Adirondack Forum

Adirondack Forum (http://www.adkforum.com/index.php)
-   Environmental Issues (http://www.adkforum.com/forumdisplay.php?f=87)
-   -   Rochester Professor Proposes Jail Time (http://www.adkforum.com/showthread.php?t=19888)

Limekiln 03-16-2014 11:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vtflyfish (Post 214954)
It amazes me that we accept the opinions of those with vested interests as valid.

You bring up a good point....



" Al Gore and Blood, the former chief of Goldman Sachs Asset Management (GSAM), co-founded London-based GIM in 2004. Between 2008 and 2011 the company had raised profits of nearly $218 million from institutions and wealthy investors. By 2008 Gore was able to put $35 million into hedge funds and private partnerships through the Capricorn Investment Group, a Palo Alto company founded by his Canadian billionaire buddy Jeffrey Skoll, the first president of EBay Inc. It was Skoll’s Participant Media that produced Gore’s feverishly frightening 2006 horror film, “An Inconvenient Truth”.

Optimistic that a Democrat-controlled Congress would pass cap-and-trade legislation Gore lobbied for, GIM and David Blood’s old GSAM firm took big stakes in the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) for carbon trading. Accordingly, CCX was poised to make windfall profits selling CO2 offsets if and when cap-and-trade was passed. Speaking before a 2007 Joint House Hearing of the Energy Science Committee, Gore told members: “As soon as carbon has a price, you’re going to see a wave [of investment] in it…There will be unchained investment.”

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybel...vestment-hype/

TCD 03-17-2014 01:32 AM

Thanks, Limekiln. You made that point better than I could have. There are vested interest on all sides of this "debate." If you want to find out what's really happening, follow the money; not the science.

Schultzz 03-17-2014 01:38 AM

"If you want to find out what's really happening, follow the money; not the science."

Good Point.

And where do you think the money comes from for these "research" projects? The universities? Guess again.

Glen 03-17-2014 08:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Schultzz (Post 214963)
"If you want to find out what's really happening, follow the money; not the science."

Good Point.

And where do you think the money comes from for these "research" projects? The universities? Guess again.



So there is money on both sides, but both can't be wrong, or right. The OP was about some ill chosen words from some philosphy professor. Use common sense, is the amount of greenhouse gases being released in the atmosphere a good thing or bad? Does it contribute towards what most agree is climate change, or is it a drop in the bucket? Ones biases will always take over since none of us here, so far as I can tell, are capable of doing the actual science. I'd like you to respond to Redhawks comment about your cherry picking quotes and when the person quoting them reverses themselves, you choose not to. I call bias!

cityboy 03-17-2014 09:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Glen (Post 214971)
I'd like you to respond to Redhawks comment about your cherry picking quotes and when the person quoting them reverses themselves, you choose not to. I call bias!

People's opinion change all the time. Perhaps Al Gore would like to explain his continued stance since Roger Revelle (his mentor and credited with being one of the first scientists to pose the CO2 threat to the climate) changed his mind and cautioned for waiting for more data before enacting solutions.

"A great scientist named Roger Revelle had Al Gore in his class at Harvard and the Global Warming campaign was born. Revelle tried to calm things down years later, but Gore said Revelle was Senile and refused to debate."

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/1...g-scare-began/

Glen 03-17-2014 09:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cityboy (Post 214974)
People's opinion change all the time. Perhaps Al Gore would like to explain his continued stance since Roger Revelle (his mentor and credited with being one of the first scientists to pose the CO2 threat to the climate) changed his mind and cautioned for waiting for more data before enacting solutions.

"A great scientist named Roger Revelle had Al Gore in his class at Harvard and the Global Warming campaign was born. Revelle tried to calm things down years later, but Gore said Revelle was Senile and refused to debate."

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/1...g-scare-began/


First, you're answering for another poster. Second, we could do "he said/she said" all day long. Go back to my post and let me know whether or not what we discharge into the atmosphere is a good thing. Simple question, right?

cityboy 03-17-2014 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Glen (Post 214975)
First, you're answering for another poster. Second, we could do "he said/she said" all day long. Go back to my post and let me know whether or not what we discharge into the atmosphere is a good thing. Simple question, right?

