• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Profiting from the EPA's "deadly" CO2

VF500

Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2010
Messages
190
Reaction score
39
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
How phony is it for Al Gore to be making millions off his global warming, climate change, (whatever) theory? As usual, cheer leading "journalists" completely ignore the companies Gore has set up to feather his nest as shown in this New York Times article.

Gore’s Dual Role: Advocate and Investor

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/business/energy-environment/03gore.html
 

Manc Skipper

Wrinkly member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2008
Messages
32,108
Reaction score
21,035
Location
Southern England
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
It's not his theory. He presented a movie about it. As for being advocate and investor, if you didn't believe in something, would you invest in the idea?
 

VF500

Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2010
Messages
190
Reaction score
39
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
OK, now answer my question. How phony is it to profit off an unproven theory that you are advocating? BTW, if the earth "has a fever" as Gore says, how much of a fever does it have? Is it one degree, two degrees or what? His statement indicates that earth has some "normal" temperature. What is it?
 
Last edited:

Barbbtx

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 7, 2010
Messages
8,467
Reaction score
1,993
Location
W'Ford TX
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
OK, now answer my question. How phony is it to profit off an unproven theory that you are advocating?
If Global Warming (cap and trade) and green energy was a Republican agenda, the left would be screaming follow the money!
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
74,107
Reaction score
32,318
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
OK, now answer my question. How phony is it to profit off an unproven theory that you are advocating? BTW, if the earth "has a fever" as Gore says, how much of a fever does it have? Is it one degree, two degrees or what? His statement indicates that earth has some "normal" temperature. What is it?
The theory has an enormous amount of evidence behind it, so I reject your "unproven theory" statement. We're definitely having some influence over the earth's temperature. His statement only indicates a "normal" temperature if you have no understanding of the actual science. Here's a tip: Al Gore is not a scientist. He doesn't do scientific research. He does not have a degree in climatology, or even any scientific field. Stop listening to spokesmen and read the actual science, from peer-reviewed, well-respected science journals. That's the only way to be truly informed on a scientific issue.

Everything else is just a straw man. Whether or not Al Gore profits from green energy policy has no impact on whether or not AGW theory is accurate or not.

You should read up more on the subject:
RealClimate - run by actual scientists, good for a "layman's explanation."
Skeptical Science: Examining Global Warming Skepticism - Has arguments that skeptics propose laid out, and responded to.
Both websites source their statements very well.

Two youtube channels of guys who do regular climate-related videos. Greenman is a bit sarcastic and hyperbolic, but lays out some good info too. Potholer54 is excellent. Both are pretty good at sourcing their statements too, although if you want to run down their sources be prepared to pause the video so you can nab the full title of the papers they cite.
YouTube - potholer54's Channel
YouTube - greenman3610's Channel

If Global Warming (cap and trade) and green energy was a Republican agenda, the left would be screaming follow the money!
This post is ironic because Cap and Trade was actually implemented under Bush Sr. (applied to sulfur dioxide and some other pollutants.) It was also part of the McCain/Palin campaigns platform. In both cases it was hailed as a free market solution to pollution.

I like Cap and Trade. When being efficient becomes a competitive advantage, businesses are going to strive for it. It worked for acid rain pretty well.
 
Last edited:

MKULTRABOY

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 5, 2009
Messages
10,621
Reaction score
2,104
Location
In your dreams...
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
If Global Warming (cap and trade) and green energy was a Republican agenda, the left would be screaming follow the money!
If the republicans were not republicans? If they did this, liberals would likely vote for them.
 

VF500

Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2010
Messages
190
Reaction score
39
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The theory has an enormous amount of evidence behind it, so I reject your "unproven theory" statement. We're definitely having some influence over the earth's temperature. His statement only indicates a "normal" temperature if you have no understanding of the actual science. Here's a tip: Al Gore is not a scientist. He does not have a degree in climatology, or even any scientific field. Stop listening to spokesmen and read the actual science, from peer-reviewed, well-respected science journals. That's the only way to be truly informed on a scientific issue.

Everything else is just a straw man. Whether or not Al Gore profits from green energy policy has no impact on whether or not AGW theory is accurate or not.

You should read up more on the subject:
RealClimate - run by actual scientists, good for a "layman's explanation."
Skeptical Science: Examining Global Warming Skepticism - Has arguments that skeptics propose laid out, and responded to.
Both websites source their statements very well.

