Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Soul Crusher on December 03, 2009, 01:57:40 PM
-
Al Gore cancels lecture during COP15
Torsdag den 3. Thursday 3rd december 2009, 15:06 December 2009, 15:06
http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.berlingske.dk%2Fklima%2Fal-gore-aflyser-foredrag-under-cop15&sl=da&tl=en&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
________________________ ________________________ _____
Berlingske regret to announce that Al Gore has canceled his event. The more than 3,000 readers who bought a ticket, get money back.
Al Gore has this morning told Berlingske Media's great annoyance has canceled his planned major climate talks for Danes 16th december under the title "Climate Conclusion".
Al Gores program for klimatopmødet, COP15. Cancellation comes with regard to unforeseen changes in Al Gore's program for the climate summit, COP 15.
Scheduled for Al Gore to show his new multimedia show, which fits just been published in his book "Our Choice", which comes with solutions to the planet's global climate problems.
Berlingske Media is incredibly disappointed
Around 3000 the Danes had already secured a ticket for Berlingske Media's event, planned since August and should have taken place just two days before the climate summit, COP 15, will end.
We have had a clear-cut agreement, and it is unusual with great disappointment that we have to announce that Al Gore cancels. We have welcomed us and had a huge expectation for the event. We have appreciated that we have been able to give the Danes the opportunity to get close to the Climate Summit via Al Gore.
We do not yet know the detailed reasons for the cancellation, says Lisbeth Knudsen, CEO of Berlingske Media.
Anyone who bought tickets would get their money refunded by the ticket booth, which has been responsible for sales.
________________________ ________________________ __
We do not yet know the detailed reasons for the cancellation, says Lisbeth Knudsen, CEO of Berlingske Media.
Unreal. Hey ditz, maybe Gore realizes he has been exposed for a massive fraud and liar?
-
hahahaa
This says a lot.
-
Indeed - he's probably busy at home dumping all his 'green' investments.
Seriously though - for Al to skip an event such as this after what has happened in the past few weeks - it does indeed speak volumes.
-
Hopefully he will be fully outed as the biggest hukster in history.
-
What a pussy, I can't stand that fucker, he won't/can't debate the issue. He just wants a soapbox to preach from with no opposition.
-
kazan nails that one.
-
telling it like it T-I is, Kazan! Great post.
-
Great, we don't need a f-cking biased cheerleader leading this discussion. We need real, open, unbiased, scientific debate specifically on if man made CO2 is a significant cause of climate change. That is the specific question on the table that needs to be resolved before massive global agreements are inacted.
All polls that don't word the question like this are shit. Enough of the cheerleading and group agendas...is man contributing significantly to climate change or not? If...(big if) global warming is happening and man is not a significant cause, then all these mandates are for shit. I have heard convincing evidence from climatologists who say the sun is exponentially the largest factor that dictates the earth's climate cycles.
-
Great, we don't need a f-cking biased cheerleader leading this discussion. We need real, open, unbiased, scientific debate specifically on if man made CO2 is a significant cause of climate change. That is the specific question on the table that needs to be resolved before massive global agreements are inacted.
All polls that don't word the question like this are shit. Enough of the cheerleading and group agendas...is man contributing significantly to climate change or not? If...(big if) global warming is happening and man is not a significant cause, then all these mandates are for shit. I have heard convincing evidence from climatologists who say the sun is exponentially the largest factor that dictates the earth's climate cycles.
Even if there is climate change, I believe we are powerless to really do anything about it and should not bankrupt ourselves over chasing these fantasies.
Sure we should not pollute, but people need an economy and jobs to feed themselves and families, not sitting in a tent by candlelight as Al gore and rest of these freaks would have us do.
-
Great, we don't need a f-cking biased cheerleader leading this discussion. We need real, open, unbiased, scientific debate specifically on if man made CO2 is a significant cause of climate change. That is the specific question on the table that needs to be resolved before massive global agreements are inacted.
All polls that don't word the question like this are shit. Enough of the cheerleading and group agendas...is man contributing significantly to climate change or not? If...(big if) global warming is happening and man is not a significant cause, then all these mandates are for shit. I have heard convincing evidence from climatologists who say the sun is exponentially the largest factor that dictates the earth's climate cycles.
Well the decimating of the ozone from increased C02 emissions and CFCs leads to the sun heating the earth because of a lack of filter.
