I've seen him speak about his film many times and the more I hear him the more I respect this man. I'm a bit of an environmentalist, but not quite a freak like many . I have a degree in Biochemistry so I've studied this material for years so I know what he's talking about. The more I hear from this guy the more I respect him. If only in 2000 he had this passion...oh wait he did, but he didn't politicize it.
Oh well...then again Kerry was considered the best environmental candidates of all-time.
Maybe next time...
I didn't see him on Conan, but I saw him on a different late night show....Letterman or Leno, can't remember. Then I saw him on Larry King too. That was very good because it's an hour of him and his message. I have so much respect for Al Gore. He's very passionate about his work and his film is the best I've seen in years.
And it's not that he didn't politicize this in 2000, although you're right that he didn't. The reason he didn't become president (besides dubya illegally stealing the election) is because he didn't entertain us. Had he been able to sing and dance and juggle and do backflips there is no doubt he would have been president. But America is full of fucking idiots that need to be entertained. What was the complaint about Gore? Not one attack on his character. Not one scandal. He was boring. That was his downfall. He was boring. Goddamn idiots looking for an entertainer rather than an educated and dignified leader.
How is it non-scientific? The information I've heard is what a group of scientists have collaberated on over many years of study. While it may not be 10 years to the day, I'm pretty sure they have it well within the ballpark.
please, tell me the reference of the publication of the team of scientists. The IPCC (International Panel on Climate Change, that's the main "team" working on climate changes) agrees that there's a climate change, but also that there's not agreement about the predictions. You may find their reports online.
How different would this world be if he was president. I admit I wasn't a huge Gore fan during 2000 and I haven't seen his film... yet, but I have purchased his book which is quite good. What I enjoy is that he doesn't rely solely on emotional appeals and shock value but rather basis his analysis on statistics and fact which may not be great entertainment (although his book is very good) as the former. I think his passion is genuine and that is rare in polititions these days.
I guarantee this world would be in a far better place had Gore taken the presidency that he so rightfully earned. He's a man of passion and integrity. He cares about mankind and I'm certain we wouldn't be in Iraq right now if he would have been president.
However, I don't think the world would be any different at all had Kerry been president. Kerry is a puppet just like Bush....carved from the same bullshit Skull & Bones want-to-rule-the-world-club.
please, tell me the reference of the publication of the team of scientists. The IPCC (International Panel on Climate Change, that's the main "team" working on climate changes) agrees that there's a climate change, but also that there's not agreement about the predictions. You may find their reports online.
I'm pretty sure I could do a google search and find some climatologist who has done research on the matter. In getting my biochemistry degree I had multiple professors in my Climatology, Biogeography, and the various other environmental classes say similar things. I've seen interviews on CNN, NBC with "experts" saying the similar things. Granted, they may have not all been in agreement about the 10 years, but again, I think they'd probably agree it's a good ballpark estimate. Then you have Gore, who I can't imagine would be talking out of his ass without any information to back it up.
Since you're in the business are you trying to find if the 10 year mark is legit or that there is a "point of no return" as they say. You may not have everyone in the industry agree on the first, but I can't imagine many would argue with the latter.
However, I don't think the world would be any different at all had Kerry been president. Kerry is a puppet just like Bush....carved from the same bullshit Skull & Bones want-to-rule-the-world-club.
I disagree. I'm not sure if you can still get this info, but during the last election pretty much every environmental agency claimed that Kerry was the best environmental candidate for president ever...that's including Gore.
Kerry's got a long history of environmental advocacy.
I'm pretty sure I could do a google search and find some climatologist who has done research on the matter. In getting my biochemistry degree I had multiple professors in my Climatology, Biogeography, and the various other environmental classes say similar things. I've seen interviews on CNN, NBC with "experts" saying the similar things. Granted, they may have not all been in agreement about the 10 years, but again, I think they'd probably agree it's a good ballpark estimate. Then you have Gore, who I can't imagine would be talking out of his ass without any information to back it up.
Since you're in the business are you trying to find if the 10 year mark is legit or that there is a "point of no return" as they say. You may not have everyone in the industry agree on the first, but I can't imagine many would argue with the latter.
I'm really looking forward for you to find that reference, send it to me by PM, if i'm not around, please.
No, as you might know both the atmospheric and ocean systems (and i'm not including interactions with vegetation, criosphere, etc) are strongly nonlinear. This means that the results that you have from numerical (computer) simulations, strongly depends on the initial conditions. This mean: even a small error in the initial conditions will lead to huge uncertainities in the results. Hence: no good predictions. If i would take out the "10 year" story with my professor he would take me away my PhD...
Dont get me wrong, I love our enviornment, im just a little skeptic when I see people blindly follow Hollywood.
