Weather Channel Founder: Sue Al Gore for Fraud

2»

Comments

  • WMA
    WMA Posts: 175
    farfromglorified wrote:
    ...
    Co2 emissions or, more aptly the application of technology, have made this world immensely more survivable than any other application of human ability. The horrible irony in these arguments is that people advocate limiting technology and its uses in the name of "human survival".

    It isn't either/or. Clean/cheap power would be a great advance in technology. While there may not be as much profit as there are with finite resources, it would certainly make the air smell a little better, and be nice for most people who are not making a killing off of current dirty tech.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,701
    WMA wrote:
    It isn't either/or. Clean/cheap power would be a great advance in technology.

    "Clean/cheap" power is not necessarily an "advance in technology". The cleanest, cheapest power in the world is contained in the use of your body alone. The use of your body alone is cheaper, cleaner, and a great way to lower survival rates.

    Technologies such as fuel cells, solar power, wind power, and nuclear power all represent wonderful advances in technology. And we're seeing the use of some of those things grow as markets deem them more efficient overall in a given application. And such trends will continue so long as people allow them to.
    While there may not be as much profit as there are with finite resources, it would certainly make the air smell a little better, and be nice for most people who are not making a killing off of current dirty tech.

    Hehe...then there is profit, isn't there? Profit is not just measured in money. Please remember that the use of oil, the now villified non-cheap and non-clean power also represented an advance in terms of "making the air smell a little better" and represented an advance in terms of "nice for most people who are not making a killing off of current dirty tech".

    If you want technology to advance, stop scheming and just get the fuck out of the way. That's how technology advances. But do not worship at the altar of technological advance while operating from such shortsighted and narrow perspectives.
  • polaris
    polaris Posts: 3,527
    farfromglorified wrote:
    #2 is absolutely not true. People get so crazy debating this part of it:

    "Co2 emissions and the concomitant increase in environmental temperatures"

    that they forget the horrible fallacy of this part of it:

    "less fit for human survival"

    Co2 emissions or, more aptly the application of technology, have made this world immensely more survivable than any other application of human ability. The horrible irony in these arguments is that people advocate limiting technology and its uses in the name of "human survival".

    so ... you don't care about the impacts of climate change?
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,701
    polaris wrote:
    so ... you don't care about the impacts of climate change?

    I'm not sure I understand your question. I certianly "care" about the climate as it significantly impacts our lives. Furthermore, I recognize that climates change over time and that our climate is currently changing to some degree as a result of human activity. I don't know, however, if this means that I "care about the impacts of climate change" in the way you're asking.
  • polaris
    polaris Posts: 3,527
    farfromglorified wrote:
    I'm not sure I understand your question. I certianly "care" about the climate as it significantly impacts our lives. Furthermore, I recognize that climates change over time and that our climate is currently changing to some degree as a result of human activity. I don't know, however, if this means that I "care about the impacts of climate change" in the way you're asking.

    then what is the crux of your position on climate change?
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,701
    polaris wrote:
    then what is the crux of your position on climate change?

    The crux of my position on climate change is as follows:

    a) Human beings exist within an environment
    b) That environment, in part, consists of weather patterns known as a climate
    c) This climate exists as a non-static entity, meaning that it changes over time due to both "natural" factors as well as "unnatural" human factors.
    d) The environment, including its climate, in no way serves nor inhibits human survival, by default. Human survival is entirely based on adapting to the environment given to us.
    e) The primary mode of human adaptation is the application of technology.

    Given this, I refuse the damn technology in the name of "human survival" as such logic is completely foolish. I certainly agree with others here and elsewhere that there are better technologies available to us that we are not as of yet employing on a large scale.
  • polaris
    polaris Posts: 3,527
    farfromglorified wrote:
    The crux of my position on climate change is as follows:

    a) Human beings exist within an environment
    b) That environment, in part, consists of weather patterns known as a climate
    c) This climate exists as a non-static entity, meaning that it changes over time due to both "natural" factors as well as "unnatural" human factors.
    d) The environment, including its climate, in no way serves nor inhibits human survival, by default. Human survival is entirely based on adapting to the environment given to us.
    e) The primary mode of human adaptation is the application of technology.

    Given this, I refuse the damn technology in the name of "human survival" as such logic is completely foolish. I certainly agree with others here and elsewhere that there are better technologies available to us that we are not as of yet employing on a large scale.

    if you are living in the polar regions or in low-lying areas of undeveloped countries - survival has already been impacted by man-induced climate change ... the significance of the impacts will only continue to be more severe - sure, as one of the lucky ones (myself included0 living in north america - we can readily adapt however, much life (not just human) will not be able to ...
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,701
    polaris wrote:
    if you are living in the polar regions or in low-lying areas of undeveloped countries - survival has already been impacted by man-induced climate change ... the significance of the impacts will only continue to be more severe - sure, as one of the lucky ones (myself included0 living in north america - we can readily adapt however, much life (not just human) will not be able to ...

