Washington Fly Fishing Forum banner

SFR: Al Gore's mistakes?

10K views 121 replies 55 participants last post by  chadk 
#1 ·
#3 ·
Gore's laughing all the way to the bank...

from the link Philster provided:

From jennifer Marohasy:
Al Gore Getting Rich Spreading Global Warming Hysteria With Media's Help

Excerpt: ABC News.com estimated soon-to-be-Nobel Laureate Al Gore's net worth at $100 million, which isn't bad considering that he was supposedly worth about $1 million when he watched George W. Bush get sworn in as president in January 2001. Talk about your get-rich-quick schemes, how'd you like to increase your net worth 10,000 percent in less than seven years? < > Some environmentalist groups disparage Gore and his investment banker friends. They say the Gore group caters to others who share their financial interest in the carbon-exchange concept. The bulletin of the World Rainforest Movement says that members of a United Nations-sponsored group called the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) stand to gain by approving Gore's carbon-trading enterprise. The IPCC has devised what it says is a scientific measure of the impact of greenhouse gases on global warming. In fact, the critics charge, the IPCC sanctions a mechanism that mainly promotes the sham concept of carbon exchange. The global non-profit organization Winrock International is an example of one IPCC panel member that seeks out groups and individuals with an interest in carbon trading. Arkansas-based Winrock provides worldwide "carbon-advisory services."

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-s...preading-global-warming-hysteria-media-s-help
 
#8 ·
Global warming is a REAL SERIOUS issue that we need to pay attention to regardless of the fact that Gore is a douche bag.
 
#12 ·
I'm not a huge Gore fan, but I've seen the movie. When reading the article I did spot some inconsistencies. A bit of what they mentioned in the artice seemed to be time related, for example: "The film suggests that the Greenland ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia." "The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration." The movie never specified a certain time period, and if people believed that it would happen that fast, then they're just irrational.

Is human initiated global warming real? Yes. Is it a serious problem? Yes. Do we need to do something? Yes. Will the effects be prominent in my lifetime? Probably not. Are people willing to change thier lifestyle to accomodate the planet? I don't think so. That's how I see it. It's kind of a bummer.:(
-Ethan
 
#13 ·
The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia." "The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration." The movie never specified a certain time period, and if people believed that it would happen that fast, then they're just irrational.
millennium is a 1,000 years. millennia is the plural for millennium. As in "at least 2,000 years". 40 cm is under 16 inches, and that's an unproven worst case scenario. It's the boy who cried wolf story. He, and everyone who excuses his behavior because even though he's full of it, if it makes people react it's "for the greater good", are criminals against humanity, because THEY are going to cause the deaths of millions if they get their way, by INCREASING poverty, limiting access to refrigeration and heating technology, all the while getting richer and distancing their lifestyles even more from the common citizen of the planet. Look into his sham carbon trading company. Yes he created one. It has one customer. Him. He pays himself, to sell himself carbon credits... Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
#15 ·
Philster,

Unproven worst case scenario is right on! These "predictions" are based upon computer models of weather patterns (i.e. a bit more sophisticated type of weather forecasting than you local weather report is based upon according to my brother-in-law who has Ph.D.'s in meteorology and computer Science-he works for the National Weather Service on a storm track and severe storm predicting team), and all of us know how accurate a local weather forecast is for 2 weeks away. Just think how much variation is present when trying to predict weather patterns 20, 30, 50, 100, 500, 1,000 years in the future.

Mike has told me that they can't even make good accurate predictions 3 days out about where an already formed huricane is going to travel and how severe it will be when it gets to where it might go. He says that is why when you see the hurricane storm path being predicted it always has a huge area it may possibly move into. And have you ever noticed how inaccurate those predictions of the type of winter (how cold, how much rain, how much snow, etc.) are? They are based on the same sort of computer modeling climate change predictions are based upon.
 
#16 ·
Philster,
I don't agree with your point of view, but I respect the fact that you have an opinion and you believe in something, (and that's on top of the respect I have for you after reading some of your FR posts; you are obviously an experienced angler).

However, I don't agree with this sort of issue being on this particular board. You're not going to change anyone's mind on the issue anymore than they might change yours. But what's more likely to happen is people are going to start disrespecting one another over what is clearly much closer to a political-related issue than a fishing-related one.

Again, this is said only in all-due-respects.
Dave
 
#17 ·
Global warming is about money, power, and control. Who gets the money. Who gains in power and control. Nothing more.

There is not one creditable piece of evidence that man is contributing in any significant manner to global warming.
 
#48 ·
"W" does not support the Kyoto agreement and has publicly stated that he will not follow it. In 2001, Bush reneged on the treaty that was ratified on Oct 15, 1992 by Congress.

