Al Gore: ?Polar ice cap could be completely gone in summer in as little as seven years.?

[Robbie]

Here's the thing that strikes me.

If this was the 1970's, the same people believing in man made climate change would be the ones citing the scientific studies from that time as "the absolute truth" and calling skeptics "deniers".

Of course...those scientists were dead wrong.

You guys need to look at the Earth over the long haul. Saying that carbon is higher than at any time in human history is true.

But human history isn't even 1/100,000 of the blink of an eye in the span of Earth's history.

The Earth's climate changes. That's just the way it is.

During the 1300's the polar ice caps headed South. And the Baltic Sea froze completely over. The crop season was shortened worldwide and mankind was seriously threatened.

Scientists are saying that (in complete opposition to alarmists) the Ice Caps WILL head south again at some point.

Matter of fact read this article that was in a UK newspaper:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...s-29-year.html

Why aren't you alarmist's talking about the record recovery of the Ice Caps in 2013???

I guess it doesn't fit the agenda of the corporations making billions on carbon credit trading on the market. lol

[420]

Are you guys saying I should stop using leaded gasoline?

[Robbie]

Originally Posted by slapass

Just look at the rate of change versus what we have seen in the past and see if you think it is normal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tempera...Comparison.png

From this page - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record

We are out of the ice age and now warmer then the warm age. Not sure what else to say but I am not sure why you need to hold to this belief system.

Did you actually that? We are NOT warmer than what you are calling the "warm age".
And it has been warmer in recent centuries as well (before the mini ice age)

"Belief system"? WTF?
I just read the data and look at history and remember the bullshit that was fed to us when I was in highschool in the 1970's.

When I see the govt's around the world take REAL action, then I'll believe there is a danger.
As long as it's money-making scheme of buying and selling carbon credits and revenue from "carbon tax"...I think I'll pass on your "belief system"

[slapass]

Originally Posted by PAR

Hey Mark,
Okay I'll play but keep in mind that I said I do not deny that there is change nor that man played a role.

1) When the Ozone was an issue, the world acted fast, when there is a disaster the world bands together.. So why is it that the major solution to Global warming is a Carbon Tax that basically acts like a for profit stock exchange for carbon credits?
One would thing that a global natural disaster would amount to more than a slow moving tax based solution.

2) Remembering basic science from grade school CO2 is a byproduct of many natural causes..
Man - 29 gigatons of CO2
is tiny compared to the 750 gigatons moving through the carbon cycle each year.
If mankind is only looking at reducing man made CO2 by less than 10% say
2 gigatons what net effect will it really have.

3) CO2 as a by-product of the industrial revaluation has drastically elevated, this is a given...
But so have other things that could and do trap heat.
Keep in mind we are only talking about a a small % of global temperature gain.
Why are we not also looking into all possible heat sources.

Large concrete buildings that trap heat and are know to change weather patters around a city, energy efficient homes use concrete slabs to store heat and as heat sources in the winter. Given their abundance what % if any do they play in the temp increase?
Millions of miles of back top that we drive on each day trap heat to the point you can cook an egg on it.
There are more examples.... but nobody talks about them.. All we hear about is CO2...
If you removed all the CO2 that is man made we still have 750 gigatons moving through the carbon cycle each year....

Ozone was easy. There was only a few makers of CPF's worldwide at the time, I think 3. They all just switched to CPHF or whatever it was. Now they are switching again as of 2007.

I think that is the biggest problem with Climate Change, it is not a crisis. If Miami is underwater in 50 years, do you care? What if takes a 100? Still not tons of urgency.

We do tons of dumb stuff like burn $1B worth of Natural gas in ND because it is not cost effective to collect it. If the USA could export it at $3B (world price) then maybe we would collect it. What if the US switched to Natual gas cars? Electric cars? Tons of stuff to do just not much urgency so why bother?

[slapass]

Originally Posted by Robbie

Did you actually that? We are NOT warmer than what you are calling the "warm age".
And it has been warmer in recent centuries as well (before the mini ice age)

"Belief system"? WTF?
I just read the data and look at history and remember the bullshit that was fed to us when I was in highschool in the 1970's.

When I see the govt's around the world take REAL action, then I'll believe there is a danger.
As long as it's money-making scheme of buying and selling carbon credits and revenue from "carbon tax"...I think I'll pass on your "belief system"

I was there in the 70's. We didn't have anything like this going on. We were trying to save energy because of the cost to us and the gain of Opec. If you are referring to the one article on the cover of Time or Life or whatever about a coming ice age that has beat to death.

I just see a quickening rate of change. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/warming/etc/graphs.html

[Robbie]

Originally Posted by slapass

OWhat if the US switched to Natual gas cars? Electric cars? Tons of stuff to do just not much urgency so why bother?