    Absolutely! But if you actually cared about the ability of these people to adapt to climate change or climate in general, why aren't you actually working with them to employ technology instead of trying to force others to stop using technology or certain technologies??? Do you not recognize the fact that societies that employ advanced technology are, because of that employment, far less likely to suffer massive human loss as the result of environmental impact?

    This is the ultimate foolishness of the global warming movement. They purport to care about the survival of people in threatened regions, but their proposed solution is only to make others equally as threatened. Regardless of what you do to the West's carbon footprint, people are going to continue to die en masse throughout this world as a result of climate impacts so long as they are living without the technologies that so many of you take for granted.

    God forbid we ever have a real massive climate change. I have no idea what some of you would do.
  • polaris
    polaris Posts: 3,527
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Absolutely! But if you actually cared about the ability of these people to adapt to climate change or climate in general, why aren't you actually working with them to employ technology instead of trying to force others to stop using technology or certain technologies??? Do you not recognize the fact that societies that employ advanced technology are, because of that employment, far less likely to suffer massive human loss as the result of environmental impact?

    This is the ultimate foolishness of the global warming movement. They purport to care about the survival of people in threatened regions, but their proposed solution is only to make others equally as threatened. Regardless of what you do to the West's carbon footprint, people are going to continue to die en masse throughout this world as a result of climate impacts so long as they are living without the technologies that so many of you take for granted.

    God forbid we ever have a real massive climate change. I have no idea what some of you would do.

    who says we aren't trying to get them to adopt new technology ... the problem lies in that they are suffering the impacts of our excessiveness ...

    you said earlier that you agreed that some technologies are worse then others ... that is the case right now ... i don't see why you or anyone should feel threatened when clearly our impact is far greater then any impact a solution might be ...
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,701
    polaris wrote:
    who says we aren't trying to get them to adopt new technology ...

    I don't see any attempts by the Global Warming community to advocate such things. I'm certainly interested in hearing what I'm missing.
    the problem lies in that they are suffering the impacts of our excessiveness ...

    You could easily flip this around and say they are suffering the impacts of their deficiencies. Both arguments would hinge on the concept that people have an obligation towards climate stasis, which is completely ludicrous.

    Show me an area that is threatened by Global Warming and I'll show you an area that is already threatened by existing climates. Maintaining their climate as-is is not a solution to their threatened existence. Their own employment of technologies is.
    you said earlier that you agreed that some technologies are worse then others ... that is the case right now ... i don't see why you or anyone should feel threatened when clearly our impact is far greater then any impact a solution might be ...

    This is a false absolute. The impact of capping world-wide carbon emissions could be completely catastrophic, depending on how far it goes. One need look no further than at the devestation of Hurricane Katrina to see what happens when people turn their backs on technology for the credo of environmental stasis.

    I certainly agree that some technologies are worse than others. The fact of the matter is that the technologies you are employing today are better than the ones that preceded them. The ones we'll be using tomorrow are likely to be better as well. However, "better" is best judged by those who employ these technologies to accomplish their goals. Left to politicians, "better" is judged from a very narrow and often times dangerous perspective.
  • Drew263
    Drew263 Birmingham, AL Posts: 602
    Why does there have to be this argument of global warming/cooling/climate change, etc etc?

    Of course there is climate change..always has been. The glaciers once were large enough to extend to southern Tennessee.

    Why don't we just try to be cleaner and stop worrying over who is right and wrong?
  • Kel Varnsen
    Kel Varnsen Posts: 1,952
    Drew263 wrote:
    Why does there have to be this argument of global warming/cooling/climate change, etc etc?

    Of course there is climate change..always has been. The glaciers once were large enough to extend to southern Tennessee.

    Why don't we just try to be cleaner and stop worrying over who is right and wrong?

    That is sort of what I have always figured; whether or not climate change is caused by air pollution shouldn't really matter, since it is not like that is the only bad aspect of air pollution. It is like if you thought smoking didn't cause lung cancer so you didn't need to quit, even if smoking didn't cause lung cancer, it still has a ton of other really bad side-effects.

