AL GORE AT IT AGAIN
- Thread starter wheredwhogo?
- Start date
Ram From Hell
Full Access Member
While I chalk up much of the hysteria about global warming to the inane ravings of fuckle chuckers like Gore, some of the actual science is correct. When the mean water temps in the paths of developing storms rise, it does transfer a greater amount of heat energy to them. There is no doubt that we will have more severe and unusual weather related to climate change.
What I can't stand is the blame game. Humans contribute to CO2, but consider how much we proportionally contribute to, say, a volcanic eruption. I consider deforestation, especially in the equatorial region, to be more detrimental due to the reduction in CO2 absorption. Also irritating is how the relationship between rises in prehistoric earth temperatures which are linked to a rise in CO2 is used to blame us. The deep ocean core samples demonstrate that the global climate has run this cycle many times in its history, all without our presence. So while it is an inescapable truth that we are likely contributing to a slight acceleration in the cycle, we are by no means the culprit in its occurrence. It is also foolhardy to think that we possess the ability to discernibly slow or reverse the climatic changes that are at work whether or not we exist.
That's about all I have to say about that.:deadhorse:
What I can't stand is the blame game. Humans contribute to CO2, but consider how much we proportionally contribute to, say, a volcanic eruption. I consider deforestation, especially in the equatorial region, to be more detrimental due to the reduction in CO2 absorption. Also irritating is how the relationship between rises in prehistoric earth temperatures which are linked to a rise in CO2 is used to blame us. The deep ocean core samples demonstrate that the global climate has run this cycle many times in its history, all without our presence. So while it is an inescapable truth that we are likely contributing to a slight acceleration in the cycle, we are by no means the culprit in its occurrence. It is also foolhardy to think that we possess the ability to discernibly slow or reverse the climatic changes that are at work whether or not we exist.
That's about all I have to say about that.:deadhorse:
FATJACK
Full Access Member
Yeah, me too !!
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2007
- Messages
- 5,966
- Reaction score
- 1
While we appreciate your knowledge and reply, you seem to be wasting alot of time that could be used elsewhere.Ram From Hell said:While I chalk up much of the hysteria about global warming to the inane ravings of fuckle chuckers like Gore, some of the actual science is correct. When the mean water temps in the paths of developing storms rise, it does transfer a greater amount of heat energy to them. There is no doubt that we will have more severe and unusual weather related to climate change.
What I can't stand is the blame game. Humans contribute to CO2, but consider how much we proportionally contribute to, say, a volcanic eruption. I consider deforestation, especially in the equatorial region, to be more detrimental due to the reduction in CO2 absorption. Also irritating is how the relationship between rises in prehistoric earth temperatures which are linked to a rise in CO2 is used to blame us. The deep ocean core samples demonstrate that the global climate has run this cycle many times in its history, all without our presence. So while it is an inescapable truth that we are likely contributing to a slight acceleration in the cycle, we are by no means the culprit in its occurrence. It is also foolhardy to think that we possess the ability to discernibly slow or reverse the climatic changes that are at work whether or not we exist.
That's about all I have to say about that.:deadhorse:
In english, We just want videos of your truck in action, we already know Gore is a d****bag.
Thanks!!!
Texas Yellow Fever
Full Access Member
Ram From Hell said:While I chalk up much of the hysteria about global warming to the inane ravings of fuckle chuckers like Gore, some of the actual science is correct. When the mean water temps in the paths of developing storms rise, it does transfer a greater amount of heat energy to them. There is no doubt that we will have more severe and unusual weather related to climate change.
What I can't stand is the blame game. Humans contribute to CO2, but consider how much we proportionally contribute to, say, a volcanic eruption. I consider deforestation, especially in the equatorial region, to be more detrimental due to the reduction in CO2 absorption. Also irritating is how the relationship between rises in prehistoric earth temperatures which are linked to a rise in CO2 is used to blame us. The deep ocean core samples demonstrate that the global climate has run this cycle many times in its history, all without our presence. So while it is an inescapable truth that we are likely contributing to a slight acceleration in the cycle, we are by no means the culprit in its occurrence. It is also foolhardy to think that we possess the ability to discernibly slow or reverse the climatic changes that are at work whether or not we exist.
That's about all I have to say about that.:deadhorse:
Damn well said!!! IMHO Gore and his moronic bretheren are just looking to take advantage of the natural cycle for personal gain and nothing pisses me off anymore than that kind of behavior...