We produce most of the worlds carbon emission, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Carbon_Emission_by_Region.png. We are a major part of the problem. Let's take responsibility for our actions instead of blaming someone else.
 
#21 ·
The thing is, Kerry is right, there is no SINGLE piece of credible evidence that man is contributing to global warming. But if you put all the pieces together, there is definitive climate change, and there is evidencce to support that this climate change is being pushed by increases of certain isotopes in the environment, and there is evidence that humans are the primary party in putting those isotopes into the environment,
 
#22 ·
Daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaamn! I can barely keep up with the discussion when we're talkin' elements, and you wanna start trifflin' with isotopes! I can't be puttin' no numbers after thangs like carbon and hydrogen! SHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEOOOUUUT! :eek:
 
#28 ·
I caught me a Easter'brook Trout the other day. Does that dispoop globe-AL warning?

Seriously though, most of the "solutions" for global warming are things we should be doing for other environment/geopolitical/financial reasons anyway. So who cares if it's proven completely or not?
 
#40 ·
Seriously though, most of the "solutions" for global warming are things we should be doing for other environment/geopolitical/financial reasons anyway. So who cares if it's proven completely or not?
I agree. I don't know why you all are trying so hard to prove that global warming is not human caused when we are finally starting to see some significant movement towards a cleaner environment. Seems like a lot of good can come from this. Or we can just argue about competing evidence and just watch the world continue to get raped...that sounds like a good idea.
 
#32 ·
I hope global warming is a hoax. As I look at the evidence I don't think it is. It sucks hoping that you are wrong. Reminds me what Beano Cook once said:

"If France and Germany went to war, I'd root for France, but I would bet on Germany."

18,
cds
 
#37 ·
What do you expect? As I recalled another nuthead, Jimmy Carter, won the award. The myth of Global Warming is politically driven by morons like Gore. His "documentary", a Convienent Lie, causes mass hysteria yet proves nothing from a scientific stanpoint. I recall concern for a coming Global Ice Age not too many years back. I didn't believe that either.
 
#34 ·
The real problem as someone one knows debate and has partaken in debate in school in the past and taken some logic classes in university; the real problem is nobody knows how to have an actual conversation about anything these days...

Have a look at the posts, they are all over the place and argue about totally different aspect of a whole but aren't necessarily even the same thing.

For instance:

Are we talking about Al Gores character?

His movie?

Global warming scientific communties agreeance?

Evidence of global warming?

Effects on fisheries?

Et Cetera....et cetera...

Obviously, we could never really have the kind of discussion neccesary to make this kind of debate meaningful to any of us online. On top of that, as stated above, some of us don't even give a shit.

So in summary, when you think about these complex issues and talk to people about them, at least think about staying on point. Don't mix character attacks with science and science with politics. At least try not to.

Also, I agree with the above that threads like this aren't really useful on a fly fishing website. I think this problem could effect fishing immensely but a thread mentioning global warming as it relates to fisheries will never remain ONLY about global warming effecting fisheries.
 
#39 ·
Whether you care for Al Gore is one thing - but to suggest that there isn't a consensus in the scientific community on global warming and it's cause is erroneous.

Debates similar to this one have happened throughout mankinds existence on this planet. For thousands of years, mankind thought that the sun was the center of the universe. Scienc proved that one wrong. For some period of time, mankind also thought the earth was flat - again, science to the rescue. In some cultures, diseases were brought on by demons now, we recognize that some disease are either self inficted or that genetics play a role. For many years mankind believed that all matter on earth was composed of fire, ether, and stone, now we know differently. Even still, in 2007, there are people who believe that astrology is what determines the personality of human being etc.. All of these "accepted fact" by the generaly public have proven false through science. Science is what allows us to understand our surroundings, what things are made of, how things interact, forces, etc.. It is fascinating indeed to observe conversations such as this when people are so easily persuaded that science is somehow flawed...

Global warming isn't a new theory by any stretch, it's been a topic I've been aware of for at least 25 years. And with each passing year, the evidence grows increasingly stronger.

Here's a story on the topic from NASA - the same guys that were able to utilize science to send men to the moon, that sent un-manned spacecraft to the end of our solar system, etc.. http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/global_warming_worldbook.html

Surely for some, solid science won't convince them of the threats and reality of global warming. They've already made up their minds, don't confuse them with scientific evidence. To suggest that humans are not impacting the climate is ridiculous at this point, somewhat like arguing that evolution is just a "theory" but then again, gravity is also a "just a theory".

Anybody ever fly into Salt Lake City, or Denver, L.A., Manhattan? Did you notice that you can see a smog layer that covers hundreds of square miles? What do you think is creating that? And where do you think it goes? It doesn't go away - it stays in the atmosphere for hundreds of years in the form of greenhouse gas. In these cities, this is pollution on a small scale, and yet, one can easily see the effects. To suggest that one cannot see greenhouse gas and it's affects is somewhat asking for us to be blind.

