TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- The "Goracle"
Pages (8): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8]

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Yea not to mention Al Gore sucked in Look Who's Talking.

LOL. All that time I thought it was Kristy Alley!

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium At first I did, then I just respected the issue, then I realized all the hypocrisy and lies and dropped even lower. The more I read about Gore, the more I dislike him. Meh, a few years from now I am sure everyone will think Al Gore was a big idiot when they see droughts, colder weather (end of solar cycle, start of a new cooler one). Expect famines and conflicts to follow. Food prices to go up. And I bet the environmental issues are going to be even less of a concern because of people like Al Gore who are sidestepping the issue and not doing anything about the environment. Environment continues to suffer. Al Gore discredits what environmentalists like me have been talking about for a long time. Al Gore is killing the environment with deception, lies and data manipulation, sadly ... plus his hypocrisy.

Go on you know more of the subject and I want to hear your entire view on this.

quote:

Originally posted by Belgian Bonzai Obviously, regional changes do occur, and even that graph isn't all that significant. So let's widen the spacial scope, and make no mistake, following graph is very, very significant.

While I agree that the graph is signicant for the time period it represents, I'm not so convinced that it explains anything over a 4 billion year time-frame...

We, as a species simply do not have the empirical data to simply extract and 'backdate' what we think to be correct to justify an argument we don't even really know how much we're a part of.

Here's what Al Gore likes you to believe:



Looking at above graph, one will awe and be shocked that there is a pattern, while if you carefully look at it, the pattern doesnt quite fit too well. Still, it has an effect on an uneducated or brainwashed person because statistics can be easily manipulated because that data is manipulated in such a way as to have the desired effect on the viewer.

Here's what it actually looks like over a longer period of time, superimposed CO2-Temperature data to show the patterns over the last 600,000 years and how the two correlate to each other. Notice that as of recently something doesnt make sense - how come the CO2 levels since 1800 went up by 1/3, yet the temperature went up only by about 1 degree Centigrade? Obviously something doesnt match. Al Gore missed something in his movie!

If you've seen the movie the Inconvenient Truth you will notice how Al Gore had some fun in magnifying the recent CO2 increase data on stage and using the crane to show how high it was. Notice that he didnt do the same for temperature because the temperature today is STILL about 2-4 degrees Celcius COOLER than it was even 11,000 years ago! Something doesnt make sense, eh? How come Al Gore ignored that? How come his big fat brain couldn't compute that the reason why the CO2 levels have exploded recently is because we cut down 200,000 acres of forest EVERY DAY. Imagine how much CO2 that releases.

Well... now that's a surprising change of tack.

When I suggested this back in, oh not very long ago in January I was dismissed because you where just blas� about it.
Real nice...

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium Yeah, yeah, I know about the weather records. Yeah we're in for the warming and then substantial cooling will result in ice age bla bla bla.

Now, it's the bible for you to club other people over the head with?
When it suits you.
Course you're probably still just as dismissive of the El Nino effects as well on extreme weather patterns.

quote:

Originally posted by Lilith Well... now that's a surprising change of tack. When I suggested this back in, oh not very long ago in January I was dismissed because you where just blas� about it. Real nice... Now, it's the bible for you to club other people over the head with? When it suits you. Course you're probably still just as dismissive of the El Nino effects as well on extreme weather patterns.

Are we causing the El Nino? I dont seem to notice where you are heading with this. I basically showed here that CO2 levels are caused by environmental destruction (of forests), not the emissions. If you calculate the number of trees cut down every day times the amount of CO2 in them, you'd get a matching data to the rises in CO2 levels. Somehow Al Gore missed that in his movie. Did you know that if entire Amazon rainforest was cut down to a savannah, the world CO2 concentration would go up by 72 ppm? I posted this on the global warming thread with backing links. EVERY YEAR the size of Wales of forests are cut down around the world. We've all seen the pictures and graphs of how much forest is getting cut down in Amazon, Indonesia, other Asian countries, Africa. Al Gore the Almighty has an agenda here, because how did he not notice in his movie this blatantly obvious cause of CO2 emissions? How come he wants to tax us more and make more money of ordinary people while he makes his profits and continues his extravagant lifestyle? How helpful either of those options are that to the environment? Where are the provisions in his preaching and Kyoto Protocol to protect the environment?

