patrick.net

Or was he paying him to push the truth about how important it is.

The question is why did he do it ? He's a wealthy old man. Did he do it because he has a lot invested in green businesses ? OR is it possible he did it because it matters and because it requires a lot of money to push back against the even bigger monied interests that want to keep us using fossil fuels for too long.

Why ? Why does soros want us to move sooner rather than later on green energy ?

Could it be because he listens to the scientists ?

That was then. Was he wrong?

This is now.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm

Oilwelldoctor says

George Soros Paid Al Gore Millions To Lie About Global Warming

If you think the globe isn't warming, you are an idiot. At this point rejecting the thousands of independent verification indicates willful ignorance. And as such, a climate change denier reveals that his opinion on any subject matter should not be taken seriously.

The bottom line is that those who deny climate change should have zero voice in policy making as they have demonstrated beyond any doubt that they prefer to ignore and reject reality.

It's always fun when people who lie for fun find out they can do it for money.

Well said

Oilwelldoctor says

Newly leaked documents

What documents is that? I don't see any. He said that she said that her cousin's brother's nephew's aunt trudy thinks her fathers mothers second cousin twice removed said. People take this crap seriously? What a joke.

https://wjbo.iheart.com/featured/the-pursuit-of-happiness/content/2018-10-29-al-gore-was-wrong-again-greenhouse-gasses-drop-3-in-trumps-first-year/
AL GORE WAS WRONG (AGAIN): GREENHOUSE GASSES DROP 3% IN TRUMP'S FIRST YEAR

marcus says

Or was he paying him to push the truth about how important it is.

Yeah a guy that brags about how he brings down countries by destroying their economy is concerned about Global warming. But just couldn't be bothered by the 80% clear and deforestation of the Planets most venerable Rain Forests since 2000.

The same George Soros that had Gab shut down, millions of Republicans thrown off Twitter and Facebook and even threatened Disgus yesterday to make the mention of his name on Breitbart in a negative light as hate speech. This Soros has our best interest at heart.

Regardless of what you believe, the fact remains, Al Gore shouldn't even be a trusted source on middle school science, let alone climate change. The man has zero credentials. I'd love to give him a scientific literacy test to see how he scores.

The joke is on Soros. Gore woulda done it for a case of scotch.

HEYYOU says

Dumb asses read this & it's links & get back to me.
Those that haven't read it,know nothing.

theoakman says

I'd love to give him a scientific literacy test to see how he scores.

I'll take it! Majored in math minored in physics. After 2 years I walked away. I did like the math of Mo! Money!,
Mo! Money!, Mo! Money!
I'm no genius! I never understood the math of debt & no cash but I'm sure it's for losers.

'


I would be asking Gore questions such as, what is the atomic mass of carbon-13, and I know he'll get it wrong.

theoakman says

I would be asking Gore questions such as, what is the atomic mass of carbon-13, and I know he'll get it wrong.

The only correct answer to most people: who cares :)

I kid I kid, but have no idea what the answer could be

Don't forget about ManBearPig!

theoakman says

Regardless of what you believe, the fact remains, Al Gore shouldn't even be a trusted source on middle school science, let alone climate change. The man has zero credentials. I'd love to give him a scientific literacy test to see how he scores.

Huh? Didn't you know that Al Gore Jr flunked out of Vanderbilt Law School during his first year?

In fact, since Al Senior was senator of TN, the dean of the law school actually tried to broker a deal, letting Al Junior pass, if he submitted a term paper. Junior, being the lazy shit that he was, didn't even bother with that. If anything, Gore is as dumb as Dubya but gets all these accolades because he speaks well and is reasonably good looking in comparison.

Gore is as dumb as Dubya

Which is why we should not vote in "Dynasties." by electing wives and offspring of the original successful politicians. One Kennedy, Bush, Clinton, Gore is enough. We also do not need any Michele/Malia/Sasha or Ivanka in the future.

Where is this proof of which you speak ? You mean becasue models were improved by collecting 30 years of data ? That's shocking.

Besides projections have bands representing the amount by which they know they may be off. Interesting that you say that in 1988 they said 3 to 8 degrees, and now they say two.

Are you sure they are being that precise with their prediction for 32 years out ? I'm pretty sure they still have ranges. So both could still be correct.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm

Read "State of Fear" by Michael Crichton. Fiction, from 2004, but with an extensive bibliography to support. This book broke many of my assumptions about the validity of climate science, and exposed bad science as well. The Addendum chapter on the Politicization of Science (eugenics) is a must read. You didn't get this in school.

My problem is not with saving the planet. Everyone wants to "save the planet", as do I. But to say that humans are primary cause of global warming is BS. When you can't separate hyperbole from fact, it's religion. Religion is the cause of a lot of human suffering.

Agenda of the World Climate Order:
The only solution to global warming is to "remove the human infestation!" Of course, a select few of us will remain behind as stewards of the planet, because we really care. The rest of you fuckers can die.

rocketjoe79 says

This book broke many of my assumptions about the validity of climate science, and exposed bad science as well.

That a work of fiction is what informs your views on climate science speaks volumes.

Here's Michael Crichton's closing remarks to the Senate on the subject in 2005:

"In closing, I want to state emphatically that nothing in my remarks should be taken to imply that we can ignore our environment, or that we should not take climate change seriously. On the contrary, we must dramatically improve our record on environmental management. That's why a focused effort on climate science, aimed at securing sound, independently verified answers to policy questions, is so important now."

Crichton's critique focused on one climate study by Michael Mann, in the 1990's. Now we have thousands of independently verified studies performed by countless scientists (not novelists) the world over and you are still willingly blind. Nice.

marcus says

Where is this proof of which you speak ?

