Your certainty would be better if you hadn't posted this one post above -

"If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end in doubts; but if he will be content to begin with doubts he shall end in certainties. - Sir Francis Bacon"

Let us all know when Al Gore himself stops riding around in big limousines, private jets, and living in a giant mansion with a "carbon footprint" the size of a small town.

He is part of the elite "ruling class" that tell YOU to live like a caveman while THEY live like kings and profit off of "carbon credits"

I'll believe that climate change is "man-made" when I see the govt take action and hypocrites like Al Gore live their lives the way they expect you to.

I remember when a few years ago when all the country heads had a big meeting in some country over global warming and all showed up in their private jets.

I have one word for those that preach it, Gullible

17 years 9 months since the last change in the climate

'Copenhagen climate summit: 1,200 limos, 140 private planes and caviar wedges'

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/cop...ar-wedges.html

but, how does out of touch politicians take away from all this?

Plants need CO2 to survive and thrive, you need plants to survive and thrive..

What was your point again? Because it seems to me you agree we need more CO2.

No, my point was that trees are plants.

To bring human induced CO2 to 0 that would require no humans. We breathe and fart CO2.

And?????

No and..


LOL. Don't you really get it?

This is what's in a fart
Nitrogen: 20-90%
Hydrogen: 0-50% (flammable)
Carbon dioxide: 10-30%
Oxygen: 0-10%
Methane: 0-10% (flammable)

in other words: both sides are responsible for politicizing curbing pollution. In fact, al gore was the impetus and motivator behind politicizing curbing pollution(making it a democratic keystone) and consequently impeding the progress by polarizing the effort.

Al Gore is one of them, out of touch politicians are who the idiots are listening to, and they don't give a rats ass about it!

LOL, he just doesn't get it!

No, unless you mean trees need CO2 to survive and thrive just as much as every other plant. Which would contradict any point you have made. So I assume you have no point. I think I would be better off talking to my plants, at least they would get something out of it.. My CO2 emissions.

I "guess" you really don't get the concept of CO2 footprint. Have a plant that makes (uses) up your CO2 emissions and you have 0 CO2 footprint.

Well, don't get it.

Plants needing CO2 contradicts something I have said?

George Bush Sr signed the law to reduce sulfur and sort of accelerated the problem. One possible solution is to pump sulfur into the atmosphere. We were doing that until good old George.

How is Al Gore responsible for 1/2 the US ignoring any reasonable argument? Just focus on the science and see where you end up.

he is a guy who made a movie about it.. i am not sure these idiot scientists started spending all this time cause Gore said so..

You have argued all along about this overabundance of CO2. You can't have it both ways. If there was anywhere near too much in the atmosphere why would greenhouses need to pump copious amounts in?

Thanks for proving my point, which was it makes no difference which side or whom did what, the fact is the act/behavior of curbing pollution is a political issue. It makes zero difference in that light which side your or I opine contributed the most. I happen to think gore did with his book and carbon credit scam. You happen to think bush sr "sort of accelerated the problem" with a sulfer law.

that's the problem, now you and i are arguing about that instead of about the real problem: pollution.

And bringing up "the science" on the matter only distracts even more. Blinding people with politicized science does not impact their behavior and get more people to pollute less.

Yea there are skeptics that think 9/11 was a inside job, that the moon landings were faked, let's all just give them the time of day... It's one thing to be skeptical about things and it's another thing to ignore all evidence regardless of how strong because you don't want to believe it's true.

Actually Al Gore wrote his book and made his movie "after" he was out of public office. At that point it was a non partisan issue and you can even find videos of George Bush from that time agreeing that global warming was a serious threat.

Then Gore's movie became popular and the right wing went ape shit crazy and tried to used his movie against the Democrats in the next election by attempting to claim there was doubt about GW, even though the only doubt came at the hands of their big oil lobbyists. Up until that point the GOP had the position that global warming was a threat.