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium Are we causing the El Nino? I dont seem to notice where you are heading with this. I basically showed here that CO2 levels are caused by environmental destruction (of forests), not the emissions. If you calculate the number of trees cut down every day times the amount of CO2 in them, you'd get a matching data to the rises in CO2 levels. Somehow Al Gore missed that in his movie. Did you know that if entire Amazon rainforest was cut down to a savannah, the world CO2 concentration would go up by 72 ppm? I posted this on the global warming thread with backing links. EVERY YEAR the size of Wales of forests are cut down around the world. We've all seen the pictures and graphs of how much forest is getting cut down in Amazon, Indonesia, other Asian countries, Africa. Al Gore the Almighty has an agenda here, because how did he not notice in his movie this blatantly obvious cause of CO2 emissions? How come he wants to tax us more and make more money of ordinary people while he makes his profits and continues his extravagant lifestyle? How helpful either of those options are that to the environment? Where are the provisions in his preaching and Kyoto Protocol to protect the environment?

I haven't gotten around to examining this much further, but I did want to check up on your contention of deforestation causing the rise of CO2 levels. It would appear your contention is incorrect:

quote:

What about the land biosphere? We know that deforestation has contributed to the increase in atmospheric CO2. Yet because carbon needs to be conserved, observations of the carbon increase in the atmosphere and the oceans combined with estimates of fossil fuel burning tell us that deforestation has been largely compensated by enhanced growth by the land biosphere. For example, during 1980 to 1999, fossil fuel burning was 117�5 PgC, and the carbon increase in the atmosphere and the oceans were 65�1 and 37�8 PgC, respectively. Thus that leaves 15�9 PgC that has been taken up by the land. This 15�9 PgC includes deforestation (and other land-use changes) which reduced the land biosphere by 24�12 PgC, and an additional land uptake of 39�18 PgC in response to elevated CO2 and climate changes (Sabine et al. 2004). Here also there is some uncertainty about the exact amount, but there is no uncertainty that the land biosphere has taken up a quantity of CO2 that is roughly equivalent to the deforestation. http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...man-activities/

The Sabine et al. (2004) article they cite is here:

http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/outst.../sabi2683.shtml

I've also found the argument that:

quote:

Humankind is releasing CO2 at a rate of about 7 Gton C per year from fossil fuel combustion, with a further 2 Gton C per year from deforestation. http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...on-is-too-much/

Thoughts?

This just all goes to show how fucking undecided and contentious this issue is. Hell, I just thought of another fantabulous and incredibly obvious theory:

The simple fact that there are ~6 billion people inhaling and exhaling today vs. half that many not too long ago. We're going fucking asymptotic!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Population_curve.svg



Mandatory birth control it is.

I'll give that one a shot, order of magnitude, don't know where this will end though. Let's go pessimistic; 2 liters per breath (so far off, it's crazy) x 20 breaths per minute x 60 minutes per hour x 24 hours per day x 365.24 days per year. Ok, stop for a moment here, where am I, liters per year, ok.
x 0,00129 kilogram of air per liter of air x 0.04 kilogram of CO2 per kilogram of air in exhaled air (could be fucking up here, cuz I'm not sure if that 3-4% is masseic or volumetric)
x 7000000000 people
= 8 trillion kilogram is 8 billion tons, per year.

I prolly fucked it up, it's getting late.

