Al Gore typical lib: do as I say not as I do

[Old Rocks]

Yes, in the past, there have been records of rapid climatic changes that were disastrous for the life living at that time. Many of these changes were created by a rapid increase or decline in the atmospheric GHGs. Now we are the agent of the increase, rather than volcanic activity intruding on clathrates. But the result is the same, rapid accumulation of GHGs in the atmosphere. And there is absolutely no reason to believe that the results will be differant.

By the way, such catastrophes are not in line with Uniformitarianism, but puntated equalibrium. Not opposing ideas at all.

 

[westwall]

You haven't proven I'm wrong, westwall. You're the one making the declaration now. At least place the same onus on yourself that you put on others. You haven't explained where any extra trapped energy due to added GHGs would be going, if not to heat the earth.

Wrong again boyo. You have made the extraordinary claim that we should ignore basic geology (and for that matter all the basic fundamental understanding of physical science in general) and believe a theory that is based almost entirely on computer models.

As Aristotle says, you have made these claims, you have to prove them. I get to rely on 300 years of science (and a 4.5 billion year old lab experiment) to tell me that what is occuring is natural.

You havn't proven that there IS extra energy, you merely assume there is. And I hope you know what happens when you assume things?

 

[westwall]

Yes, in the past, there have been records of rapid climatic changes that were disastrous for the life living at that time. Many of these changes were created by a rapid increase or decline in the atmospheric GHGs. Now we are the agent of the increase, rather than volcanic activity intruding on clathrates. But the result is the same, rapid accumulation of GHGs in the atmosphere. And there is absolutely no reason to believe that the results will be differant.

By the way, such catastrophes are not in line with Uniformitarianism, but puntated equalibrium. Not opposing ideas at all.

You are relying on theories that have no empirical data to support them olfraud. Climatic "events" have allways been the result of geologic or extra terrestrial influence.
The paper you linked to so long ago showed a warming period followed by elevated CO2 levels (after a 400 to 800 lag) and those levels remained high for over 1000 years. At the same time that the CO2 levels remained elevated the Earth witnessed two periods of warmth and cold which very clearly demonstrates the LACK of CO2 as a causative agent.

Catastrophism was discredited after Hutton and Lyall et al came on the scene, but with the discovery of the Channeled Scablands that old theory was able to stage a small comeback. However, those effects are confined to relatively small geomorphic provinces.

 

[konradv]

You haven't proven I'm wrong, westwall. You're the one making the declaration now. At least place the same onus on yourself that you put on others. You haven't explained where any extra trapped energy due to added GHGs would be going, if not to heat the earth.

Wrong again boyo. You have made the extraordinary claim that we should ignore basic geology (and for that matter all the basic fundamental understanding of physical science in general) and believe a theory that is based almost entirely on computer models.

As Aristotle says, you have made these claims, you have to prove them. I get to rely on 300 years of science (and a 4.5 billion year old lab experiment) to tell me that what is occuring is natural.

You havn't proven that there IS extra energy, you merely assume there is. And I hope you know what happens when you assume things?

YOU made the claim that I was wrong. Don't put it back on me. You deniers have been weaving and dodging long enough. What does geology have to do with the well known fact that GHGs absorb energy? Where's that energy going? How long to we have to wait for answers, while you weave irrelevant stories about what happened millions of years ago?

 

[westwall]

You haven't proven I'm wrong, westwall. You're the one making the declaration now. At least place the same onus on yourself that you put on others. You haven't explained where any extra trapped energy due to added GHGs would be going, if not to heat the earth.

Wrong again boyo. You have made the extraordinary claim that we should ignore basic geology (and for that matter all the basic fundamental understanding of physical science in general) and believe a theory that is based almost entirely on computer models.

As Aristotle says, you have made these claims, you have to prove them. I get to rely on 300 years of science (and a 4.5 billion year old lab experiment) to tell me that what is occuring is natural.