That's easy. Because the oil companies did the smart business move of blocking all of that a long time ago.

Hell back in 1899 (Yes I said 1899, 115 years ago) 99% of the cabs in New York City were electric cars.

The oil companies bought up all the patents that were out and buried them.

I am noticing that the big buses here in Vegas are now running natural gas.

But of course...I've also heard some so-called liberals screaming that natural gas is "bad" too and want that stopped.

Some of those faux-liberals seem to want us to go back to the stone-age or something. lol

[dyna mo]

when it gets too expensive for industry to pollute, then they will stop with the carbon.

the way government works these day, they won't interfere with corporate profits so we won't see legislation to make a difference.

and let's get real, carbon is primarily industry, not the private sector.

private sector pollutes, litter bugs, etc, and we should all give a hoot and don't pollute.

[Robbie]

Originally Posted by slapass

I was there in the 70's. We didn't have anything like this going on. We were trying to save energy because of the cost to us and the gain of Opec. If you are referring to the one article on the cover of Time or Life or whatever about a coming ice age that has beat to death.

I just see a quickening rate of change. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/warming/etc/graphs.html

Dude, nobody was trying to "save energy" in the 1970's.

We had a "gas shortage" which was nothing more than OPEC cutting supply and raising prices.
I remember waiting in line to get gas...man that sucked.

And I'd love to go back to the price I was paying then: 55 cents a gallon (and everyone bitching about how expensive it was lol)

Anyway, you believe what you want.
Go ahead and dismiss the fact that the alarmists have been wrong every step of the way on "climate change"

Again, if it's all true...then WHY aren't the heads of govt. doing anything about it?

Obama's latest response is to send jet fighters all over the Mid-East burning tons of jet fuel and releasing CO2 like a motherfucker. All the while dropping bombs that are polluting the air like crazy (not to mention killing people by the thousands).

Doesn't sound like he's too worried about "man made climate change"

Our federal govt. puts out more CO2 on a daily basis than every citizen in this country combined.

What do you suggest we as citizens do?

I already had fluorescent and LED lighting all through my home (to save money). I already ride my bike around my neighborhood (for exercise, but it saves gas too).
What else do you want me to do?

What else do you want any citizen to do?

I know...maybe if we crack down harder on evil corporations? And maybe even more people will lose their jobs.

And let's take more federal money and give it to the bureaucrats cronies in so-called "Green Energy" and get nothing in return for it.

You see what I'm saying?

If the U.S. govt. had taken all the money they gave to companies like Solyndra and instead had HIRED Solyndra to put solar panels on every home in the U.S.?
Now THAT makes sense and shows a sense of urgency.

The money wouldn't have disappeared. Solar power would be wide-spread and effective. Jobs would have been created.

But that didn't happen now did it?

[crockett]

Originally Posted by Robbie

The ozone layer never disappeared.
Acid rain never amounted to much of anything.
Chernobyl affected it's immediate area (the USA dropping 2 atomic bombs on Japanese cities was a much worse atrocity)

Saying that mankind can destroy the Earth is simply not true. The Earth will destroy mankind in the end.

The rest of this is just companies cashing in on the ego of humans who THINK that we actually can control mother nature.

Umm hello.. We stopped using the chemicals that were eating up the ozone, which was a major success world wide. That's the reason it didn't go away... Because people actually acted rather than fought over the issue as a political football.

You can't be this fucking daft..

It's why aerosols were changed in the 80s to remove the shit that was eating the ozone. It's why freon that is used in your car was changed to RF-134.

[Robbie]

Originally Posted by crockett

Umm hello.. We stopped using the chemicals that were eating up the ozone, which was a major success world wide. That's the reason it didn't go away... Because people actually acted rather than fought over the issue as a political football.

You can't be this fucking daft..

It's why aerosols were changed in the 80s to remove the shit that was eating the ozone. It's why freon that is used in your car was changed to RF-134.

Crockett...did you see anywhere that I said anything different about the ozone? I said...it never disappeared.

But thanks for showing up in the thread. It needed some Crockett in it.

As for "acted rather than fought over the issue as a political football"

I've been saying that the whole time. WHY isn't the federal govt. (or any other govt. on Earth) doing anything about this "problem"???
All I see are money making schemes with "carbon credits".

Why is Pres. Obama putting out TONS of CO2 in the Middle East with fighter jets and giant aircraft carriers?
If this situation is so dire...then shouldn't all these wars and foolishness be secondary?

[Robbie]

One other question:
Do ANY of you believe what Al Gore said about the Polar Ice Cap being gone in 7 years?

Even though it just grew by a record 29% in 2013?

Anybody?

[Robbie]

Oh... a quick Google for "how much money does Al Gore make on carbon credits" just answered the whole thing:

He is becoming the world's first "Carbon Billionaire"

Check out this story on Forbes:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybel...vestment-hype/

Now do you guys understand what is REALLY happening? Or are you going to continue with the talking points?