Two youtube channels of guys who do regular climate-related videos. Greenman is a bit sarcastic and hyperbolic, but lays out some good info too. Potholer54 is excellent. Both are pretty good at sourcing their statements too, although if you want to run down their sources be prepared to pause the video so you can nab the full title of the papers they cite.
YouTube - potholer54's Channel
YouTube - greenman3610's Channel



This post is ironic because Cap and Trade was actually implemented under Bush Sr. (applied to sulfur dioxide and some other pollutants.) It was also part of the McCain/Palin campaigns platform. In both cases it was hailed as a free market solution to pollution.

I like Cap and Trade. When being efficient becomes a competitive advantage, businesses are going to strive for it. It worked for acid rain pretty well.
The theory also has a lot of embarassing emails from the University of East Anglia, in eastern England who were doing the "research". Call For Independent Inquiry Into Climategate as Global Warming Fraud Implodes

Here's a tip: Al Gore is not a scientist. Oh what, now you're trying to make friends? :lamo He doesn't do scientific research. Yeah, neither do the people in at East Anglia U. What happened to their "research" data?

As far as Cap and Trade doing anything to change CO2 levels in the atmosphere, that's a load of crap too. Another one of Gore's companies is located in London, England called GMI, Generation Investment Management's U.S. branch is headed by a former Gore staffer and fund-raiser, Peter S. Knight, who once was the target of probes by the Federal Election Commission and the Department of Justice. They basically "buy" air from other countries so companies in this country can keep right on producing CO2. It's called "redistribution of wealth" from this country to third world countries. That's all anything Obama does is about. He wants to drain this country's money back to the third because of ideas he got from his father. See his book, "Dreams FROM my Father", not of, but from.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
74,107
Reaction score
32,318
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The theory also has a lot of embarassing emails from the University of East Anglia, in eastern England who were doing the "research". Call For Independent Inquiry Into Climategate as Global Warming Fraud Implodes
There have been multiple independent inquiries into the situation. All have found no evidence of manipulation of data. The emails were taken out of context to imply something that didn't happen. There was no manipulation of data, and no suppression of peer review. Anyone taking an objective look at the situation can see this easily. See other threads on climategate, or the links I already provided.


Here's a tip: Al Gore is not a scientist. Oh what, now you're trying to make friends? :lamo He doesn't do scientific research. Yeah, neither do the people in at East Anglia U. What happened to their "research" data?
I assume you're referring to the "raw" data, another lie told by skeptics. EAU did dump the raw data, because it was the 1980's and storing gigabytes of temperature data was expensive back then. Here's one thing few "skeptics" understand, though, and it boggles the mind:

Some university research unit in the UK does not maintain the original data for global temperatures. I mean seriously, how can anyone read this accusation and take it seriously? You really think that the US government, along with every other government on the planet, just lets some university handle all of the data? No. The National Weather Service collects that data. Contact them, they'll probably give it to you. If you want data for temperatures in Germany, contact Germany's weather service, whatever they call themselves. The raw data was deleted by EAU because there was no pressing need for them to hold onto it. Anybody can check EAU's work by gathering the info from the NWS. Funny how skeptics haven't actually done that.

As far as Cap and Trade doing anything to change CO2 levels in the atmosphere, that's a load of crap too. Another one of Gore's companies is located in Loandon, England called GMI, Generation Investment Management's U.S. branch is headed by a former Gore staffer and fund-raiser, Peter S. Knight, who once was the target of probes by the Federal Election Commission and the Department of Justice. They basically "buy" air from other countries so companies in this country can keep right on producing CO2. It's called "redistribution of wealth" from this country to third world countries. That's all anything Obama does is about. He wants to drain this country's money back to the third because of ideas he got from his father. See his book, "Dreams FROM my Father", not of, but from.
We introduced Cap and Trade for various pollutants that cause acid rain in 1990. Since then, those pollutants have dropped off significantly, as has the severity of acid rain in the US. So, you can make these claims, but we have historical precedent that says otherwise. It's funny how quickly you move away from the scientific argument when presented with evidence, instead resorting to yet more attacks on the great straw man Al Gore.

Were some of those red lines supposed to be links?
 
Last edited:

VF500

Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2010
Messages
190
Reaction score
39
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
There have been multiple independent inquiries into the situation. All have found no evidence of manipulation of data. The emails were taken out of context to imply something that didn't happen. There was no manipulation of data, and no suppression of peer review. Anyone taking an objective look at the situation can see this easily. See other threads on climategate, or the links I already provided.




