• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's 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!

What global warming?

I have never seen his movie, nor do I care to. But there's no denying that he is the person who has brought on the most awareness of this subject. Since his movie came out, people have started to think about their affect on the planet, and what they can do to change some destructive ways. Jeepers... for that he is hated. :doh

Yes, but a public figurehead only publicises; he doesn't affect either the way that data is handled, nor (more importantly) the validity of the data in the first place.
 
Yes, but a public figurehead only publicises; he doesn't affect either the way that data is handled, nor (more importantly) the validity of the data in the first place.

Exactly. He's taken the role of voice for the science because it is a subject that he's been passionate about for at least 2 decades. So he cares about the planet and the future of mankind... wow, what a dick.
 
Exactly. He's taken the role of voice for the science because it is a subject that he's been passionate about for at least 2 decades. So he cares about the planet and the future of mankind... wow, what a dick.

...except that he's so misleading that it's not even remotely amusing. He champions his own personal gain, not the welfare of mankind.
 
I have never seen his movie, nor do I care to. But there's no denying that he is the person who has brought on the most awareness of this subject. Since his movie came out, people have started to think about their affect on the planet, and what they can do to change some destructive ways. Jeepers... for that he is hated. :doh

It's because he represents a major threat to the status quo. Industry hates him, and so by proxy the American right wing hates him since the right wing represents business interests before it represents public safety. In a way, I regret Al Gore publicizing global warming. The research is real and true regardless of what he says, but because he is a Democrat that automatically polarized the American debate. I'm glad a high profile person spoke out, I just felt that the second Al Gore did, the fate of the debate was sealed.

It's now very unconservative to believe humans are destroying the planet, even though it's true. Political lines are drawn faster than scientific and factual ones. It has always been that way in the United States.
 
In a way, I regret Al Gore publicizing global warming. The research is real and true regardless of what he says, but because he is a Democrat that automatically polarized the American debate. I'm glad a high profile person spoke out, I just felt that the second Al Gore did, the fate of the debate was sealed.

Right... it's not because he's a snake oil salesman peddling exemptions to those feeling guilty or self-righteous enough to buy them. That has nothing to do with it, right?
 
It's because he represents a major threat to the status quo. Industry hates him, and so by proxy the American right wing hates him since the right wing represents business interests before it represents public safety. In a way, I regret Al Gore publicizing global warming. The research is real and true regardless of what he says, but because he is a Democrat that automatically polarized the American debate. I'm glad a high profile person spoke out, I just felt that the second Al Gore did, the fate of the debate was sealed.

It's now very unconservative to believe humans are destroying the planet, even though it's true. Political lines are drawn faster than scientific and factual ones. It has always been that way in the United States.

I think you hit the nail on the head. It's pathetic, ain't it?
 
Right... it's not because he's a snake oil salesman peddling exemptions to those feeling guilty or self-righteous enough to buy them. That has nothing to do with it, right?

Do you honestly think that Gore is doing this solely for the money? Is that what you think?
 
Do you honestly think that Gore is doing this solely for the money? Is that what you think?

Well, since he has actually admitted to having stakes invested in companies that will benefit from global warming hysteria... what do you think?


Something to consider from Bloomberg:
Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore left the White House seven years ago with less than $2 million in assets, including a Virginia home and the family farm in Tennessee. Now he's making enough to put $35 million in hedge funds and other private partnerships.
Gore invested the money with Capricorn Investment Group LLC, a Palo Alto, California, firm that selects the private funds for clients and invests in makers of environmentally friendly products, according to a Feb. 1 securities filing. Capricorn was founded by billionaire Jeffrey Skoll, former president of EBay Inc. and an executive producer of Gore's Oscar-winning documentary film on global warming.

Let me interpret that for you.

The longer he can prop up the GW scare, the more money he stands to make, thanks to his investments.

Also, he charges roughly $175,000 every time he speaks publicly.

I think it was L. Ron Hubbard who once said that the easiest way to make money was to start your own religion.
 