[dyna mo]

read an article awhile back written by gore and his partner/henchman in that carbon credits investment firm he runs, he was pitching doom and gloom in an op/ed piece to get more investors money in on his sinking carbon credits scheme.

[Robbie]

Guess that is part of the reason that Gore creates a "carbon footprint" bigger than every faux-liberal on GFY combined. lol

[Dvae]

Originally Posted by slapass

Ozone was easy. There was only a few makers of CPF's worldwide at the time, I think 3. They all just switched to CPHF or whatever it was. Now they are switching again as of 2007.

I think that is the biggest problem with Climate Change, it is not a crisis. If Miami is underwater in 50 years, do you care? What if takes a 100? Still not tons of urgency.

We do tons of dumb stuff like burn $1B worth of Natural gas in ND because it is not cost effective to collect it. If the USA could export it at $3B (world price) then maybe we would collect it. What if the US switched to Natual gas cars? Electric cars? Tons of stuff to do just not much urgency so why bother?

What the hell is CPF?
According to Bing Corn Pone Flicks
What is that a new niche or something?

What the hell is CPHF?
Has your dyslexia kicked in or you just clueless?

I know you meant CFC's and HCFC's but how can you have a serious discussion... Oh thats right this is GFY!

[slapass]

Originally Posted by Dvae

What the hell is CPF?
According to Bing Corn Pone Flicks
What is that a new niche or something?

What the hell is CPHF?
Has your dyslexia kicked in or you just clueless?

I know you meant CFC's and HCFC's but how can you have a serious discussion... Oh thats right this is GFY!

Probably should have looked it up. Notice that the idea behind it was right.

[crockett]

Originally Posted by Robbie

Crockett...did you see anywhere that I said anything different about the ozone? I said...it never disappeared.

But thanks for showing up in the thread. It needed some Crockett in it.

As for "acted rather than fought over the issue as a political football"

I've been saying that the whole time. WHY isn't the federal govt. (or any other govt. on Earth) doing anything about this "problem"???
All I see are money making schemes with "carbon credits".

Why is Pres. Obama putting out TONS of CO2 in the Middle East with fighter jets and giant aircraft carriers?
If this situation is so dire...then shouldn't all these wars and foolishness be secondary?

Quit trying to weasel out of what you were saying. You were trying to say the ozone issue and acid rain were no big deal, as if we did nothing at all to stop the problem. The reason we aren't dealing with those problems today, is because the govts of the world actually acted and didn't cave to big money lobbyists.

Jesus Christ you are fucking nieieve or brainwashed..

[2MuchMark]

Originally Posted by Robbie

Mark I'm not gonna go through and prove you wrong on every point. It's too time consuming.

I just wish you'd use google and find out stuff for yourself before you post those bullshit statements.

Here ya go:
https://www.nsf.gov/about/history/ns...ctic/ozone.htm

Read and learn.

Robbie, Don't talk to me like I'm an idiot. You're the one who is denying that the Ozone hole even exists. What I said is exactly what the NSF says in your post.

[2MuchMark]

Originally Posted by Robbie

Here's the thing that strikes me.

If this was the 1970's, the same people believing in man made climate change would be the ones citing the scientific studies from that time as "the absolute truth" and calling skeptics "deniers".

Of course...those scientists were dead wrong.

You guys need to look at the Earth over the long haul. Saying that carbon is higher than at any time in human history is true.

But human history isn't even 1/100,000 of the blink of an eye in the span of Earth's history.

The Earth's climate changes. That's just the way it is.

During the 1300's the polar ice caps headed South. And the Baltic Sea froze completely over. The crop season was shortened worldwide and mankind was seriously threatened.

Scientists are saying that (in complete opposition to alarmists) the Ice Caps WILL head south again at some point.

Matter of fact read this article that was in a UK newspaper:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...s-29-year.html

Why aren't you alarmist's talking about the record recovery of the Ice Caps in 2013???

I guess it doesn't fit the agenda of the corporations making billions on carbon credit trading on the market. lol

From Skeptical Science: "Discussions about the amount of sea ice in the Arctic often confuse two very different measures of how much ice there is. One measure is sea-ice extent which, as the name implies, is a measure of coverage of the ocean where ice covers 15% or more of the surface. It is a two-dimensional measurement; extent does not tell us how thick the ice is. The other measure of Arctic ice, using all three dimensions, is volume, the measure of how much ice there really is." http://www.skepticalscience.com/Has-...-recovered.htm

[Robbie]

Originally Posted by crockett

Quit trying to weasel out of what you were saying. You were trying to say the ozone issue and acid rain were no big deal, as if we did nothing at all to stop the problem. The reason we aren't dealing with those problems today, is because the govts of the world actually acted and didn't cave to big money lobbyists.

