all
    I will even do the stupid large colored text to attempt to make a point :) which is really nothing more than stuff happens, weather is unpredictable, and Al Gore is just a hypocritical ego maniac likes to scam idiots to make himself more money
     
  8. Trinnity

    Trinnity Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2011
    Messages:
    10,645
    Likes Received:
    1,138
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There's no credible evidence that global warming exists as a man-made phenomenon. We are, in fact lucky to be between ice ages. There is evidence however of scientists faking data and colluding with each other to propagate this fraud. Why?

    1) Loyalty to a liberal agenda that's using AGW to promote globalism and statism (totalitarianism).
    2) Grant money. (greed)
    3) Peer pressure from those who are following the agenda.

    People who insist that global warming is real will continue to rant on deaf ears. And btw, Al Gore is not respected and I don't think you'll be seeing as a speaker at the dem convention, unless the DNC is more reckless than I thought.


    .
     
  9. Dr. Righteous

    Dr. Righteous Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2010
    Messages:
    10,545
    Likes Received:
    213
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Apparently you didn't realize that picture is fake.
     
  10. jackdog

    jackdog Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2009
    Messages:
    19,691
    Likes Received:
    384
    Trophy Points:
    83
    I suppose the NY Times article about record ice and snow is also fake ? It is pretty common knowledge that 2011 was a record cold year for the pacific NW area in general. Not sure why Gore wanted to lie like he did about it or why anyone thinks that last years weather is a current event.
     
  11. Trinnity

    Trinnity Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2011
    Messages:
    10,645
    Likes Received:
    1,138
    Trophy Points:
    113
  12. AceFrehley

    AceFrehley New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2012
    Messages:
    8,582
    Likes Received:
    153
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Al who????

    LOL!!
     
  13. AceFrehley

    AceFrehley New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2012
    Messages:
    8,582
    Likes Received:
    153
    Trophy Points:
    0
    How long as Earth's climate been changing?
    <<< MODERATOR EDIT: OFF TOPIC >>>

     
  14. livefree

    livefree Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2004
    Messages:
    4,205
    Likes Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    48
    You apparently have no point. Just ignorance. Citing some heavy snowfall in one year says nothing about the ongoing loss of ice around the mountaintop that scientists have documented. This ice mass loss is the result of a warming Earth and a changing climate, not "unpredictable weather", a distinction you seem unable to grasp.
     
  15. livefree

    livefree Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2004
    Messages:
    4,205
    Likes Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    48
    LOLOLOLOL. Your denier cult myths are hilarious. There's more than enough "credible evidence" that the current abrupt warming trend is anthropogenic to convince virtually every scientist and scientific organization on the planet. It is only the poor bamboozled dupes of the fossil fuel industry's propaganda campaign that have been deluded into imagining otherwise.

    Scientific opinion on climate change
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    The scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and it is more than 90% certain that humans are causing it through activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels.[1][2][3][4] This scientific consensus is expressed in synthesis reports, scientific bodies of national or international standing, and surveys of opinion among climate scientists. Individual scientists, universities, and laboratories contribute to the overall scientific opinion via their peer-reviewed publications, and the areas of collective agreement and relative certainty are summarised in these high level reports and surveys.

    National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed the current scientific opinion, in particular on recent global warming. These assessments have largely followed or endorsed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) position of January 2001 which states:

    An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.[5]​

    The main conclusions of the IPCC on global warming were the following:

    The global average surface temperature has risen 0.6 ± 0.2 °C since the late 19th century, and 0.17 °C per decade in the last 30 years.[6]
    "There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities", in particular emissions of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane.[7]
    If greenhouse gas emissions continue the warming will also continue, with temperatures projected to increase by 1.4 °C to 5.8 °C between 1990 and 2100. Accompanying this temperature increase will be increases in some types of extreme weather and a projected sea level rise.[8] On balance the impacts of global warming will be significantly negative, especially for larger values of warming.[9]​

    No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, which in 2007 updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position.[10][11]






    And there's some more of those fraudulent denier cult myths. Your so-called "evidence" was debunked long ago. No data was "faked" by climate scientists. It is actually the denier cultists and their puppet-masters in the fossil fuel industry who try to push a lot of "fake data", misinformation and lies.