All right, I'll excuse myself. That's all I wanted to say, and I'm no scientist, just one of the unfortunate 90s kids who had to listen to it, not knowing if it was real or not. And I still don't, but I do notice that Al Gore doesn't act very concerned like he really believes it. And yes, a scheduled End of the World was less scary to me than a completely harsh random one with no mercy. Just trying to voice my view on GW. Cya. :)

I never could understand this "scientists can do now wrong" belief. Last time I looked they were people just like us, and all people make mistakes. Naturally, they can't admit it because that would negate all their papers and books and destroy their credibility.

Not... It could be that way, but it IS that way.

ricksfolly
 
Well, since he has actually admitted to having stakes invested in companies that will benefit from global warming hysteria... what do you think?


Something to consider from Bloomberg:


Let me interpret that for you.

The longer he can prop up the GW scare, the more money he stands to make, thanks to his investments.

Also, he charges roughly $175,000 every time he speaks publicly.

I think it was L. Ron Hubbard who once said that the easiest way to make money was to start your own religion.

Just because you profit off the work doesn't mean the work is not valuable or that you are automatically biased, and it certainly doesn't mean you're deceiving people or that you are doing it solely for the money.
I worked as a flight instructor for several years. I had a financial incentive to drag out the training, because the longer a student flew with me the more money I made. Yet, I did my best to provide fast, efficient, professional flight training. I loved doing it. You could have paid me a hundred times more or half as much and it wouldn't have changed my reasons for doing it.
Al Gore could lose millions or make billions, it doesn't matter to the science, nor does it automatically mean his interests are purely financial. You're making an assumption based largely in your pre-judgment of the issue and your biased opinion about liberals.

I never could understand this "scientists can do now wrong" belief. Last time I looked they were people just like us, and all people make mistakes. Naturally, they can't admit it because that would negate all their papers and books and destroy their credibility.

Not... It could be that way, but it IS that way.

ricksfolly

Nobody ever claimed science is infallible. Just because you are capable of being wrong doesn't mean you are always wrong, nor does it invalidate anything you've previously done. If a scientist writes a paper that is later proven false, that doesn't mean all of his past work is false, nor does it mean all of his future work is false.
So, to answer your post, nobody has ever claimed what you say and what you say about negating all their papers is also wrong.
 
Last edited:
Well, since he has actually admitted to having stakes invested in companies that will benefit from global warming hysteria... what do you think?


Something to consider from Bloomberg:


Let me interpret that for you.

The longer he can prop up the GW scare, the more money he stands to make, thanks to his investments.

Also, he charges roughly $175,000 every time he speaks publicly.

I think it was L. Ron Hubbard who once said that the easiest way to make money was to start your own religion.

According to Wiki, he's been an environmentalist for 34 years. A lot of what he makes goes into environment education (such as his movie).

So again I ask, is he in it for the money?
 
Just because you profit off the work doesn't mean the work is not valuable or that you are automatically biased, and it certainly doesn't mean you're deceiving people or that you are doing it solely for the money.
You're making an assumption based largely in your pre-judgment of the issue and your biased opinion about liberals.

The problem with engaging you in any debate is that you constantly presume to know what my system of beliefs are.

Since you've decided to play the "it's not about the money" card, tell me, what real, tangible effect do carbon credits have on the environment?
 
The problem with engaging you in any debate is that you constantly presume to know what my system of beliefs are.

Since you've decided to play the "it's not about the money" card, tell me, what real, tangible effect do carbon credits have on the environment?

Well, you haven't provided any real evidence that Gore was "in it for the money," so I took a stab at it.

The goal is a reduction in CO2 emissions worldwide, so trying to frame this discussion purely around carbon credits is a bit odd. Carbon credits have the effect of increasing the financial incentive to operate more cleanly. A company that operates above its "target" emissions must either figure out how to reduce emissions or absorb the extra cost of purchasing those carbon credits. A company that operates below its target can use that extra-cleanliness as an asset, in that they can sell those credits for some cash. Hooray free market! Of course, all of that really only has the effect of making companies operate more efficiently. That's a good thing, but substantial reduction in CO2 emissions is going to require a fundamental shift in the way we generate, distribute, and utilize energy. We need to move towards non-fossil-fuel vehicles and power plants.

Like, now. Even ignoring the global warming aspect, oil is not an unlimited resource. It is in our long-term best interests to be ahead of the curve when it comes to the technological research and market share of alternative energies. We'd hate to replace a dependency on foreign oil with a dependency on foreign solar panels, wind turbines, and electric cars!
 