Jesus Christ you are fucking nieieve or brainwashed..

Originally Posted by **********

Robbie, Don't talk to me like I'm an idiot. You're the one who is denying that the Ozone hole even exists. What I said is exactly what the NSF says in your post.

LOL!

Crockett...you are pitiful when it comes to trolling.

Mark, you are just....you I guess. lol

[Robbie]

@**********:
You're kidding me right? You mean to tell me that the fastest NEW ice growth in recorded history in the Artic means nothing?

And who would have thought that NEW ice being formed wouldn't be super thick yet?

Thanks Captain Obvious.
lol

[seeandsee]

He know shit, he was collecting money, got the prize, for fucking what?

[lock]

The guy lost his credibility so truth or not it is too late for chicken little.

[crockett]

Originally Posted by Robbie

@**********:
You're kidding me right? You mean to tell me that the fastest NEW ice growth in recorded history in the Artic means nothing?

And who would have thought that NEW ice being formed wouldn't be super thick yet?

Thanks Captain Obvious.
lol

Oh boy it's more Robbie Logic...


For the last 10 years with constant record global records from everything to the hottest years on record, to the most severe droughts in some areas while having record rain and snow in others..

This is all no big deal and means nothing at all to Robbie as none of this is signs of anything..

Then we get a single year with winds in the right direction and sea ice stops receding, for a single year so far and now this is suddenly proof he the forum warrior is right and all those scientist whom actually study this stuff is wrong.

Anyone with half a brain would understand, while one year of fresh new sea ice expansion is a welcome sign, but let's wait and see what happens over the next 5 years before we start running around the fire claiming victory..

When summer rolls around and all this thin fresh ice melts, I suspect Robbie will play dumb and of course Robbie will ignore what scientist have said since the beginning. That global warming trend will cause extremes in both directions, being most years will be warmer, but we will have random reversals that don't last. Ie one year might be colder or have more snow or ice.. Yet a year later it will go back to warming..

Meanwhile how are those water supplies doing in Nevada? Yea thought so..

[ilnjscb]

People are so short sighted. Every few years there is a new thing, and the science of the time is "absolutely certain". Weather science and ice core measurements and analysis of historical temperature are all evolving sciences. Unfortunately, just like politics, the boneheads tend to congregate on teams on either extreme, so that they can yell at each other across a ravine, like two tribes of chimpanzees. The truth is always somewhere in the middle and very unlike the two word slogans of either team. Everything you have and the reason all of you are alive and able to write and free to do so is because a few stable people in the middle prevented the extremists from having their way.

[tony286]

Originally Posted by Simon

I'm not in this thread to argue about viewpoints. Just hoping to lighten the mood a bit, since I'd much rather be laughing than crying when the world ends.

this is the best post because its really the most true. But people faux liberals and faux libertarians want to play political football. And something to think about :We created solar technology the Chinese gov pumped all times of money into it and now they own the technology we created.

[slapass]

Originally Posted by ilnjscb

People are so short sighted. Every few years there is a new thing, and the science of the time is "absolutely certain". Weather science and ice core measurements and analysis of historical temperature are all evolving sciences. Unfortunately, just like politics, the boneheads tend to congregate on teams on either extreme, so that they can yell at each other across a ravine, like two tribes of chimpanzees. The truth is always somewhere in the middle and very unlike the two word slogans of either team. Everything you have and the reason all of you are alive and able to write and free to do so is because a few stable people in the middle prevented the extremists from having their way.

If you ignore most problems, they go away.

[12clicks]

Originally Posted by **********

From Skeptical Science: "Discussions about the amount of sea ice in the Arctic often confuse two very different measures of how much ice there is. One measure is sea-ice extent which, as the name implies, is a measure of coverage of the ocean where ice covers 15% or more of the surface. It is a two-dimensional measurement; extent does not tell us how thick the ice is. The other measure of Arctic ice, using all three dimensions, is volume, the measure of how much ice there really is." http://www.skepticalscience.com/Has-...-recovered.htm

there's more ice.
any BS explaining more means less is just the final flops of so called scientists on the government payroll.

[12clicks]

Originally Posted by MaDalton

i still can't wrap my head around the fact that some people desperately try to prevent any progress in keeping our environment livable

i remember from my youth how certain industrial areas looked liked when no one cared back then - now that we have filters and catalytic converters and factories are not allowed to pump their waste directly into rivers anymore, nature has recovered. In my youth some rivers were completely dead, now you can even eat the fish again.

how can anyone say the problems before were not manmade and doing something against the pollution is a bad thing?

crazy people here...

there's a huge difference between the actual pollution you cite (and everyone wants to keep from happening) and the fake science of global warming which had to change its name to climate change because the earth isn't actually warming.
The pretend science that CO2 is a pollutant.......etc. etc.
Some people are just not foolish enough to believe so called scientists who are paid to reach the predetermined conclusion.