    "Climategate"
    (excerpts)

    The 'Climategate' controversy is an attempt to divert attention away from the science. This is a common tactic in movements that seek to deny a scientific consensus - assume a conspiracy theory. But there is no evidence of any conspiracy. A number of independent enquiries have investigated the conduct of the scientists involved in the emails. All have cleared the scientists of any wrong doing:

    1. In February 2010, the Pennsylvania State University released an Inquiry Report that investigated any 'Climategate' emails involving Dr Michael Mann, a Professor of Penn State's Department of Meteorology. They found that "there exists no credible evidence that Dr. Mann had or has ever engaged in, or participated in, directly or indirectly, any actions with an intent to suppress or to falsify data". On "Mike's Nature trick", they concluded "The so-called “trick”1 was nothing more than a statistical method used to bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate fashion by a technique that has been reviewed by a broad array of peers in the field."
    2. In March 2010, the UK government's House of Commons Science and Technology Committee published a report finding that the criticisms of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) were misplaced and that CRU’s "Professor Jones’s actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community".
    3. In April 2010, the University of East Anglia set up an international Scientific Assessment Panel, in consultation with the Royal Society and chaired by Professor Ron Oxburgh. The Report of the International Panel assessed the integrity of the research published by the CRU and found "no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit".
    4. In June 2010, the Pennsylvania State University published their Final Investigation Report, determining "there is no substance to the allegation against Dr. Michael E. Mann".
    5. In July 2010, the University of East Anglia published the Independent Climate Change Email Review report. They examined the emails to assess whether manipulation or suppression of data occurred and concluded that "The scientists’ rigor and honesty are not in doubt".
    6. In July 2010, the US Environmental Protection Agency investigated the emails and "found this was simply a candid discussion of scientists working through issues that arise in compiling and presenting large complex data sets."
    7. In September 2010, the UK Government responded to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee report, chaired by Sir Muir Russell. On the issue of releasing data, they found "In the instance of the CRU, the scientists were not legally allowed to give out the data". On the issue of attempting to corrupt the peer-review process, they found "The evidence that we have seen does not suggest that Professor Jones was trying to subvert the peer review process. Academics should not be criticised for making informal comments on academic papers".​
     
  16. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    6,422
    Likes Received:
    2,186
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Given that we've just seen the hottest July in the USA since recordkeeping began, it's peculiar to watch the denialists retreat to their "but ... but ... it was snowy in this one little spot, so Al Gore is a big fat liar!" story. Given the current conditions, that tactic looks especially desprate and crazy.
     
  17. bobgnote

    bobgnote New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2012
    Messages:
    739
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0

    1. You haven't heard of HUMANS, clearing forests, with chainsaws, pollution, fire, cars, factories, industrial GHGs, or derivative CO2 and CH4 out-gassing, from warming lands and waters, so man up, and pay attention, to Dr.Richard Muller, who was funded in part, by Charles Koch, to endorse a Robert Rhode interpretation, of an existing dataset, or just admit, you are a DENIER. Maybe you missed thousands of recent high temp records, while ice was melting and the Sun isn't that hot;

    2. We are supposed to be headed down, to a relative glacial maximum, per the usual Pleistocen-Holocene Epoch trend, but SOMEBODY got fire, factories, cars, global wars, chainsaws, and whatever, since George Washington died, so we're not going to have another ice age, for at least a couple of hundred thousand years, while we try to halt CO2 concentration rise and re-green, or there won't be another ice age, until humans and most other animals now alive are EXTINCT, in the course of Mass Extinction Event 6;

    3. WHAT data are you talking about? Satellite or other instruments? Proxy data? WHAT? Thousands of recent high temp records? Is the cap ice not melting, so we should cool down? Is the Sun not relatively cool, so we shouldn't bust thousands of high temp records? Now that you mention straw data-dog, WHAT?

    - non-specific liberal totalitarianism is a straw man-ad hominem love child
    - grant money is an ad hominem, compared with any Koch money, for Heartland, and I can hardly wait, until enough grants come in, to show how every time CO2 has risen partly as fast as it has, today, the Earth suffered global warming, climate change, and a related mass extinction event
    - how's THIS? Anybody who thinks global warming isn't happening or it isn't causing climate change, so we will suffer greatly, during Mass Extinction Event 6 does not get to work, in any technical field or in schools, and since the Earth isn't flat, when this place really heats up, and land ice melts, we will suffer sea level rise, since the melt isn't going off the edge of the Earth!

    4. Deafness isn't your only problem, but since you aren't that good at signing, you DENIERS shouldn't get to work, in even schools for the deaf or at technical occupations

    5. Finally, WE AGREE ON SOMETHING!

    Al Gore snitched on a HS football team-mate, for smoking. Al wouldn't go, for legal pot, the whole time he was in Congress, but he sells an ambiguous book and movie, he gets on SNL, he returns to Congress, and he says what an "emotional moment" he is experiencing. What a grossout I get, when I contemplate AL.

