10 Questions for Al Gore.

[slipstream]

Thee was a PBS 'Nova' program on the melting glacier situation where I saw this information. A team of photographers is visually documenting the disappearing ice packs with boots on the ground through time-lapse photography. "Extreme Ice" was the program title, which aired the last week of March '09. On the program, they showed how scientists can take samples of the atmosphere for half a million years into the past. This is done by analysis of air bubbles trapped within the ice cores. It's an accurate measurement to note changes in the atmosphere through time. If you chart these various levels of the greenhouse gases, there is a pronounced and sharp upward spike of CO2 levels within the last couple hundred of years, virtually going off the chart vertically. To be more exact, we have higher levels (exceeded all previous measured levels) of CO2 in our atmosphere than at any time in those last half million years. Think about that. In about two hundred years this spike has occurred and CO2 levels are higher than in about 500,000 years. Does anyone besides me see an connection and cause here?

We can't blame the Sun, we can't say it's the solar system heating up, it's not a natural climate cycle by any definition. It's not some conspiracy designed to strengthen the elites hold on the sheep. It's not Al Gore on an ego trip. It's absolutely none of those things. It's humankind altering the atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels, in tandem with the onset of the industrial age. We have unintentionally conducted an experiment on our planet, ourselves, nature, and other life on this planet. We will reap those seeds of destruction that we have sown, in this experiment gone awry. It's time to convert the energy of your anti-global warming anger into the action of human responsibility.

Seriously and honestly, Al Gore is not pulling your leg. I don't think he needs to because those glaciers are melting awfully fast and there's bound to be a lot of extra water in the oceans. I don't know about you but that doesn't sound good for people living on oceanfront property. Some estimations say that species of life on the planet are going extinct at a rate 1000 times normal, primarily due to humankind's influence and domineering changes on its environment. Nature is not invincible and immune from our harm. Resources on the planet are limited and aren't easily replenished. We have a great capacity for creating wonderful things, but we have an equal capacity for disruption & destruction at a pace unmatched by any other form of life on the planet. It's in our nature, unfortunately.

There's an article in Wired magazine about 'manufactured confusion.' It's not a particularly new concept, but it is amazingly effective at what it does. A quick summary is that certain interest groups, funded by certain companies, use their money to confuse the public about issues like global climate change, smoking, clean coal, etc. These groups use the usual lobbyist tactics of persuading people to ignore the facts and forget about their obligations to the greater good, and instead to concentrate on the now and the me. Why worry about the world we leave to our kids since we won't be there to enjoy it, or at least that must be what some people are thinking. This deliberate obfuscation has to be a main reason why more people distrust science, and how the public has gone into a 'dumbed down' mode because of it. It's an explanation for how we can waste precious time and energy to argue about facts, while the problem(s) get progressively worse and possible solutions are made more difficult to find.

Clive Thompson on How More Info Leads to Less Knowledge

 

[Tommy Allison]

Thee was a PBS 'Nova' program on the melting glacier situation where I saw this information. A team of photographers is visually documenting the disappearing ice packs with boots on the ground through time-lapse photography. "Extreme Ice" was the program title, which aired the last week of March '09. On the program, they showed how scientists can take samples of the atmosphere for half a million years into the past. This is done by analysis of air bubbles trapped within the ice cores. It's an accurate measurement to note changes in the atmosphere through time. If you chart these various levels of the greenhouse gases, there is a pronounced and sharp upward spike of CO2 levels within the last couple hundred of years, virtually going off the chart vertically. To be more exact, we have higher levels (exceeded all previous measured levels) of CO2 in our atmosphere than at any time in those last half million years. Think about that. In about two hundred years this spike has occurred and CO2 levels are higher than in about 500,000 years. Does anyone besides me see an connection and cause here?

We can't blame the Sun, we can't say it's the solar system heating up, it's not a natural climate cycle by any definition. It's not some conspiracy designed to strengthen the elites hold on the sheep. It's not Al Gore on an ego trip. It's absolutely none of those things. It's humankind altering the atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels, in tandem with the onset of the industrial age. We have unintentionally conducted an experiment on our planet, ourselves, nature, and other life on this planet. We will reap those seeds of destruction that we have sown, in this experiment gone awry. It's time to convert the energy of your anti-global warming anger into the action of human responsibility.