[PAR]

Originally Posted by 12clicks

there's more ice.
any BS explaining more means less is just the final flops of so called scientists on the government payroll.

Or it's a basic understanding of things you should have learned in school by the age of 9..
Higher temperatures increase the the maximum capacity of water vapor that can be in the air , Lower temps decrease the maximum capacity of water vapor that can be in the air. This will have a direct correlation to the amount of snow fall.

Therefore, the colder it gets the less water vapor there will be in the air. Transversely, the warmer it gets the more water vapor there will be in the air.

Water vapor in cold temps = snow..
This builds up on the open water and on top of the ice pack resulting in more ice..

[PAR]

Mark, *and whomever else... On page 4 I pasted 3 questions last night...

The first having to do with the current solution looks to be a CO2 Tax and CO2 credit exchange (where by CO2 credits are treated as stock) and unlike when the Ozone was an issue, the world acted fast, when there is a disaster the world bands together.
I'll accept that this could be due to climate change moving at what can be said to be a glacial pace.

So I will move on to the next 2 questions.

1) For everyone posting CO2 vs temp graphs can one of you explain the following.

If all the CO2 released yearly adds up to 779 gigatons (100%)
And Man creates 29 gigatons of CO2, (3.7%)
Leaving 750 gigatons produced by other means then those caused by man. (96.3%)

Knowing this how can the graphs showing a CO2 increase account for the jump in CO2 being 3-5 times greater than the amount of CO2 possibly created by man.
If we allow that the raw data is correct from the samples.
Forgetting that the plan is to only reduce man made CO2 by less than 10%...
Would this not mean that even a plan to reduced man made CO2 by 100% would have little to no impact?
Is the math/software/programming used to produce the graph wrong?
Thoughts?
I'll skip my own personal issues with any CO2 data from Mauna Loa Hawaii and my thoughts that this would be like measuring the air temp of a room by putting a thermometer inside a roaring fire place.
*Volcanos being the largest global source of CO2 and Mauna Loa being the worlds largest active volcano on the planet...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mauna_Loa

I digress and move on to the second of my 2 questions.

2) Why are we seeing little to no movement or discussion on other (non CO2 based) by-products of the industrial revaluation?
I live in a city that at its' core is warm enough in the winter to basically see no snow due to large concrete buildings that trap heat, yet the sounding area is covered in a few feet of snow.
What % if any do large buildings, roads, etc.. play in global temp increase?


*** Keep in mind that I do not deny that man is and can affect his environment, or do I think CO2 isn't a problem we should be looking at. I'm not even denying that there is climate change going on.
I'm simply questioning the idea of it being single source Man Made CO2, and that due to it being single source that there is some silver bullet solution of curing CO2 fixing the climate change issues we have now and will have in the future.

[_Richard_]

more sea-based ice doesn't equal more land-based ice

[Robbie]

Originally Posted by tony286

We created solar technology the Chinese gov pumped all times of money into it and now they own the technology we created.

Tony, we have had solar panels in this country since the 1970's at least.

That's why I questioned WHY the govt isn't doing anything.

The feds handed Solyndra (I know, I know...Solyndra has been talked about to death) hundreds of millions of dollars for...WHAT?
What was the money for?

WHY didn't they HIRE Solyndra to put solar panels up on every home and business in the U.S.?
That would have been money well-spent. Jobs would have been created. And our use of green energy (solar) in the United States would have been unsurpassed in the world.

But nope.

Instead, we had lifetime politicians in Congress funneling that money out to cronies. And the Solyndra money (like so much of the rest of the trillion or so dollars) just disappeared with nothing to show for it.

That's the number one reason I don't accept this whole CO2/climate change stuff.

I keep hearing that I'm an idiot if I don't accept science that "proves" it, and an idiot if I accept science that DISPROVES it.
Yet, our own leaders are saying they "believe" it...but their ACTIONS say otherwise.

And if you read what I posted about Al Gore...you can definitely see that he is profiting BIG time off of scaring people about it.

Yet guys like crockett and Mark Prince just ignore all these things.

To them it's a world-wide emergency...even though NO govt is doing anything about it.

Meanwhile in Syria today...the U.S. military put more CO2 AND real pollution in the air than the entire United States citizenry combined does in a year.

Yeah...our govt. really believes in man-made climate change. <sarcasm>

No, they believe in cashing in and revenue from carbon trading and carbon tax.

[12clicks]

Originally Posted by PAR

Or it's a basic understanding of things you should have learned in school by the age of 9..
Higher temperatures increase the the maximum capacity of water vapor that can be in the air , Lower temps decrease the maximum capacity of water vapor that can be in the air. This will have a direct correlation to the amount of snow fall.

