Al Gore sued for bogus Global Warming by piratenews

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Al Gore sued for bogus Global Warming

POSTED BY: PIRATENEWS
UPDATED: Thursday, December 18, 2008 17:25
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 1042
PAGE 1 of 1

Tuesday, December 16, 2008 10:46 AM

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!

30,000 scientists sue Obama's Al Gore.

Note Al Gore's $100-Million bribe.

It was 35-degrees F BELOW ZERO in Denver this week, and 7-inches on snow on the Gulf Coast.

Winter don't start until next week.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 16, 2008 10:59 AM

WHOZIT

I think this Global Warming hoax and this "Green" crap is a fad.

I'm going to microwave a bagel and have sex with it - Peter Griffin

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 17, 2008 12:38 PM

DREAMTROVE

Al Gore is an idiot, who did a lot of damage to a very real environmental cause. Almost nothing in an inconvenient truth is true, and that which is, isn't very pertinent. However, the global climate change is very real, and very much man made, and is going to cause us humans serious problems because we build permanent settlements in particular locations. The world, as a whole, is not going to suffer. No dire predictions outside of 100s of millions of displaced humans will wreak havoc on civilization.

Obama and Gore are not close.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 17, 2008 1:36 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

"HE PLAYED ON OUR FEARS!!!!

Yes, AlGore, that was you, not Bush, who hyped up false intel, intel you KNEW TO BE FALSE AT THE TIME, as an attempted power grab.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 17, 2008 1:58 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

YAAAWWWwwwnnnnnn...

Yeah, that's how REAL science is done all right - in the courts.

(Oh, Zit, that's sarcasm - you missed it in the other thread. I thought I'd point it out here for your benefit.)

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 17, 2008 3:20 PM

WHOZIT

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
YAAAWWWwwwnnnnnn...

Yeah, that's how REAL science is done all right - in the courts.

(Oh, Zit, that's sarcasm - you missed it in the other thread. I thought I'd point it out here for your benefit.)

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

Thanks for the heads up.

I'm going to microwave a bagel and have sex with it - Peter Griffin

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 17, 2008 6:41 PM

DREAMTROVE

Rue,

I think there's a real issue here.

co2 levels are increasing at spike levels which could be called alarming, but geologically, not so much, several spikes have taken us into the 1000s ppm, two at 7700ppm, without harming life on earth. We shouldn't panic for the planet at 600ppm.

But the very real threat is the changes to local ecosystems from a human perspective. We are the species most at risk here. Planet in Peril is very hollywood, but here's a list of some possible local problems:

1. Desertification. A huge problem in africa, and a growing one in latin america, and even here. This will lead to decreased food production, and higher temperatures locally, drier climates, and lower rainfalls in surrounding areas.

2. Deforestation. This is obviously the #1 threat. The Taiga alone consume more co2 each year than all of human efforts is able to produce, so our polution is not the problem, our deforestation is. This also leads to radical changes in rainfall and wind currents.

3. ocean currents. While avoiding the extreme alarmist ideas that europe could plunge into an ice age, etc., climate systems are very sensitive, and not just storm activity, but the eco balance of a lot of inhabited areas could alter radically, also forcing mass migrations, and mass migrations generally means war.

4. The number one problem was pointed out by a geologist in Kenya, and received a lot of attention from the UN, but missed Al Gore, who didn't really do a lot of research, he was just, imho, grandstanding. The conclusion was that all of the above factors including the spike in co2 could lead to, and has led to, small increments in ground water temperature in certain river valleys, such as the Niger, Nile, Ganges, Yangtze, Amazon and Mississippi. These are environments where the groundwater temperature tends to hover just below 90 degrees farenheit. Most human parasites cannot survive below 90, and so groundwater at 88 poses litte threat to the human population. But knock that up 4 degrees to 92, and suddenly you have a breeding ground for disease capable of leveling a civilization.

It's a serious and complex issue that Gore's film seems to miss by a mile. He rants about the size of Jellyfish, which seems more related to a lack of competition, due to the fact that people hunt tuna, and not jellyfish, more than it has to do with global warming. Then he mixes in some fear mongering, but he really misses the core environmental issues at stake. He's a discredit to the cause. He's also the Richard Dawkins of the field. It's far easier to shoot down Al Gore than it is to shoot down global warming, just as it is much easier to shoot down Mr. Dawkins than it is to shoot down evolution.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 18, 2008 2:14 AM

RIVERLOVE

It's utterly pointless to debate anyone on this issue. The Al Gore crowd has an answer for everything. If it's hot, it's global warming. If it's cold, it's global warming. If it rains or snows, global warming. If it is dry and windy, again global warming. If I have a big bulbous boil on my butt, it too must be global warming.

On the other hand, there's no reason that we all can't be more environmentally aware and try to do things which help the environment. Don't litter. Don't waste electricity at home or on the job. Drive less. Recycle. Industrial polluters must be reined in with fines and prosecutions. The environment is very important and it's real. Global warming is un-deniable with all the ice melting, but I believe it's just one of the planet Earth's normal centennial cycles, not a direct result of humans. Other planets, like Mars, undergo climate change too. The polar ice caps on Mars are constantly in flux, growing and shrinking due to changing orbital planes and atmospheric conditions. Venus, Saturn, and Jupiter frequently undergo violent changes in their gaseous atmospheric stratification, and even our own Sun is un-predictably calm and violent. I don't think me, driving my little Honda, makes much of a difference in the big picture.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 18, 2008 7:57 AM

FREMDFIRMA

I concur, River.

