Al Gore's hypocritical Global warming and others

[XTR3M3]

For those of you who are buying into this global warming religion that has emerged, I want you to take a look at your poster boy...Al Gore...and tell me what a hypocrite like this is doing at the top of the "heap". His "carbon footprint" is over 20 TIMES the average in his 20 room, 8 bathroom mansion in a ritzy Nashville neighborhood. Here is a link for your pleasure.
Bob Krumm » debunking a rather lame debunking
Mars and Earth are experiencing similar patterns of warming and cooling. I guess the Martians need to reduce their "carbon footprint" too.
Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says

Is there any doubt that humans spewing polutants into the atmosphere, ground and water is bad? Of course not. They should quit trying to politicize this and work on changing the only thing that will make any difference.... Human behavioural patterns. Until they start punishing big companies for suppressing the "good technology" just to promote their big dollar cash cows....big oil comes to mind...we will be stuck in this rut. How about this, instead of subsidies to big oil, (yes they get subsidized) we give subsidies to alternative clean energy developers. Wait...we can't do that because they aren't big campaign contributors...*sarcasm*

In the end, I guess Al Gore's energy consumption is the real inconvenient truth.

[cpnichol]

I'm not going to defend Al Gore, other than to say that him being a hypocrite doesn't mean he's wrong about climate change.

That theory that because some ice melted on Mars means that it's the sun and not us that is responsible for climate change is just wrong. The opening sentence of the article gives a clue:

"according to one scientist's controversial theory"

Click on next page:

Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says

And you get reactions to this theory, which are pretty damning. This is how science works; someone comes up with an idea, publishes it, everyone then tries to prove it or disprove it. It doesn't look like they had to try very hard to disprove this one.

Getting big business to change it's ways is not easy, especially if governments won't do it, but pressure is being exerted:

Angry shareholders urge Exxon to get green - earth - 26 May 2007 - New Scientist Environment

[Atrus]

For those who gamble it is the common practice to first place bets on the sure thing, second on the most likely result, and finally on the most desired outcome. Global warming gets two out of three.

To ignore the possibility of global warming and all its negative aspects is to gamble with our future. It's easy for us today to simply write off or discount global warming as some political or ecological fantasy, but what if it turns out to be true. What responsibility do we today share to insure a clean environment for future generations?

For the sake of argument let's agree that the certainty of climate change is at this time unknown. Looking ahead there are three possibilities. First, there is no threat so nothing to worry about. Second, there will be global warming but not to the extent or dangers being threatened. Third, global warming will eventually happen and it will be as bad or worse than we can imagine. Here again two out of three governs the wager. If it turns out that global warming is a fantasy and we spend a great deal of time and money for no reason then only time and money have been lost - and we have a cleaner planet to show for our troubles. But, if it turns out that we do nothing and global warming is a deadly reality then what is lost?

I don't think anyone would disagree that as shepherds of this planet we share a responsibility to the future. As a gambling man I'll put my money on the possibility that global warming is real and represents a very serious threat. Not to us, but to our children and grandchildren.

This is a no brainer - place your bets!

~A

[XTR3M3]

I do not question that some "un-natural global warming" has happened. There are disputes back and forth about whether this will trigger a cooling or warming trend. But to say that humans are most responsible for global warming is to ignore that more than one other planet in our solar system is experiencing similar or greater warming with no humans on it. Could this mean that it is as much solar as anything? Humans surely play a part, but I don't believe that it is as significant a part as people say. All this aside, it is clear that we need to do what is necessary to insure the future life-sustaining capabilities of our planet. I just wish that we had leaders more worried about doing what is right then getting themselves re-elected or buying their 4th vacation home.

By the way, that list of the 2000 or 2/3 of or whatever big number of leading scientists that say we are responsible for this...I would love to see that list. So would alot of other people as no one can seem to find it. They must be quoting the same sources the Prez Bush did about the Iraq WMD intelligence.

Bring on the cold fusion hover-cars! lol (no I do not think that they exist or have been surpressed but inevitably some tool will think that I do...so here is the disclaimer)

[Atrus]

"Bring on the cold fusion hover-cars!" Now were talking! I'd like nothing better and would not mind being taxed up front for a "Manhattan Project" level effort by our government to research and develop anti-gravity technology.

Gravity is after all what holds us down. If we could find a way to economically eliminate or offset the weight of air planes, trains, trucks, and our vehicles it would revolutionize transportation as we know it. No exotic power systems required, existing battery and solar technology could power motion for everything. Imagine the contents of an entire cargo ship levitated to 100,000 feet and held in a fixed position to a star while the Earth rotates below. Cargo could be on the other side of the world in less than twelve hours.

Splitting the atom was once thought to be impossible. It would not hurt to take a closer look at gravity. We've already got a handle on Mag Lev, let's look to see if there isn't another step forward.

~A

[weaver]

I keep hearing garbage about offsetting, carbon sinks, etc. The US is 3rd in the industrialized world with trees to human ratio. Australia is #1. We have more offsetting green then most others. So.. why should we suffer before the Europeans and Asians..

[Atrus]

Weaver... I agree with you in principle, but if I had to argue the point I would note that we've been major polluters of the world for a bit longer than most other countries. That 300 million Americans consume 29% (Fox News) of the global oil supply, and last but certainly not least because we can.

As far as I can tell America has always lead the way in solutions for global issues, problem is South America, China, and dozens of other small countires have enteried into the new global economy. They're just learning the freedoms and benefits of modern technology. It would be great if they participted in global green, but it's not likely - not yet.

When it come to matters of global concern I would like to think that America leads the way.