Ram From Hell
Full Access Member
BurntRubber said:While we appreciate your knowledge and reply, you seem to be wasting alot of time that could be used elsewhere.
In english, We just want videos of your truck in action, we already know Gore is a d****bag.
Thanks!!!
Yeah, yeah, yeah. The nitrous/propane/gas kit came in this week. Once it's installed, my tuner gets it. Then the fun can begin.
Oh yeah, and Gore is an ass pipe. Got to stay on topic here.
Kevan
Full Access Member
From another site:
DATE: April 30, 2008
TIME: 11:49AM
LOCATION: Columbus, OH
GPS: 40°02'48" N; -82°49'54" W
A Freeze Warning was issued the night before, so in order to protect the several hundred dollars we'd just spent on new flora for the house:
That's just the left side by the front door.
There were 40 other plants around the house that were also covered.
Al won the Nobel Prize for what again?
I forget.
DATE: April 30, 2008
TIME: 11:49AM
LOCATION: Columbus, OH
GPS: 40°02'48" N; -82°49'54" W
A Freeze Warning was issued the night before, so in order to protect the several hundred dollars we'd just spent on new flora for the house:
That's just the left side by the front door.
There were 40 other plants around the house that were also covered.
Al won the Nobel Prize for what again?
I forget.
That's a damn nice collection of plastic bags you have there Kevan.
Ram From Hell
Full Access Member
Christ, man! What are you thinking?? Do you have any idea how much the use of plastic bags increases your carbon footprint?:dontknow:
Some eco-nazi somewhere is looking for you as we speak!:rock:
Some eco-nazi somewhere is looking for you as we speak!:rock:
Kevan
Full Access Member
To quote the famous Darth BoBo: "BRING IT ON!"
I've got enough non-eco-friendly stuff here to give even the most hearty granola-chewer an aneurysm.
Sasquatch ain't got nothin' on me when it comes to footprints.
I've got enough non-eco-friendly stuff here to give even the most hearty granola-chewer an aneurysm.
Sasquatch ain't got nothin' on me when it comes to footprints.
Environmentalists' Wild Predictions
By Walter E. Williams
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
Now that another Earth Day has come and gone, let's look at some environmentalist predictions that they would prefer we forget.
At the first Earth Day celebration, in 1969, environmentalist Nigel Calder warned, "The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind." C.C. Wallen of the World Meteorological Organization said, "The cooling since 1940 has been large enough and consistent enough that it will not soon be reversed." In 1968, Professor Paul Ehrlich, Vice President Gore's hero and mentor, predicted there would be a major food shortage in the U.S. and "in the 1970s ... hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death." Ehrlich forecasted that 65 million Americans would die of starvation between 1980 and 1989, and by 1999 the U.S. population would have declined to 22.6 million. Ehrlich's predictions about England were gloomier: "If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000."
In 1972, a report was written for the Club of Rome warning the world would run out of gold by 1981, mercury and silver by 1985, tin by 1987 and petroleum, copper, lead and natural gas by 1992. Gordon Taylor, in his 1970 book "The Doomsday Book," said Americans were using 50 percent of the world's resources and "by 2000 they [Americans] will, if permitted, be using all of them." In 1975, the Environmental Fund took out full-page ads warning, "The World as we know it will likely be ruined by the year 2000."
Harvard University biologist George Wald in 1970 warned, "... civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind." That was the same year that Sen. Gaylord Nelson warned, in Look Magazine, that by 1995 "... somewhere between 75 and 85 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct."
It's not just latter-day doomsayers who have been wrong; doomsayers have always been wrong. In 1885, the U.S. Geological Survey announced there was "little or no chance" of oil being discovered in California, and a few years later they said the same about Kansas and Texas. In 1939, the U.S. Department of the Interior said American oil supplies would last only another 13 years. In 1949, the Secretary of the Interior said the end of U.S. oil supplies was in sight. Having learned nothing from its earlier erroneous claims, in 1974 the U.S. Geological Survey advised us that the U.S. had only a 10-year supply of natural gas. The fact of the matter, according to the American Gas Association, there's a 1,000 to 2,500 year supply.
Here are my questions: In 1970, when environmentalists were making predictions of manmade global cooling and the threat of an ice age and millions of Americans starving to death, what kind of government policy should we have undertaken to prevent such a calamity? When Ehrlich predicted that England would not exist in the year 2000, what steps should the British Parliament have taken in 1970 to prevent such a dire outcome? In 1939, when the U.S. Department of the Interior warned that we only had oil supplies for another 13 years, what actions should President Roosevelt have taken? Finally, what makes us think that environmental alarmism is any more correct now that they have switched their tune to manmade global warming?