Glen the IPCC already gave you an answer about CO2. If any subsequent rise in temperature is less than 2c than it is livable.

And Glen here is a simple question for you: have global temperatures leveled off over the last 15 years despite CO2 levels increasing yearly from a rate of 1.5 ppm in the 80's and 90's to 2.2 ppm per year.

redhawk 03-17-2014 10:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Limekiln (Post 214960)
You bring up a good point....



" Al Gore and Blood, the former chief of Goldman Sachs Asset Management (GSAM), co-founded London-based GIM in 2004. Between 2008 and 2011 the company had raised profits of nearly $218 million from institutions and wealthy investors. By 2008 Gore was able to put $35 million into hedge funds and private partnerships through the Capricorn Investment Group, a Palo Alto company founded by his Canadian billionaire buddy Jeffrey Skoll, the first president of EBay Inc. It was Skoll’s Participant Media that produced Gore’s feverishly frightening 2006 horror film, “An Inconvenient Truth”.

Optimistic that a Democrat-controlled Congress would pass cap-and-trade legislation Gore lobbied for, GIM and David Blood’s old GSAM firm took big stakes in the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) for carbon trading. Accordingly, CCX was poised to make windfall profits selling CO2 offsets if and when cap-and-trade was passed. Speaking before a 2007 Joint House Hearing of the Energy Science Committee, Gore told members: “As soon as carbon has a price, you’re going to see a wave [of investment] in it…There will be unchained investment.”

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybel...vestment-hype/

However, there is a flaw in the reasoning. Long before that, back in the 80's. Al Gore was carrying the message of global warming. So, in reality his investments in companies that would be involved in cutting back on climate change was a matter of putting his money where his mouth was. That is a trait that is very uncommon.

And after years of trying to pass on the dangers of climate control to no avail, he felt he had to do something to try to get the message to the masses, so he then published "An Inconvenient Truth". Gore was warning about Climate Change back in the 80's

Would anyone be surprised to know that the first calculations warning about human induced climate change occurred in 1896? Do some research on James Croll.

So, I would laud Gore on investing in a company that worked on solutions to a problem he passionately believed existed, rather then compare him to the people who deny the existence of human caused climate change because it would lower their profits.

Glen 03-17-2014 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cityboy (Post 214976)
Glen the IPCC already gave you an answer about CO2. If any subsequent rise in temperature is less than 2c than it is livable.

And Glen here is a simple question for you: have global temperatures leveled off over the last 15 years despite CO2 levels increasing yearly from a rate of 1.5 ppm in the 80's and 90's to 2.2 ppm per year.


Cityboy, 15 years is not much of a sample. Aren't the oceans absorbing and buffering some of this, for now? Again, I'm not a scientist and I don't know the answer, but this is the same argument that the acid rain deniers would use in the 1970's and 80's. A lot of cherry picked figures with a strong PR campaign tossed in to make it sound like it was insane to think particulates from the mid west could affect us here. This is no longer in dispute but the damage is done. The point being we cannot afford to get this one wrong and since I don't know the answer I will err on the side of caution. Also, it seems your dislike of a certain politician(s) informs your opinion strongly. If it wasn't Gore but a staunch conservative would you feel differently?

Limekiln 03-17-2014 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by redhawk (Post 214977)
Long before that, back in the 80's. Al Gore was carrying the message of global warming. So, in reality his investments in companies that would be involved in cutting back on climate change was a matter of putting his money where his mouth was. That is a trait that is very uncommon.

That's one way to look at it, but I don't think Al Gore is as pure as you think he is.

Hobbitling 03-17-2014 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cityboy (Post 214976)
have global temperatures leveled off over the last 15 years despite CO2 levels increasing yearly from a rate of 1.5 ppm in the 80's and 90's to 2.2 ppm per year.

