Al Gore to Rick Perry: Climate scientists aren't motivated by money

[LordBrownTrout]

CO2 is not a dangerous gas, CO is. Without CO2, we wouldn't be here.

Well then, put a plastic bag over your head and a rubber band around your neck and breath your own very safe CO2 for an hour.

We breathe air that is 21 percent oxygen, and we require oxygen to live. So you might think that breathing 100 percent oxygen would be good for us -- but actually it can be harmful. So, the short answer is, pure oxygen is generally bad, and sometimes toxic. To understand why, you need to go into some detail...



HowStuffWorks "Is it harmful to breathe 100-percent oxygen?"
​

Well that idiotic post blew up in your face...

​

Exactly, in concentrate, CO2, O2, N2 are extremely dangerous. It doesn't exist in these forms(concentrate) in nature though. The last I checked, the earth's atmosphere is approx 78 percent nitrogen, 21 percent oxygen, with trace elements of CO2, argon, neon, and methane.

 

[edthecynic]

CO2 is not a dangerous gas, CO is. Without CO2, we wouldn't be here.

Well then, put a plastic bag over your head and a rubber band around your neck and breath your own very safe CO2 for an hour.

We breathe air that is 21 percent oxygen, and we require oxygen to live. So you might think that breathing 100 percent oxygen would be good for us -- but actually it can be harmful. So, the short answer is, pure oxygen is generally bad, and sometimes toxic. To understand why, you need to go into some detail...
HowStuffWorks "Is it harmful to breathe 100-percent oxygen?"
​

Well that idiotic post blew up in your face...

Not quite! What blew up in your face was the claim that CO2 is not a dangerous gas because we need it to survive. As you point out, while we need O2 to survive, too much of it can be harmful. And by the same token, CO2 may be needed, but too much can also be harmful.

So what you blew up was the Straw Man argument of deniers that anyone who argues that too much CO2 is bad, is arguing that ALL CO2 is bad.

Thank you.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

On the contrary, I've been studying it for 20 years.

What's your PhD in ?

No PhD, bachelors in geology/geohydrology, masters in hydrology/remote sensing/GIS.

So you're a petroleum engineer?

**Without CO2 , the planet would be much colder, unable to trap the sun's heat.

With too much of it - the planet gets too hot. Not that hard to understand.

I'm surprised that anyone could think that we could survive without carbon dioxide.

NO ONE DOES

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

And your posts show your lack of knowledge.

Immie

There's no useful science knowledge to be gained from blogs or cable TV.

Have you ever posted anything that shows you have any knowledge of anything at all?

The only posts I have ever seen from you say exactly nothing at all.

You post stupid shit like:

Your child like understanding of science is cute.

Sorry I just don't think you've read much outside of right wing blogs and FOX News.

You have 911 posts and yet have shown nothing of substance. Clearly, you cannot think for yourself.

Please get back to me when you have something of substance to say. I'm looking forward to that day.

Immie

meow meow meow meow meow meow

 

[AmericanFirst]

Gore is losing his mind. He has lost his wife, and isn't convincing anyone. Listen to him, this is desperation and anger.

Al Gore Meltdown at the Aspen Institute - Profanity laced rant as Global Warming Scam collapses - YouTube

Hahaha...

The funny part is that those alleged "pollutants" are products of the earth itself.

May as well claim a person can die from their own germs.

Labeling CO2, without which life would not exist, as a pollutant that must be regulated has implications in every aspect of your life. We exhale CO2.

Just proves how whacky the man caused climate change nitwits are, especialy their leader al "I tried to buy the election" gore.

 

[AmericanFirst]

Hahaha...

The funny part is that those alleged "pollutants" are products of the earth itself.

May as well claim a person can die from their own germs.

Labeling CO2, without which life would not exist, as a pollutant that must be regulated has implications in every aspect of your life. We exhale CO2.

Life wouldn't exist without ozone, either, why don' you go huff on some of that stuff for a while and get back to us.

Folks, this is proof of lefty nitwits stupidity. Man made global warming=lefty dimwit lying, again.

 

[AmericanFirst]

You mean give a small African country money just so I can produce a product because they aren't?

Pay someone to not be productive?

Sounds like typical liberal logic to me....

"it's not fair they have no money so make the productive give them money- global communism my fellow Marxists - a vision for the future."

Actually, my understanding of Cap and Trade is that it is the modern, read that Pope Al Gore, idea of indulgences sold by the Catholic Church 600 years ago. Quite a scam if you can get it pushed through Congress.

Immie

Your understanding is very stupid then.

You are just stupid. Cap and trade is stupid, but then didn't gore come up with it? Enough said.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

What's your PhD in ?

No PhD, bachelors in geology/geohydrology, masters in hydrology/remote sensing/GIS.

So you're a petroleum engineer?