Here are a few facts: Over 95 percent of the greenhouse effect is the result of water vapor in Earth's atmosphere. Without the greenhouse effect, Earth's average temperature would be zero degrees Fahrenheit. Most climate change is a result of the orbital eccentricities of Earth and variations in the sun's output. On top of that, natural wetlands produce more greenhouse gas contributions annually than all human sources combined.
By Walter E. Williams
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
Now that another Earth Day has come and gone, let's look at some environmentalist predictions that they would prefer we forget.
At the first Earth Day celebration, in 1969, environmentalist Nigel Calder warned, "The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind." C.C. Wallen of the World Meteorological Organization said, "The cooling since 1940 has been large enough and consistent enough that it will not soon be reversed." In 1968, Professor Paul Ehrlich, Vice President Gore's hero and mentor, predicted there would be a major food shortage in the U.S. and "in the 1970s ... hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death." Ehrlich forecasted that 65 million Americans would die of starvation between 1980 and 1989, and by 1999 the U.S. population would have declined to 22.6 million. Ehrlich's predictions about England were gloomier: "If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000."
In 1972, a report was written for the Club of Rome warning the world would run out of gold by 1981, mercury and silver by 1985, tin by 1987 and petroleum, copper, lead and natural gas by 1992. Gordon Taylor, in his 1970 book "The Doomsday Book," said Americans were using 50 percent of the world's resources and "by 2000 they [Americans] will, if permitted, be using all of them." In 1975, the Environmental Fund took out full-page ads warning, "The World as we know it will likely be ruined by the year 2000."
Harvard University biologist George Wald in 1970 warned, "... civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind." That was the same year that Sen. Gaylord Nelson warned, in Look Magazine, that by 1995 "... somewhere between 75 and 85 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct."
It's not just latter-day doomsayers who have been wrong; doomsayers have always been wrong. In 1885, the U.S. Geological Survey announced there was "little or no chance" of oil being discovered in California, and a few years later they said the same about Kansas and Texas. In 1939, the U.S. Department of the Interior said American oil supplies would last only another 13 years. In 1949, the Secretary of the Interior said the end of U.S. oil supplies was in sight. Having learned nothing from its earlier erroneous claims, in 1974 the U.S. Geological Survey advised us that the U.S. had only a 10-year supply of natural gas. The fact of the matter, according to the American Gas Association, there's a 1,000 to 2,500 year supply.
Here are my questions: In 1970, when environmentalists were making predictions of manmade global cooling and the threat of an ice age and millions of Americans starving to death, what kind of government policy should we have undertaken to prevent such a calamity? When Ehrlich predicted that England would not exist in the year 2000, what steps should the British Parliament have taken in 1970 to prevent such a dire outcome? In 1939, when the U.S. Department of the Interior warned that we only had oil supplies for another 13 years, what actions should President Roosevelt have taken? Finally, what makes us think that environmental alarmism is any more correct now that they have switched their tune to manmade global warming?
Here are a few facts: Over 95 percent of the greenhouse effect is the result of water vapor in Earth's atmosphere. Without the greenhouse effect, Earth's average temperature would be zero degrees Fahrenheit. Most climate change is a result of the orbital eccentricities of Earth and variations in the sun's output. On top of that, natural wetlands produce more greenhouse gas contributions annually than all human sources combined.
Don't have the article to quote, but a few months back one of NASA's top scientists was interviewed on Global Warming and he stated that he did not believe in it. Furthermore, he brought up what I thought to be a good point, in that who are we to say the the climate we have today is the best one for us?
I usually tend to agree with rocket scientists because they are the only ones who can actually say, "it is rocket science." But I've been to Florida in the summer and if it gets any hotter down there the ground may burst into flames. :dontknow:
I usually tend to agree with rocket scientists because they are the only ones who can actually say, "it is rocket science."
But I've been to Florida in the summer and if it gets any hotter down there the ground may burst into flames. :dontknow:
Ram From Hell
Full Access Member
You know, the more I understand about this, the more this sounds like religion. Facts be damned, just wax passionately about something, and before you know it, you have a following.
Ram From Hell said:You know, the more I understand about this, the more this sounds like religion. Facts be damned, just wax passionately about something, and before you know it, you have a following.
That's a good comparison Eric.
Support Us
Become A Supporting Member Today!
