Climate change

In 2007 when Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize with his slideshow one of the losers was Irene Sendler. She was a Christian Polish woman who during the war smuggled out about 2500 small Jewish kids out of the Warsaw Ghetto. She kept a jar hidden in her garden with all the kids names in the hope of reuniting them with their parents who were largely in concentration camps in better times. For obvious reasons it was a forlorn hope.

The glass jar or going up against vested interest for the prize?
 


I've put other stuff on as bait, but that's not one of them. The article raises some good points. It's no good shutting down debate by calling people deniers and inferring they are mental.
Obviously you meaning 'implying'. But, where in that article does Gore imply that the journalist is mental - even though the article is a one-sided interpretation of, what the writer admits, was a brief interaction, he never makes that accusation.
 
Obviously you meaning 'implying'. But, where in that article does Gore imply that the journalist is mental - even though the article is a one-sided interpretation of, what the writer admits, was a brief interaction, he never makes that accusation.

The point where he says"Are you a denier" with accompanying spittle. It's the same shite that New Labour did in the 2000nds by screaming racist at anyone who questioned diversity look how that's worked out.
 
Climate change has happened before and lot of species died out when it did. It's entirely possible we will be one of them next time. What we are doing almost certainly contributes to global warming but, even if it doesn't, it makes sense to reduce emissions that reduce the quality of the air we breathe and kill thousands every year. It makes sense to reduce waste and recycle what we can as most resources are finite. It makes sense not to pollute the sea or the land reducing our possible food sources. It makes sense to keep water sources as clean as possible. Using renewable sources of energy and cutting back on polluting forms of energy is being careful with our valuable resources. If we all do our bit we can be prosperous and healthy and help others to be the same. Renewables are obviously the way forward and working to improve their efficiency will eventually pay dividends and contribute to our economic prosperity.
That's a good post. Unfortunately there is a vested interest in keeping the status quo as it makes a huge amount of money for the chosen few. The chosen few who don't really care about what happens to the planet after they've left it. Climate change is natural it was happening long before man started burning fossil fuels. The contention is are we accelerating it and making it worse? Even if we're not we need to massively reduce pollution and we should start by setting a date for the end of the internal combustion engine.
Last month I walked through Melton Mowbray and it was like a gas chamber. Stationary buses and slow moving cars, you could taste the fumes. That can't be good for any of us and certainly not for the thousands who are killed every year through atmospheric pollution. It's time for change.
 
The point where he says"Are you a denier" with accompanying spittle. It's the same shite that New Labour did in the 2000nds by screaming racist at anyone who questioned diversity look how that's worked out.

Aye but tbf climate change isn't racism or something else subjective

It IS happening it's undeniable fact and anyone who thinks that it isn't being caused by anthropogenic activities is way off the mark it's clear as day
 
I've put other stuff on as bait, but that's not one of them. The article raises some good points. It's no good shutting down debate by calling people deniers and inferring they are mental.
The debate has been had at the scientific level. You know what the scientists decided? They decided climate change was real. So the next stage is informing people. Gore is informing people about the scientists conclusions. Pulling him up and trying to trip him up on the minutiae isn't a healthy debate its whataboutary. Gore didn't do the research how is he meant answer questions like that. Now he could say right i see what you mean, i'll get back to you but then the headlines will scream Gore unsure on climate change. The point is with such vast amounts of data and such complex models there will always be outliers and anomalies but the overall picture is clear.
 
Aye but tbf climate change isn't racism or something else subjective

It IS happening it's undeniable fact and anyone who thinks that it isn't being caused by anthropogenic activities is way off the mark it's clear as day

Climate change has happened since the beginning of time, it's the cause of it that's up for debate.
 
Climate change has happened since the beginning of time, it's the cause of it that's up for debate.

How can there be any debate that the cause of climate change as we know it is anthropogenic?

Seriously. This is the kind of shit that businesses whose profit margins will be hurt by environmental regs want you to believe.

They dress it up as being anti-liberal and anti-left and people who gravitate towards those ideological positions love it.

Logon or register to see this image


Logon or register to see this image


 
Last edited:
How can there be any debate that the cause of climate change as we know it is anthropogenic?

Seriously. This is the kind of shit that businesses whose profit margins will be hurt by environmental regs want you to believe.

They dress it up as being anti-liberal and anti-left and people who gravitate towards those ideological positions love it.

Logon or register to see this image


Logon or register to see this image

Your great leaders brother will vehemently disagree with you. Check out Andrewp's post on this thread. Admittedly Piers is as barmy as his brother, but he what makes a scientist less believable than Al Gore?
 
Andrew Wakefield was a scientist

Google him

So are you accusing Piers of fraudulent activity? It makes a change from being called a denier I suppose, just call him a law breaking fraud, that'll shut him up. Can we do it to his brother as well?
 
So are you accusing Piers of fraudulent activity? It makes a change from being called a denier I suppose, just call him a law breaking fraud, that'll shut him up. Can we do it to his brother as well?

:D

You know that's not what I was saying. What I am saying though is that scientists with views that seem to go wildly against the consensus are often wrong. Sometimes dangerously so.

Sometimes of course they're right all along and the scientific community that kept them down have egg on their face.

I suspect the former but maybe you're right. Maybe Piers is right. Piers says that there's no evidence CO2 causes climate change.

The overwhelming consensus is that it does.
 
The authors attempts to actually remove the "binary choice" of something that is possibly apocalyptic in scope and something that isnt concerning to introduce this middle ground of "well its bad but its surely not that bad" is actually more damaging than outright deniers. The outright deniers are in a pile with the flat earthers and young earth creationists now as far as main stream science goes so now the new tack is this gentle deniers. Still outright denying the current and possible scope of the issue but they get to paint themselves as somehow victims of these intransigent scientists. I can see why after years and years of dealing with these people Al Gore wasnt particular allowing them to reopen this avenue of attack in a 5 minute film promotional interview.
 

Back
Top