You havn't proven that there IS extra energy, you merely assume there is. And I hope you know what happens when you assume things?

YOU made the claim that I was wrong. Don't put it back on me. You deniers have been weaving and dodging long enough. What does geology have to do with the well known fact that GHGs absorb energy? Where's that energy going? How long to we have to wait for answers, while you weave irrelevant stories about what happened millions of years ago?

Science says you're wrong boyo, science says it. All the physical sciences say you're wrong.

 

[konradv]

A statement without proof! When did the Law of Conservation of Energy get repealed? How can you make such an obviously foolish statement?

 

[westwall]

A statement without proof! When did the Law of Conservation of Energy get repealed? How can you make such an obviously foolish statement?

Show me where you can get more energy out of a system then you put into it.

 

[konradv]

A statement without proof! When did the Law of Conservation of Energy get repealed? How can you make such an obviously foolish statement?

Show me where you can get more energy out of a system then you put into it.

Who says you do? I don't care about your silly come ons. ANSWER THE QUESTION!!! Where does the energy that GHGs trap go, if not to heat the earth? Quit dodging the issue.

 

[Old Rocks]

Ol' Walleyes fully understands that the ocean has gained and stored a tremendous amount of heat in the last half century. He simply is going to shill for the big energy corps. Easier and pays better than real science.

Catastrophism of today is hardly the catastrophism of the religios from a century ago. And their have been plenty of catastrophic events in the history of this small planet and it's inhabitants. From the impact that ended the Creteceous, to worldwide glaciations alternating with very rapid warming, there is plenty of evidence of catastrophic periods in geological history.

 

[westwall]

You haven't proven I'm wrong, westwall. You're the one making the declaration now. At least place the same onus on yourself that you put on others. You haven't explained where any extra trapped energy due to added GHGs would be going, if not to heat the earth.

Wrong again boyo. You have made the extraordinary claim that we should ignore basic geology (and for that matter all the basic fundamental understanding of physical science in general) and believe a theory that is based almost entirely on computer models.

As Aristotle says, you have made these claims, you have to prove them. I get to rely on 300 years of science (and a 4.5 billion year old lab experiment) to tell me that what is occuring is natural.

You havn't proven that there IS extra energy, you merely assume there is. And I hope you know what happens when you assume things?

YOU made the claim that I was wrong. Don't put it back on me. You deniers have been weaving and dodging long enough. What does geology have to do with the well known fact that GHGs absorb energy? Where's that energy going? How long to we have to wait for answers, while you weave irrelevant stories about what happened millions of years ago?

Hate to tell you old chum, I merely pointed out you were wrong, according to every physical science on the planet, according to 5 billion years of empirical data, and finally according to the scientific method.

You have wrapped your entire being around a theory that has been unable to prove itself correct.

In the words of a senior analyst at the EPA

"The endangerment finding ignores conclusions of the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) own internal research report: "Given the downward trend in temperatures since 1998 (which some think will continue until at least 2030), there is no particular reason to rush into decisions based upon a scientific hypothesis that does not appear to explain most of the available data."
It's Time To Pardon Carbon - Forbes.com


You are the person who is making the extraordinary claim, YOU HAVE TO BACK IT UP.

I need do nothing except point out the simple fact that all that has been happening now has happened before without mans influence. YOU ARE THE ONE WHO NEEDS TO PROVE YOUR THEORY.

 

[westwall]

A statement without proof! When did the Law of Conservation of Energy get repealed? How can you make such an obviously foolish statement?

Show me where you can get more energy out of a system then you put into it.

Who says you do? I don't care about your silly come ons. ANSWER THE QUESTION!!! Where does the energy that GHGs trap go, if not to heat the earth? Quit dodging the issue.

Answer my question first. You are saying that you can put 100 units of energy into a system and get 101 units out. The 2nd law says that is impossible. That would mean you can create a perpetual motion machine.

 

[DiveCon]

You dolts will believe anything that spews hate and lies to cling to your failed ideas huh?

