Al Gore: Nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize

[DOMS]

If each person does the following: reducing energy use at home by purchasing energy efficient home appliances; planting trees to absorb carbon from the atmosphere; walking or taking public transportation instead of driving; making smart consumer choices by purchasing environmentally sound products and energy-efficient vehicles; and practicing waste minimization, product reuse, and recycling

Oh, this is rich! Do you even know what you're doing when you "recycle"? Of course you don't. You just believe that it's the "good thing to do" and "benefits the environment" because, for the same reason that you adhere to global warming, someone told you to. Yeah, you're a tool. Granted, some of the efforts in recycling have merit, but the majority of it is a waste, and often creates more waste. Have you looked into the recycling of plastic? No you haven't, because tools don't read.

 

[Decker]

Oh, this is rich! Do you even know what you're doing when you "recycle"? Of course you don't. You just believe that it's the "good thing to do" and "benefits the environment" because, for the same reason that you adhere to global warming, someone told you to. Yeah, you're a tool. Granted, some of the efforts in recycling have merit, but the majority of it is a waste, and often creates more waste. Have you looked into the recycling of plastic? No you haven't, because tools don't read.

So I'm a tool now?

Hmmm. I have read your arguments on global warming and they fall down to common sense analysis, which we have seen in the hands of amateurs and know-nothings is a dangerous thing. Paying deference to experts is a better way.

It is entertaining in a pathetic sort of way to see you put words into my mouth and then attack me for something that I never said or claimed. Do I know what I'm doing when I recycle? You don't know. But you sure as hell pipe up with what your take on my opinion purportedly is...according to you at least.

But that's what happens when one is bereft of ideas and cogent arguments: the messenger is attacked instead of the message.

You're not arguing with me, you are denigrating me. Much in the same manner as the demented million dollar pundits denigrate any democratic presidential candidate: Let me tell you what Clinton/Gore/Obama is thinking ... and why it's wrong/perverse/nutty/crazy....

They don't know and you don't know.

 

[DOMS]

So I'm a tool now?

Yes.

Hmmm. I have read your arguments on global warming and they fall down to common sense analysis

Maybe you don't have any common sense.

My points are simple, even you should be able to understand them. If there's too many words, let me know.

1. The Earth is on it's own warming cycle.
2. The Earth has been much hotter, several times.
3. The warming trend for next 100 years is inline with the current warming trend that started 10,000 years ago.
4. There has been no direct, factually provable, correlation between any pollution from man and the ambient temperature.


As for any denigrating, you're the one that started (in this conversation) with the insults. It's mighty big of you to take the high moral ground.

So, do you recycle plastic?

 

[Decker]

Yes.



Maybe you don't have any common sense.

Common sense connotes common experience and I seriously doubt you and I have any common experiences. I am a tool of what? Surely a freethinker like yourself knows what dark force pulls my chain.

My points are simple, even you should be able to understand them. If there's too many words, let me know.

1. The Earth is on it's own warming cycle.
2. The Earth has been much hotter, several times.
3. The warming trend for next 100 years is inline with the current warming trend that started 10,000 years ago.
4. There has been no direct, factually provable, correlation between any pollution from man and the ambient temperature.

Your points are simple. Your arguments are simple. Your thinking is simple. Unfortunately for you, global warming is a rather complex phenomenon that is apparently beyond your comprehension.
Point 1 so what
Point 2 so what
Point 3 so what and where do you pull your numbers out of...Oh yes, common sense
Point 4 "Factual(ly) sic provable" is redundant much like your common sense approach to asinine pseudo-scientific analysis. I suggest you look up the definition of 'correlation' before you make such a ridiculous statement.

Here is the definition of global warming per scientific consensus:

1. The earth is getting warmer (0.6 +/- 0.2 oC in the past century; 0.1 0.17 oC/decade over the last 30 years (see update)) [ch 2]
2. People are causing this [ch 12] (see update)http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/440.htm
3. If GHG emissions continue, the warming will continue and indeed accelerate [ch 9]
4. (This will be a problem and we ought to do something about it)

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=86

All of your points are irrelevant as to whether man's activities exacerbate the warming of our planet. Your argumentation deserves a mercy flush.