Seriously and honestly, Al Gore is not pulling your leg. I don't think he needs to because those glaciers are melting awfully fast and there's bound to be a lot of extra water in the oceans. I don't know about you but that doesn't sound good for people living on oceanfront property. Some estimations say that species of life on the planet are going extinct at a rate 1000 times normal, primarily due to humankind's influence and domineering changes on its environment. Nature is not invincible and immune from our harm. Resources on the planet are limited and aren't easily replenished. We have a great capacity for creating wonderful things, but we have an equal capacity for disruption & destruction at a pace unmatched by any other form of life on the planet. It's in our nature, unfortunately.

There's an article in Wired magazine about 'manufactured confusion.' It's not a particularly new concept, but it is amazingly effective at what it does. A quick summary is that certain interest groups, funded by certain companies, use their money to confuse the public about issues like global climate change, smoking, clean coal, etc. These groups use the usual lobbyist tactics of persuading people to ignore the facts and forget about their obligations to the greater good, and instead to concentrate on the now and the me. Why worry about the world we leave to our kids since we won't be there to enjoy it, or at least that must be what some people are thinking. This deliberate obfuscation has to be a main reason why more people distrust science, and how the public has gone into a 'dumbed down' mode because of it. It's an explanation for how we can waste precious time and energy to argue about facts, while the problem(s) get progressively worse and possible solutions are made more difficult to find.

Clive Thompson on How More Info Leads to Less Knowledge

Just so you understand, the climate of Venus, Mars, and Jupiter have changed. Jupiter got hot enough to where it spawned a second red spot (super storm).

Yet I don't recall us humans driving cars on the surface of Jupiter.

Let me know when you have an answer for that one, which I'm confident you won't even attempt to answer it.

 

[0uterj0in]

Just so you understand, the climate of Venus, Mars, and Jupiter have changed. Jupiter got hot enough to where it spawned a second red spot (super storm). Yet I don't recall us humans driving cars on the surface of Jupiter.

Surely you're not suggesting that it is impossible for human activity to affect the atmosphere? You're ruling it out completely?

 

[truthseeker]

I'm all for developing alternative energy and reducing pollution of our planet, but not at the expense of taxing people to death - and that's exactly what Al Gore and his ilk want to do. The technologies that they're pushing are bullshit and completely not cost-effective. We need real breakthroughs in physics, molecular science and nano technologies, which I think will happen sooner or later. But don't impose more taxes upon the people or commerce completely killing the economy. For God's sake people, are we not paying enough taxes already!!!??

 

[Tommy Allison]

Surely you're not suggesting that it is impossible for human activity to affect the atmosphere? You're ruling it out completely?

Surely you're not dodging the question about how Venus, Mars and Jupiter's climates got hotter?

 

[0uterj0in]

Surely you're not dodging the question about how Venus, Mars and Jupiter's climates got hotter?

So if other planets got hotter without human activity, then it's impossible for Earth to get hotter because of human activity?

It's stupidest premise I've come across in this whole phony "debate".

 

[David Biedny]

Sigh...

We don't know enough about how any planet, much less ours, actually works, evolves and changes, we have only the most basic understanding of the nature of reality in general. Meanwhile, anyone who wants to have an honest debate about whether or not mankind is having a detrimental effect on the planet, sheesh, take one look at China or large swaths of New Jersey - or Nevada - and the reality of what we're doing to this planet is pretty frikkin obvious. Is some large part of the warming pattern of this planet attributable to human industrial activity? Yeah, I think so, I don't have any major problems with that statement. I'm not a geologist, not sure how many of them we have on these forums, but I know enough to realize that the population numbers and our particular lifestyles are no gift to the Earth, and I'm one of those folks who believes - not knows, but strongly suspects - that the planet will put defenses to work against us to protect itself. Call me crazy, but that's one of the things I really think the indigenous peoples had a way better handle on, compared to modern technological man. The other planets are getting hotter? OK, but I don't see how that precludes the realization that our spewing carbon into the atmosphere is not having an effect, sorry, that doesn't work out logically.

dB

 

[MVoltage]

Here I am about to jump right in to quite a strong debate about global warming, Al Gore, etc...Here is my view point on such things:
As i understand it the last ice age was not that long ago, and we are in fact still coming out of it. What happens to temperatures when coming out of an ICE AGE? Yes, they increase.....
Oh look! the globe is warming! Perfectly natural and normal.