Yep.... I just cant wait to get home so I can dump a quart of oil in my ditch and then go club another one of those baby seals in my backyard.

dont forget to dump the used antifreeze too

 

[westwall]

Ol' Walleyes fully understands that the ocean has gained and stored a tremendous amount of heat in the last half century. He simply is going to shill for the big energy corps. Easier and pays better than real science.

Catastrophism of today is hardly the catastrophism of the religios from a century ago. And their have been plenty of catastrophic events in the history of this small planet and it's inhabitants. From the impact that ended the Creteceous, to worldwide glaciations alternating with very rapid warming, there is plenty of evidence of catastrophic periods in geological history.

Ahh yes the eternal fraudster's pat response. I hate to tell you olfraud but YOU ARE THE LAZY BASTARD WHO WORKS FOR THE MAN! YOU ARE THE LAZY BASTARD WHO IS POLLUTING YOUR NEIGHBORS HOMES AND NEIGHBORHOODS! YOU ARE THE EPITOME OF THE HORRIBLE POLLUTERS YOU SUPPOSEDLY RAIL ABOUT.

I CLEAN UP THE MESS AFTER DICKHEADS LIKE YOU SCREW THE PLANET UP!

 

[Old Rocks]

Lazy? Who fails to do the research on what real scientists are saying, and instead post garbage from political rags and people like Watts? Who is so stupid that he continually referances the lag of CO2 at the beginning of the ice ages? Anyone that understands those cycles knows exactly why that occurs. So you are preaching ignorance to the ignorant. What a scientist!

As I have repeatedly pointed out, the real scientists investigating this issue have weighed in many times. One of the organizations I have great respect for, the American Geophysical Union, had many lectures concerning this issue at their 2009 convention. Here anyone can see and listen to those lectures.

2009 AGU Fall Meeting: Featured Lectures

You claim to be a member of this organization. So why have you no lecture listed showing the scientists of the AGU the error of their ways? Couldn't be that you have nothing that withstand the scrutiny of real scientists, could it?

 

[daveman]

Lazy? Who fails to do the research on what real scientists are saying, and instead post garbage from political rags and people like Watts? Who is so stupid that he continually referances the lag of CO2 at the beginning of the ice ages? Anyone that understands those cycles knows exactly why that occurs. So you are preaching ignorance to the ignorant. What a scientist!

As I have repeatedly pointed out, the real scientists investigating this issue have weighed in many times. One of the organizations I have great respect for, the American Geophysical Union, had many lectures concerning this issue at their 2009 convention. Here anyone can see and listen to those lectures.

2009 AGU Fall Meeting: Featured Lectures

You claim to be a member of this organization. So why have you no lecture listed showing the scientists of the AGU the error of their ways? Couldn't be that you have nothing that withstand the scrutiny of real scientists, could it?

And of course, the only real scientists are those who support the cult.

 

[bassho]

Al Gore's a joke. Climate change is a joke just like all this silly cap and trade crap. Hell, look at Obama's trip to Inida....how about that "Carbon Footprint"? Why isn't anyone raising hell about that? I'll bet if Bush were taking the same trip days after getting his ass kicked by the opposing political party, they'd be crying up a storm and mourning for the late planet earth. The whole damn bunch of elitist liberals are nothing but a JOKE!

 

[tinydancer]

Dancer, do you deny that the climate is warming? That GHGs are the primary cause of it warming? That we produce those GHGs?

If you deny any of the above, what is your evidence? Is that evidence from reputable scientists, or from blogs making statements with no attribution of sources for those statements?

This is a scientific subject. Al Gore made a film in which he, with a few minor mistakes, translated what the climatologists, geologists, and biologists are telling us into layman's terms. So if you disagree with the science, present science that states the evidence is incorrect.

The OP deals with Al Gore's continued abuse of the planet. He is a poster child for an energy pig who keeps swilling at the trough.

That's the subject of this thread.