No. It hasn't paused.
All of those "15 year pause" calculations use the same starting point of 1998.
1998 was a record high temperature year, due to a strong El Niño. If you shift just 2 years earlier, so use 1996-2010 instead of 1998-2012, the trend is +0.14 C per decade, so slightly greater than the long-term trend. 15 years isn't really long enough to get any meaningful trend.

Look, I'd love to keep refuting your arguments. I probably will continue to do so. But it makes me wonder, just what kind of evidence would you require to be convinced?

That's not a rhetorical question. I really mean it. What evidence would you have to see in order to be convinced climate change is real?

cityboy 03-17-2014 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Professor Hobbit (Post 214983)
No. It hasn't paused.
All of those "15 year pause" calculations use the same starting point of 1998.
1998 was a record high temperature year, due to a strong El Niño. If you shift just 2 years earlier, so use 1996-2010 instead of 1998-2012, the trend is +0.14 C per decade, so slightly greater than the long-term trend. 15 years isn't really long enough to get any meaningful trend.

Look, I'd love to keep refuting your arguments. I probably will continue to do so. But it makes me wonder, just what kind of evidence would you require to be convinced?

That's not a rhetorical question. I really mean it. What evidence would you have to see in order to be convinced climate change is real?

Most measures of the pause begin in 1997 for the very reason you mention. The "rise" is outside of the confidence bands therefore statistically 0. Even the IPCC acknowledges the pause so you're an exception. Also if there is no pause why all the papers trying to explain it? And that long term trend you mention works out to 1.4 per century well below the 2c level that the IPCC says will be catastrophic.
As for the time period. It is generally acknowledged that the manmade warming phase was roughly 1975 to 2000. That's at most 25 years. It was also stated by top Climatologists that a 15 year pause would be very rare and a cause of concern.

As for your question. My answer is very simple. To change my mind I would need to see temperatures rise to at or above the model predictions. And I would need to see that trend last at least 15 years.

Now what would cause you to change your mind?

redhawk 03-17-2014 11:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Limekiln (Post 214982)
That's one way to look at it, but I don't think Al Gore is as pure as you think he is.

I don't think anyone is pure. However He is certainly not the person that critics of climate change try to paint him. As far as a politician goes I believe he was more honest than most, more so than Reagan, Clinton, W Bush and Obama by a long shot.

Her was certainly warning about climate change long before anyone ever thought of setting up companies and technology to deal with it.

And the bottom line is pure or not, as time goes on, it's proving he is right, and that won't change whether he is pure or impure.

redhawk 03-17-2014 11:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cityboy (Post 214984)

Now what would cause you to change your mind?

What would cause me to change my mind is a reversal of my personal observations over the last 70 years.

It it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.

Schultzz 03-18-2014 02:09 AM

A Long Response
 
"So there is money on both sides, but both can't be wrong, or right. The OP was about some ill chosen words from some philosphy professor. Use common sense, is the amount of greenhouse gases being released in the atmosphere a good thing or bad? Does it contribute towards what most agree is climate change, or is it a drop in the bucket? Ones biases will always take over since none of us here, so far as I can tell, are capable of doing the actual science.

I'd like you to respond to Redhawks comment about your cherry picking quotes and when the person quoting them reverses themselves, you choose not to. I call bias!"



My first two questions Glen are this: Are you addressing me? And secondly, are you Mr. Redhawk's mouthpiece?

My work takes me different places at times other than yours does so I have to wait until I get home from work to respond to your inquiries.

My next question is this. What is your point? Are you attempting to debate?
If you showed up looking for a battle of wits I must politely withdraw as I can see that you have arrived unarmed.

You are preaching to the choir who like you has no power at all. Are you campaigning for a particular political party? Are you running for office?

If you have a hidden agenda I would like to know what it is.

I wasn't aware that Dr. Muller had changed his stance because I received the knowledge of his first point via email last week. So I may owe you an apology because of lack of awareness on my part regarding the change in his original opinion.

However, he did not refute his original point, and his second opinion is based on guess what? Another opinion. The planet has been heating up? If that's true is it caused by man or does this occur as a natural consequence of being what it is? Neither you or anyone else has convinced me that your statement is true.

