Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Thank you Al Gore, I think I hate you!

13

Comments

  • #62
    digme
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,584 ✭✭✭digme


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Ah yes, those halfwits at NASA, what would they know about anything. Sure they think that sending man to the moon and exploring distant planets with robotic space probes is something to be proud of.

    Whereas that blogger at CO2insanity, a reputable and revered academic mind of his likes has not been seen since the days of Einstein, Schrodinger, Bohr and Rutherford.
    Scientists drill through 2 kilometers of Greenland ice, find butterflies & lush forests.End of your silly argument.


  • #63
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 1,452 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    digme wrote: »
    Scientists drill through 2 kilometers of Greenland ice, find butterflies & lush forests..

    Enough said !

    If you could link to actual academic evidence such as peer reviewed papers and websites run by scientific institutions, rather than blogs I might take you more seriously.


  • #64
    digme
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,584 ✭✭✭digme


    Deleted User wrote: »
    If you could link to actual academic evidence such as peer reviewed papers and websites run by scientific institutions, rather than blogs I might take you more seriously.
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6276576.stm

    I'm sure the bbc are well respected .
    Armies of insects once crawled through lush forests in a region of Greenland now covered by more than 2,000m of ice.

    DNA extracted from ice cores shows that moths and butterflies were living in forests of spruce and pine in the area between 450,000 and 800,000 years ago.

    You don't need fancy graphs,it's factual enough as is.


  • #65
    Son Of A Vidic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,370 ✭✭✭✭Son Of A Vidic


    Deleted User wrote: »
    No need to be so patronising.

    My apologies, I may have been sarcastic but I didn't intend to patronise.


  • #66
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 1,452 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    digme wrote: »
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6276576.stm

    I'm sure the bbc are well respected .



    You don't need fancy graphs,it's factual enough as is.

    Well yes, but if I included a BBC article as a reference for a scientific essay I would fail.

    Anyway that's beside the point. Nobody and I mean nobody, in the field of climate science denies that there have been large swings in both global temperature and CO2 concentration in the past. The difference now is that the current upswing is larger and faster than anything that has gone before it.

    Finding evidence of lush forests beneath the Greenland icesheet in no way disproves the current consensus viz a vis climate change.

    The fact that climate change skeptics try to use it to further their argument in fact weakens their position, as it shows how limited their understanding of climate science is.


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    RichieC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,331 ✭✭✭RichieC


    Corvus Maximus wrote: »
    Oh the weighty, intellectual response. So now reality does not exist perhaps? Are you now denying the very real embarrassment caused to NASA by the famous meteorite declaration in the Nineties, ever happened?. But if you are not old enough to remember/weren't born - I could overlook your knowledge deficit in this instance.

    I just don't think there's enough intellectual weight behind your argument to even attempt to refute it. tbf.

    I might even go as far as to say "conspiracy theory forum is dataway===>"


  • #68
    Son Of A Vidic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,370 ✭✭✭✭Son Of A Vidic


    RichieC wrote: »
    I just don't think there's enough intellectual weight behind your argument to even attempt to refute it. tbf.

    I might even go as far as to say "conspiracy theory forum is dataway===>"

    I don't do conspiracies, so your roll eyes earlier constitutes intellectual weight does it? Your declarations get more amazing.


  • #69
    RichieC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,331 ✭✭✭RichieC


    What declarations have I made?


  • #70
    Son Of A Vidic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,370 ✭✭✭✭Son Of A Vidic


    RichieC wrote: »
    What declarations have I made?

    Your reply to this.....
    Corvus Maximus wrote: »
    Ah poor oul NASA, with their space budget seriously snipped I suppose they need to hang on to some funding. Anyone remember their premature claims of Alien life back in the Nineties?

    Was......
    RichieC wrote: »
    :rolleyes:


    seriously... get real.


    I don't need to spell it out further do I?


  • #71
    RichieC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,331 ✭✭✭RichieC


    That was no declaration, it was advise.