    Al's environmental media is ambiguous. We are in the early stages, of Mass Extinction Event 6. But Al only wants to play carbon trade games, which is like increasing the price of admission, at an HIV infested bath-house, which is then going to spread some more AIDS. Obama also nudges carbon trade foolishness.

    Barack Obama smoked more pot, than any President, since Washington and Jefferson grew the stuff, on their farms, and Jazzy Jeff made little mutants, with Sally Hemmings.

    But neither Gore nor Obama supports legal pot, despite Canada's hemp corn surplus, which they won't use, since they are exporting oil and gas, to US. We need legal hemp, to make 25,000 market leading products, including ethanol and indestructible plastic, see YouTube (Ford, 1941 hemp car). See the vid, where a guy sledges the car. You just can't do a Corvette, like that, can you.

    Al and Barack can't or won't LEAD. Even if it's time for SAVINGS and RESOURCES, Al and Barack just keep playing, to the gridlock and boondoggle, with their Republican colleagues, who are going to make sure the US budget fails. But since Al and Barack won't lead, we're not going anywhere, with anybody in the White House.

    Maybe what we need to smarten up any of the 450,000 elected officials in the US or any dilettantes, like Al Gore is a great, big natural disaster series, since we are having more natural disasters, which the unobservant, deaf or blind or whatever makes them that way are not noticing the increase, in disasters.

    Hey, there's an increase in disasters! Munich Re, heard of them? Too deaf? Sorry about that.

    CIA, heard of them? Don't go after the Navy's climate change strategy budget, either. The FBI might start to treat you deaf people, like you are OWS. I'd laugh, at that!
     
  18. PeakProphet

    PeakProphet Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2012
    Messages:
    1,055
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    38
    As long as it has existed...of course. The entire city of New York only exists because the climate changed. We are still waiting for the anthropologists to find the coal fired power plants the pro to-Indians built to cause this warming of course, but obviously A) the earth warmed and B) people must have caused it and therefore C) the remains of those power plants must be out there somewhere.

    :frustrated:
     
  19. PeakProphet

    PeakProphet Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2012
    Messages:
    1,055
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    38
    If you reduce "since record keeping began" to something people understand, how your statement could be rewritten would make more sense thusly:

    "Given that we've just seen the hottest second in the past 28......."

    July was pretty warm. I wonder how warm it must have been to cause REAL effects, like the removal of the glacial sheets from New York City?
     
  20. PeakProphet

    PeakProphet Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2012
    Messages:
    1,055
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    38
    If you reduce "since record keeping began" to something people understand, how your statement could be rewritten would make more sense thusly:

    "Given that we've just seen the hottest second in the past 28......."

    July was pretty warm. I wonder how warm it must have been to cause REAL effects, like the removal of the glacial sheets from New York City?
     
  21. bobgnote

    bobgnote New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2012
    Messages:
    739
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    July 2012 was hotter, than July 1936, according to a post I just put up, at the dust bowl thread.

    I wonder when Obama will get to declare a disaster area, next? Obama promised to prioritize climate change, in 2008, 2010, and again, this year, 2012! Go Barack!

    I guess Al Gore has been waiting, for Mr.Pothead to really do something. If W.Mitt won't get out some tax returns, Al is gonna have to give that lazy President what-for, or is it what-HO? What-ho was Bill C., got it.
     
  22. _Inquisitor_

    _Inquisitor_ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2010
    Messages:
    3,542
    Likes Received:
    161
    Trophy Points:
    63
     
  23. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    6,422
    Likes Received:
    2,186
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    So much fail packed into so few words.

    The awful logic which that nonsense is based on would be "Climate changed without us in the past, therefore it's impossible for us to change climate now".

    That conclusion does not follow from the premise in any way, but most of the denialists still base their entire argument on it. It's an utter and complete failure of logic, but almost all denialists depend on it totally. Why? Because even though it is really dumb, it's still the best they have.
     
  24. KSigMason

    KSigMason Banned at Members Request Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2008
    Messages:
    11,505
    Likes Received:
    136
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Who cares what the High Priestess Al Gore thinks or say. In fact, why do we care what any of his mindless followers think?
     
  25. alaskan_sol

    alaskan_sol Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2010
    Messages:
    342
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Curious how anti-environmentalists continually quote Gore, yet you rarely see Genuine Environmentalist ever mention him. Very Similar to Democrats quoting Limbaugh, yet you never see Republicans quoting him.
     

Share This Page