OK, now answer my question. How phony is it to profit off an unproven theory that you are advocating?
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?
If Global Warming (cap and trade) and green energy was a Republican agenda, the left would be screaming follow the money!
If Global Warming (cap and trade) and green energy was a Republican agenda, the left would be screaming follow the money!
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 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.
No, they're just information from links.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
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?