~A

[cpnichol]

Originally Posted by PHXX_XTR3M3

But to say that humans are most responsible for global warming is to ignore that more than one other planet in our solar system is experiencing similar or greater warming with no humans on it. Could this mean that it is as much solar as anything?

Ok, so some ice melted on Mars, this does not mean that Mars is necessarily warming or that it is linked to the changes in the Earths climate. A more accepted explanation is that like Earth, Mars has a wobble only more pronounced.

This means that the polar region where the melting is occurring tilts towards the sun and so receives more solar radiation, which melts some ice. If Mars' overall temperature was higher then you would also expect the other polar region to show the same rate of melting, this hasn't happened.

The link between Earths warming and the melting of some ice on Mars is just one mans idea and no other scientists seem to be agreeing with him.

Is the list of 2000 scientists you are referring to the list of scientists that contributed to the IPCC Forth Assessment Report? If so, here are the links to the authors:

http://www.ipcc.ch/activity/wg1authors.pdf
http://www.gtp89.dial.pipex.com/wg2authors.pdf
http://www.ipcc.ch/activity/wg3authors.pdf

I got those from here:

Activities

Atrus makes good points, I agree with him

[JohnChimpo]

Originally Posted by Atrus

As far as I can tell America has always lead the way in solutions for global issues, problem is South America, China, and dozens of other small countires have enteried into the new global economy. They're just learning the freedoms and benefits of modern technology. It would be great if they participted in global green, but it's not likely - not yet.

When it come to matters of global concern I would like to think that America leads the way.

I'm not sure why you would think that.

Not to bash the US but it has a track record of not leading the way.

In this context, the US has not ratified the UN Kyoto Protocol for carbon emissions.

Other environmental initiatives such as the RoHS (Restriction of Hazardous Substances) directive which many electrical equipment manufacturers support were issued by the European Union. We are merely following their standard.

The US is also one of the only three countries remaining (and the only first-world country) yet to adopt the metric system (although this is not related to environmentalism).

In the immortal words of the Human Torch--Flame on!

[weaver]

Sigh.

1 - We won't be adopting the metric system this century either. Its dumb.. but its one of those nationalism things. Don't fret -- all of us engineers are taught it. My kids will know it. Moving on.

2 - UN Kyoto Protocol -- is a joke. So, lets ignore please for a moment that we DIDN'T sign it (nor would I ever suggest we do). Please name.. just one.. country that has followed the protocol and is meeting the expected cuts, etc as agreed?

Right.. I won't get a response.

I am for a sane global agreement like the CFC ban of the 80's. I am for building a system of balances, for globally funded research (even if we fund 50% of it).

[JohnChimpo]

Originally Posted by weaver

1 - We won't be adopting the metric system this century either. Its dumb.. but its one of those nationalism things. Don't fret -- all of us engineers are taught it. My kids will know it. Moving on.

Right.. I won't get a response.

How is it dumb? It's a universal measurement system that even a 6 year old can understand.

Do you expect people to remember a different name for every possible measurement of every possible scale, with completely unique relativity between every different unit?

The metric system lets us define any unit of measurement and that's it--all the work is done when it comes to scaling up or down with multiples or quotients.

If you can't tell me how many grains are in an ounce without looking it up, then you shouldn't be measuring ounces.

Originally Posted by weaver

2 - UN Kyoto Protocol -- is a joke. So, lets ignore please for a moment that we DIDN'T sign it (nor would I ever suggest we do). Please name.. just one.. country that has followed the protocol and is meeting the expected cuts, etc as agreed?

They agreed to make these cuts in the first place. How can you judge those that don't meet them? They are still spending billions of dollars to cut carbon emissions. It is difficult to stifle projected growth. If the treaty requires they reduce their emissions by 8% from what they were in 1990, and their industrial growth set in motion years before the Kyoto agreement had them on course for raising their emissions by as much as 50%, then they are still making huge leaps by reducing the rise in emissions to 20% or 30%.

It is also difficult to compete with US industries which are not subject to these limitations. This is especially considerate for Canada, which has not reduced emissions any more than the US but has ratified the protocol.

I wasn't arguing about the merits of the Kyoto Protocol anyway. Merely that by being one of the only large countries to not ratify the protocol, the US hardly puts themselves in a position of environmental leadership.

[Streetbum]

Originally Posted by JohnChimpo

How is it dumb?

He wasn't saying its dumb, he was saying its dumb that we haven't adopted it. Notice the period before "Its dumb" instead of a comma.

Also....

"That 300 million Americans consume 29% (Fox News) of the global oil supply, and last but certainly not least because we can."

^^Atrus, please never ever trust Fox News to an extent of making a informed decision or statement. Try to watch more reliable sources of news... Fox tends to be...well.... daffy....

On the subject of global warming, I have no idea. I also have no idea if there are actually tectonic plates constantly moving beneath me, but I believe it. They're both supported by the same kind of information, so I'm going to go ahead and think that global warming is serious as well. "Momma always says, better safe than sorry"

[Atrus]

Streetbum,

FOX News uses the same feeds as CNN, MSNBC, etc, etc. The 29% quote was not a FOX News poll or mystery number, If I recall it was a number being put out by some government study. FOX just reported it.

If we're going to dis FOX then let's get it right. FOX News while supporting the conservative side still has to report the "NEWS" just as everyone else does. If on the other hand you're referring to the collection of talking knuckle head analysts FOX puts up every evening then criticism of FOX is welcome. News is just the news the same for all the players, but talking air heads trying to tell everyone what to think is a FOX trademark.

Opinions about the delivery of news good or bad doesn't change the point made by the number quoted.

~A