Fuckin-a, it never ends.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/li...in_page_id=1773

quote:

Climate change concert star Madonna accused of hypocrisy By RICHARD SIMPSON - More by this author � Last updated at 18:59pm on 10th April 2007 Comments Comments (9) The stars of a major Live 8-style concert to raise awareness of climate change have been condemned as hypocrites for failing to lead environmentally friendly lives themselves. The likes of Madonna and Red Hot Chili Peppers will perform at Live Earth at Wembley Stadium on July 7, yet campaigners say they are among the least "green" individuals on the planet. Scroll down for more... Madonna Material girl: Madonna will be joined by Red Hot Chilli Peppers and Duran Duran at the Live Earth concert at Wembley stadium to raise awareness of environmental issues Built on the model Bob Geldof used for the anti-poverty Live 8 concerts in 2005, Live Earth will also be held simultaneously in Johannesburg, Rio de Janeiro, Shanghai, Sydney and Tokyo. More than 100 rock and pop stars will perform during the 24-hour live concert. But green campaigners called the stars' involvement hypocritical last night saying their lifestyles which demand they jet themselves and their huge entourages on world tours give them enormously large carbon footprints. Last year, for example, they report how Madonna flew as many as 100 technicians, dancers, backing singers, managers and family members on a 56-date world tour in private jets and commercial airliners. Madonna herself also has a collection of fuel-guzzling cars, including a Mercedes Maybach, two Range Rovers, Audi A8s and a Mini Cooper S. Yet she will headline the London concert to "combat the climate crisis". "Madonna's Confessions tour produced 440 tonnes of CO2 in four months of last year. And that was just the flights between the countries, not taking into account the truckloads of equipment needed, the power to stage such a show and the transport of all the thousands of fans getting to the gigs. "The Red Hot Chili Peppers produced 220 tonnes of CO2 with their private jet alone over six months on their last world tour which was 42 dates. "The average a British person produces is 10 tonnes a year," said John Buckley, managing director-of CarbonFootprint.com. He added: "It's great for the celebrities to come out and support the cause, but they then have to follow it up in their own lifestyles. "We should now keep a close eye on whether Madonna and the others makes any changes to their own lifestyle. "Perhaps her next world tour will be performed in one venue, but broadcast to billions over the internet." Organisers of Live Earth aim to set a "green example" for other music events by using methods such as sustainable lighting, carbon-neutral travel and Eco-friendly electricity. Razorlight, Keane, Snow Patrol, Corinne Bailey Rae, Damien Rice, David Gray,James Blunt, the Black Eyed Peas and Genesis are also among other groups joining the London line-up of the global series of Live Earth concerts. Announcing the details of the concert, Live Earth founder Kevin Wall said: "This monster line-up will ensure Live Earth meets our goal of bringing together people from around the world to combat the climate crisis. "Live Earth will not only span all seven continents, but the musicians who have answered our call span multiple genres and generations." The concerts are forming part of a global publicity drive on climate change, tagged SOS (Save Our Selves), headed by former US vice president Al Gore. Organisers hope that more than two billion people will be able to tune in to coverage of the 24-hour event on television, radio and online. Mr Gore said: "By attracting an audience of billions we hope Live Earth will launch a global campaign giving a critical mass of people around the world the tools they need to help solve the climate crisis. "But ultimately, corporations and governments must become global leaders taking decisive action to stop global warming." Proceeds from the concerts will create a foundation to combat climate change led by The Alliance for Climate Protection, currently chaired by Mr Gore.

I saw the film and I was extremely disappointed. I really thought it would be more GOREY

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Fuckin-a, it never ends. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/li...in_page_id=1773

??? so we're learning that no person in the public spotlight is allowed to speak about global warming without being called a hypocrite so long as they travel on anything more complex than Fred Flintstone's car??

quote:

Originally posted by ResonantDrag ??? so we're learning that no person in the public spotlight is allowed to speak about global warming without being called a hypocrite so long as they travel on anything more complex than Fred Flintstone's car??