You are right. I can't prove the negative.

But after years of co2 going up and temp now falling you would think the alarmists would give it a rest.

Can anyone link to the scientific formula that correlates co2 increase with warming?

The science is settled, after all.

Evan F. says

Crichton critique focused on one climate study by Michael Mann, in the 1990's.

So when do you think Mann will release his hockey stick data and methods?

Evan F. says

Now we have thousands of independently verified studies performed by countless scientists (not novelists) the world over

No we don't.

Link to the most convincing of these thousands of studies to prove me wrong. Just one.

Onvacation says

But after years of co2 going up and temp now falling you would think the alarmists would give it a rest.

Hahahaha

I earned my BS before politics invaded science. Many are swayed by the politicians who wouldn't understand the scientific method if you hit them in the head with it.

If your theory does not match reality your theory is wrong.

Many people have trouble with reality.

rocketjoe79 says

But to say that humans are primary cause of global warming is BS

Seems likely, that humans cause it, even if there wasn't a lot of science confirming the greenhouse effect. You think us emitting so much carbon in to the atmosphere at this time of warming is just a coincidence ? Do you actually question the greenhouse effect ? That is that without greenhouse gasses and water vapor, the earth would be much colder than it is?

If one accepts this fact, as all scientists do, then it's not all that much of a leap to accept that increasing the co2 content of the atmosphere increases the greenhouse effect.

rocketjoe79 says

Agenda of the World Climate Order

I'm not big on conspiracy theories,. But I can see that there is at least a rational reason for thinking that a steady population of some level - maybe even lower than what it is today, could be better for humanity and for the planet and biosphere than letting human population growth run its course. Possibly even much better with respect to how many humans get to exist in the long run.

Appreciating this reality though is not the same as advocating Eugenics or genocide.

Onvacation says

I earned my BS before politics invaded science.

Is your BS in climate science?

Isn't it ironic ?

That is, the idea that politics at some point invaded science to such a great degree that you now get to reject any science you choose to, solely for political reasons ?

marcus says

Isn't it ironic ?

Dontcha think?

marcus says

That is that without greenhouse gasses and water vapor, the earth would be much colder than it is?

I hate to break it to you, but water vapor IS a greenhouse gas, as a matter of fact, it makes up 95% of greenhouse gases.



marcus says

If one accepts this fact, as all scientists do, then it's not all that much of a leap to accept that increasing the co2 content of the atmosphere increases the greenhouse effect.

Sorry, wrong again. The sun creates the heat that increases the greenhouse effect and evaporation of water into water vapor. Why is it warmer on cloudy nights versus clear nights?



marcus says

I'm not big on conspiracy theories,.

But you get your info from this site below? Really?

marcus says

https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm

You know, the single guy working out of his spare bedroom writing a blog? Very scientific, isn't it?

marcus says

Isn't it ironic ?

You can say that again!!!

Onvacation says

I am not a shill for the oil company I just believe in science.

Two simple questions: Do you accept that overall the climate on Earth is warming?
Do you accept that the level of CO2 in the atomosphere is rising?

marcus says

even if there wasn't a lot of science confirming the greenhouse effect. You think us emitting so much carbon in to the atmosphere at this time of warming is just a coincidence ? Do you actually question the greenhouse effect ? That is that without greenhouse gasses and water vapor, the earth would be much colder than it is?

If one accepts this fact, as all scientists do, then it's not all that much of a leap to accept that increasing the co2 content of the atmosphere increases the greenhouse effect.

Please
Onvacation says

Can anyone link to the scientific formula that correlates co2 increase with warming?

There should be a quantifiable correlation between the amount of co2 in the atmosphere and the level of global warming.

After all the science is settled.

Let's do nothing about nothing & see what happens.

That is all arguing with deniers is, doing nothing. Doing something would be:

Close the borders to 3rd worlders entering 1st world countries and allow the natural lower birthrate of the prosperous nations to let population settle to a level sustainable by wind, solar and other renewables. Solar and wind are on the increase anyway.

Restrict imports from countries that manufacture products without following similar environmental laws as the US.

Trump seems to be the only one addressing these issues.

Evan F. says

Is your BS in climate science?

No. But I do understand the scientific method.

Onvacation says

Can anyone link to the scientific formula that correlates co2 increase with warming?

Still waiting.

marcus says

That is, the idea that politics at some point invaded science to such a great degree that you now get to reject any science you choose to, solely for political reasons ?

No. It's dangerous to reject science and ostracize anyone that does not accept your flawed theory.

rdm says

Do you accept that overall the climate on Earth is warming?

It's actually cooling. Look it up. The temperature peaked in 2016 and has been falling.
2017 was the third warmest and 2018 looks to be continuing the downward trend.

The temp went up 4/100 of 1 degree 2015 to 2016 and down 1/10 from 2016 to 2017. If you believe worldwide yearlong average temperature can be measured with accuracy.

If you believe.

rdm says

Do you accept that the level of CO2 in the atomosphere is rising?

Absolutely and plants love it.

Onvacation says

rdm says

Do you accept that the level of CO2 in the atomosphere is rising?

Absolutely and plants love it.

Yes, I am surprised there seems to be no research into this type of feedback loop. Would not more CO2 accelerate plant growth? After all, plants construct themselves using carbon from the CO2 in the air, powered by sunlight. And would not slightly higher temps encourage plant growth, especially in northern climates?

HeadSet says

We also do not need any Michele/Malia/Sasha or Ivanka in the future.

If Ivanka turns a debate into a swim suit competition she has my vote!