Last edited:
Right... it's not because he's a snake oil salesman peddling exemptions to those feeling guilty or self-righteous enough to buy them. That has nothing to do with it, right?

I think I don't care what Al Gore thinks. I care what the science thinks. He just happens to be one person among millions who is presenting the facts.
 
According to Wiki, he's been an environmentalist for 34 years. A lot of what he makes goes into environment education (such as his movie).

So again I ask, is he in it for the money?

Please bring real sources to debates, wikipedia is not a source.

I'll pose the question to you too: How does the sale of carbon credits better the environment?

I'll wait while you think it over.
 
Actually I was thinking, that if someone really believed something, they'd act like it was real. I don't know him, but he is very rich with big houses and airplanes isn't he? Wouldn't someone who truly believed there was a problem with energy get a smaller home and cut way down on their electricity? I don't know if he has or not, and I don't think he should have to, but it's his own choice to do the right thing if he believes our civilization is killing the world. If he has, that's great for him, I'm just saying, you know? And with my health problems, the murcury lightbulbs make me nervous. I don't even eat fish because of my one kidney.
 
The goal is a reduction in CO2 emissions worldwide, so trying to frame this discussion purely around carbon credits is a bit odd. Carbon credits have the effect of increasing the financial incentive to operate more cleanly. A company that operates above its "target" emissions must either figure out how to reduce emissions or absorb the extra cost of purchasing those carbon credits. A company that operates below its target can use that extra-cleanliness as an asset, in that they can sell those credits for some cash. Hooray free market! Of course, all of that really only has the effect of making companies operate more efficiently.

My question was not how carbon credits affect the economy, it was how do they impact the environment. I'm really surprised that I have to break this down for you. You seem like a bright enough guy.

Assume the following:
Large Company produces x in carbon emissions
Small Company produces y in carbon emissions
n is total carbon output for the two companies

x+y= n

With me so far?

Large Company needs, for the sake of conjecture, two more carbon credits for their expanding production, Small Company has two to sell.

(x+2) + (y-2) = n

Total carbon output is the same, only the companies emitting have changed. Sure there's a market for selling intangible goods, but this does not equal reduced carbon emissions.
 
My question was not how carbon credits affect the economy, it was how do they impact the environment. I'm really surprised that I have to break this down for you. You seem like a bright enough guy.

Assume the following:
Large Company produces x in carbon emissions
Small Company produces y in carbon emissions
n is total carbon output for the two companies

x+y= n

With me so far?

Large Company needs, for the sake of conjecture, two more carbon credits for their expanding production, Small Company has two to sell.

(x+2) + (y-2) = n

Total carbon output is the same, only the companies emitting have changed. Sure there's a market for selling intangible goods, but this does not equal reduced carbon emissions.

Your equations assume that carbon dioxide emissions are a constant, zero-sum "product," and that the emissions cap is equal to the average company's present output. These are both incorrect.

The trading of the credit itself is not what reduces the output, it's the change in business practices in the attempt to take advantage of the credit that reduces emissions. Since all companies would have a financial incentive to reduce CO2 emissions, it is reasonable to expect that the total emissions will decrease.
 
Oh yes, one more question. Is carbon dioxide the problem? But isn't that what we exchange for plants for oxygen, or am I thinking of a different term? How can us and plants sharing breath with each other cause Global Warming?
 
Your equations assume that carbon dioxide emissions are a constant, zero-sum "product," and that the emissions cap is equal to the average company's present output. These are both incorrect.

The trading of the credit itself is not what reduces the output, it's the change in business practices in the attempt to take advantage of the credit that reduces emissions. Since all companies would have a financial incentive to reduce CO2 emissions, it is reasonable to expect that the total emissions will decrease.

If the company gains a larger benefit from running at whatever capacity they need in order to meet market demands, the financial incentive is a moot point, unless the price of carbon credits becomes so cost ineffective that they are forced to scale back output, thereby paying financially in lost profits.

How's your free market looking now?

Btw, I'm thinking about selling carbon credits on ebay. For every $100 I'm sent, I'll plant a ficus. Are you interested in buying? I'll really make sure to reduce your carbon footprint. I promise.
 