Hmmm...more inconvenient revelations.

quote:

Industry caught in carbon �smokescreen� By Fiona Harvey and Stephen Fidler in London Published: April 25 2007 22:07 | Last updated: April 25 2007 22:07 Companies and individuals rushing to go green have been spending millions on �carbon credit� projects that yield few if any environmental benefits. A Financial Times investigation has uncovered widespread failings in the new markets for greenhouse gases, suggesting some organisations are paying for emissions reductions that do not take place. Others are meanwhile making big profits from carbon trading for very small expenditure and in some cases for clean-ups that they would have made anyway. The growing political salience of environmental politics has sparked a �green gold rush�, which has seen a dramatic expansion in the number of businesses offering both companies and individuals the chance to go �carbon neutral�, offsetting their own energy use by buying carbon credits that cancel out their contribution to global warming. The burgeoning regulated market for carbon credits is expected to more than double in size to about $68.2bn by 2010, with the unregulated voluntary sector rising to $4bn in the same period. The FT investigation found: ■ Widespread instances of people and organisations buying worthless credits that do not yield any reductions in carbon emissions. ■ Industrial companies profiting from doing very little � or from gaining carbon credits on the basis of efficiency gains from which they have already benefited substantially. ■ Brokers providing services of questionable or no value. ■ A shortage of verification, making it difficult for buyers to assess the true value of carbon credits. ■ Companies and individuals being charged over the odds for the private purchase of European Union carbon permits that have plummeted in value because they do not result in emissions cuts. Francis Sullivan, environment adviser at HSBC, the UK�s biggest bank that went carbon-neutral in 2005, said he found �serious credibility concerns� in the offsetting market after evaluating it for several months. �The police, the fraud squad and trading standards need to be looking into this. Otherwise people will lose faith in it,� he said. These concerns led the bank to ignore the market and fund its own carbon reduction projects directly. Some companies are benefiting by asking �green� consumers to pay them for cleaning up their own pollution. For instance, DuPont, the chemicals company, invites consumers to pay $4 to eliminate a tonne of carbon dioxide from its plant in Kentucky that produces a potent greenhouse gas called HFC-23. But the equipment required to reduce such gases is relatively cheap. DuPont refused to comment and declined to specify its earnings from the project, saying it was at too early a stage to discuss. The FT has also found examples of companies setting up as carbon offsetters without appearing to have a clear idea of how the markets operate. In response to FT inquiries about its sourcing of carbon credits, one company, carbonvoucher.com, said it had not taken payments for offsets. Blue Source, a US offsetting company, invites consumers to offset carbon emissions by investing in enhanced oil recovery, which pumps carbon dioxide into depleted oil wells to bring up the remaining oil. However, Blue Source said that because of the high price of oil, this process was often profitable in itself, meaning operators were making extra revenues from selling �carbon credits� for burying the carbon. There is nothing illegal in these practices. However, some companies that are offsetting their emissions have avoided such projects because customers may find them controversial. BP said it would not buy credits resulting from improvements in industrial efficiency or from most renewable energy projects in developed countries. Additional reporting by Rebecca Bream

quote:

Originally posted by ResonantDrag ??? so we're learning that no person in the public spotlight is allowed to speak about global warming without being called a hypocrite so long as they travel on anything more complex than Fred Flintstone's car??

I believe in calling a spade a spade here. What is the definition of a hypocrite? To quote Webster, it is "a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings". So if you are getting up on stage and saying how there is a big environmental crisis and how we must all do our part to save the world then you better not have a carbon footprint 100 times mine and it would be nice if you are not living in a 12,000 square foot house that uses more natural gas and electricity in a month than the average person uses in a year.

I'm so sick and fucking tired of these people telling us all what we should do to save our planet while their lavish lifestyles have them wasting natural resources at a level many times what an average person uses. And when it comes time for them to "do their part" for the environment it never means getting rid of all their gas guzzling fancy cars or moving into a reasonable sized home. After all, they are rich and famous so they couldn't be expected to live like the average Joe. Them "doing their part" usually comes in the form of buying some fucking carbon credits which to me are a complete joke. Even if you forget the fact that a lot of these offset sellers are shady and its questionable if anything is even being offset, what these credits are is basically a way for rich people to continue their wasteful lifestyles but still feel good about themselves and still be able to jump on the environmentalism bandwagon.