    If you think that the majority of *qualified* scientists on earth are part of a conspiracy to raise your taxes and lower the CC of your engine then sweet jesus... there's no other word for it.

    Conspiracy theory.


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    Son Of A Vidic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,370 ✭✭✭✭Son Of A Vidic


    RichieC wrote: »
    That was no declaration, it was advise.[/B]

    Your advise was to get real, this advise was in reply to my pointing out that NASA aren't adverse to making embarrassing claims. The claim I was speaking off was the famous meteorite declaration in the early Nineties.

    So here I have to repeat myself again, your reply indicates two possible things here....

    1) You are denying the reality of the meteorite declaration ever occurring?

    or

    2) You are two young/were not born at the time - therefore you have no knowledge of it.

    Of course you never elaborated when I asked you this in an earlier post.

    RichieC wrote: »
    a conspiracy to raise your taxes and lower the CC of your engine [/B]

    Taxes? Car engine sizes? What are ya on about? That's someone else's post mate not mine. Christ your're obsessed with conspiracy theories aren't you?

    Do you even read posts? You're clearly getting posts mixed up here, reading them properly helps I find.

    So with this in mind, I shall deny you the oxygen of my further participation here....good night to you.


  • #73
    zenno
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,377 ✭✭✭zenno


    RichieC wrote: »
    http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/


    not that you'd be interested.

    ahh the ole hockey stick syndrome of which was dictated by al gore and other so-called scientists that cannot understand the natural climatic changes throughout the centuries. they get great funding though with their unprofessional work/scam.

    the medivel warm period according to many scientists calculations and ice-core samples dating back showed that the climate was alot hotter back then than it is even by todays standards in most parts of the world including co2 calculations.

    another thing' scientists are only barely grasping on how the climate of the planet really works. the natural change in the climate from huge volcanic eruptions of co2 throughout the centuries have produced many many more times the amount of co2 before we even had technology to get to this stage.

    unless you fully understand 120% of how the climate works then otherwise it is a bad science' to say such things that humans are causing the planets climate to change. we are but just a miniscule cause of co2 compared to a volcano going off. it's a scam and will be shown to be a scam in the near future this "global warming changed to climate change. without co2 we would not be here. plants love co2 and the way most of you people are going on makes it sould that co2 is a poison. plants cannot survive without it and neither can we.


  • #74
    Offy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,701 ✭✭✭Offy


    WOW five pages already, ok if Im to be honest I dont really care, I love my 2.3l Saab and as I dont work its the tax payer that really pays my tax! oh ya I also have a 42" plasma :D Thank you PAYE worker :)
    Flame on....................I love AH


  • #75
    RayM
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,973 ✭✭✭RayM


    zenno wrote: »
    it's quite obvious that this person ^^^ doesn't drive' or like driving. :eek:

    You're wrong (I would insert a 'shocked' emoticon here, but I strongly doubt that being wrong is, for you, a rare occurrence). I drive, and I don't dislike it either. I merely take issue with those who attempt (usually quite poorly) to defend their decision to engage in environmentally unfriendly practices by immediately adopting a very definite conclusion (i.e. that climate change is 'a scam') and refusing to budge from it, regardless of the fact that it deviates wildly from the findings of the vast majority of the world's climate scientists.


  • #76
    RichieC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,331 ✭✭✭RichieC


    zenno wrote: »
    we are but just a miniscule cause of co2 compared to a volcano going off. it's a scam and will be shown to be a scam in the near future this "global warming changed to climate change. without co2 we would not be here. plants love co2 and the way most of you people are going on makes it sould that co2 is a poison. plants cannot survive without it and neither can we.

    Do your research before saying volcanoes cause more C02 than humans, because it's total bull****. they produce less than 1% of the human output per annum.

    the earth has natural sinks for it's c02 emissions, the earth, the sea and plant life. unfortunately it hasn't yet quite evolved the means to absorb the exorbitant amount produced by human industry.

    It's like you deniers all have a handbook with your bloody talking points to chuck out... ridiculous bollocks.