Hell with all the science and rhetoric, not crapping where ya live is generally a pretty good idea.

It's the same thing with "smoking is bad for you".

People take a concept so damn simple, tremendously overexplain it, bulk it up with science, both good and bad, start slipping in a lie here and there to boost their case in one direction or the other, and confuse the issue beyond measure and add then politics to it on top of it all, resulting in an idiocy like this...

When the initial concept is so simple that as expressed, anyone with a working brain would have understood it on the spot.

It's ridiculous.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 18, 2008 8:16 AM

BYTEMITE

This is actually the stuff I've studied in college.

Global Warming doesn't have much to do with small scale small time period local temperature fluctuations.

Dreamtrove summed up a lot of the potential issues we could be facing really well. I'd like to agree that the main problem isn't the 381 ppm CO2 we have going right now, but rather the unprecedented RATE at which atmospheric concentration is changing. The earth and conditions on it normally change slowly, and in changing so quickly we could be taking natural buffers out of the picture.

I could also mention methane traps and deceasing ocean capacity for carbon dioxide sequestering as potentially worrisome contributors to global warming.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 18, 2008 10:53 AM

DREAMTROVE

I'm going to throw a curveball and agree with River.

I think natural cyclical variation is a major factor, but I think the biggest factor is deforestation and desertification. If you cut down a first growth forest, even if you replant, you've radically reduced the co2 consumption.

Deserts also can create massive wind patterns that can cause major high pressure zones and effect temperature and rainfall elsewhere. There's no isolated system.

Just figure as a given that everyone has studied the subject online, which is just better information. If you check the record, there's a fairly weak correlation between temperature and co2, and our co2 spike here is minor compared to the past, and the rate isn't all that surprising.

If you check out the overall global consumption and production of co2, you see that humans burning fossil fuels is a factor, but it's not the dominant one. The dominant one is always the quantity of large scale vegitation.

Overall, I support Global Warming. I think it's a good idea. The co2 level is too low. If you look though, an ecosystem collapse that results in a co2 growth spike always happens when we get down into the 300s, it's like a support level. Data supports this idea going back for at least hundreds of millions of years.

Arguing the greenhouse effect is also pointless. The entire warming ecosystem out of control is already apparent all over the world in small deserts called "cities" which produce lots of co2 and have relatively no vegetation, and are full of people. And yes, the temperature is intollerable. It's unlikely that humans have the capacity to produce the co2 to ruin the world ecology, in fact, it's probably much needed assistance.

But the rampant environmental destruction is rapidly destroying not only our carbon sinks, but our most valuable resource: Biodiversity.

As for the oceans, don't count on it. Remember, the fluctuation from 300 to 7700 ppm over the last several hundred million years has had little or no impact on ocean life. I suspect the overfishing is the major problem.

If you want a real riddle, here's one: Ammonites. What killed them, and why? The whole story tears giant holes in most dinosaur theories. There was never a lack of biomass feed in the ocean, so nix the food shortage. Radiation blasts tend not to penetrate more than a couple inches of water, so oh well there.

Still, there has to be a rational scientific explanation. I'm going nix cross-species parasit as unlikely to be that universal. My favorite is veracious semi-civilized arch apex predator, like man, but high level cumulative toxin is another possibility.

My point of pointing these things out is that we don't live in a bubble where we have to theorize everything about the outside world. We have tons of relational models, past and present, with which to work. I don't need to guess what would happen to a world with very high co2 and no plants, I can just got to LA. But LA is already way passed any worst case scenario for the planet as a whole

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 18, 2008 11:23 AM

BYTEMITE

Excuse me, I meant the main problem with the changing levels of carbon dioxide, not global warming proper.

Um. There are a few things I do disagree with there. I can't really say I support global warming because the reports I've seen suggest we could inundate some coastal cities if we melt too much of the ice cap. Coastal cities tend to be major ports and therefore major economic centers, with lots of people. We've also measured the ice caps and know they're thinning; there's even evidence of rivers and lakes beginning to run underneath all the ice on antarctica.

Back in the Jurassic, if I'm remembering the data right, there was around 600 + ppm CO2... Sea levels then were high enough to cover much of the Western United States, although, granted, that was before Cretaceous uplift that raised a lot of the Rockies.

And of course, CO2 isn't the only greenhouse gas to factor in to the equation.

Carbon Sequestering is a progress that occurs in ocean waters, produces limestone, and it removes about half of the carbon dioxide we put in the atmosphere.