Are we following Hollywood or are we following science? For fuck's sake....blindly following. Many of us are quite educated on this topic. Maybe you should watch Gore's movie or anything that explains the science of it and then get back with us. Carbon emmissions are directly related to global temperature. Can you please tell me who's responsible for carbon emmissions over the past 100 years? Okay, now can you tell me who's responsible for the rise in global temperature over the past 100 years? It's really that simple. It's as simple as this: If a=b and b=c then a=c. It's merely a lack of knowledge (otherwise known as ignorance) that leads anyone to dispute these facts.
I disagree. I'm not sure if you can still get this info, but during the last election pretty much every environmental agency claimed that Kerry was the best environmental candidate for president ever...that's including Gore.
Kerry's got a long history of environmental advocacy.
That may be his way of getting votes, but when it comes down to it, it's the Skull & Bones that run the show....the same ones running it now.
In a dream world that wouldn't be the case, but in reality we have to pick and choose. It's sad but true.
oh yes, but it doesn't mean that even if i might vote gore because the alternative is bush that i can't criticise gore afterward.
Anyway, this is the cause why states with less bipolarism are better... you can still vote for a party that represents you better than having to vote for someone evil (gore, clinton...) because the other is more evil (bush & friends)...
That may be his way of getting votes, but when it comes down to it, it's the Skull & Bones that run the show....the same ones running it now.
So what you are saying is that all these independent groups/agencies that have come out and said this are all doing it so that he could have won the election?
Why were they saying this well before he even decided to run? Why have they always said that? Maybe it's just his little plan to "run the show" and walk in Bush's footsteps. :rolleyes:
So what you are saying is that all these independent groups/agencies that have come out and said this are all doing it so that he could have won the election?
Why were they saying this well before he even decided to run? Why have they always said that? Maybe it's just his little plan to "run the show" and walk in Bush's footsteps. :rolleyes:
i think that nobody disagrees about the facts (except for the 10 years stuf... talking about it: the reference?), but about the fact that it is al gore telling it.
i think that nobody disagrees about the facts (except for the 10 years stuf... talking about it: the reference?), but about the fact that it is al gore telling it.
Have you read anything by Dr. James Hansen. I was trying to remember him before but I was drawing a blank.
"Those human changes, he says, are driven by burning fossil fuels that pump out greenhouse gases like CO2, carbon dioxide. Hansen says his research shows that man has just 10 years to reduce greenhouse gases before global warming reaches what he calls a tipping point and becomes unstoppable. He says the White House is blocking that message."
From http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/17/60minutes/main1415985.shtml
Now, I don't have access to Columbia University or any journals here at work. I do at home though (the journals anyways).
There is one in sci. american in 2004 that i'm trying to get access to.
"Those human changes, he says, are driven by burning fossil fuels that pump out greenhouse gases like CO2, carbon dioxide. Hansen says his research shows that man has just 10 years to reduce greenhouse gases before global warming reaches what he calls a tipping point and becomes unstoppable. He says the White House is blocking that message."
From http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/17/60minutes/main1415985.shtml
Now, I don't have access to Columbia University or any journals here at work. I do at home though (the journals anyways).
There is one in sci. american in 2004 that i'm trying to get access to.
come on, stop quoting cbs and scientif american and quote real scientic papers. the papers of hansen are here: http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/
he might ARGUE that (still, i'd like to find where...), but you have to be careful in all the assumptions that he makes... If he argues that i assure you that the agreement on that is 0%
come on, stop quoting cbs and scientif american and quote real scientic papers. the papers of hansen are here: http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/
he might ARGUE that (still, i'd like to find where...), but you have to be careful in all the assumptions that he makes... If he argues that i assure you that the agreement on that is 0%
I only provided the CBS link so that you can see that there are more people out there besides Gore who have said this. Clearly it wasn't meant to provide any data. As I said, I don't have access to much at work.
i dunno how long its gonna be but already we got another tornado warning here in my area ... we don't get tornados here in southern ontario ... if we do - they are extremely rare ... yet we've had 4 or 5 already this year ...
i dunno how long its gonna be but already we got another tornado warning here in my area ... we don't get tornados here in southern ontario ... if we do - they are extremely rare ... yet we've had 4 or 5 already this year ...
Tornado Occurences in Canada: When do they occur?
Only the United States receives more tornadoes than Canada. Prior to the 1970s, tornadoes were thought to be rare events in Canada, but various studies have since revealed that they are much more common than previously thought. Tornadoes can strike anytime during the year, but the main season is from April to October, particularly in June and July.
Where do tornadoes strike?
In Canada, more than 70 tornadoes a year strike the populated regions. Fortunately, most are too weak to cause damage. In Canada, every province is subject to the risk of tornadoes (Figure 1).