As anyone who has at least highschool physics will recall, matter is neither created nor destroyed. It can be transformed into other components however. 1 gallon of gasoline is tranformed into an equivalent mass of other gassses. Now mulitiply that same gallon of gasoline by the number of gallons consumed planet wide on a daily basis. Mutliply that same number by 365 days per year. Now mulitply that same number by the number of years that our population has been burning coal and burning petroleum products. Again, anyone with simple mathematical skills will arrive at an astounding huge number - a number which cannot be ignored. Today, we have 6 billion people on our planet - but that number will double again within a short period of time. Redo that same math and the problem continues grow.

The beauty of science is that it is self correcting. If there is evidence to support alternative ideas, science is able to re-evaluate and revise. That's the nature of science. In the realm of global warming, with each passing year, the scienctific evidence becomes stronger that mankind is having a huge impact on our climate, not visa-versa. Overwhelmingly, the scientific community accepts global warming and that mankind is to blame.

For billions of years, life was not possible even on this planet. And as far as we know, planet earth is the only planet that has life. Without an atmosphere, Mars is simply too cold and too hot for life to take hold. Venus on the other hand, is unable to sustain life because of the immense volume of greehouse gasses that exist there.

But as someone previously mentioned, one isn't going to win a debate on this topic in this forum. However, if one is serious about learning about global warming, what is creating it, and what the effects will be, they're going to have to put their pre-concieved notions aside, and be willing to examine the evidence published by the scientific community on their own. One is going to have to look at a wide variety of sources.
 
#41 ·
as already pointed out, mr garton, review your statistics 101 course. science is just that, science. that means dealing with statistical PROBABILITY. when the conclusions are something akin to 97-98% certainity, you really can't get much better than that in any scientific investigation.

if you choose to make yourself aware of the volumes of literature, see above posts for some starting points, you will find a concensus among the scientific community that indeed, climate change is here and a reality.

even the common corporate owned media was reporting an unprecidented melting of the artic ice this summer. that is UNPRECIDENTED!!! now if you choose to watch 'an inconvenient truth', you know exactly what that means. the fact that the computer models were decades off on this prediction of melting is disconserting as it would suggest the process is more rapid than first believed.

is the greenland ice cap melting? yes it is and it is also melting far more rapidly than predicted. these are on the ground observatoins by a variety of folks. shutting down the gulf stream is going to usher in the second big chill for europe and the entire east coast, not a happy thought.

now if you choose, continue drinkin' the kool aid or just stick yur head in the sand but either way, climate change is'a'happin' and its moving at a lost faster pace than any group of scientists have been able to predict. which simply points out the unknown, from a scientific point of view, about our lack of knowledge regarding this occurance.

what some would want to suggest is that since we can't fit this into a neat shoe box and tie it with a ribbon, it does not exist. bullshit.............
 
#69 ·
as already pointed out, mr garton, review your statistics 101 course. science is just that, science. that means dealing with statistical PROBABILITY. when the conclusions are something akin to 97-98% certainity, you really can't get much better than that in any scientific investigation.

if you choose to make yourself aware of the volumes of literature, see above posts for some starting points, you will find a concensus among the scientific community that indeed, climate change is here and a reality.

even the common corporate owned media was reporting an unprecidented melting of the artic ice this summer. that is UNPRECIDENTED!!! now if you choose to watch 'an inconvenient truth', you know exactly what that means. the fact that the computer models were decades off on this prediction of melting is disconserting as it would suggest the process is more rapid than first believed.

is the greenland ice cap melting? yes it is and it is also melting far more rapidly than predicted. these are on the ground observatoins by a variety of folks. shutting down the gulf stream is going to usher in the second big chill for europe and the entire east coast, not a happy thought.

now if you choose, continue drinkin' the kool aid or just stick yur head in the sand but either way, climate change is'a'happin' and its moving at a lost faster pace than any group of scientists have been able to predict. which simply points out the unknown, from a scientific point of view, about our lack of knowledge regarding this occurance.

what some would want to suggest is that since we can't fit this into a neat shoe box and tie it with a ribbon, it does not exist. bullshit.............
Thanks, "mr gt" for putting up. Most people who are labeled ignorant like to know why, so they can at least repond.

I read through your repy. There was nothing I would consider controvercial or disputable... or pertinent to the real debate. Global warming is occuring. That is a fact. That real debate is wherether said global warming is man induced and man influenced and man controllable and requires some massive intervention to save the planet. I for one believe it is out of our hands, it is a natural phenomenon, we can minorly impact it but mostly we need to ride it out and adapt. That is our only option during periods of global change we never initiate of influence.

You should go back and make a fresh batch of cool-aid, since your current drink of choice is tainted with Gorardia.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top