It has been proven that the planet's global climate and temperature cycles every 200 million years or so, and the variance in temperature is quite considerable....if I remember rightly +/- 50 to 60 degrees centigrade. As i said they have proven this and plotted it looks like a sin wave.
I believe that we CAN impact the world's climate, but not as drastically as is claimed...Just to reiterate, it is normal for the temperatures/climate of this planet to fluctuate.
People like Al Gore annoy me. In this country (UK) the people in power are forever saying "we must do more to help the environment". Yes I think this is good...But not when this "help" takes the form of taxing the motorist more and more. It is such an obvious way to get yet more moey out of people who are already broke (thanks to the incompetent idiot bankers!). If governments were REALLY serious about helping the enviroment by say, doing away with our dependance on cars, they would come up with a serious short, medium and long term strategy....Not just tax the hell out of people in the hope that they will use their cars less! Just think for one minute what would happen to a country if it was made all of a sudden so expensive that they could not use any vehicles with combustion engines!
(I tell you they are determined to get us out of our cars into bloody electric golf buggy things...Eurgh!!).

As i have said there is so much that we do not know or understand about this planet. The climate etc...of Earth has changed so much so many times and it will do so again. Don't they find fossil fish and things in the Grand canyon meaning it used to be under water? Dinosaurs can't exist today because the gravity is too great....That's why insects do not get as big as they used to (dragon flies with 1.5m wings, 10ft long scorpions....and before anyone says, I know a scorpion is an arachnid and not an insect...but pretty cool though...a 10 ft scorpion!...can't squish it with the heel of your slipper and it is unlikely to scuttle under your bed when you put the light on!)....just a few examples of how much this planet has changed and keeps changing.

i will shut up now....Sorry to ramble on, but the global warming thing annoys me when i see tv and film stars acting like they are world experts on the issue....they use words you can see they have no idea of the meaning...

 

[skunkape]

Anyone who pretends to understand the weather enough to know what it is going to do a year from now is deluded.
Yeah, we need to drop our oil and coal habits. It mucks up the air and forces us to deal with crazy people.
Don't expect the government to fix this problem.
Fixing problems puts government out of business.
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">

 

[TClaeys]

Dinosaurs can't exist today because the gravity is too great...

Ummm, what?? Could you explain this please.

As far as taxing. I agree there is a certain result that should be met that keeps the taxes in check. But if it was an undisputed fact that global warming was going to become catastrophic and we all had to completely stop driving our cars then we should.

I don't care if the world economy busts or whatever. We need to provide for ourselves and our future generations. Screw the money. Money has little worth if we're not around to spend it. We could figure a way. Big fucking deal. If we have to actually walk or ride a bike or whatever, we could do it. One problem is that we drive 2 hours to work then 2 home. Why?? Because thats the way we do things. But we did walk all the damn way from Asia right?

We can't sit back and cite that it is just too inconvenient and too expensive to do anything about any named natural crisis, whatever it might be. But that is what is happening. If we are ever to reach the next level of technological advancement (actually the first according to Kaku because we don't even register at this point) then we need to get off the burning of fossil fuels for our energy. If it is forced to some degree for the betterment of our species and planet then I'll deal with it.

 

[TClaeys]

Don't expect the government to fix this problem.

<INPUT id=gwProxy type=hidden><!--Session data--><INPUT id=jsProxy onclick=jsCall(); type=hidden><INPUT id=gwProxy type=hidden><!--Session data--><INPUT id=jsProxy onclick=jsCall(); type=hidden>

I understand what you're saying but who's supposed to be responsible enough to fix it?? Are we to expect all these major businesses to just say "Hey guys, let's take in the ass for the betterment of our planet"?? Are they just going to do this out of the kindness of their hearts?? I don't think they would give a shit if the planet warmed up to a barely tolerable degree so long as they kept raking it in.

 

[skunkape]

I don't care if the world economy busts or whatever. We need to provide for ourselves and our future generations. Screw the money. Money has little worth if we're not around to spend it.

My hopes are that mankind will eventually evolve beyond money.
If little jingly coins and pretty pieces of paper stamped with ink are our undoing, we never deserved this beautiful Creation to begin with.
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">

 

[MVoltage]

Ummm, what?? Could you explain this please.]

Hi TClaeys,

Sorry not the clearest or best of examples...but not incorrect....I meant the biggest of the dinosaurs. They would simply be too big for today's gravity....There is a limit on the size of land mammals and other organisms, and it is dependant on the gravity at the time. An insect as big as I said in my post would be crushed by today's gravity, yet they existed meaning that gravity was lower when they were around all those millions of years ago.

 

[Tommy Allison]

So if other planets got hotter without human activity, then it's impossible for Earth to get hotter because of human activity?

It's stupidest premise I've come across in this whole phony "debate".

There you go again with your stupidity.

If other planets are getting hotter, without humans being involved, then how is it that humans get the blame for THIS planet getting warmer? Besides, we're not getting warmer at all.