Can you deny that the old angry sex poodle abuses the planet with every breath he takes?

The man is the worst example of "environmentalist" I have ever seen. No one is calling him out on it except for a few.

Even though my link goes to a website you don't like, you dismiss the original author of the piece in your zeal to defend AGW. He is bemoaning the carbon footprint old Al is leaving. He is pointing out the hypocrisy of AG without the W.

As am I. I don't believe in Al Gore and Pachauri give a rats ass about the planet. Or they would live conservation.

I live and breathe conservation. I have all my life. I am a radical conservationist bar none.

I hate the global warming religious freaks and their disciples because all they are about is pay to pollute.




BTW I live on the edge of nowhere. I am converting this house just as I have converted my others to self sufficiency to live off the grid.

It actually pains me to flush a toilet. **** Sheryl Crow and the her toilet paper garbage.

The real issue is the waste of billions of gallons of water daily to flush our shit down toilets to pollute rivers.

In my last converted house where I learned the lesson 2,400 square feet is not too easy to switch wood heat (this is in a northern climate so it was a big deal) I was completely off the grid and pumped water by hand for everything.

You flush toilets with hand pumped water you get a real religion about how much water goes just to flush shit.

It takes a lot of pumping. But that's for another thread I digress.

My thread was designed to mock the largest faux "environmentalist" on the planet.

I'll be more than happy to go toe to toe with you in another thread called Fake environmentalists vs real conservationists though.

If I have a chance to, I'll start that thread this weekend. But it's the season here where orange and camo are the fashion statement and bambi awaits.

Here's where I live. This is my neighbor. It's a pretty cool neighborhood. And I'm not bullsitting. I walk down paths every day that most people couldn't dream of on their wilderness vacations.

I don't just get finches to my bird feeders. lol, I had a freaking pileated trying to hammer away at one in my cedars yesterday.

Welcome to my world It's a land where someone from the city would drive down these old dirt roads and go " gee honey look at all the tree houses these parents have built for their kids and it's sooooooooooo cute that they put camo cloth around the tree houses".

whoopsies hit save instead of preview.

KC's Outfitting - Sandilands Provincial Park, Manitoba

I think their profile pretty well sums up where I live, which is less than a few miles away.

 

[tinydancer]

Here is their direct website. They just live down the road. I don't know them personally.

That's the way most of us live out here. We know of each others existence but we don't play in the same sandbox

KC's OUTFITTING

 

[konradv]

I hate the global warming religious freaks and their disciples because all they are about is pay to pollute.

All that shows is that you don't have a clue what it's about. It's assumed business won't want to pay, so they'll take steps not to pollute and here's the good part for the Gore-haters, Al doesn't make any money! The ones pushing hardest to defeat cap-and-trade are those who want to keep polluting like in the past. How does that work for your "radical conservationist" heart?

 

[Old Rocks]

Here is their direct website. They just live down the road. I don't know them personally.

That's the way most of us live out here. We know of each others existence but we don't play in the same sandbox

KC's OUTFITTING

Possibly slightly more rural than the area I was raised in, and will return to shortly. Started hunting at 12, got my first rifle, a 32-40 Marlin, at 14. Deer, elk, bear, couger, beaver, California bighorn sheep, wolves, and even wolverine in that area. Have seen all but wolverine and bighorn sheep. Went to a small schoolhouse, two rooms, 17 pupils. Have lived where we drew water out of a well with a bucket. No reason to live that way now, not with solar and wind available.

So don't pull that "I'm such a knowledgeable country person, and you are just a dumb city boy" shit on me. I've lived successfully in both environments.

Whatever your feeling about Al Gore, he is not a scientist. And it is the scientists that are telling us that we are in for a bad ride if we continue to put GHGs into the atmosphere. An older paper, but still valid;

Abrupt Climate Change: Inevitable Surprises

Now I can present scientific papers all day long concerning AGW. Care to show me some in return that state it is not happening. From real peer reviewed scientific journals.