  • #77
    Offy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,701 ✭✭✭Offy


    RichieC wrote: »
    Do your research before saying volcanoes cause more C02 than humans, because it's total bull****. they produce less than 1% of the human output per annum.

    Link?


  • #78
    zenno
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,377 ✭✭✭zenno


    RayM wrote: »
    You're wrong (I would insert a 'shocked' emoticon here, but I strongly doubt that being wrong is, for you, a rare occurrence). I drive, and I don't dislike it either. I merely take issue with those who attempt (usually quite poorly) to defend their decision to engage in environmentally unfriendly practices by immediately adopting a very definite conclusion (i.e. that climate change is 'a scam') and refusing to budge from it, regardless of the fact that it deviates wildly from the findings of the vast majority of the world's climate scientists.

    oh for gods sake' I had to deal with simular tree huggers like you before. get the facts right yourself and understand how the natural climate works especially i would advice you to do some study on volcanology regarding co2.


  • #79
    RichieC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,331 ✭✭✭RichieC


    Offy wrote: »
    Link?


    summary, you might have subscribe for the actual document... though it's a well established fact that I'm quite frankly appalled I'm being asked to cite:

    http://www.agu.org/journals/ABS/2001/2001RG000105.shtml

    Here's a breakdown:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?p=5&t=236&&a=28


  • #80
    RichieC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,331 ✭✭✭RichieC


    I will say this, though, human output will pale in comparison, in the short term, if Yellowstone super volcano decides to blow, and that bitch by the best estimates, is overdue. (you'd fit Tokyo, worlds largest city of 127 million people inside its Caldera.)


  • #81
    UsernameInUse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 778 ✭✭✭UsernameInUse


    Offy wrote: »
    Yet the tax on my car is defined by its CO2 emissions. I pay nearly €900 per year because of this.

    You're getting ripped off, my friend.

    Far be it from anyone having a constructive debate about global warming these days as the green fascists are all over you if you disagree with their incoherent and illogical ramblings. First rule of life - question everything.
    Al Gore is a bureaucratic run-mouth with nothing to contribute to the discussion apart from his political ties, of course. Almost all independent studies point to the fact that the sun is enlarging, causing effects on the earth. The radiation from the sun is causing global warming - it's a natural phenomenon. The melting of the ice-caps is not being caused by taking your vehicle to work a few days per week. Absolutely absurd - but somehow the fascists have invited themselves to intrude into your independent thought and criminalise you for not being "green" enough.

    These are the same people from the elitist mindset who believe that the only thing wrong with the country is that there isn't enough bicycle-paths.


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    RichieC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,331 ✭✭✭RichieC


    UsernameInUse wrote: »
    You're getting ripped off, my friend.

    Far be it from anyone having a constructive debate about global warming these days as the green fascists are all over you if you disagree with their incoherent and illogical ramblings. First rule of life - question everything.
    Al Gore is a bureaucratic run-mouth with nothing to contribute to the discussion apart from his political ties, of course. Almost all independent studies point to the fact that the sun is enlarging, causing effects on the earth. The radiation from the sun is causing global warming - it's a natural phenomenon. The melting of the ice-caps is not being caused by taking your vehicle to work a few days per week. Absolutely absurd - but somehow the fascists have invited themselves to intrude into your independent thought and criminalise you for not being "green" enough.

    These are the same people from the elitist mindset who believe that the only thing wrong with the country is that there isn't enough bicycle-paths.

    lol... just lol... who says the sun is enlarging?

    (our stars life is measured in the billions of years, if you earnestly think that you will notice major differences in decades or even the hundreds of years then seriously, read a book.)


  • #83
    Offy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,701 ✭✭✭Offy


    RichieC wrote: »
    lol... just lol... who says the sun is enlarging?