    As far as suing Al Gore for fraud, I am not sure exactly how that would work. I am pretty sure the whole idea behind fraud is that the person being sued has to know what they are saying is not the truth. For example if I got a job by saying I had qualifications I didn't actually have. But Al Gore seems to believe what he is saying is the truth so it would be hard to convince a jury otherwise.
  • polaris
    polaris Posts: 3,527
    farfromglorified wrote:
    I don't see any attempts by the Global Warming community to advocate such things. I'm certainly interested in hearing what I'm missing.



    You could easily flip this around and say they are suffering the impacts of their deficiencies. Both arguments would hinge on the concept that people have an obligation towards climate stasis, which is completely ludicrous.

    Show me an area that is threatened by Global Warming and I'll show you an area that is already threatened by existing climates. Maintaining their climate as-is is not a solution to their threatened existence. Their own employment of technologies is.



    This is a false absolute. The impact of capping world-wide carbon emissions could be completely catastrophic, depending on how far it goes. One need look no further than at the devestation of Hurricane Katrina to see what happens when people turn their backs on technology for the credo of environmental stasis.

    I certainly agree that some technologies are worse than others. The fact of the matter is that the technologies you are employing today are better than the ones that preceded them. The ones we'll be using tomorrow are likely to be better as well. However, "better" is best judged by those who employ these technologies to accomplish their goals. Left to politicians, "better" is judged from a very narrow and often times dangerous perspective.


    advocacy for renewables for energy sources

    ok - the arctic ... the inuit there rely on sea ice to hunt ... the lack of sea ice is not only making their primary food source scarce - it is affecting many other aspects as well ...

    how can you blame turning back on technology in the result of katrina?

    i can agree with you that politicians have a narrow point of view
  • polaris
    polaris Posts: 3,527
    double post
  • polaris
    polaris Posts: 3,527
    triple post ... :p
  • polaris
    polaris Posts: 3,527
    yeah ... quadruple post ...
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,701
    polaris wrote:
    advocacy for renewables for energy sources

    That's all well and good, but the Global Warming community is demanding an end to carbon production knowing full well that the use of "renewables" will not be at a capacity to support current demands. They don't even seem to care. Furthermore, they're advocating for these sources in places that cannot currently support them or afford them. Finally, this group has stood in the way of nuclear power for decades, a technology that solves all sorts of carbon-related problems.

    Overall, they've advocated for people to stop producing carbon with little or no alternative presented to both developed and underdeveloped countries.
    ok - the arctic ... the inuit there rely on sea ice to hunt ... the lack of sea ice is not only making their primary food source scarce - it is affecting many other aspects as well ...

    Ah yes, the poor Inuit who, until global warming came along, suffered no problems as a result of the climate.

    Reality shows that the Inuit, as a result of their culture and their geographical location, have been disproportionally subject to climate changes for the past thousand years. They live in some of the areas on this earth least hospitable to life. Food scarcity has always been an issue for them and, on top of that, studies have demonstrated that global warming has had little to no impact on their food stables such as polar bears and whales.

    Regardless, the Inuit have no fundamental right to a stablized climate or food supply. No one has that right. Should I be able to sue the subdivision down the street from me because their existence decreases the number of deer on my property? Should Southern Canadians be able to sue the Inuit because their hunting of caribou decreases the number of caribou in Southern Canada?
    how can you blame turning back on technology in the result of katrina?

    The levee systems in New Orleans were poorly designed by government agencies using outdated technologies and were never even completed after the government was sued by an environmental group ironically called "Save Our Wetlands". Technologies existed then and still exist that would keep New Orleans largely safe from any flooding as a result of hurricanes.
  • polaris
    polaris Posts: 3,527
    farfromglorified wrote:
    That's all well and good, but the Global Warming community is demanding an end to carbon production knowing full well that the use of "renewables" will not be at a capacity to support current demands. They don't even seem to care. Furthermore, they're advocating for these sources in places that cannot currently support them or afford them. Finally, this group has stood in the way of nuclear power for decades, a technology that solves all sorts of carbon-related problems.

    Overall, they've advocated for people to stop producing carbon with little or no alternative presented to both developed and underdeveloped countries.



    Ah yes, the poor Inuit who, until global warming came along, suffered no problems as a result of the climate.

    Reality shows that the Inuit, as a result of their culture and their geographical location, have been disproportionally subject to climate changes for the past thousand years. They live in some of the areas on this earth least hospitable to life. Food scarcity has always been an issue for them and, on top of that, studies have demonstrated that global warming has had little to no impact on their food stables such as polar bears and whales.

    Regardless, the Inuit have no fundamental right to a stablized climate or food supply. No one has that right. Should I be able to sue the subdivision down the street from me because their existence decreases the number of deer on my property? Should Southern Canadians be able to sue the Inuit because their hunting of caribou decreases the number of caribou in Southern Canada?