**Without CO2 , the planet would be much colder, unable to trap the sun's heat.

With too much of it - the planet gets too hot. Not that hard to understand.

I'm surprised that anyone could think that we could survive without carbon dioxide.

NO ONE DOES

I'll not argue with those points. All are valid. Yes, petroleum engineer/geologist with concentration in water.

 

[daveman]

Can anyone really be this stupid?

Yeah. You.


Becoming a scientist is not the road to riches. Just ask any graduate student or post-doctoral researcher or research professor.

The pay is better than average once you get tenured - but that process can take 12-20 years after college, during which time you get paid shit.

Anyone who wants to get rich does not go that path.

EDIT:
I just looked up the salary of one of my professors. He is a full tenured professor and is paid 92k a year. A good living - hardly rich though.

Getting to that point requires 4-7 years of getting paid 20k or less, 1-6 years of getting paid about 40k, and starting as an un-tenured assistant professor at around 60k and it usually takes 7 years for tenur.

NASA Scientist Accused Of Using Celeb Status Among Environmental Groups To Enrich Himself | FoxNews.com

The NASA scientist who once claimed the Bush administration tried to "silence" his global warming claims is now accused of receiving more than $1.2 million from the very environmental organizations whose agenda he advocated.

In a lawsuit filed Tuesday in Washington, D.C., a group claims NASA is withholding documents that show James Hansen failed to comply with ethics rules and financial disclosures regarding substantial compensation he earned outside his $180,000 taxpayer-paid position as director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

--

he lawsuit claims Hansen privately profited from his public job in violation of federal ethics rules, and NASA allowed him to do it because of his influence in the media and celebrity status among environmental groups, which rewarded him handsomely the last four years.

Gifts, speaking fees, prizes and consulting compensation include:

-- A shared $1 million prize from the Dan David Foundation for his "profound contribution to humanity." Hansen's cut ranged from $333,000 to $500,000, Horner said, adding that the precise amount is not known because Hansen's publicly available financial disclosure form only shows the prize was "an amount in excess of $5,000."

-- The 2010 Blue Planet prize worth $550,000 from the Asahi Glass Foundation, which recognizes efforts to solve environmental issues.

-- The Sophie Prize for his "political activism," worth $100,000. The Sophie Prize is meant to "inspire people working towards a sustainable future."

-- Speaking fees totaling $48,164 from a range of mostly environmental organizations.

-- A $15,000 participation fee, waived by the W.J. Clinton Foundation for its 2009 Waterkeeper Conference.

-- $720,000 in legal advice and media consulting services provided by The George Soros Open Society Institute. Hansen said he did not take "direct" support from Soros but accepted "pro bono legal advice."

Hansen did not respond to Fox News' request for comment.

Federal rules prohibit government employees from receiving certain types of income outside their job. Employees are required to file Form 17-60 in writing before any outside activity. And annually, they're required to submit Form SF 278, after receiving outside compensation.​

 

[daveman]

CO2 is not a dangerous gas, CO is. Without CO2, we wouldn't be here.

Well then, put a plastic bag over your head and a rubber band around your neck and breath your own very safe CO2 for an hour.

If CO2 is so dangerous, it's completely irresponsible of you to continue exhaling it.

Selfish bastard.

 

[daveman]

Junk science pays better, so I'm siding with Gore here... Qualified scientists who are willing to set aside science and say what the mass'a wants get taken real good care of by big oil and co.

And your proof if this is...what, exactly? "Everybody knows"?

 

[oreo]

Can anyone really be this stupid?

Yeah--Al Gore's motivation is MONEY-- I think he get's about 100K everytime he makes a speech about Global warming. Scientists get their money from GRANTS--and the more Hysteria they can ring in the more money they get.

HERE IS ONE OF MY FAVORITES--A MUST READ:



I apologize, I neglected to mention that this report was from
November 2, 1922, as reported by the AP and published in
The Washington Post 88+ years ago_

View attachment 14947

And don't forget this from the 70s.

There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production – with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas – parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia – where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.

The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree – a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars’ worth of damage in 13 U.S. states.

To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world’s weather. The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. “A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,” warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, “because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.”

A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972.

Newsweek on the cooling world

Thanks for that one--I hadn't seen it.

 

[oreo]

Well then, put a plastic bag over your head and a rubber band around your neck and breath your own very safe CO2 for an hour.

We breathe air that is 21 percent oxygen, and we require oxygen to live. So you might think that breathing 100 percent oxygen would be good for us -- but actually it can be harmful. So, the short answer is, pure oxygen is generally bad, and sometimes toxic. To understand why, you need to go into some detail...
HowStuffWorks "Is it harmful to breathe 100-percent oxygen?"
​

Well that idiotic post blew up in your face...