When I say that you are preaching to the choir please know that I AM concerned about how some people treat our precious planet but other than my attempts to influence others to become better stewards of our resources I am as powerless as you to influence China to stop creating pollution and not doing anything to remedy it. How can I convince Ohio and other states west of here to stop incinerating medical wastes and other hazardous materials which have increased acidity in our lakes and streams. How can I convince Canada of the same? How can you or I reverse the mercury or pcp's in our game fish?

My point is that greed and selfishness caused many of our problems and I am not convinced that Mr. Gore has not taken advantage of our predicament to line his pockets as a result. So let me finish by offering to apologize to you and/or Mr. Gore if it turns out that I am wrong. However, let us look into Mr. Gore's past performance and history.

Heres some more "cherry picking" Glen.


FIVE YEARS AGO TODAY—

1. Al Gore predicted the North Polar Ice Cap would be completely ice free in five years. Gore made the prediction to a German audience in 2008. He told them that “the entire North ‘polarized’ cap will disappear in 5 years.”

2. "At the Democratic national convention in 1996, Gore gaving a moving speech about his only sister's painful death from lung cancer. And since then he has pushed the administration's aggressive anti-smoking campaign.

What Gore didn't mention is that he grew up on a tobacco farm, worked on it, and continued to accept checks from that farm for years after his sister died. In 1988, while running for president, he defended tobacco farmers while campaigning in Southern tobacco states (and made the quote up above: 'I've raised tobacco ... I've shredded it, spiked it,... and sold it.') He accepted contributions from tobacco companies as late as 1990.

3. Here are some of Al's business associates:

Convicted cocaine smuggler Jose Cabrera
Howard Glicken, who admitted soliciting and laundering foreign campaign contributions
Franklin Haney, indicted for illegal campaign contributions
1990. Mr. Gore was also accused of making fund raising call from his office. He has raised millions of dollars for his political party. Can you forget his Illegal Fundraising At a Buddhist Temple (and Weaseling About It Afterwards)

4. Environmental Hypocrisy

One example is the Pigeon River in North Carolina and east Tennesee. The Champion International paper mill has pumped tons of chemicals and byproducts into it for years, turning it the color of cofee and adding a sulfurish smell. Gore campaigned hard against this pollution and lobbied the EPA to crack down. But in 1987, as Gore started running for president the first time, he was pressured by 2 politicians whose support he craved for the North Carolina Super Tuesday primary. Terry Sanford (then a Senator) and Jamie Clarke (North Carolina congressmen) lobbied him hard to ease up on Champion. Gore did, writing to the EPA again and now asking for a more permissive water pollution standard. Sanford and Clarke endorsed him, and Gore won the state handily.

5. Al Gore-backed (and US government-backed) Fisker Automotive delivers $100,000 plug-in hybrid lemon to Consumer Reports; inexplicably broke down after 180 miles of testing, which only serves as further evidence that nearly all computer models cannot be relied upon.

6. The United States National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) lowers the Boom on Al Gore’s Big Lie that the humble, beneficial gas – CO2 – causes global warming. NASA states absolutely that Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is a Global Coolant and massively cools the Earth.

You can bet that the NASA scientists designed, built, launched and placed in Earth orbit the satellite machinery to prove it, too.

So, there we have it. In addition, the Earth has not gotten any warmer for 17 years. NASA has finally pulled the plug on Gore’s Big Lie and ended the gigantic, world wide charade on CO2.

7. Al Gore lied about his role in Vietnam. He was a reporter and was NEVER in a combat situation. He asked for an early out because he told them he wanted to go to the seminary which he dropped out soon after. Here is a copy of a letter from a real Vietnam Vet describing a photo that Al Gore showed while carrying an m-16.

My name is James Welborn. I served with the 25th Infantry Division in
Viet Nam at about the same time Al Gore was supposedly there. I was
stationed at Cu chi, somewhat to the north of Bein Hoa. I was sent a photo some
time ago that was titled," Al Gore, gun safety advocate".