As for ammonites... I might offer the hypothesis that it was ocean warming... Which decreases calcium carbonate production, which animals like mollusks use for their shells. Goes in hand with that carbon sequestering thing. For a modern example, look at coral reefs and skeleton thinning and the rejection of symbiotic photosynthesizers.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 18, 2008 4:10 PM

DREAMTROVE

1. the co2 levels map is all over the place, i can find it, it's gotten up in the thousands lots of times. I remember twice hitting 7700, and several times on 3000

2. I don't recall a definitive sea level rating, this is largely plate tectonics. Even during very high temp and co2 phases, the polar ice does not completely disappear. I'm dubious of serious sea level change, esp. since the major sea level differences are determined by currents and pressure, not quantity of water. It would take a lot.

3. The trace greenhouse gasses should be ruled out. You're looking at major impact, it's going to come from major sources like desertification in Africa and S. America. What we produce is a drop in the bucket. What is being produced was always being produced by the life forms already present on the earth and as we all know the overwhelming majority of those live in the ocean. I'm going on an uneducated hunch here and saying that the co2 is coming from the oceans, not going to it.

4. Not buying your ammonite hypothesis. I think that would have killed off the mollusks. Also, you have to figure a lot of these are ocean floor dwellers. There's never going to be a change in the 40F level because there's over 100 atmospheric pressures keeping it there. In fact. You could drop a nuke a day for a million years and not get it to 41F.

I'm not about to be able to solve the ammonite riddle, but I like it. I think that this is for outside the box thinkers. I suspect the guy who figures it out gets the nobel prize or something. But what I really like is that the Dino theories fail to take into account the coincidence of ammonite extinction. My only clue is that there's a very simple way of looking at the whole picture: Everything big died. My first choice is still "someone was very very hungry."

I wasn't going to do this earlier, but the number one problem in international overfishing is China. East asia is responsible for something like 90% of fishing. Check out the wild animal population in China. Oh yeah, that's right, there is none.

Someone is very very hungry, and it's the human race, and that is completely depopulating the planet of anything above a certain size. No one, however, is eating mice, or ants. There's a too small to eat level. If you ate ants all day long, it undoubtedly would not give you enough food value to survive. Humans need bigger food.

Of course, we've created trawling nets and hunting and herding tools to do this all with, otoh, none of that technology is very sophisticated. Several species of rodent use tools on a pretty sophisticate level. Late cretaceous dinosaurs break the brain the size of a walnut model and get all the way up on a par with us.

Of course, maybe they were amphibious, and very viscious, and needed no technology. Hard to get to the ocean floor that way. Not necessarily impossible: Check out the Weddell seal. Still, I'd say crude technology in the hands of a hungry critter can destroy the world. If I'm right, that broadcasts much more severe implications for human future than rising co2 counts.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 18, 2008 4:24 PM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
I'd like to agree that the main problem isn't the 381 ppm CO2 we have going right now, but rather the unprecedented RATE at which atmospheric concentration is changing. The earth and conditions on it normally change slowly, and in changing so quickly we could be taking natural buffers out of the picture.

So, in Captain-dummy-talk, the climate will be sorta wonky.
Got it.

The technobabbleless Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 18, 2008 5:25 PM

BYTEMITE

1) Yep. CO2 levels have been higher, and it hasn't killed all life off. That isn't to say the climate wasn't a lot different in those times, and that sudden climate change now could cause some extinctions (more than is ongoing, that is).

2) True, plate tectonics can displace a lot of water. Thermal expansion is also important, and I admit both are more impressive contributors to sea level rise than melting ice caps. But I've also heard the sea level change from ice caps predicted separate from the other two factors, and like I said, some cities might be in trouble if it ever happened.

3) I'm not all that familiar with desertification as a factor in global warming, I have to say. I remember reading about a lake in Africa that through the stratigraphy of lake bottom muds and evaporites, they were able to observe climate change occurring in Africa over the past 10,000 years or so. I think that it might have tied in with what you're talking about, but I can't remember the specifics. Could you tell me more about it?

4) Well, it was just an idea. I thought I remembered that there was some evidence of a mollusk die off during the mesozoic, big shelled mollusks died because they couldn't get enough CaCO3, but the little ones managed. But I'm really scrounging my memories here, it's been about six months since I've really looked hard at all this.

China is... An ecological nightmare right now. They've deforested so much, they kick up HUGE duststorms, blow all the way across the Pacific and contribute a lot to the pollution in California even outside major cities.

You know, about primitive tech destroying the world. I read an article that going by the milankovich cycles we should be in an ice age about now. It's been proposed we started changing the trend about 10,000 years ago, when rice agriculture started up in southest asia. Something about in the summer, the heat and sunlight could release methane or something from the paddies, made a significant difference.

EDIT: Oh, I reread your post before last, I understand desertification. It's not a source of CO2, it's a problem associated with global warming. Climate change, a drier Africa, lots of drought, leading to foodshortage. Sorry, I seem to be a bit slow tonight, not thinking as clearly as I could be. Can't remember what specifically is causing that climate change over there.

Desertification. I might also attribute it to disease outbreaks: hungry people not thinking about sewage safety and irrigation problems. Also short tempers and survival struggles leading to inter-tribal genocide.

I should actually start looking through my class notes, try to find some of the numbers rather than just saying it and asking people to take my word for it. Might even be able to dredge up sources, I've got all my papers saved in a box.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE