A
Annie
Guest
These are way too easy to climb. Even kids climb them all the time!
Last edited:
Blog commentary "Al Gore’s 10 Global Warming Predictions, 12 Years Later — None Happened!"
- Status
C
ChuckB
Guest
I’d be in favor of spending $5.1 billion on that wall. As long as it was a big, beautiful wall.
F
F_Marturana
Guest
I’m not sure I understand how that would work.
S
Servant31
Guest
I have to agree. As a minor science person myself I think it’s foolish to think we aren’t having an impact. What concerns me as well though is that one sides reaction is total negligence, whereas the others is freak out, but not comprehensive study. I think we need to be realistic and take solid progressive steps towards understanding the problem, convincing people of the realities of what we’ve studied, and take realistic steps to correct the problem. Wayyy to much politics involved. And touting climate change while your personal estate uses enough energy to power a submarine might not be the most thought through scenario…
P
Peeps
Guest
This is actually a very good comment i.e., that Al Gore and his cronies are telling lies.
IF VP Gore and his associates are telling the truth (which I doubt), we are ALL in very big trouble. All of us, rich, middle class, and poor. The rich will be able to escape for a while by heading to countries that are still livable, but the middle class and the poor will die miserably in the disasters caused by climate change (fires, tsunamis, pollution, excessive heat, etc.) And the lives that we live before we die will be primitive and violent as we all do battle to stay alive.
Will the rich help us? Probably not. They will take in selected members of the middle class and poor to do their manual labor and problem solving. Also some doctors. But for the most part, they will let us all stew in our own juices until we’re dead. And they will know that the climate change that killed us will eventually kill them, or more accurately, will kill their children, unless they start living much simpler lifestyles and give up the mansions and jet planes.
But even if climate change does not reach a critical level for many decades, the changes that VP Gore and his followers are proposing would drastically change the lives of the middle class for the worst. Many of our products would be much more expensive. e.g., the car. Right now, when my 14-year old Saturn finally gives up the ghost, I can go to “Friendly Al’s on the Corner” and purchase a used (hopefully gently!) car for under ten thousand, which will still mean five years of a car payment for me. But at least the payment will be do-able with the amount of money that I make (or out of a retirement fund), and will only require a few budget adjustments, mainly with budget items that I can give up (like going out to eat, etc.).
However, if the used gas-using cars are no longer available, and my only option is “eco friendly,” I will pay at least thirty thousand for that car, probably more because I would like to have a fairly big car in case I or my husband become more immobile. That price tag will mean a huge payment, one that I am unlikely to be able to afford, especially since I am closer to retirement and will no longer have a paycheck. So I’ll have to give up driving and travelling.
Cars are just one example of items that will become even more expensive and hard-to-get with some of the policies that VP Gore is proposing.
The middle class will struggle greatly, and many will end up in poverty.
As for the poor, they might do better than the middle class for a while, as they will probably be eligible to apply for government aid to be able to “go green.” But eventually, the expenses of living a “climate-friendly” lifestyle will hurt them, too, and they will end up in very bad straits.
I truly think that if VP Gore and many of the other climate change evangelists (e.g., the movie stars) made drastic changes in their own lives (give up their mansions, travel by bike or foot as much as possible, live simpler lives, etc.) that many of us would be more likely to take their warnings seriously. I wish they would think about this.
IF VP Gore and his associates are telling the truth (which I doubt), we are ALL in very big trouble. All of us, rich, middle class, and poor. The rich will be able to escape for a while by heading to countries that are still livable, but the middle class and the poor will die miserably in the disasters caused by climate change (fires, tsunamis, pollution, excessive heat, etc.) And the lives that we live before we die will be primitive and violent as we all do battle to stay alive.
Will the rich help us? Probably not. They will take in selected members of the middle class and poor to do their manual labor and problem solving. Also some doctors. But for the most part, they will let us all stew in our own juices until we’re dead. And they will know that the climate change that killed us will eventually kill them, or more accurately, will kill their children, unless they start living much simpler lifestyles and give up the mansions and jet planes.
But even if climate change does not reach a critical level for many decades, the changes that VP Gore and his followers are proposing would drastically change the lives of the middle class for the worst. Many of our products would be much more expensive. e.g., the car. Right now, when my 14-year old Saturn finally gives up the ghost, I can go to “Friendly Al’s on the Corner” and purchase a used (hopefully gently!) car for under ten thousand, which will still mean five years of a car payment for me. But at least the payment will be do-able with the amount of money that I make (or out of a retirement fund), and will only require a few budget adjustments, mainly with budget items that I can give up (like going out to eat, etc.).
However, if the used gas-using cars are no longer available, and my only option is “eco friendly,” I will pay at least thirty thousand for that car, probably more because I would like to have a fairly big car in case I or my husband become more immobile. That price tag will mean a huge payment, one that I am unlikely to be able to afford, especially since I am closer to retirement and will no longer have a paycheck. So I’ll have to give up driving and travelling.
Cars are just one example of items that will become even more expensive and hard-to-get with some of the policies that VP Gore is proposing.
The middle class will struggle greatly, and many will end up in poverty.
As for the poor, they might do better than the middle class for a while, as they will probably be eligible to apply for government aid to be able to “go green.” But eventually, the expenses of living a “climate-friendly” lifestyle will hurt them, too, and they will end up in very bad straits.
I truly think that if VP Gore and many of the other climate change evangelists (e.g., the movie stars) made drastic changes in their own lives (give up their mansions, travel by bike or foot as much as possible, live simpler lives, etc.) that many of us would be more likely to take their warnings seriously. I wish they would think about this.
D
Dovekin
Guest
D
Dovekin
Guest
Every day, doctors at your hospital tell their patients to make radical changes to their lifestyle. These changes can be much more than anyone is willing to bear, and yer most people try to follow their doctors advice. Others do not, and survive happily. Still others die.
If you can get doctors to never tell people they have cancer, or they should stop smoking, or they should adopt a strict diet, your argument would be a lot more convincing. As it is, alarmist tactics seem to be a better motivator than more acceptable regimens. (A pack a day is ok.)
If you can get doctors to never tell people they have cancer, or they should stop smoking, or they should adopt a strict diet, your argument would be a lot more convincing. As it is, alarmist tactics seem to be a better motivator than more acceptable regimens. (A pack a day is ok.)
S
steve-b
Guest
According to science, we’ve had multiple ice ages. Which means we had multiple warmings inbetween. All before people were here… according to science that is.
HMMMMMMM Why an ice age occurs every 100,000 years: Climate and feedback effects explained -- ScienceDaily
Last edited:
T
Theo520
Guest
That link really highlights the gross bias at SNOPES
Claim: “Al Gore’s residence uses considerably more energy than the average American home.”
Facts: his home uses greater than 20 times the average home
Ruling: mixed (or partially false)
Using over 2,000% more energy than the average family should clearly qualify as “considerably more energy”. It’s irrelevant that he upped his insulation to high standards.
Last edited:
C
Catholicwife32
Guest
Wow, that post is paragraph after paragraph of assuming you already agree with the title, but let’s demonize Al Gore even more. This person doesn’t know how to write. And Global warming? That was the term used when I was a kid. I’m pretty sure the word used even in his film was “climate change.” And the question is what were the predictions. Did we do anything to change them? Have things changed just not as drastically as we thought?
D
Dovekin
Guest
The major reason it is partially false is that the comparison crosses categories. Al Gore’s home is also 1)used as his place of business and 2)is 4x the size(sq feet) as the average home. It does not “clearly qualify” as considerably more energy unless you factor in work related energy costs, including commuting, and get the same result.
P
Peeps
Guest
The majority of people who are told to stop smoking or adopt a strict diet or whatever never comply.
The stats on weight loss with weight regain + extra pounds is sobering. Depending on the study, between 90-99 percent of weight losers gain it all back and then some.
These big changes are simply too overwhelming for many people. We’ve (and I include myself in this) gotten used to using food or smokes or whatever as a coping device, and the pathways in our brains created by using our “crutch” are so strongly-entrenched that it’s almost impossible to try to create a new way to cope and thus create new pathways in our brain. Most of us return to our “bad” ways and comfortable pathways within a very short time. Even the touted “40 days to change a habit” often flops.
It’s too bad–you would think that seeing the dire consequences of our dangerous behaviors would cause us to start a new life and practices–but we don’t. For one thing, we deny that the bad consequences will happen to us. For another, we see many people who also practice our dangerous behaviors, and nothing happens to them.
In the case of climate change, I will freely admit that I distrust the messengers. I work in a science field (microbiology) and I know that scientists have to go along with higher-ups in order to continue to gain tenure at their facilities. I’ve personally seen what happens to scientists who say, “But the emperor isn’t wearing any clothes!” They get fired.
I have just finished reading Bad Blood, by John Carreyrou. This amazing book tells the horrifying story of Elizabeth Holmes, a college dropout who started a Silicon Valley company calld Theranos, which supposedly produced a product called Edison that would use just one drop of blood to perform hundreds of lab tests.
