Al Gore on Climate Change

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-24-2010
Al Gore on Climate Change
121
Sun, 02-28-2010 - 9:21am

Al Gore on climate change: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/28/opinion/28gore.html?pagewanted=1&hp

The man is right. The puerile rantings of Glenn Beck, Fox Republicans & Co. regarding the recent snow storms notwithstanding (which ironically are predicted as part of climate change), we ignore climate change at our great peril.

Given the catastrophic risk, it is unbelievable that Republicans are insisting that we risk not taking strong action against climate change and towards energy independence.

These are the same Fox Republicans who showed a similar irresponsibility in spending vast amounts of our money on our collective credit card so we had nothing left to face the current financial crisis.

Fool us once, fool us twice.

For those who still believe Fox Republicans, think about it.

Seriously.

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-02-2010
Sun, 02-28-2010 - 9:26am

Fool us once, fool us twice.

For those who still believe Al Gore, think about it.

Seriously.

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-24-2009
Sun, 02-28-2010 - 9:31am
Yep, the whole climate change thing was just a hoax invented by Al Gore and many scientist that want to take over the world;-0
iVillage Member
Registered: 10-27-2009
Sun, 02-28-2010 - 10:40am
iVillage Member
Registered: 01-24-2009
Sun, 02-28-2010 - 10:59am
Because everyone knows that investing in something means it fake;-)
iVillage Member
Registered: 10-27-2009
Sun, 02-28-2010 - 11:17am

In this case, yes, it's fake, and Gore's need for it to

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-24-2009
Sun, 02-28-2010 - 11:57am
Right, because Christopher Booker says so;-)
iVillage Member
Registered: 01-24-2010
Sun, 02-28-2010 - 1:43pm

You must be joking friend. And it's not just Nobel Prize winner Gore who you seem to hate who is blowing the whistle on climate change. The vast weight of the scientific community has concluded that climate change is occurring.

Your man Booker, on the other hand, is a, um, to put it politely, contrarian. Booker believes that a form of asbestos forms no health risk, intelligent design proponents are scientists, and second hand smoke causes no health risks. You can take bets on all his contrarian theories, that is true. (see link w/sources quoted below) Do you think Booker is right about all his contrarian conspiracy theories?

Do you want to bet the future of the world on Booker's similarly contrarian, conspiracy theory assertion that all our pollution is not causing harmful climate change? Do you really want to take that bet?

How certain are you that Booker is correct about climate change? Are you 100% certain? That would really be a joke. Let's be really generous and say you are 70% certain he is right. Are even you willing decline to "buy insurance" by achieving energy independence on clean sources of energy and reducing our pollution to avert the 30% chance of disaster?? Do you think we should just wing it and place our bets on Booker, and others like Glenn Beck and the irresponsible Fox Republicans, being right??

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Booker

"Views on science

Via his long-running column in the UK's Sunday Telegraph, Booker has claimed that 2008 was "the year man-made global warming was disproved", amid "a turning point in the great worldwide panic over man-made global warming". As a prominent global warming sceptic, he joins other commentators such as Nigel Lawson and Dominic Lawson, who also write for the Sunday Telegraph.
Booker has also claimed that white asbestos is "chemically identical to talcum powder" and poses a "non-existent" risk to human health, stating that "HSE studies, including a paper by John Hodgson and Andrew Darnton in 2000, concluded that the risk from the substance is "virtually zero".
Booker's claims about the Hodgson and Darnton paper have been criticised by George Monbiot, who argues that Booker has misrepresented Hodgson and Darnton's findings, and that while the paper does show that white asbestos is less dangerous than the blue and brown varieties, "it still presents a risk of mesothelioma, which depends on the level of exposure. People exposed to a high dose (between 10 and 100 fibres per millilitre per year (f/ml.yr)) have a risk (around two deaths per 100,000 for each f/ml.yr) of contracting this cancer. Only when the dose falls to less than 0.1 f/ml.yr does it become 'probably insignificant'." Monbiot also points out that the phrase "virtually zero" does not actually appear in the paper.
In an article in May 2008, Booker again cited the Hodgson and Darnton paper, claiming that "they concluded that the risk of contracting mesothelioma from white asbestos cement was 'insignificant', while that of lung cancer was 'zero'".. This article was criticised by the UK's Health and Safety Executive as "substantially misleading". According to the HSE, the Hodgson and Darnton paper "makes no specific statement about the risks of asbestos cement. It provides a summary of risk estimates for mesothelioma and lung cancer in relation to blue, brown and white asbestos across a range of exposures. Blue and brown asbestos are substantially more hazardous than white, but all three types can cause mesothelioma and lung cancer."
Booker has also claimed that "scientific evidence to support belief that inhaling other people's smoke causes cancer simply does not exist" and that there is "no proof that BSE causes CJD in humans". He has also been critical of BBC Radio 4's Today Programme, claiming that they had "crudely distorted" the debate between defenders of the the theory of Intelligent Design and Darwinians and that the BBC "went out of their way to ignore the fact that the proponents of "intelligent design" are scientists". Darwinists, claimed Booker, "rest their case on nothing more than blind faith and unexamined a priori assumptions".