It was the right that first made it a partisan issue and they continue to do it today and you just buy into it.

What both ways? Don't plants grow right now, or didn't they grow 150 years ago?

That your last question is so stupid. You don't seem to get even the basics of this subject. We are not talking about growing plants in a fucking greenhouse. Or growing plants in aquarium, I have done that and pumped some extra CO2.

the koch brothers make their political moves without being politicians, just like gore has and does.

I know you don't think or believe that gore needs to hold a political office to have democratic sway in this.

Al Gore put his face on it, making it somewhat legitimate.

Never mind that first it was called global warming, then out of embarrassment, then had to change it to climate change. Never mind that the temperatures haven't changed in over 17 years

It has always been climate change (as that is what it is when climate changes), but to make it simple, it is often called as global warming. Although, previously it was called as global cooling, as some decades ago it was thought that the extra CO2 would cool the climate. This CO2 issue is not a new thing.

so you admit it's legitimate!

Yes so if there is so much CO2 floating around out there why don't these greenhouses just open up the doors and let the plants suck it all up. Could it be because maybe there's not as much floating around out there that you would like me to be scared enough to believe in?

We agree that we need CO2. What you would like me to believe is that there is too much and my argument is we need more. Al Gore and you would like me to buy a plant, sit around it farting all day while I'm writing Al checks. I say you both should kill yourself and remove yourselves from the CO2 emitting equation. I'll go on feeding the plants and keep my money.

Greenhouses are made to grow plants. If you don't see the difference between that and Earth's climate.. "something censored". I don't make some assumptions about Earth based on what is optimal for my aquarium. Or growing geese for goose liver, another example of mass production (like greenhouses for plants). Do you get enough food? Are you sure we shouldn't force feed you, to make your liver larger?

So, your argument is that we need more CO2? Well, at least you think the welfare of the plants. Kudos for that.

I get plenty of food because I eat vegetables that feed off of CO2 and meat from animals that feed off of those plants and oh btw I don't write checks for Al to cash so I can buy more of all of those CO2 made up things.

Legitimate, but not to worry about. 17 years of no change

You look at any graph that the Kooks are pointing at and they are thinking like chicken little over .01 degrees of change

no change over 17 years? wiht the melting of the antarctic.. aren't they saying something like an extra 5 feet for the sealevel over that period of time?

gore's book and movie did not wage war against Republicans or Promote Democrats. The movie talked about Global warming and encouraged that we take action. It was Republicans that turned it into a political football after Gore made the movie.

Prior to this they all agreed that global warming was a issue.. Even now it seems Republicans are split on denying global warming and accepting it, as it's mostly the fruit loops from the tea party that deny it.

I disagree with you 100%

Al Gore's movie was an infomercial for "Green Energy" companies to make himself a nice pile of money.

I'm not a Republican and I thought the movie was full of shit when it first came out. I just never have respected Al Gore at all. He's always seemed as phony and plastic as Mitt Romney to me. And when I learned that he was making a fortune investing in the "green energy" industry...then his advocacy of it made complete sense. Especially when he doesn't live his lifestyle "green".

You are so fixated with seeing Republicans making money off of oil...that you miss the Democrats doing their scams at the same time.

I see them ALL as crooks. They don't give a flying fuck about you and me. They are only interested in making themselves rich.

I read a report that said Al Gore is worth 50 times more than he was as Vice President!
He is now worth 200 MILLION dollars. That's "Romney Rich".

He is indeed part of the "1%" that you hate. And he made it all off the backs of people believing his bullshit.

http://www.worldatlas.com/webimage/countrys/an.htmTime and time again its proven to be growing in size. Why do you continue to deny it?

http://www.trbimg.com/img-53e6de14/t...e-web/550/16x9
http://www.latimes.com/science/la-sc...ry.html#page=1


From World Atlas:
http://www.worldatlas.com/webimage/countrys/an.htm
Antarctica is the coldest and windiest spot on the planet. In fact, the lowest temperature ever recorded on Earth was recorded in Antarctica (-129.3ºF) and the mean winter temperatures range from -40º to -94ºF. Winds are commonly measured at up to 200 miles per hour.
Current Weather at the South Pole -73ºF

Do you know how f'n cold that is?