While I laughed until tears were streaming down my face I did not at
that time look very close at the photo until a few days later. This photo
was on Al's own website, supposedly showing Al in Viet Nam. The photo is of
Al. But it ain't Viet Nam. Why?...

1. The photo is supposedly Al, out in the, "field". If this is so, why
is his weapon unloaded? And why does he have no ammo at all. If I, as a
photog for 25th Infantry attempted to go outside the wire with a patrol,
without ammo, two things would happen. First, the team I was going out
with would refuse to bring me along. And secondly, I would probably be
brought up on charges because such stupidity puts the rest of the patrol in
danger.

2. Al has only one canteen. There was no time of year in that area of
Viet Nam where you would not carry as much water as you could with you.
Drinking fountains were thin on the ground in the bush.

3. Al has a rubberized jacket of some sort on, over his fatigues. Aside
from the fact that you would keel over after about 5 minutes wearing
such a thing in the heat and humidity of that country, no such thing was
issued to troops incountry. Rain cover was provided by a poncho liner and
poncho, (a tent half with a hood in the center of it.) Enlisted troops were
not authorized to make up their own version of the field uniform. Nor were
officers for that matter.

4. Notice in the photo that Al has what looks to be a winter sleeping bag on
his "ruck." Try sleeping in one of these in Viet Nam and you would have
a very hot and wet night inside the bag.

5. Wasn't Al supposed to be a journalist or something? But he has no
camera, no cassette recorder. No film. And if he was acting a regular
"grunt," then he would be carrying lots of ammo, both for himself and
for the M-60, belt fed that goes out with any medium to large patrol.

6. No food.

7. No grenades.

8. Maybe in the special forces and seals, an enlisted man would be
allowed to go to the field with a boonie hat on. Nowhere else. Troops were
required to wear the steel pot and liner and you could be brought up on
charges for not doing so.

Sooooo, this is a photo of Al acting stupid in some basic training
center in the US, where you would go to the field without ammo, water and
food, and with clothes that were not authorized for use in Viet Nam. Al is
lying again. He might have been in Viet Nam, but this photo was not taken
there.

So Glen, What are we to think about your hero Al Gore? You accuse me of cherry picking? I am just trying to reach an intelligent decision as I am sure many other members are as well. Have a good day.

Paradox6 03-18-2014 06:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by redhawk (Post 215011)
What would cause me to change my mind is a reversal of my personal observations over the last 70 years.

It it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.

Sometimes it is just Sy Robertson.

vtflyfish 03-18-2014 07:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Schultzz (Post 215013)
"So there is money on both sides, but both can't be wrong, or right. The OP was about some ill chosen words from some philosphy professor. Use common sense, is the amount of greenhouse gases being released in the atmosphere a good thing or bad? Does it contribute towards what most agree is climate change, or is it a drop in the bucket? Ones biases will always take over since none of us here, so far as I can tell, are capable of doing the actual science.

I'd like you to respond to Redhawks comment about your cherry picking quotes and when the person quoting them reverses themselves, you choose not to. I call bias!"



My first two questions Glen are this: Are you addressing me? And secondly, are you Mr. Redhawk's mouthpiece?

My work takes me different places at times other than yours does so I have to wait until I get home from work to respond to your inquiries.

My next question is this. What is your point? Are you attempting to debate?
If you showed up looking for a battle of wits I must politely withdraw as I can see that you have arrived unarmed.

You are preaching to the choir who like you has no power at all. Are you campaigning for a particular political party? Are you running for office?

If you have a hidden agenda I would like to know what it is.

I wasn't aware that Dr. Muller had changed his stance because I received the knowledge of his first point via email last week. So I may owe you an apology because of lack of awareness on my part regarding the change in his original opinion.

However, he did not refute his original point, and his second opinion is based on guess what? Another opinion. The planet has been heating up? If that's true is it caused by man or does this occur as a natural consequence of being what it is? Neither you or anyone else has convinced me that your statement is true.