Therefore, the colder it gets the less water vapor there will be in the air. Transversely, the warmer it gets the more water vapor there will be in the air.

Water vapor in cold temps = snow..
This builds up on the open water and on top of the ice pack resulting in more ice..

wrong.

sea ice is not created from snow, its created by cold temperatures. look it up

[PAR]

Originally Posted by 12clicks

wrong.

sea ice is not created from snow, its created by cold temperatures. look it up

What do you think sits on top of sea ice and causes the resulting albedo effect, helping the ice not melt as quickly, sustaining it and allowing it to build, etc.. ?
What function do you think having more snow on top of pack ice would have?
Do you think maybe snow plays an important role in the thermal balance of sea ice?

Do you think flooded sea ice turns snow to ice...

Here lets let NASA explain it to you:
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/fea...c_melting.html

[2MuchMark]

Originally Posted by Robbie

Tony, we have had solar panels in this country since the 1970's at least.

That's why I questioned WHY the govt isn't doing anything.

They are, and so are many other governments. There are many "green" programs out there, especially here in Canada. Solar panels are tricky though because they are very expensive and not terribly efficient. One thing they are though, is CLEAN. Like all technologies though, prices will continue to go down and efficiency will continue to go up.

The main problem is that solar and other green energies are constantly being squashed by the Oil and Coal industries, most notably through disinformation.

Originally Posted by Robbie

The feds handed Solyndra (I know, I know...Solyndra has been talked about to death) hundreds of millions of dollars for...WHAT?
What was the money for?
WHY didn't they HIRE Solyndra to put solar panels up on every home and business in the U.S.?
That would have been money well-spent. Jobs would have been created. And our use of green energy (solar) in the United States would have been unsurpassed in the world.
But nope.

Instead, we had lifetime politicians in Congress funneling that money out to cronies. And the Solyndra money (like so much of the rest of the trillion or so dollars) just disappeared with nothing to show for it.

That's the number one reason I don't accept this whole CO2/climate change stuff.

That's too bad, because you are basing your decision by comparing 2 completely different things, and on wrong information on top of that.

Solyndra was a startup solar-power equipment manufacturer that went bankrupt in August 2012. The company’s solar collectors used a special tubular internal design that let it collect light from all directions, and were made with a copper-indium-gallium-diselenide, which was a thin film that was very efficient and cheaper than Silicon.

Solyndra was one of several companies that received assistance from the government, in an attempt to push back on China’s strategic targeting of green-energy manufacturing.

The money for Solyndra came from the WALTON FAMILY (Walmart). The Walton family received a LOAN GUARANTEE from the Department of Energy, originally pushed by the Bush Administration, was only 1.3% of the entire DOE portfolio. So what happened? The economy went bad (do you remember why?), the demand dropped for the same reason, and Solyndra could not compete with Subsidized companies in China.

Originally Posted by Robbie

And if you read what I posted about Al Gore...you can definitely see that he is profiting BIG time off of scaring people about it.

Yet guys like crockett and Mark Prince just ignore all these things.

Please don't talk for me. You don't know me and don't know what you're talking about when it comes to me. I don't care what Al Gore says, I care what scientists say. I also care about having choice when it comes to sources of energy.

Anyone who was taught basic science in school will know that there is plenty of energy available everywhere you look. People do not have to rely on coal and oil for 100% of their energy needs. Burning oil to move your car or heat your home is expensive and dirty. There are alternatives out there, but of course big oil and coal do not want you to open your eyes to that fact.

Originally Posted by Robbie

To them it's a world-wide emergency...even though NO govt is doing anything about it.

Of course many governments are doing something about it. Here's the thing Robbie : Al Gore's answers are not wrong. Maybe he is making money from what he is doing, but green energy is something that needs attention.

Originally Posted by Robbie

Meanwhile in Syria today...the U.S. military put more CO2 AND real pollution in the air than the entire United States citizenry combined does in a year.

You may want to send a thank-you letter to George W Bush for that.

Originally Posted by Robbie

Yeah...our govt. really believes in man-made climate change. <sarcasm>

No, they believe in cashing in and revenue from carbon trading and carbon tax.

Trust me, I think it sucks too. We shouldn't be in this position in the first place. Thankfully though, the world is waking up to the shit we're doing to our planet, and hopefully change will come sooner rather than later and we can start cleaning it up.


Peace.