Oh yes, one more question. Is carbon dioxide the problem? But isn't that what we exchange for plants for oxygen, or am I thinking of a different term? How can us and plants sharing breath with each other cause Global Warming?

The breathing is fine! We should definitely continue breathing. ;) However, the burning of fossil fuels also spits out lots of carbon dioxide. (about 29,000,000,000 tons per year from man-made sources) Nature can't absorb this much extra carbon.

Carbon dioxide absorbs a particular spectrum of energy - longwave infrared radiation. This is the same "heat" energy that the earth radiates. (think like a hot sidewalk or an electric stove) Without carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, this heat would escape the earth out into space. Instead, it gets absorbed on the way out and warms the earth. For the most part, this is actually a good thing. If ALL of that heat escaped, the earth would be a giant ball of ice. So what's the problem?

Well, we're rapidly adding to the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere, which is causing a warming trend much faster than the earth usually goes through. Plants and animals can only adapt to changes so fast. Several mass-extinction events are linked to periods where the earth rapidly changed its temperature. So, if the earth warms too fast we can expect to see animals start dying off, and our crops will have trouble adapting so growing food will probably become increasingly difficult.

We're not going to all die off, not by a long shot. Food prices will go up, and countries that have trouble feeding themselves will have that problem become even worse. Ocean levels will rise, both by melting glaciers and polar ice caps as well as thermal expansion of the ocean. (liquids increase in volume somewhat when they are warmed up. this is how a thermometer works actually!) A higher ocean level will decrease usable land area, something that will be problematic in island nations or low-lying areas like Florida or the south coast of India.

Also worth noting is that carbon dioxide is not the only greenhouse gas. Methane, CFCs, and nitrous oxide are all greenhouse gases which mankind spits out into the atmosphere. Water vapor is also a greenhouse gas, but we can't really add extra water vapor to the atmosphere, it all just falls back out as rain. There are also different reasons that the earth will warm or cool, which is why the earth has changed temperature gradually throughout all of its history. Large volcanic eruptions can cool the earth, because the ash blocks out part of the sunlight. The sun itself changes its output on a fairly regular ~11-year up and down cycle, and it also has long-term trends to account for. (we measure this) The earth's orbit is also not completely stable, there's a regular, gradual shift in various orbital mechanics that work in a ~20,000 year cycle. (this effects the amount of sunlight that hits us) Even the position of the continents can affect temperature, because land and ocean absorb heat differently.
 
If the company gains a larger benefit from running at whatever capacity they need in order to meet market demands, the financial incentive is a moot point, unless the price of carbon credits becomes so cost ineffective that they are forced to scale back output, thereby paying financially in lost profits.

How's your free market looking now?

Btw, I'm thinking about selling carbon credits on ebay. For every $100 I'm sent, I'll plant a ficus. Are you interested in buying? I'll really make sure to reduce your carbon footprint. I promise.

The whole point behind carbon taxes is to charge companies who have no care in the world about the damage they are doing. Environmental damage is never calculated as being part of the input costs of production, and such tax laws allow it to be factored in. Someone has to do the cleanup. My only problem with the carbon tax system is that the government needs to always make sure that the carbon tax revenue goes towards actually repairing environmental damage, and so far it has been a mixed bag on that front. If the money isn't going towards appropriate projects then the whole idea is just a senseless cash grab.
 
The whole point behind carbon taxes is to charge companies who have no care in the world about the damage they are doing. Environmental damage is never calculated as being part of the input costs of production, and such tax laws allow it to be factored in. Someone has to do the cleanup. If the money isn't going towards appropriate projects then the whole idea is just a senseless cash grab.

This is a myth perpetuated by the Gore crowd. Government already has every recourse against companies that are causing damage to the environment as a result of their operations.
 
Oh yes, one more question. Is carbon dioxide the problem? But isn't that what we exchange for plants for oxygen, or am I thinking of a different term? How can us and plants sharing breath with each other cause Global Warming?

Plants love carbon dioxide. Bring it on. If it causes global warming all the better. Growing seasons will be longer and we'll be able to grow food in places we never could before.
We could put a stop to anyone ever going hungry again. GW alarmists must hate people to want to put a stop to a good thing like that.;)
 
Back
Top Bottom