    The levee systems in New Orleans were poorly designed by government agencies using outdated technologies and were never even completed after the government was sued by an environmental group ironically called "Save Our Wetlands". Technologies existed then and still exist that would keep New Orleans largely safe from any flooding as a result of hurricanes.

    i'm not too sure where you are getting the end to carbon producing - that's ridiculous ... and if we look at nuclear power as well as conventional energy sources - without the current federal subsidies - they are not the cheapest option ... wind power is the cheapest form of new energy production when all things are equal ...

    as for the inuit - i would like to see where you get that climate change has had no impact on them ... and why should they have to suffer the consequences of your action!?? ... it's like if i live next to you and burn toxic chemicals that blow into your house - you have to just accept it ... if you lived a life that was based on the deer population and a development impacts its numbers - absolutlely you should be compensated ...

    yeah ... and they didn't spend the money - you can't blame environmentalists for the fact they didn't spend money on shoring up the levees ...

    edit: it should be noted that wetlands are nature's way of mitigating the impacts of flooding ... the destruction of the natural wetlands in new orleans most definitely made the situation worse ...
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,701
    polaris wrote:
    i'm not too sure where you are getting the end to carbon producing - that's ridiculous ...

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/09/AR2008030901867_pf.html

    Many people are calling for an end to carbon producing technologies either within the next few years or within the next few decades.
    and if we look at nuclear power as well as conventional energy sources - without the current federal subsidies - they are not the cheapest option ... wind power is the cheapest form of new energy production when all things are equal ...

    Again, "cheapest" in no way equates to best.
    as for the inuit - i would like to see where you get that climate change has had no impact on them ... and why should they have to suffer the consequences of your action!??

    Why should I have to suffer the consequences of their actions? The Inuit, in a single year, create 54,000,000 kilograms of exhaled CO2 each year.
    ... it's like if i live next to you and burn toxic chemicals that blow into your house - you have to just accept it ...

    No, that's pollution. CO2 is not a pollutant.
    if you lived a life that was based on the deer population and a development impacts its numbers - absolutlely you should be compensated ...

    Hehe...really? So would you suggest that we dismantle every road, subdivision and urban area in this country so that the animal may return to their traditional migrations before we came along.
    yeah ... and they didn't spend the money - you can't blame environmentalists for the fact they didn't spend money on shoring up the levees ...

    The environmentalists didn't want them to "shore up the levy". The environmentalists didn't want them to build the levee.
    edit: it should be noted that wetlands are nature's way of mitigating the impacts of flooding ... the destruction of the natural wetlands in new orleans most definitely made the situation worse ...

    :rolleyes:

    New Orleans, in its entirety, is a wetland. It is a city that exists largely below sea level and, as such, should be entirely made of wetland. The destruction of the "natural wetlands" is the only thing that made the city possible to begin with.
  • polaris
    polaris Posts: 3,527
    farfromglorified wrote:
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/09/AR2008030901867_pf.html

    Many people are calling for an end to carbon producing technologies either within the next few years or within the next few decades.



    Again, "cheapest" in no way equates to best.



    Why should I have to suffer the consequences of their actions? The Inuit, in a single year, create 54,000,000 kilograms of exhaled CO2 each year.



    No, that's pollution. CO2 is not a pollutant.



    Hehe...really? So would you suggest that we dismantle every road, subdivision and urban area in this country so that the animal may return to their traditional migrations before we came along.



    The environmentalists didn't want them to "shore up the levy". The environmentalists didn't want them to build the levee.



    :rolleyes:

    New Orleans, in its entirety, is a wetland. It is a city that exists largely below sea level and, as such, should be entirely made of wetland. The destruction of the "natural wetlands" is the only thing that made the city possible to begin with.

    well ... i would say that if you are referring to "global warming" types - i would go to major environmental groups websites like greenpeace or wwf ... i don't think anyone is calling for zero emissions although these scientists believe that is what is necessary ...

    there are homes that operate right now without electricity powered by fossil fuels ... the technology exists ...

    can we avoid the facetious type statements? ...

    as for the compensation - i think you understand my point ... there is no need to get into silly hypotheticals ... the reality is that environmental groups are trying to save habitat around the world for various species - either you see the relevance or you don't ...

    please send a link about environmentalists not wanting to shore up the levy and do you really think that is the reason why they weren't shored up?? ...

    well - you can't have it both ways ... blame environmentalists for a tragedy and then say that NOLA exists in the face of environmental consideration ...

Categories