When I say that you are preaching to the choir please know that I AM concerned about how some people treat our precious planet but other than my attempts to influence others to become better stewards of our resources I am as powerless as you to influence China to stop creating pollution and not doing anything to remedy it. How can I convince Ohio and other states west of here to stop incinerating medical wastes and other hazardous materials which have increased acidity in our lakes and streams. How can I convince Canada of the same? How can you or I reverse the mercury or pcp's in our game fish?

My point is that greed and selfishness caused many of our problems and I am not convinced that Mr. Gore has not taken advantage of our predicament to line his pockets as a result. So let me finish by offering to apologize to you and/or Mr. Gore if it turns out that I am wrong. However, let us look into Mr. Gore's past performance and history.

Heres some more "cherry picking" Glen.


FIVE YEARS AGO TODAY—

1. Al Gore predicted the North Polar Ice Cap would be completely ice free in five years. Gore made the prediction to a German audience in 2008. He told them that “the entire North ‘polarized’ cap will disappear in 5 years.”

2. "At the Democratic national convention in 1996, Gore gaving a moving speech about his only sister's painful death from lung cancer. And since then he has pushed the administration's aggressive anti-smoking campaign.

What Gore didn't mention is that he grew up on a tobacco farm, worked on it, and continued to accept checks from that farm for years after his sister died. In 1988, while running for president, he defended tobacco farmers while campaigning in Southern tobacco states (and made the quote up above: 'I've raised tobacco ... I've shredded it, spiked it,... and sold it.') He accepted contributions from tobacco companies as late as 1990.

3. Here are some of Al's business associates:

Convicted cocaine smuggler Jose Cabrera
Howard Glicken, who admitted soliciting and laundering foreign campaign contributions
Franklin Haney, indicted for illegal campaign contributions
1990. Mr. Gore was also accused of making fund raising call from his office. He has raised millions of dollars for his political party. Can you forget his Illegal Fundraising At a Buddhist Temple (and Weaseling About It Afterwards)

4. Environmental Hypocrisy

One example is the Pigeon River in North Carolina and east Tennesee. The Champion International paper mill has pumped tons of chemicals and byproducts into it for years, turning it the color of cofee and adding a sulfurish smell. Gore campaigned hard against this pollution and lobbied the EPA to crack down. But in 1987, as Gore started running for president the first time, he was pressured by 2 politicians whose support he craved for the North Carolina Super Tuesday primary. Terry Sanford (then a Senator) and Jamie Clarke (North Carolina congressmen) lobbied him hard to ease up on Champion. Gore did, writing to the EPA again and now asking for a more permissive water pollution standard. Sanford and Clarke endorsed him, and Gore won the state handily.

5. Al Gore-backed (and US government-backed) Fisker Automotive delivers $100,000 plug-in hybrid lemon to Consumer Reports; inexplicably broke down after 180 miles of testing, which only serves as further evidence that nearly all computer models cannot be relied upon.

6. The United States National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) lowers the Boom on Al Gore’s Big Lie that the humble, beneficial gas – CO2 – causes global warming. NASA states absolutely that Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is a Global Coolant and massively cools the Earth.

You can bet that the NASA scientists designed, built, launched and placed in Earth orbit the satellite machinery to prove it, too.

So, there we have it. In addition, the Earth has not gotten any warmer for 17 years. NASA has finally pulled the plug on Gore’s Big Lie and ended the gigantic, world wide charade on CO2.

7. Al Gore lied about his role in Vietnam. He was a reporter and was NEVER in a combat situation. He asked for an early out because he told them he wanted to go to the seminary which he dropped out soon after. Here is a copy of a letter from a real Vietnam Vet describing a photo that Al Gore showed while carrying an m-16.

My name is James Welborn. I served with the 25th Infantry Division in
Viet Nam at about the same time Al Gore was supposedly there. I was
stationed at Cu chi, somewhat to the north of Bein Hoa. I was sent a photo some
time ago that was titled," Al Gore, gun safety advocate".

While I laughed until tears were streaming down my face I did not at
that time look very close at the photo until a few days later. This photo
was on Al's own website, supposedly showing Al in Viet Nam. The photo is of
Al. But it ain't Viet Nam. Why?...