-
To me, the bigger reason to be green or environmentally conscious is to save money, stop our reliance on middle east oil and preserve nature's beauty around us. Too many things are being lumped into global warming. We must specifically ask if man made C02 is significantly contributing to climate change. If not, then we can protect the environment and conserve without these obtrusive, economically damaging mandates.
-
To me, the bigger reason to be green or environmentally conscious is to save money, stop our reliance on middle east oil and preserve nature's beauty around us. Too many things are being lumped into global warming. We must specifically ask if man made C02 is significantly contributing to climate change. If not, then we can protect the environment and conserve without these obtrusive, economically damaging mandates.
volcanoes put out a ton of CO2 too as to other naturally occuring things. this whole issue is a complete sham by the left wing to justify more taxes, regulations, and control.
-
Maybe some influence KC (these are the types of things to debate...the science). I am not a climatologist but in the last 20yrs there is a lot of dispute that the earth is warming. The hocky stick graph that became so popular was not founded on unbiased data (data that didn't fit was discarded)...that was one of the items that came out of the emails.
-
The oceans have a great deal to do with CO2 cycles as well. Some climatologists have noted cooling periods related to higher CO2 output...that's probably some of the data that was suppressed.
I heard when Mt. St. Helen's erupted (massive CO2 release), it had a cooling effect on the environment.
-
Maybe some influence KC (these are the types of things to debate...the science). I am not a climatologist but in the last 20yrs there is a lot of dispute that the earth is warming. The hocky stick graph that became so popular was not founded on unbiased data (data that didn't fit was discarded)...that was one of the items that came out of the emails.
Have you been down to Australia, NZ or the Antaractic? The rates of skin cancer are higher, burn times are higher and Antarctica is facing the suns heat through very thin ozone. This is causing the ice there to melt, once enough ice melt water fills the ocean not only do tides rise (as we see with some islands in the south pacific facing a complete lack of land in years to come) but the overall temp drops and it will slow the oceans currents thus plunging us into an ice age. Ice ages have occurred naturally and throughout the earths life cycle but not due to carbon and CFC emissions causing the ozone to deplete (unless dinosaurs drove cars). This is something man made. It's quite on the cards we may have been heading towards another ice age cycle soon or that a volcano could explode sending enough debris to drive down temperatures but the continued emitting of c02 is certainly bringing us closer and it's by mans hand this time not natures.
-
The oceans have a great deal to do with CO2 cycles as well. Some climatologists have noted cooling periods related to higher CO2 output...that's probably some of the data that was suppressed.
I heard when Mt. St. Helen's erupted (massive CO2 release), it had a cooling effect on the environment.
So because nature can cause a cooling effect by pushing out c02's we should too? This is your logic? Nature does it so why can't we?
-
That's the debate and you recited the man made global warming theory. There are more and more scientists that disagree with this...whether its parts of it or the whole thing.
People get more skin cancer based upon UV ray exposure, not the sun warming or cooling the earth. Yes, the ozone at the poles is thinner, I think that has consensus.
-
So because nature can cause a cooling effect by pushing out c02's we should too? This is your logic? Nature does it so why can't we?
Because the plans put forth by these green people are disastrous for the economy. Just look at spain.
-
That's the debate and you recited the man made global warming theory. There are more and more scientists that disagree with this...whether its parts of it or the whole thing.
People get more skin cancer based upon UV ray exposure, not the sun warming or cooling the earth. Yes, the ozone at the poles is thinner, I think that has consensus.
And the consensus has been that global warming is being helped at a faster rate by mans hand. CFC's for years burned through the ozone and high c02 level have a similar effect.
As for skin cancer i ask you to take a trip down there during the summer and see just how much faster you will burn compared to elsewhere due to an increasing lack of ozone.
-
And the consensus has been that global warming is being helped at a faster rate by mans hand.
And cow's butts?
-
And cow's butts?
There have never been this many cows on earth in such large concentrations, you can make light of the subject all you want but it's true. The common cow would never have flourished like it has.
-
And cow's butts?
(http://thepeoplescube.com/images/CowFartUnits_Schedule_UN.gif)
-
hhahahah@ 1 Kyoto!
-
Look,the liberal groupthink Global Warming has filled in for what most would call their religion
You cant change the mind of someone who has an entrenched dogma - whether its religion preached by the church or religion preached by Al Gore and the global warming zombies. Arguing with KC or any other "believer" is pointless.