When I first read about this woman and her product years ago, I was fooled just like some of the most brilliant minds in the country were fooled. The list of her investors is staggering–men who had led the country, fought wars, and earned billions in other start-ups. All of us were deceived by this woman’s rhetoric and speaking ability. She had us all in the palm of her hand, and convinced us that laboratory testing would be revolutionized by her invention.
Boy, were we all wrong. It was all a sham.
Over the decades, I’ve seen other scientific breakthroughs turn our to be false. The various hospitals where I’ve worked have purchased instrumentation and testing devices that were later pulled off the market because they did not work. I’ve heard theories advanced that were refuted within ten or twenty years.
How many diet theories have all of us read about over the decades? Almost all of them have been disproved, and many have been declared life-threatening.
Anyway, for me, it’s a trust issue. As a lab scientist, I have been trained to distrust what I see until I prove it. Without quality control–a way to prove that my testing is correct–I won’t report a result. That kind of thinking and questioning has saved the lives and health of many of the patients I have performed testing on.
I just don’t believe it.
The stats on weight loss with weight regain + extra pounds is sobering. Depending on the study, between 90-99 percent of weight losers gain it all back and then some.
These big changes are simply too overwhelming for many people. We’ve (and I include myself in this) gotten used to using food or smokes or whatever as a coping device, and the pathways in our brains created by using our “crutch” are so strongly-entrenched that it’s almost impossible to try to create a new way to cope and thus create new pathways in our brain. Most of us return to our “bad” ways and comfortable pathways within a very short time. Even the touted “40 days to change a habit” often flops.
It’s too bad–you would think that seeing the dire consequences of our dangerous behaviors would cause us to start a new life and practices–but we don’t. For one thing, we deny that the bad consequences will happen to us. For another, we see many people who also practice our dangerous behaviors, and nothing happens to them.
In the case of climate change, I will freely admit that I distrust the messengers. I work in a science field (microbiology) and I know that scientists have to go along with higher-ups in order to continue to gain tenure at their facilities. I’ve personally seen what happens to scientists who say, “But the emperor isn’t wearing any clothes!” They get fired.
I have just finished reading Bad Blood, by John Carreyrou. This amazing book tells the horrifying story of Elizabeth Holmes, a college dropout who started a Silicon Valley company calld Theranos, which supposedly produced a product called Edison that would use just one drop of blood to perform hundreds of lab tests.
When I first read about this woman and her product years ago, I was fooled just like some of the most brilliant minds in the country were fooled. The list of her investors is staggering–men who had led the country, fought wars, and earned billions in other start-ups. All of us were deceived by this woman’s rhetoric and speaking ability. She had us all in the palm of her hand, and convinced us that laboratory testing would be revolutionized by her invention.
Boy, were we all wrong. It was all a sham.
Over the decades, I’ve seen other scientific breakthroughs turn our to be false. The various hospitals where I’ve worked have purchased instrumentation and testing devices that were later pulled off the market because they did not work. I’ve heard theories advanced that were refuted within ten or twenty years.
How many diet theories have all of us read about over the decades? Almost all of them have been disproved, and many have been declared life-threatening.
Anyway, for me, it’s a trust issue. As a lab scientist, I have been trained to distrust what I see until I prove it. Without quality control–a way to prove that my testing is correct–I won’t report a result. That kind of thinking and questioning has saved the lives and health of many of the patients I have performed testing on.
I just don’t believe it.
Last edited:
P
Peeps
Guest
Allow me to add one more comment about my distrust of VP Gore and other climate change evangelists.
Many of these people support legal abortion.
IMO, this alone calls into question their ability to interpret data.
The fetus is a human being. That is a scientific fact.
To kill that fetus is to kill a human being. To kill that fetus for reasons that do not involve the imminent death of the mother (which is the case in almost all abortions) is murder.
Yet, VP Gore and many of his associates would deny this science and insist that a woman has the right to her own body. What?! It’s NOT her body–it’s another human being’s body!
And they deny this. Or they admit it, but somehow justify that a woman has the right to kill the fetus in order to have a good life.
I realize that there are pro-life climate change advocates, many on CAF. I am at least willing to listen to these people, but I think that many of them are being deceived by people like VP Gore who pick and choose which scientific facts he wants to believe.
Many of these people support legal abortion.
IMO, this alone calls into question their ability to interpret data.
The fetus is a human being. That is a scientific fact.
To kill that fetus is to kill a human being. To kill that fetus for reasons that do not involve the imminent death of the mother (which is the case in almost all abortions) is murder.