[D]
Click for larger version, 24 KB
Figure 1. Map of the Annual Number of Tornadoes in Canada
The risk of tornadoes is highest in southern Ontario. The extreme southern part of the Prairies receives the second largest number. The tornado risk is high in south central Alberta, southern Saskatchewan and Manitoba, northeastern Ontario, and western Quebec.
Overall, a third of the tornadoes occur in Ontario, and most of these are in the extreme southern part of the province. This region is also more likely to receive tornadoes of high intensity. In fact, of nine tornadoes of F4 strength recorded in Canada, seven were in southern Ontario and two were in western Canada. (However, these last two tornadoes were the worst Canada has ever known).
Please don't bring scientific data to a politicized issue. It only confuses things, and can barely be seen or heard above the baseless rhetoric from both sides.
“One good thing about music,
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
How do they define SW Ontario? That could mean by the Manitoba/US border or that could mean by the more metropolitan area. It would make more sense that they would occur near the former rather than the latter because of the wind currents. If this is the case, than both of you can be correct.
Tornado Occurences in Canada: When do they occur?
Only the United States receives more tornadoes than Canada. Prior to the 1970s, tornadoes were thought to be rare events in Canada, but various studies have since revealed that they are much more common than previously thought. Tornadoes can strike anytime during the year, but the main season is from April to October, particularly in June and July.
Where do tornadoes strike?
In Canada, more than 70 tornadoes a year strike the populated regions. Fortunately, most are too weak to cause damage. In Canada, every province is subject to the risk of tornadoes (Figure 1).
[D]
Click for larger version, 24 KB
Figure 1. Map of the Annual Number of Tornadoes in Canada
The risk of tornadoes is highest in southern Ontario. The extreme southern part of the Prairies receives the second largest number. The tornado risk is high in south central Alberta, southern Saskatchewan and Manitoba, northeastern Ontario, and western Quebec.
Overall, a third of the tornadoes occur in Ontario, and most of these are in the extreme southern part of the province. This region is also more likely to receive tornadoes of high intensity. In fact, of nine tornadoes of F4 strength recorded in Canada, seven were in southern Ontario and two were in western Canada. (However, these last two tornadoes were the worst Canada has ever known).
that is definitely news to me ... i guess i have never really noticed there being that many ... i guess its because they aren't that major ... if you look at the major tornadoes list - there hasn't been any since 1996 ...
Please don't bring scientific data to a politicized issue. It only confuses things, and can barely be seen or heard above the baseless rhetoric from both sides.
Please don't bring scientific data to a politicized issue. It only confuses things, and can barely be seen or heard above the baseless rhetoric from both sides.
What you mean is "theory." Because not too long ago, it was a "scientific fact from scientists" that the Earth was flat. It was also a "scientific fact from scientists" that leechs removed diseases. Also, in the 1970s it was a "scientific fact from scientists" that we had "Global Cooling," both Newsweek and Time ran cover storys on "Global Cooling."
The scientific method is attibuted to Aristotle. Aristotle provided observational evidence that the earth was a round. Measurements were made shortly after Aristotle, base on the seasonal variation of shadows in a well that was directly under the sun during the summer solstice to measure the approximate circumference of the earth. (approximate partially because they hadn't yet figured out how far away the sun was so they had to assume its rays were parrallel)
At the time leeches were used medicine was in the dark ages and wasn't reliant on the scientific method.
Newsweek and time are not scientific sources.
It was nonscientists such as yourself that believed the earth was flat.
Every one of those scientists that have facts that the Earth is getting warmer also will agree that just one volcano spews more ozone destroying toxins then every car ever produced all running at the same time. One volcano does just an increadible amount of damage that makes our cars and factories look like childs play.
One point that is also worth making is that although volcanoes release some CO2 into the atmosphere, this is completely negligable compared to anthropogenic emissions (about 0.15 Gt/year of carbon, compared to about 7 Gt/year of human related sources) .
Comments
And it's not that he didn't politicize this in 2000, although you're right that he didn't. The reason he didn't become president (besides dubya illegally stealing the election) is because he didn't entertain us. Had he been able to sing and dance and juggle and do backflips there is no doubt he would have been president. But America is full of fucking idiots that need to be entertained. What was the complaint about Gore? Not one attack on his character. Not one scandal. He was boring. That was his downfall. He was boring. Goddamn idiots looking for an entertainer rather than an educated and dignified leader.
www.amnesty.org.uk
However, I don't think the world would be any different at all had Kerry been president. Kerry is a puppet just like Bush....carved from the same bullshit Skull & Bones want-to-rule-the-world-club.