1. The photo is supposedly Al, out in the, "field". If this is so, why
is his weapon unloaded? And why does he have no ammo at all. If I, as a
photog for 25th Infantry attempted to go outside the wire with a patrol,
without ammo, two things would happen. First, the team I was going out
with would refuse to bring me along. And secondly, I would probably be
brought up on charges because such stupidity puts the rest of the patrol in
danger.

2. Al has only one canteen. There was no time of year in that area of
Viet Nam where you would not carry as much water as you could with you.
Drinking fountains were thin on the ground in the bush.

3. Al has a rubberized jacket of some sort on, over his fatigues. Aside
from the fact that you would keel over after about 5 minutes wearing
such a thing in the heat and humidity of that country, no such thing was
issued to troops incountry. Rain cover was provided by a poncho liner and
poncho, (a tent half with a hood in the center of it.) Enlisted troops were
not authorized to make up their own version of the field uniform. Nor were
officers for that matter.

4. Notice in the photo that Al has what looks to be a winter sleeping bag on
his "ruck." Try sleeping in one of these in Viet Nam and you would have
a very hot and wet night inside the bag.

5. Wasn't Al supposed to be a journalist or something? But he has no
camera, no cassette recorder. No film. And if he was acting a regular
"grunt," then he would be carrying lots of ammo, both for himself and
for the M-60, belt fed that goes out with any medium to large patrol.

6. No food.

7. No grenades.

8. Maybe in the special forces and seals, an enlisted man would be
allowed to go to the field with a boonie hat on. Nowhere else. Troops were
required to wear the steel pot and liner and you could be brought up on
charges for not doing so.

Sooooo, this is a photo of Al acting stupid in some basic training
center in the US, where you would go to the field without ammo, water and
food, and with clothes that were not authorized for use in Viet Nam. Al is
lying again. He might have been in Viet Nam, but this photo was not taken
there.

So Glen, What are we to think about your hero Al Gore? You accuse me of cherry picking? I am just trying to reach an intelligent decision as I am sure many other members are as well. Have a good day.

Schultzz, nobody in this argument has claimed Mr. Gore is a saint. That's hardly the point but you appear to have a real problem with him which looks to me like it colors your argument.

You might want to read the following, which lays out the history of thought on climate change: http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
Note that nobel prizewinners and scientific luminaries of the 19th century knew enough about the absorbtion properties of CO2 to realize too much of it in our atmosphere could be a problem. So now here we are 120 years later. In that time approximately 500 billion tons of CO2 has been produced by man from burning carbon based compounds. Approximately 1/3 of that has been absorbed by our oceans, raising the pH measurably. So, Mr. S, is this a problem to you? Do you consider it wise and prudent to continue on the path we're on? I'd note that the scientific community generally gets it right with minor deviations on the path to truth. You can't make a similar claim about industries that make their livlihood by providing carbon based fuels or from burning them.

Glen 03-18-2014 07:53 AM

Schultzz,

That's quite a rant. Unfortunately your premise is that I am defending Al Gore, when instead it is about climate science. So we get it, if Al Gore is for it, you're against it. You could have said that with a lot less bandwith. Sorry you are so angry. Have a nice day.

cityboy 03-18-2014 08:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vtflyfish (Post 215016)
Note that nobel prizewinners and scientific luminaries of the 19th century knew enough about the absorbtion properties of CO2 to realize too much of it in our atmosphere could be a problem. So now here we are 120 years later.

And in 120 years from now we will still be in the same place. Three predictions:

1. There will never be a worldwide CO2 agreement
2. CO2 levels will decline at some point in that timespan (120 years)
3. Green technology will only have a minor part in the decline since it will be because of a reduction of coal use (China, India, and other developing countries) as Fracking of Natural Gas and Oil expands.

Neil 03-18-2014 08:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Glen (Post 215017)
it is about climate science.

Yeah, let's stick with climate science. :thumbs:

There are so many variables in studying climate it makes you wonder which is the most fraught with difficulties, climate science or psychology.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:58 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions Inc.