(http://thepeoplescube.com/images/GreeNazi_Magazine_EarthDay.gif)
-
The burn is from the UV rays, they would be getting through because of the thinner ozone, correct, but I don't know if that relates to warming...
The point is that some of the previous partial consensus is based on fixed data (or data that disagreed being thrown out). There are hundreds of prominent scientists and climatologists that disagree with the man made global warming premise. The number of scientists disagreeing has been increasing.
-
Have you been down to Australia, NZ or the Antaractic? The rates of skin cancer are higher, burn times are higher and Antarctica is facing the suns heat through very thin ozone. This is causing the ice there to melt, once enough ice melt water fills the ocean not only do tides rise (as we see with some islands in the south pacific facing a complete lack of land in years to come) but the overall temp drops and it will slow the oceans currents thus plunging us into an ice age. Ice ages have occurred naturally and throughout the earths life cycle but not due to carbon and CFC emissions causing the ozone to deplete (unless dinosaurs drove cars). This is something man made. It's quite on the cards we may have been heading towards another ice age cycle soon or that a volcano could explode sending enough debris to drive down temperatures but the continued emitting of c02 is certainly bringing us closer and it's by mans hand this time not natures.
I have a two part question
(1)Have you been to any of those places--- And has any human being (save scientists or film crews) "been" to the Antarctic?
(2) Do you seriously believe that there is going to be another ice age "soon"? Or by soon, do you mean its possible that if things persist as they have been, it may be in another 10 thousand years or so?
-
The burn is from the UV rays, they would be getting through because of the thinner ozone, correct, but I don't know if that relates to warming...
The point is that some of the previous partial consensus is based on fixed data (or data that disagreed being thrown out). There are hundreds of prominent scientists and climatologists that disagree with the man made global warming premise. The number of scientists disagreeing has been increasing.
the sun rays that get through and cause a higher risk of skin cancer also cause the ice in Antarctica to melt at a faster rate
-
I have a two part question
(1)Have you been to any of those places--- And has any human being (save scientists or film crews) "been" to the Antarctic?
(2) Do you seriously believe that there is going to be another ice age "soon"? Or by soon, do you mean its possible that if things persist as they have been, it may be in another 10 thousand years or so?
I have spent extensive time in both Australia and New Zealand. I have been to Antarctica on a cruise believe it or not but it wasn't like i spent a huge amount of time there. By soon i mean there could be 1-2 degree changes in our children's lifetime which would be devastating for a planet so finely balanced.
-
I have spent extensive time in both Australia and New Zealand. I have been to Antarctica on a cruise believe it or not but it wasn't like i spent a huge amount of time there. By soon i mean there could be 1-2 degree changes in our children's lifetime which would be devastating for a planet so finely balanced.
how is ice melting that is already in the ocean going to raise the level of water?
-
I have spent extensive time in both Australia and New Zealand. I have been to Antarctica on a cruise believe it or not but it wasn't like i spent a huge amount of time there. By soon i mean there could be 1-2 degree changes in our children's lifetime which would be devastating for a planet so finely balanced.
What year did we have the correct temprature in KC?
-
how is ice melting that is already in the ocean going to raise the level of water?
Did you really just ask that? Okay go fill a glass with water, put ice cubes in it and see what happens when it melts....then answer your question yourself.
-
Did you really just ask that? Okay go fill a glass with water, put ice cubes in it and see what happens when it melts....then answer your question yourself.
I'm dead serious. All evidence shows we have been cooling for ten years. So when was the right temprature and what is the proper temp and how do we know that our curtailing our vehicle usage will make any difference whatsoever?
-
The question posed by tony is actually a very good one.
Ice is LESS dense than water! The trick to this is that not all of the volume taken by ice is IN water, there is some floating above the surface. So when the icebergs starts to melt it would add about a 1/7 or 1/10 of a fraction more to the volume.
The same amount of ice actually takes up less volume than liquid water.
-
Did you really just ask that? Okay go fill a glass with water, put ice cubes in it and see what happens when it melts....then answer your question yourself.
Uh...you might want to re-read his question.
The real experiment is to fill up a glass of water with ice, mark the level, and tomorrow after the ice has melted, check the level again. I think you'll find a nominal difference.
It's the ice resting on land which melts into the ocean that's the real issue for rising sea levels.
-
The question posed by tony is actually a very good one.
Ice is LESS dense than water! The trick to this is that not all of the volume taken by ice is IN water, there is some floating above the surface. So when the icebergs starts to melt it would add about a 1/7 or 1/10 of a fraction more to the volume.