Not quite! What blew up in your face was the claim that CO2 is not a dangerous gas because we need it to survive. As you point out, while we need O2 to survive, too much of it can be harmful. And by the same token, CO2 may be needed, but too much can also be harmful.

So what you blew up was the Straw Man argument of deniers that anyone who argues that too much CO2 is bad, is arguing that ALL CO2 is bad.

Thank you.

There have been warnings about global warming through-out our written history.

The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some
places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the
Commerce Department yesterday from Consulafft, at Bergen, Norway. Reports
from fishermen, seal hunters, and explorers all point to a radical change in
climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone.
Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far
north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters
showed the gulf stream still very warm. Great masses of ice have been
replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at
many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared.
Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while
vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never before ventured so far
north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds. Within a few
years it is predicted that due to the ice melt the sea will rise and make
most coastal cities uninhabitable.

I apologize, I neglected to mention that this report was from
November 2, 1922, as reported by the AP and published in
The Washington Post 88+ years ago_

The hysteria continues--and it's always about MONEY and new funding. What would a scientist do--if they didn't have money or could get grants? What would Al Gore do if he couldn't make a 100K speech about Global warming?

 

[Missourian]

 

[bripat9643]

That is just too beautiful for words. I have always found Hansen's preaching about global warming suspicious. A genuine scientist doesn't engage in the kind of demagoguery that Hansen is so fond of.

It's also interesting to note how leftwing groups reward scientists who swallow the Kool-Aid. These are the same clowns who claim recieving one cent of money from private industry discredits anything a skeptical scientist has to say.

NASA Scientist Accused Of Using Celeb Status Among Environmental Groups To Enrich Himself | FoxNews.com

The NASA scientist who once claimed the Bush administration tried to "silence" his global warming claims is now accused of receiving more than $1.2 million from the very environmental organizations whose agenda he advocated.

In a lawsuit filed Tuesday in Washington, D.C., a group claims NASA is withholding documents that show James Hansen failed to comply with ethics rules and financial disclosures regarding substantial compensation he earned outside his $180,000 taxpayer-paid position as director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

--

he lawsuit claims Hansen privately profited from his public job in violation of federal ethics rules, and NASA allowed him to do it because of his influence in the media and celebrity status among environmental groups, which rewarded him handsomely the last four years.

Gifts, speaking fees, prizes and consulting compensation include:

-- A shared $1 million prize from the Dan David Foundation for his "profound contribution to humanity." Hansen's cut ranged from $333,000 to $500,000, Horner said, adding that the precise amount is not known because Hansen's publicly available financial disclosure form only shows the prize was "an amount in excess of $5,000."

-- The 2010 Blue Planet prize worth $550,000 from the Asahi Glass Foundation, which recognizes efforts to solve environmental issues.

-- The Sophie Prize for his "political activism," worth $100,000. The Sophie Prize is meant to "inspire people working towards a sustainable future."

-- Speaking fees totaling $48,164 from a range of mostly environmental organizations.

-- A $15,000 participation fee, waived by the W.J. Clinton Foundation for its 2009 Waterkeeper Conference.

-- $720,000 in legal advice and media consulting services provided by The George Soros Open Society Institute. Hansen said he did not take "direct" support from Soros but accepted "pro bono legal advice."

Hansen did not respond to Fox News' request for comment.

Federal rules prohibit government employees from receiving certain types of income outside their job. Employees are required to file Form 17-60 in writing before any outside activity. And annually, they're required to submit Form SF 278, after receiving outside compensation.​

 

[Lakhota]

Fox News: ‘Facts Are Certainly’ On The Side Of Global Warming, But ‘It Doesn’t Matter’ | ThinkProgress

 

[daveman]

That is just too beautiful for words. I have always found Hansen's preaching about global warming suspicious. A genuine scientist doesn't engage in the kind of demagoguery that Hansen is so fond of.

It's also interesting to note how leftwing groups reward scientists who swallow the Kool-Aid. These are the same clowns who claim recieving one cent of money from private industry discredits anything a skeptical scientist has to say.

"Follow the money! Errr...except on our side!"

/AGW cultist

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

No PhD, bachelors in geology/geohydrology, masters in hydrology/remote sensing/GIS.

So you're a petroleum engineer?



With too much of it - the planet gets too hot. Not that hard to understand.

I'm surprised that anyone could think that we could survive without carbon dioxide.

NO ONE DOES

I'll not argue with those points. All are valid. Yes, petroleum engineer/geologist with concentration in water.

Fine then. I guess I forget what the argument was about.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Federal rules prohibit government employees from receiving certain types of income outside their job.

Which types? Is it too much to ask that we get to read the rules before we've decided if they've been violated, or would that be just entirely too much effort on the part of you or FOX "News" ?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

What would a scientist do--if they didn't have money or could get grants?

They wouldn't be able to do anything. Science requires funding. If you don't want anymore scientific progress, don't fund it.