Yet, VP Gore and many of his associates would deny this science and insist that a woman has the right to her own body. What?! It’s NOT her body–it’s another human being’s body!
And they deny this. Or they admit it, but somehow justify that a woman has the right to kill the fetus in order to have a good life.
I realize that there are pro-life climate change advocates, many on CAF. I am at least willing to listen to these people, but I think that many of them are being deceived by people like VP Gore who pick and choose which scientific facts he wants to believe.
D
Dovekin
Guest
You are lucky you can indulge in disbelief. I have been a diabetic for 50 years and I have to trust scientists and doctors if I want to live. I have known diabetics who had attitudes like you describe, but they died at a young age. It is a struggle every time I get a new doctor, trying to decide if I can trust them.
What bothers me about your skepticism is that you do not find the original blog post offensive. There is zero credible science in that post. It is an unsupported attack on Al Gore, largely motivated by politics rather than science. Instead of demanding scientifically rigorous arguments against Gore’s position, you offer more politics to seemingly support the original nonsense. “I don’t like his position on abortion so I am going to oppose him on climate change.”
Sometimes you have to believe someone else. If you do not have good reasons or instincts or some other method, you may start making up bad reasons to support someone or some position. You fall for fake news or dianetics or other charlatans. If you are lucky, you choose what is right. But that demands hope, and faith, and love, not unbridled skepticism.
P
Peeps
Guest
I agree that often, we simply have to trust.
But I also stand by my assertion that sometimes we have to distrust. When people tell one like (abortion is good), it’s really hard to believe anything they say. Haven’t you ever had a friend or relative betray you or lie to you? When that happens, it’s almost impossible to trust them.
For scientists and politicians, there is a lot of personal gain for them when they convince people to believe in something. They are not neutral observers.
Finally, what they are trying to convince us to believe involves a massive change in the behaviors of people around the globe. Even if the U.S. does everything possible to halt the theoretical climate change, there are many countries that will not comply. Our example will not change their course of action.
One more note–there are scientists (legitimate, not television stars) who are skeptical of the predicted disasters resulting from climate change. Do some snooping around and find these people and read their papers. It’s always good when someone says something to look for the opposing view. My husband makes a point of listening to several programs on NPR (e.g., This American Life) to balance the more conservative news that he hears on our local radio station. (We don’t have cable TV, so we don’t watch FOX).
But I also stand by my assertion that sometimes we have to distrust. When people tell one like (abortion is good), it’s really hard to believe anything they say. Haven’t you ever had a friend or relative betray you or lie to you? When that happens, it’s almost impossible to trust them.
For scientists and politicians, there is a lot of personal gain for them when they convince people to believe in something. They are not neutral observers.
Finally, what they are trying to convince us to believe involves a massive change in the behaviors of people around the globe. Even if the U.S. does everything possible to halt the theoretical climate change, there are many countries that will not comply. Our example will not change their course of action.
One more note–there are scientists (legitimate, not television stars) who are skeptical of the predicted disasters resulting from climate change. Do some snooping around and find these people and read their papers. It’s always good when someone says something to look for the opposing view. My husband makes a point of listening to several programs on NPR (e.g., This American Life) to balance the more conservative news that he hears on our local radio station. (We don’t have cable TV, so we don’t watch FOX).
D
Dovekin
Guest
No, there are not.
But even if there were, wouldn’t that be a good time to exercise the skepticism you described in your earlier notes? When someone voices an opinion rejected by the majority of other scientists?
I am not saying that the naysayer is wrong, just that his claims should be subject to as much scrutiny as you used against the scientists Al Gore has cited. Until the exceptional opinion is endorsed by others who have studied it, I would recommend staying away from it.
P
Peeps
Guest
I agree with you that all scientific theories should be subjected to rigorous testing by peers.
But I don’t agree with staying away from the “outlier” POV. Over the centuries, many scientists were ridiculed and worse because their theories didn’t make sense to other scientists or the public, but in the end, these scientists were vindicated when it turned out their theories were correct.
But I don’t agree with staying away from the “outlier” POV. Over the centuries, many scientists were ridiculed and worse because their theories didn’t make sense to other scientists or the public, but in the end, these scientists were vindicated when it turned out their theories were correct.
E
exnihilo
Guest
This is a real problem. I’m concerned that real problems like this don’t get addressed as well as they could be because people are trying to solve fake problems.
T
Theo520
Guest
Here is an article that supports their review of Gore’s predictions. Thought it useful since the OP article wasn’t well supported.
D
Dovekin
Guest
Supports whose review?
- Status