The lies and stupidity of a majority of people are why this whole planet is fucked. Anything to steal wealth from those who produce, to put it into the hands of lazy, and indifferent liars whose sole aim is to control every facet of humanity's existence.

By believing the lies and continuing their propagation, you are falling in line with their EnviroNazi agenda.

 

[David Biedny]

You're doing your part you fucking idiotic jackboot Environazi.

Tommy, that is way out of line. I think you need to step away from the keyboard for a bit. Seriously, that's totally uncalled for, and really degrades your overall credibility, NOTHING was said to you to elicit such a response.

dB

 

[TClaeys]

Ummm, what?? Could you explain this please.]

Hi TClaeys,

Sorry not the clearest or best of examples...but not incorrect....I meant the biggest of the dinosaurs. They would simply be too big for today's gravity....There is a limit on the size of land mammals and other organisms, and it is dependant on the gravity at the time. An insect as big as I said in my post would be crushed by today's gravity, yet they existed meaning that gravity was lower when they were around all those millions of years ago.

How was gravity different in the past and more importantly why?? I know this is off topic, but it doesn't make sense. Could you provide some more informational links on this because I have never heard of it. As far as I know gravity is not a variable, it is a constant based on mass.

 

[AnnetteMarie]

... Dinosaurs can't exist today because the gravity is too great....That's why insects do not get as big as they used to (dragon flies with 1.5m wings, 10ft long scorpions....

well, that pretty much wrecked the rest of that post for me

... if you think the gravity is too heavy to let them fly today, take a look around any airport. bet those beasties don't weigh nearly as much as a hercules transport, fully loaded.

there have also been some discoveries made to indicate many of the larger dinosaurs did not have completely solid bones, they were permeated with holes, which carried oxygen directly to where it was needed.

before anyone jumps in and states bones with holes would not be strong enough to carry the weight of a massive dinosaur, take a gander at some of the strongest metal or wood beams. many of them are honeycombed and are stronger than solid.

my ten cents, for what they are worth...

 

[BrandonD]

Ummm, what?? Could you explain this please.]

Hi TClaeys,

Sorry not the clearest or best of examples...but not incorrect....I meant the biggest of the dinosaurs. They would simply be too big for today's gravity....There is a limit on the size of land mammals and other organisms, and it is dependant on the gravity at the time. An insect as big as I said in my post would be crushed by today's gravity, yet they existed meaning that gravity was lower when they were around all those millions of years ago.

Actually, I've considered this idea that gravity was, for whatever reason, weaker in the distant past. We don't really understand gravity, and so I think this is an idea worth considering.

Here is the thing that first brought this idea to my mind:

I've always loved dinosaurs, I used to have tons of dinosaur books and knew all their names by heart. One of the herbivores was called Brachiosaurus, for a long time it was the largest dinosaur known to have existed. A strange feature of this dinosaur was that its nostrils were on top of its head. Because of this, the consensus among archaeologists was that this gigantic dinosaur spent most of its life in water.

Only recently, it was calculated that water pressure would have been so powerful on the body of brachiosaurus that it wouldn't have been able to breathe. So it was concluded that brachiosaurus was an entirely terrestrial animal.

But animals with raised nostrils (like crocodiles for example) have them because they are aquatic animals, so I wondered "What if gravity was for some reason weaker millions of years ago, so that brachiosaurus could've been aquatic back then?"

With this idea in mind, I thought "hey, this would also help to explain why animals are not nearly as gigantic as they were in prehistoric times."

Anyone have thoughts on this subject?

 

[Tommy Allison]

I'm of the mind that Oxygen levels were much higher, which is why animals got to be as big as they were. Spiders are a great example of when over oxygenated, they grow to enormous sizes.

Certain Spiders in the Creataceous period were GIGANTIC compared to their diminuitive modern counterparts.

Scientists believe that it was due to the amount of oxygen they were able to intake. The thought of giant spiders in this day and age is pretty fucking scary. If you've seen the movie, The Mist, you'll understand why I'm creeped out by it.

 

[Frozen E.T. Burrito]

Tommy,

Seriously, 6.6 billion talking monkeys in a place the size of Texas? I think it would be a bit of a tight squeeze, and not doable, especially given the problem of feeding all those mouths.

I've had someone give me the "whole world in Texas" argument before, and coming from the deep South, from a family who up until myself survived directly from the land, I am very much aware of how much it takes, land wise, to support a human... it's a pretty decent amount. Then they have to consider how much of the land is actually arable, and then, for how many years will it STAY that way (having to deal with crop rotation and soil replenishment and all that). But the single *biggest* issue, I believe, would be... water.