Criticism

Booker's articles in The Daily Telegraph on asbestos and also on global warming have been repeatedly challenged by George Monbiot of The Guardian.
Booker's scientific claims, which include the assertion that white asbestos (chrysotile) is "chemically identical to talcum powder" were also critically analysed by Richard Wilson in his book Don't Get Fooled Again (2008). Wilson highlighted Booker's repeated endorsement of the alleged scientific expertise of John Bridle, who has claimed to be "the world's foremost authority on asbestos science", but who in 2005 was convicted under the UK's Trade Descriptions Act of making false claims about his qualifications, and who the BBC has accused of basing his reputation on "lies about his credentials, unaccredited tests, and self aggrandisement".
Booker's scientific claims about asbestos have also been criticised several times by the UK government's Health and Safety Executive. In 2002, the HSE's Director General, Timothy Walker, wrote that Booker's articles on asbestos had been "misinformed and do little to increase public understanding of a very important occupational health issue."
In 2005, the Health and Safety Executive issued a rebuttal after Booker wrote an article suggesting that the HSE had agreed with him that white asbestos posed "no medical risk", and in 2006, the HSE published a further rebuttal after Booker had claimed, again incorrectly, that the Health and Safety Laboratory had concluded that the white asbestos contained within Artex textured coatings posed "no health risk".
In May 2008, the Health and Safety Executive accused Booker of writing an article that was "substantially misleading". In the article, published by the Sunday Telegraph earlier that month, Booker had claimed that a paper produced in 2000 by two HSE statisticians, Hodgson and Darnton, had 'concluded that the risk of contracting mesothelioma from white asbestos cement was "insignificant", while that of lung cancer was "zero"'.
In December 2008, an article by Booker was published in The Daily Telegraph, 'Facts melted by 'global warming'' and subsequently in The Australian, 'More inconvenient cold weather, snow and polar ice'. The article claims that "Without explanation, a half million square kilometres of ice vanished overnight." The claims were disputed by others, as an explanation for the apparently anomalous figures was provided on 13 December, before Booker's article was published on 21 December."

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-01-2010
Sun, 02-28-2010 - 5:00pm

>>> Al Gore on climate change: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/28/opinion/28gore.html?pagewanted=1&hp

With the sheer number of lies spewing from that clown's mouth, it's a wonder he doesn't spontaneously burst into flames. Now that the "science" behind his alarmist rhetoric are being exposed as a fraud, the Gore-ster, like any good liberal, deftly changes his tune...from "the seas are rising" to "the national security risks of our growing dependence on a global oil market dominated by dwindling reserves in the most unstable region of the world, and the economic risks of sending hundreds of billions of dollars a year overseas in return for that oil." Really? Oil reserves are dwindling? Where? I must have missed the story on the front page of the Times. And if our "dependence on foreign oil" is a matter of national security, then we should arrest all of the libs who block us from harvesting our own resources as traitors. And why is buying a product from a foreign country suddenly a threat to national security? Hmmm...nah, let's not actually consider the facts, let's just all nod our heads in agreement like good little bobbleheads.

>>> The man is right.

Gore is an huckster and a liar, peddling snake-oil to gullible bobbleheads for million$$$.

>>> The puerile rantings of Glenn Beck, Fox Republicans & Co. regarding the recent snow storms notwithstanding (which ironically are predicted as part of climate change), we ignore climate change at our great peril.

Actually, they weren't "predicted as part of climate change." In fact, the GW alarmists were telling us to break out the Bermuda shorts 'cause winters were going to be getting warmer...oops...guess not. That's when, like Gore, they started changing their tune...from global WARMING to climate change. That way, anything goes. If it gets hot, then it's CLIMATE CHANGE...if things get cold, it's CLIMATE CHANGE...snow, rain, drought, storms, no storms...everything is evidence of "climate change." It's obviously an inane proposal...but count on the bobbleheads to buy right in.

>>> Given the catastrophic risk, it is unbelievable that Republicans are insisting that we risk not taking strong action against climate change and towards energy independence.

Aah...the old liberal standby..."let's at least do something, even if it doesn't work because then, at least, we'll be doing...something...and that will make us feeeeeeellllllll good." Again, another inane proposal. Sure, let's crush our own economy, heap debilitating debt onto the people and destroy millions of jobs...at least we're doing something...right?

>>> These are the same Fox Republicans who showed a similar irresponsibility in spending vast amounts of our money on our collective credit card so we had nothing left to face the current financial crisis.

LOL! Tooooooooooooooooo funny! If we have "nothing left" then where, oh where, did Barry get the $800 BILLION to waste on his failed "stimulus?" And because Bush emptied our coffers, where, oh where, are Barry and his clown circus going to get the $2.5 TRILLION he wants to spend on his socialized healthcare scheme? Nah, the hypocrisy is so thick you can cut it with a knife, when libs attack Bush for his "outrageous spending" and then applaud as Barry spends TRIPLE in one year what Bush spent in eight...and continues to outspend ALL previous Presidents COMBINED.

>>> Fool us once, fool us twice.

A liberal mantra. You'd think they'd wise up...instead, they march happily off to sell themselves, and their children, into slavery. Rampant ideology can be a dangerous thing.

>>> For those who still believe Fox Republicans, think about it. Seriously.

Help! Help! The sky is falling! The sky is falling!

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-01-2010
Sun, 02-28-2010 - 5:07pm
Sure looks that way. Good think we caught 'em before they could realize their dastardly plan.
iVillage Member
Registered: 01-02-2010
Sun, 02-28-2010 - 5:12pm
Or prey off of naive people's fears. (read: bank off of naive people's fears)

Pages