I assume you're referring to the "raw" data, another lie told by skeptics. EAU did dump the raw data, because it was the 1980's and storing gigabytes of temperature data was expensive back then. Here's one thing few "skeptics" understand, though, and it boggles the mind:

Some university research unit in the UK does not maintain the original data for global temperatures. I mean seriously, how can anyone read this accusation and take it seriously? You really think that the US government, along with every other government on the planet, just lets some university handle all of the data? No. The National Weather Service collects that data. Contact them, they'll probably give it to you. If you want data for temperatures in Germany, contact Germany's weather service, whatever they call themselves. The raw data was deleted by EAU because there was no pressing need for them to hold onto it. Anybody can check EAU's work by gathering the info from the NWS. Funny how skeptics haven't actually done that.



We introduced Cap and Trade for various pollutants that cause acid rain in 1990. Since then, those pollutants have dropped off significantly, as has the severity of acid rain in the US. So, you can make these claims, but we have historical precedent that says otherwise. It's funny how quickly you move away from the scientific argument when presented with evidence, instead resorting to yet more attacks on the great straw man Al Gore.

Were some of those red lines supposed to be links?
No, they're just information from links.

You know. I seldom do this, but I'm going to have to admit that you're right. You've convinced me global warming is real and that it poses a major threat to the world. I guess we should risk ruining our economy to reduce CO2. All the other nations of the world go along with this too, right? I mean it would be kind of senseless for us to take such a risk if other countries kept right on emitting.

Uh oh. I just noticed something on the web. Mridul Chadha says, "Expect more demands, counter demands for carbon emmission reductions UN drops COP15 accord deadline". Oh Deuce, I think that changes my opinion about your arguement. It looks like the rest of the world doesn't think global warming is such a dangerous thing that they want to risk their economies. It looks like you need to try and convince them not me. :shock:

Expect More Demands, Counter-Demands for Carbon Emission Reductions As UN Drops COP15 Accord Deadline – CleanTechnica: Cleantech innovation news and views
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
74,107
Reaction score
32,318
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
No, they're just information from links.

You know. I seldom do this, but I'm going to have to admit that you're right. You've convinced me global warming is real and that it poses a major threat to the world. I guess we should risk ruining our economy to reduce CO2. All the other nations of the world go along with this too, right? I mean it would be kind of senseless for us to take such a risk if other countries kept right on emitting.

Uh oh. I just noticed something on the web. Mridul Chadha says, "Expect more demands, counter demands for carbon emmission reductions UN drops COP15 accord deadline". Oh Deuce, I think that changes my opinion about your arguement. It looks like the rest of the world doesn't think global warming is such a dangerous thing that they want to risk their economies. It looks like you need to try and convince them not me. :shock:

Expect More Demands, Counter-Demands for Carbon Emission Reductions As UN Drops COP15 Accord Deadline – CleanTechnica: Cleantech innovation news and views
Yes, everyone is resistant to the idea that their way of life is going to make things harder on their grandchildren. That's pretty natural.

However, in the long run it's better for our economy and security if we drastically reduce our emissions of CO2. A rapidly warming planet makes it hard for plant and animal life to adapt, and will probably increase the frequency or severity of extreme weather events. We need that plant and animal life. For eating. Rice, for example, is one of the world's biggest staple crops, and it is also one of the crops that is most susceptible to increasing temperatures. If rice, wheat, corn, and other crops become harder to grow, they're going to become more and more expensive. This will hit the third world especially hard. Compounding this issue will be rising sea levels, which will reduce usable land area for food production. (once again hitting the third world the hardest) To revisit an earlier point, there's no "normal" temperature for the earth. The "optimum" temperature is the temperature which plants and animals are best adapted to survive in. Nature can adjust to changing temperatures, there's hundreds of millions of years of proof of that. Hooray evolution! However, history also shows that nature can only adjust so rapidly. Rapid temperature changes in either direction correspond with many of the world's mass-extinction events. (although, that one time it was an asteroid!)

As for security, solar and wind power are unlimited renewable energy sources, and nuclear power is realistically unlimited as well. None of these emit CO2, and none of these make us dependent on foreign oil. Oil which, by the way, is most decidedly not in unlimited supply. Most of the estimates of oil reserves you see are vastly inflated as compared to what we can realistically extract at a reasonable price. You can get all the oil you want... if you're willing to pay $400/barrel!
 
Top Bottom