In short, you prove nothing but your own ignorance of the topic.

Let's just state it this way:

THE VAST MAJORITY OF EARTH'S CLIMATOLOGISTS ARE WRONG ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING AND DOMS, WITH HIS COMMON SENSE APPROACH, IS RIGHT. IT IS A HOAX.

Maybe I'm harsh. Why I'll walk down to the corner bar tonight and get Otis's common sense opinion on Global Warming. While I'm there maybe he'll also enlighten me about the new recycling hoax too.

As for any denigrating, you're the one that started (in this conversation) with the insults. It's mighty big of you to take the high moral ground.

So, do you recycle plastic?

Where did I insult you? Where I live, it's a municipal law that all residents recycle plastics/aluminum/paper.

It's edifying to know that you see through the recycling charade too. Good job.

Forever vigilant against the environmental wackos.

 

[DOMS]

You're a tool of Political Correctness. You do the things that you're told are "right" only because you're told to.

Plenty of scientists were worried about "global cooling" back in the '70s. I don't care about scientist's opinions, I want cold hard facts.

If the "majority" of the world climatologists think this, then were are the irrefutable studies?

And whoopdie-fucking-doo, you can use google so that you can regurgitate more of the instructions that a tool like you needs to be able to "think".

 

[NeilPearson]

AND if it wasn't for Gore, we wouldn't have the internet we have today.

He may have had a role in getting it done but if he didn't we would still have an internet. We would also have cars today if Ford didn't invent one. Technology evolves and things get developed. It is a natural evolution. If he didn't do it, someone else will. There is no holding it back. It is just like stem cell research. Bush can try and stop innovation and he may be able to delay it a few years but ultimately, stem cell research will continue. It will just progress faster in Europe or Asia. Even effectively delaying it is difficult. He might not allow specific stem cell technology development but other technologies are being done in the US that support stem cell technology development. The US might focus on faster processors and storage space as well as biochemistry and nanotech... all which other countries can use to speed up stem cell research.

Trying to hold back technology is like trying to hold back a massive flood that just keeps coming. You might be able to block some of the water but it will just go in other directions. The more you hold it back, the more force the water has until it finally builds up enough force to break down or move around any barriers you tried to put up.

 

[Arnold]

Ford invented cars... I thought Ford invented the assembly line?

 

[NeilPearson]

Ford invented cars... I thought Ford invented the assembly line?

Whatever... He invented cars like Gore invented the internet

He was pretty important to the industry though.

 

[Arnold]

Whatever... He invented cars like Gore invented the internet

He was pretty important to the industry though.

you must be a Republican, or at least you change the facts like one.

 

[NeilPearson]

you must be a Republican, or at least you change the facts like one.

I can't be a republican, I am a Canadian

 

[NeilPearson]

you must be a Republican, or at least you change the facts like one.

No, if I was Republican, I would have edited my post and said that I never claimed Ford invented a car.

 

[maniclion]

Oh, this is rich! Do you even know what you're doing when you "recycle"? Of course you don't. You just believe that it's the "good thing to do" and "benefits the environment" because, for the same reason that you adhere to global warming, someone told you to. Yeah, you're a tool. Granted, some of the efforts in recycling have merit, but the majority of it is a waste, and often creates more waste. Have you looked into the recycling of plastic? No you haven't, because tools don't read.

It's not just about saving the environment it's sustaining our species, even ants have that programmed into their tiny little minds...

 

[DOMS]

Ford invented cars... I thought Ford invented the assembly line?

He did more than that. He popularized the ideas of mass production and replaceable parts.

 

[DOMS]

It's not just about saving the environment it's sustaining our species, even ants have that programmed into their tiny little minds...

I'm all for saving the environment. I'm just not interested in doing it for reasons based on lies.

 

[DOMS]

I can't be a republican, I am a Canadian

 

[BigDyl]

THE VAST MAJORITY OF EARTH'S CLIMATOLOGISTS ARE WRONG ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING AND DOMS, WITH HIS COMMON SENSE APPROACH, IS RIGHT. IT IS A HOAX.

DOMSOWNED X INFINITY!!!!

 

[DOMS]

Still the consumate cock-rider, eh BigDyl?

 

[BigDyl]