I'm pretty sure I could do a google search and find some climatologist who has done research on the matter. In getting my biochemistry degree I had multiple professors in my Climatology, Biogeography, and the various other environmental classes say similar things. I've seen interviews on CNN, NBC with "experts" saying the similar things. Granted, they may have not all been in agreement about the 10 years, but again, I think they'd probably agree it's a good ballpark estimate. Then you have Gore, who I can't imagine would be talking out of his ass without any information to back it up.
Since you're in the business are you trying to find if the 10 year mark is legit or that there is a "point of no return" as they say. You may not have everyone in the industry agree on the first, but I can't imagine many would argue with the latter.
I disagree. I'm not sure if you can still get this info, but during the last election pretty much every environmental agency claimed that Kerry was the best environmental candidate for president ever...that's including Gore.
Kerry's got a long history of environmental advocacy.
No, as you might know both the atmospheric and ocean systems (and i'm not including interactions with vegetation, criosphere, etc) are strongly nonlinear. This means that the results that you have from numerical (computer) simulations, strongly depends on the initial conditions. This mean: even a small error in the initial conditions will lead to huge uncertainities in the results. Hence: no good predictions. If i would take out the "10 year" story with my professor he would take me away my PhD...
www.amnesty.org.uk
www.amnesty.org.uk
You're absolutely right and I stand corrected. What I was thinking of was Einstien's theory of relativity. I guess physics is not my strong point
In a dream world that wouldn't be the case, but in reality we have to pick and choose. It's sad but true.
Anyway, this is the cause why states with less bipolarism are better... you can still vote for a party that represents you better than having to vote for someone evil (gore, clinton...) because the other is more evil (bush & friends)...
www.amnesty.org.uk
Why were they saying this well before he even decided to run? Why have they always said that? Maybe it's just his little plan to "run the show" and walk in Bush's footsteps. :rolleyes:
www.amnesty.org.uk
Have you read anything by Dr. James Hansen. I was trying to remember him before but I was drawing a blank.
www.amnesty.org.uk
From http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/17/60minutes/main1415985.shtml
Now, I don't have access to Columbia University or any journals here at work. I do at home though (the journals anyways).
There is one in sci. american in 2004 that i'm trying to get access to.
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/
he might ARGUE that (still, i'd like to find where...), but you have to be careful in all the assumptions that he makes... If he argues that i assure you that the agreement on that is 0%
www.amnesty.org.uk
I only provided the CBS link so that you can see that there are more people out there besides Gore who have said this. Clearly it wasn't meant to provide any data. As I said, I don't have access to much at work.
http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/site/english/maps/environment/naturalhazards/majortornadoes/1
Tornado Occurences in Canada: When do they occur?
Only the United States receives more tornadoes than Canada. Prior to the 1970s, tornadoes were thought to be rare events in Canada, but various studies have since revealed that they are much more common than previously thought. Tornadoes can strike anytime during the year, but the main season is from April to October, particularly in June and July.
Where do tornadoes strike?
In Canada, more than 70 tornadoes a year strike the populated regions. Fortunately, most are too weak to cause damage. In Canada, every province is subject to the risk of tornadoes (Figure 1).
[D]
Click for larger version, 24 KB
Figure 1. Map of the Annual Number of Tornadoes in Canada
The risk of tornadoes is highest in southern Ontario. The extreme southern part of the Prairies receives the second largest number. The tornado risk is high in south central Alberta, southern Saskatchewan and Manitoba, northeastern Ontario, and western Quebec.
Overall, a third of the tornadoes occur in Ontario, and most of these are in the extreme southern part of the province. This region is also more likely to receive tornadoes of high intensity. In fact, of nine tornadoes of F4 strength recorded in Canada, seven were in southern Ontario and two were in western Canada. (However, these last two tornadoes were the worst Canada has ever known).
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
that is definitely news to me ... i guess i have never really noticed there being that many ... i guess its because they aren't that major ... if you look at the major tornadoes list - there hasn't been any since 1996 ...
nevermind
The scientific method is attibuted to Aristotle. Aristotle provided observational evidence that the earth was a round. Measurements were made shortly after Aristotle, base on the seasonal variation of shadows in a well that was directly under the sun during the summer solstice to measure the approximate circumference of the earth. (approximate partially because they hadn't yet figured out how far away the sun was so they had to assume its rays were parrallel)
At the time leeches were used medicine was in the dark ages and wasn't reliant on the scientific method.
Newsweek and time are not scientific sources.
It was nonscientists such as yourself that believed the earth was flat.
No
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/05/current-volcanic-activity-and-climate/#more-306
One point that is also worth making is that although volcanoes release some CO2 into the atmosphere, this is completely negligable compared to anthropogenic emissions (about 0.15 Gt/year of carbon, compared to about 7 Gt/year of human related sources) .