The same amount of ice actually takes up less volume than liquid water.
but more of the iceburg is below the water so the melting of an ice burg would actually cause the water to drop
Im sure there is a scientifict explaniation for this i just wanted to make KC look like jack ass ;D Mission accomplished
-
Did you really just ask that? Okay go fill a glass with water, put ice cubes in it and see what happens when it melts....then answer your question yourself.
missed science class i guess? ;)
-
but more of the iceburg is below the water so the melting of an ice burg would actually cause the water to drop
Yes there is more of it under the water, but there is "extra" volume that is above the surface. The melting of that is what causes the rise in sea levels, because that "extra" is part of the waters now.
-
guys..google. Ice Sheets on the SOUTH POLE...
the ice sheets there r actually growing
-
Yes there is more of it under the water, but there is "extra" volume that is above the surface. The melting of that is what causes the rise in sea levels, because that "extra" is part of the waters now.
Well thats all fine and dandy, but where did the water come from that made the ice? Wasn't the water already there? So how is melting going to create more water?
-
Well thats all fine and dandy, but where did the water come from that made the ice? Wasn't the water already there? So how is melting going to create more water?
#1. Water is not "created". It melts from the ice into a liquid state, and it is the liquid state of water that is troublesome for us.
#2. Water levels certainly have not been constant in the earth's history. So this fluctuation would not be a unique event... the trouble is that if we're responsible for it then its in our own interest to stop it.
-
#1. Water is not "created". It melts from the ice into a liquid state, and it is the liquid state of water that is troublesome for us.
#2. Water levels certainly have not been constant in the earth's history. So this fluctuation would not be a unique event... the trouble is that if we're responsible for it then its in our own interest to stop it.
How do we even know if our efforts will work?
This whole thing is a complete folly. Watch this and grasp the concepts. The Green movement is truly delusional.
-
#1. Water is not "created". It melts from the ice into a liquid state, and it is the liquid state of water that is troublesome for us.
#2. Water levels certainly have not been constant in the earth's history. So this fluctuation would not be a unique event... the trouble is that if we're responsible for it then its in our own interest to stop it.
#1 thats funny I always thought that two hydrogen atoms covalently bonded to a single oxygen atom made water, so your saying that it starts as ice and melts and we get water?
#2 That is the problem, scientist don't know, hell they are finding whale skeletons in the middle of the desert. So what does that mean? Mother nature is going to do what she does and there is nothing man can do about it. Some times we need to take a step back and realize how insignificant man really is in the grand scheme of things
-
I believe in climate change...like perodic cycles...el-nenio (sp?)...the 4 seasons ..etc
i dont believe in global warming
-
ultraviolet rays don't directly cause warming, they have other effects (DNA damage,etc). Trapping of gases is more related to the theory of warming, not UV rays.
I think we need more compelling evidence that man made CO2 is having a significant effect. There is no doubt the earth has actually cooled in the last 10-15yrs. Temperature cycles are probably mostly related to the sun's energy and the interaction with the oceans.
If we can prove without real doubt that man made CO2 is accelerating warming, I'd be on board with SOME of this...but there is too much debate and political agenda/money making with global warming which has skewed some of the science. We should step back and have independent scientific communities debate this out impartially.
-
Not only that Shoot, lets say that Al Gore is correct about warming etc, how do we know that our sending trillions of dollars to combat this problem is going to result in a solution to the problem?
-
How do we even know if our efforts will work?
This whole thing is a complete folly. Watch this and grasp the concepts. The Green movement is truly delusional.
First of all, I'm not an advocate of the 'pro-green' movement. I was merely trying to explain why sea levels rise as the polar ice caps melt. I'm not taking any sides on the issue.
What Carlin is arguing in the video is pointless- ofcourse the planet isn't going anywhere. But come on, human beings have advanced enough techonolgically AND in numbers so we're able to affect the environment significantly (i.e. in ways that affect us and other creatures).
Nuclear bomb anyone? Soil erosion? Deforrestation? Water pollution? Combine human ingenuity (+ stupidity, double edged sword) with 7 billion people and there's potential for disaster. Any arguments against this are severely outdated IMO. The global warming issue is more complex, however, and the solutions to it are inevitably tied with global economics. So like you said, I agree that we should assess properly the situation as well as our own ability to solve it before we make major moves.