What makes you think I hate the 1%? I don't have any agenda against anyone other than the bat shit crazy republicans that have completely destroyed the right and made it an absolutely worthless party, I'd love to have a challenging choice when it came to election time. However the only challenge is to decide if I vote for a Democrat or for a Buffoon.

As for the 1% I don't give a shit about them unless they are "like" the Koch Brothers whom use their money to dumb down this country by convincing you and others that global warming is fake or the other idiots that spend loads of cash on govt lobbyist to push religious agenda.

As for Global Warming, trust me it's no surprise that you know better than all the other scientist, that actually study it.

i never denied any of this.. but there is a definite difference in the land-based ice that we are losing, versus the sea-based ice that we are gaining.

I'm not the only one that sees the movie as political.:::::::


"In 2007, following an investigation of the movie, Sir Michael Burton, a judge in London?s High Court, ruled that it can be shown in secondary schools only if accompanied by guidance notes for teachers to balance Mr. Gore?s ?one-sided? views.

Judge Barton pointed out that its ?apocalyptical vision? was politically partisan, and not an impartial analysis.

He stated: ?It is built around the charismatic presence of the ex-vice president Al Gore, whose crusade is to persuade the world of the dangers of climate change caused by global warming?

It is now common ground that this is not simply a science film- although it is based substantially on science research and opinion, but it is [clearly] a political film.?

the U.S. Government Accounting Office can’t figure out what benefits taxpayers are getting from those many billions of dollars spent each year on policies that are purportedly aimed at addressing climate change. A May 2011 GAO report noted that while annual federal funding for such activities has been increasing substantially, there is a lack of shared understanding of strategic priorities among the various responsible agency officials. This assessment agrees with the conclusions of a 2008 Congressional Research Service analysis which found no “overarching policy goal for climate change that guides the programs funded or the priorities among programs.”

The Obama administration’s attempt to justify these economic regulatory burdens conjures statistical sorcery purporting to assess a “social cost on carbon.” This is supposed to represent an accounting method to quantify market externalities attached to human fossil- burning emissions, whereby each ton of CO2 leads to a future societal cost of about $40 (in today’s dollars).

The idea is that any newly-proposed regulation intended to reduce future CO2 emissions will get to claim an equivalent social cost credit for each ton avoided. This scheme is intended to enable EPA and other regulatory organizations to build stronger political cases for their burdensome policies.

At the same time, the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has had to finally admit that global temperatures have been flat for at least 16 years despite rising atmospheric CO2 levels.

IPCC has also confessed that their theoretical simulation models have grossly exaggerated climate sensitivity to CO2.




.

The first part I quoted...Change the words "Koch Brothers" to "Al Gore", the word "you" to "myself" and the word "fake" to "real" and you'll see what I see when I read a post like that.

As for the second part...I've already shown you over and over and over that the data has changed. The computer models that "climate change" were built upon are no longer valid. And there have now been 2 very highly publicized leaking of emails showing that the scientists who are funded by the govt. and "Green Energy" are talking amongst themselves on how to keep this scam going (and their funding).

But you always ignore that or run off to try and find some new article by another biased person to "debunk" what is very evident to other people.

Everyone on GFY knows that you are a very loyal Democrat. I think that is your biggest mistake.

But I know a lot of very intelligent people who are party loyalists (both Republican and Democrat).
I also know a lot of very intelligent people who believe in "Jesus".

I guess even otherwise smart people can be fooled on occasion.

Abraham Lincoln: "You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time."

David Hannum criticizing P.T. Barnum's fleecing the people out of their money: "There's a sucker born every minute"