T Nation

Al Gore: Polar Ice Gone in 5 Yrs

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Environment/2009/12/14/12148696-ap.html

Seriously.

Two words for the Nobel Prize winning ex-Vice President:

Fuck.You.

Well said Mr. D !

HE PREYED ON OUR FEARS!!!

[quote]In his speech, Gore told the conference: “These figures are fresh. Some of the models suggest to Dr. Maslowski that there is a 75 percent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within five to seven years.”

However, the climatologist whose work Gore was relying upon dropped the former vice president in the water with an icy blast.

“It’s unclear to me how this figure was arrived at,” Dr. Maslowski said. “I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this.”

[/quote]

Oopsie.

Self face palm, Al

Wait, could this threaten the natural habitat of man-bear-pig?

[quote]ds1973 wrote:
Wait, could this threaten the natural habitat of man-bear-pig?[/quote]

His natural habitat appears to be all feast, no famine. Isn’t he expending more than his fair share of CO2 b/c of his excessive girth?

Won’t change any minds, but interesting nonetheless:

http://gregnmary.gotdns.com:8080/index.php/topic,126.0.html

Does Al Gore own an Almanac?

Al Gore is a greedy opportunistic charlatan and the the living breathing quintessential poster boy for leftist hypocrisy.

Al Gore is full of shit. He acts like a champion for the global warming cause. In reality he is an investor for a company called “Hara”. Which basically is a tech company that every company will need to have in order to not be fined by the feds.

Jesse Ventura did a piece on this asshole!

The funny thing is since he north polar ice caps are free floating, then water levels should actually go down if they melted, like ice in a glass, once it melts the level of liquid in the glass drops. The problem though, would be that the fresh water ice would make the water in the oceans less saline

What’s fucked up is this shit gets passed down and accepted as facts by the academic community. When debating wether we should drill for oil in our own country, a girl in my class said "I don’t think it’s worth killing the polar bears and ecological destruction for just 6 months worth of oil. I said “That’s stupid where did you hear that?” and she said she was taught it in class. Seriously, this bs must be stopped.

I assume most of you guys are being willfully ignorant and sarcastic about what’s happening to our planet? I don’t like Al Gore either and his exaggerations are almost as funny as The Day After Tomorrow BUT the risks of drastic climate change that could occur are truely enormous. Bear in mind that geologically speaking the world is currently considered to be in an icehouse configuration. A switch to greenhouse would be VERY VERY unconfortable. I’d say that scientists are sheilding the general public from the true extent of the possible problems rather than exagerating them.

This trend of ice loss in the Artic is not a new thing that Al Gore (and I think he’s in general a scheming liar with his own agenda as well robmartinez09) has pulled out of his behind. It’s pretty established knowledge amongst people who use the Artic sea.

Elano: How many proven barrels of oil are there in Alaska? And how many probable? What is the world daily consumption? Come back with the numbers and some sources to this girl and you might get somewhere… Or you may discover your own assumptions are false. I suspect her figures are on the low side but far closer to the truth than you currently assume. ((Before anyone chips in with shale oils. Check out how much energy is needed to extract a given amount of chemical energy in the form of shale oil… (HINT The numbers are not quite as terrible as corn ethanol but broadly along similar lines)))

[quote]lou21 wrote:
I assume most of you guys are being willfully ignorant and sarcastic about what’s happening to our planet? I don’t like Al Gore either and his exaggerations are almost as funny as The Day After Tomorrow BUT the risks of drastic climate change that could occur are truely enormous. Bear in mind that geologically speaking the world is currently considered to be in an icehouse configuration. A switch to greenhouse would be VERY VERY unconfortable. I’d say that scientists are sheilding the general public from the true extent of the possible problems rather than exagerating them.

This trend of ice loss in the Artic is not a new thing that Al Gore (and I think he’s in general a scheming liar with his own agenda as well robmartinez09) has pulled out of his behind. It’s pretty established knowledge amongst people who use the Artic sea.

Elano: How many proven barrels of oil are there in Alaska? And how many probable? What is the world daily consumption? Come back with the numbers and some sources to this girl and you might get somewhere… Or you may discover your own assumptions are false. I suspect her figures are on the low side but far closer to the truth than you currently assume. ((Before anyone chips in with shale oils. Check out how much energy is needed to extract a given amount of chemical energy in the form of shale oil… (HINT The numbers are not quite as terrible as corn ethanol but broadly along similar lines)))[/quote]

The whole point youre missing is that noone disagrees with the fact that our climate is changing. Were disagreeing that WE ARE the alpha and omega causes and thus must be punished through levied taxes.

I remember watching the history channel, they had a special on the wonders of electricity and how it changed our society. What’s interesting is that they stated that they needed to find ways of getting Americans to use as much of it as possible. Now fast forward all these decades later and the industry is trying to get people to use as little as possible. A funny reversal.

[quote]lou21 wrote:
I’d say that scientists are sheilding the general public from the true extent of the possible problems rather than exagerating them.

[/quote]

Were those same benevolent, gracious scientists shielding the general public from the true extent of global cooling in the 1970’s? I mean, it was a “known, factual, and real” danger that the whole Earth was going to freeze into a new ice age.

Glad all those gas guzzling Chryslers were around to save us from that immediate threat.

[quote]elano wrote:
What’s fucked up is this shit gets passed down and accepted as facts by the academic community. When debating wether we should drill for oil in our own country, a girl in my class said "I don’t think it’s worth killing the polar bears and ecological destruction for just 6 months worth of oil. I said “That’s stupid where did you hear that?” and she said she was taught it in class. Seriously, this bs must be stopped.[/quote]

The ACT scores of people majoring in education is the lowest of all majors. It is no surprise to me, and I’m a teacher (31 on ACT, before anyone goes there).

Liberalism is also very rampant in academia. Most academics don’t understand the benefits of a free market and are afraid of the free market under any circumstances.

[quote]SteelyD wrote:

[quote]lou21 wrote:
I’d say that scientists are sheilding the general public from the true extent of the possible problems rather than exagerating them.

[/quote]

Were those same benevolent, gracious scientists shielding the general public from the true extent of global cooling in the 1970’s? I mean, it was a “known, factual, and real” danger that the whole Earth was going to freeze into a new ice age.

Glad all those gas guzzling Chryslers were around to save us from that immediate threat.[/quote]

I vividly remember that SteelyD. funny how no one else does. If these guys were wrong then, why pay any attention to them now?

Am I the only one who thinks a warmer planet is a better planet? Shit I mean some scientists just uncovered the bones of a super snake which weighed a ton and was 43 feet long. it lived 50 to 60 million years ago and they estimate the temperature at the equator where is was to be 5-6 degrees C higher than now. Warmer temps mean bigger plants and animals. More life, not less. Huge forests with huge beasts. That sounds awsome to me. Maybe birds will turn back into dinosaurs.

V