[dyna mo]

re: solyndra and obama

from factcheck.org

President Obama exaggerated when defending his administration?s approval of a $535 million loan guarantee to Solyndra, a now-defunct solar company.
Obama referred to Solyndra?s loan at an Oct. 6 press conference as ?a loan guarantee program that predates me.? That?s not accurate. It?s true that the Energy Policy Act of 2005 created a loan guarantee program for clean-energy companies developing ?innovative technologies.? But Solyndra?s loan guarantee came under another program created by the president?s 2009 stimulus for companies developing ?commercially available technologies.?

http://www.factcheck.org/2011/10/oba...yndra-problem/

[fetishwealth]

Robbie seems to be a reasonable man with reasonable opinions and a realistic world view caught in the middle of a bunch of raving lunatics in this thread.

Poor guy.

[Robbie]

Originally Posted by fetishwealth

Robbie seems to be a reasonable man with reasonable opinions and a realistic world view caught in the middle of a bunch of raving lunatics in this thread.

Poor guy.

Heh-heh, don't worry...I'm in a battle of ideas with a bunch of unarmed guys.

Just like Mark always posting things that he reads on faux-liberal sites that turn out to be untrue.

It's amazing to me that Google is right there to use to look up the history of all of this. And yet they still continue to parrot the talking points they read on various sites that have an agenda.

And isn't it funny that Mark says that it's great for Al Gore to be making a billion dollars off of "Green Energy" but the Koch brothers are "evil" because they make a billion dollars off of fossil fuel energy.

It's the same with their politics. Everything the "other team" does is evil and wrong.
But when Pres. Obama pulls horrific shit...it's all good! Matter of fact, he only does these things because of George Bush (6 years into his presidency)

It blows my mind that they seem incapable of taking each issue on it's own value, but instead MUST assign it as some kind of "team sport" that their chosen "Team" (in this case, the Democrat Party) MUST win!

It's insanity. And dangerous.

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by fetishwealth

Robbie seems to be a reasonable man with reasonable opinions and a realistic world view caught in the middle of a bunch of raving lunatics in this thread.

Poor guy.

don't feel sorry for Robbie, he's living the life of a true porner!

[Robbie]

Originally Posted by dyna mo

don't feel sorry for Robbie, he's living the life of a true porner!

Yeah...it's so exciting.

I just finished up graphics work (which I don't particularly like doing) for some promo material for the Vegas AEE show.

Now I'm about to add a few hundred galleries to my TGP's and a few new vids into my tube site.

I don't know if I can handle all of this "fun" and "excitement". If it weren't for Crockett & Mark Prince I'd die from boredom

[ilnjscb]

Not to end the Robbie fest, I admire him as much as the next man, but photovoltaic technology is sort of coming into its own after like 25 years.

I was in Maryland the other day and saw a bunch of Solar City guys and I asked them about how things were going and they said the industry was really booming.

Regardless of where you stand on global weather patterns you have to say photovoltaic power is a good thing if the cells are silicon rather than rare earth metals.

[Robbie]

I'd love to put solar on my home. As I've said before...I almost pulled the trigger on it in 2006 when I lived in South Caronlina. It was a total home system that would not require ANY power from the "grid".

It had a huge solar panel that was on a motorized stand and moved with the sun.

The cost was over $50,000 for it though!

More recently I checked into a company that puts up solar panels on your roof. They don't charge you for the panels or installation or maintenance. But they charge you per month at a rate "much lower than the electric company". (that's the Solar City company you talked about)
Problem is, you have to sign a 20 year contract.
I'm not sure I want to stay in my home for the next 20 years (kids are grown up and the house has 7 bedrooms and 5 baths AND an outside casita where my office is that has another full kitchen and full bath, way too much for just me and Claudia Marie to live in)

[2MuchMark]

Robbie:

You dismiss what I say because you think I only read liberal media, and therefore probably think I'm biased.

Ok, that's fair, because I think that people who claim the opposite, especially without quoting science publications, are biased as well.

There is no way that Lefties can change the minds of righties here on GFY by stating facts. While there can be only 1 truth, "truth" is told in different ways by different interest groups.

Therefore, I propose a different type of conversation.

Let's try single, simple questions. Each one of us gets to ask 3 questions, before the other can ask 3 questions. Let's see where this takes us.

Question #1 : Do you believe that the earth is in trouble? That the climate is warming up, and that there is too much pollution?

(Yes this is all one question).

Please post your answer here in this thread and I'll follow up with another one or two. Then I promise I will answer your questions.

Peace.

[crockett]

Originally Posted by fetishwealth

Robbie seems to be a reasonable man with reasonable opinions and a realistic world view caught in the middle of a bunch of raving lunatics in this thread.

Poor guy.

Reasonable people are still often wrong and many people that at first appear reasonable are not quite what they seem after you talk to them for more than one conversation.

This topic is nothing more than the same one that has been carried out many times prior. It's always the same, just a different thread title. Robbie is one of those guys that will ignore all proof given to him if it's something he doesn't agree with politically, yet will latch on to a single shred if it agrees with his opinion.