I don't care who you are or what you do, if you own multiple enormous homes and several cars you are not an environmentalist and you don't really care about the planet. If you are using more energy in a month than the average person uses in a year and you have a massive carbon footprint you are not an environmentalist. If you can talk the talk but you cannot walk the walk then you are not an environmentalist. What you are is an attention seeking celebrity who loves to feed their ego and jump on the bandwagon of whatever cause is the "cool" one at the time.

I don't know if global warming is real or junk science, if it's our fault or just part of a natural climate change cycle. Honestly I don't think its the issue we should be worried about anyway. The main issue that we should be confronting is the waste of natural resources due to overconsumption. If each and every one of us did our part to reduce the amount of resources we consume a lot of the other environmental issues we are facing would take care of themselves.

So what these people should do is shut the fuck up until they are willing to reduce their consumption of natural resources to a more average level. The most effective and inspiring leaders are those that lead from the front and lead by example. And it is real hard to be a leader of environmental causes when you drive your 6mpg SUV from your 15,000 sqft energy hog house to the airport and hop on your carbon spewing private jet.

quote:

Originally posted by XaNaX

quote:

Do not concentrate on the finger or you will miss all that heavenly glory. -Bruce Lee

quote:

Originally posted by ResonantDrag ??? so we're learning that no person in the public spotlight is allowed to speak about global warming without being called a hypocrite so long as they travel on anything more complex than Fred Flintstone's car??

do they offset to at least give the impression?

are they collosal wasters?

remember, this is a "moral obligation" in the most dire moment in all of history and has nothing to do with Fred Flintstone.

Ha--this is rich. The problem, you see, is that the Canadians aren't buying enough carbon credits from Gore's LP. I call Gore a fraud.

quote:

Gore Calls Canada Climate Plan a 'Fraud' Apr 29, 11:31 PM (ET) TORONTO (AP) - Al Gore condemned Canada's new plan to reduce greenhouse gases, saying it was "a complete and total fraud" because it lacks specifics and gives industry a way to actually increase emissions. Under the initiative announced Thursday, Canada aims to reduce the current level of greenhouse gas emissions 20 percent by 2020. But the government acknowledged it would not meet its obligations under the Kyoto Protocol, which requires 35 industrialized countries to cut greenhouse-gas emissions by 5 percent below 1990 levels by 2012. The country's emissions are now 30 percent above 1990 levels. The conservative government's strategy focuses both on reducing emissions of gases blamed for global warming and improving air quality. But the plan failed to spell out what many of its regulations will look like. Gore said the plan did not make clear how Canada would reach its 2020 emissions goal. He also criticized the plan for allowing industries to pollute more if they use emissions-cutting technologies while increasing production. "In my opinion, it is a complete and total fraud," Gore said Saturday. "It is designed to mislead the Canadian people." He said "intensity reduction" - which allow industries to increase their greenhouse gas outputs as they raise production - was a poll-tested phrase developed by think tanks financed by Exxon Mobil and other large polluters. Canadian Environment Minister John Baird rejected Gore's criticisms. "The fact is our plan is vastly tougher than any measures introduced by the administration of which the former vice president was a member," Baird said in a statement. Baird also invited Gore to discuss climate change and the government's environmental policies with him. Gore was in Toronto to present his documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth," at a consumer environmental show. He acknowledged that as an American, he had "no right to interfere" in Canadian decision. However, he said, the rest of the world looks to Canada for moral leadership, and that was why Thursday's announcement was so "shocking." Canadian opposition Liberal Leader Stephane Dion said Sunday that Gore was right. "Mr. Baird is embarrassing Canada around the world," Dion said. "The world expects Canada will do its share - more than that, that Canada will be a leader and we are failing the world. We are failing Canadians."

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.