    It is, just look out your window ;)


  • #84
    Mighty_Mouse
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,881 ✭✭✭Mighty_Mouse


    99.9% of the scientific community confirms the dramatic catastrophic effect humans have had on the world in the last 100 years.
    99.9% of the scientific community confirms that we are in danger hastening the end of our existence as a species through pollution.
    0.01% of the scientific community presents states the opposite
    Yet the argument is presented as an equal debate.
    It's propaganda 101. The same tactic used by creationists.


  • #85
    RichieC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,331 ✭✭✭RichieC


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4R1bKGsN8


    TY is currently under maintenance mode)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-a4R1bKGsN8


  • #86
    UsernameInUse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 778 ✭✭✭UsernameInUse


    RichieC wrote: »
    lol... just lol... who says the sun is enlarging?

    (our stars life is measured in the billions of years, if you earnestly think that you will notice major differences in decades or even the hundreds of years then seriously, read a book.)

    I have, several's of them - but I could say the same thing to you. I prefer to get my information across a wide range of opinions and institutions. The fact that I've heard something on TV doesn't mean I'm going to agree with it. Regardless of the "increasing and enlarging radiation being omitted and directed at Earth", CO2 levels fluctuate and geological field work has confirmed that this is not a cause of rising temperatures and by extension, Global Warming.

    CO2 is not a cause of pollution either even though governments tend to include it in their Environmental policies - nor is there any scientific evidence to suggest any changing weather conditions such as storms. In fact, There is no proof at all that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from human activity. I say, drive anywhere you want. Leave the Green politics to the Gormley nutjobs.


  • #87
    RichieC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,331 ✭✭✭RichieC


    UsernameInUse wrote: »
    I have, several's of them -

    I'm asking you to cite it.

    FWIW "increasing and enlarging radiation being omitted and directed at Earth" doesnt give one single hit on google.


  • #88
    UsernameInUse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 778 ✭✭✭UsernameInUse


    RichieC wrote: »
    I'm asking you to cite it.

    I've just started Climate of Extremes. About two years ago I got through a book by Ralph Alexander I believe although I can't remember the exact name. I also have one I didn't even pick up yet called Global Warming Blunder Fooled Scientists.


  • #89
    RichieC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,331 ✭✭✭RichieC


    UsernameInUse wrote: »
    I've just started Climate of Extremes. About two years ago I got through a book by Ralph Alexander I believe although I can't remember the exact name. I also have one I didn't even pick up yet called Global Warming Blunder Fooled Scientists.

    you're seriously citing a book by a creationist? okay. (Roy Spencer )

    I'm going to bed.


  • #90
    RayM
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,973 ✭✭✭RayM


    zenno wrote: »
    oh for gods sake' I had to deal with simular tree huggers like you before. get the facts right yourself and understand how the natural climate works especially i would advice you to do some study on volcanology regarding co2.

    You don't have to deal with anything. Feel free to go and knock one out over an episode of Top Gear if you prefer. I've dealt (by choice, as opposed to some kind of evangelical compulsion) with simular (sic) semi-literate goons like you before, and the one thing you invariably have in common is a tendency to adopt a definite, self-serving conclusion (that the majority of climate scientists are wrong, and that anthropogenic climate change is definitely a great big scam), based entirely upon the misanthropic premise that you don't wish to be prevented or discouraged from driving whatever car you choose.

    Far from being some kind of tree-hugger (or whatever other highly original and well-thought-out clichés you might pluck from your clearly gargantuan arsenal of vocabulary), I'm not even asserting that anthropogenic climate change is definitely, without a shadow of a doubt, happening. Like you, I'm neither a scientist nor in full possession of all of the facts... I just don't like the idea of dismissing the views of the vast majority of scientists on the grounds that I find them a bit inconvenient.


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    UsernameInUse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 778 ✭✭✭UsernameInUse


    RichieC wrote: »
    you're seriously citing a book by a creationist? okay. (Roy Spencer )

    I'm going to bed.

    Roy Spencer is a creationist? That's the one I haven't even looked at yet so I'm not citing it. :p But thanks for clearing that up - extra material for the fire tomorrow evening. :D


Advertisement
Advertisement