[Robbie]

Originally Posted by **********

There is no way that Lefties can change the minds of righties here on GFY by stating facts.

Originally Posted by crockett

Robbie is one of those guys that will ignore all proof given to him if it's something he doesn't agree with politically, yet will latch on to a single shred if it agrees with his opinion.

Both of you guys are still caught up in politics and "left" vs "right".

Team sports.

I take each issue on it's own merit. I don't give a damn about "left" and "right" and I especially don't give a damn about Republicans and Democrats.

You guys are two of the most politically biased people on GFY. And ALL you either talk about is how "evil" the Republicans are and how great the Dems are.

I and many other intelligent people have tried to tell both of you that there is NO difference between Republicans and Democrats when you look at the big picture.
The 2 party system is designed to keep them in power.
Period.

Now, to address the actual ISSUE here:
Do either of you believe that Al Gore is correct when he claims that the polar ice caps will be gone in 7 years?
Do you?

Or can you disassociate the politics for one second and see the insanely profitable reasons that Mr. Gore is promoting this fear?

I know I can see it plain as day.

Maybe that's why I'm so good at making money.
It's just obvious to me.

I actually have kinda grown to like both of you as far as your characters you portray on GFY.
I have a feeling that you guys are both pretty normal guys who would be fun to kick back with and have a few drinks at the strip club with.

I hope that neither of you think I have any personal animosity towards you. To me this is a discussion. And I think you're both full of shit on most subjects (as I'm sure you think the same of me).

So I'll ask it again: Do either of you believe that Al Gore is correct? Keep in mind he's filthy rich and runs a business that depends on doomsday. So he definitely has access to more scientific data than 99.9% of us.

So he knows what he's looking at and he knows the truth. Yet he still rides around in big limousines and private jets and has a big mansion with a HUGE carbon footprint.

Tell me...what do you think about his prediction?
Is he right, or is he flat out lying to make more money?

[12clicks]

What?
Liberals like mark price, Crockett, and other douche bags ignore facts?
http://www.teaparty.org/new-governme...paign=s ocial

[2MuchMark]

Originally Posted by 12clicks

What?
Liberals like mark price, Crockett, and other douche bags ignore facts?
http://www.teaparty.org/new-governme...paign=s ocial

You do realize that you are quoting "TEAPARTY.ORG", right?

Just a heads-up for anyone still reading this thread: Science is truth, period. But trying to argue "truth" is impossible sometimes not only because what us regular non-non-scientiist folk (want to) believe, but also because how we arrive at our "facts".

What happens is this. Many people search for information online not necessarily to gather the truth, but to gather the "truth" that supports their pre existing ideas of what truth is.

Believe it or not, Google is partly to blame. Google and others serve information to users that they are likely to click on, because they are likely to believe in it.

For example, if you think that Tom Cruise is Gay and you see 2 headlines : "Is Tom Cruise kissing a new starlet?" vs "Is Tom Cruise kissing a dude?", you are more likely to click on the "Dude" headline because it reinforces your preconceived notion or beliefs.

So anyway, before everyone gets all bent out of shape about their beliefs in global warming, do this: Forget Al Gore. His message, whether you believe it or not, is lost in the white noise of politics. Also, forget left wing or right wing media as distributors of pure science. Instead, go to http://www.Nasa.gov, or http://www.noaa.gov, and get your information there. If you don't believe what they say, you should.

Peace.

[TheSquealer]

Originally Posted by **********

You do realize that you are quoting "TEAPARTY.ORG", right?

Just a heads-up for anyone still reading this thread: Science is truth, period. But trying to argue "truth" is impossible sometimes not only because what us regular non-non-scientiist folk (want to) believe, but also because how we arrive at our "facts".

What a crock of shit. Scientists say "man made global warming is a huge problem" and cite supporting studies... other scientists say "man made global warming is not real or grossly exaggerated at best" and cite supporting studies.

And you are saying there is only "truth. Science is faith. Just as any other faith. Though there may be some standards as for the burden of proof which may not exist in other beliefs, saying science is only "fact" or "truth" is so wrong its beyond laughable. You can prove any side of an argument with studies and statistics and call it "truth". This is why it is insanely difficult to remove bias and why it can't be done completely. You should know that as well as anyone. Your beliefs are oddly consistent with a Liberal brain. You think your beliefs are wholly unbiased and based on facts? This is why you yourself, are also everything you despise in Republicans.

[12clicks]

Originally Posted by **********

You do realize that you are quoting "TEAPARTY.ORG", right?

yes, douche bag, I do. Thats the problem with our least intelligent. They worry about the source instead of the facts.
Have someone read the article to you. Its about NASA, then go do a search on the subject and re-read it from whatever source you imagine is will slant it in your direction. Then go read it from the NASA website.



silly kid