Thread: Al Gore: complete fucking moron or diabolical genius?

Originally Posted by WickedTribe

Oops! I didn't see that you had already responded. Oh well, can't hurt to have it up twice. How much money do you want to bet that we still see this politically-funded drivel dragged back out in next year's denials thread?

You had replied before me, so it was more I didn't see you had =p.

Originally Posted by Ranger10

I agree. I think it's all of that combined. I think we can, and more importantly, should continue to push for cleaner technology. Forget what it does to the earth, you're breathing that shit into your lungs. Anyone that's flown into LAX knows that I'm talking about. We all need to take responsibility and begin to make changes.

Nearly 100% of medical plastics from from oil. That will never change until we want it to. Fracking, while an economic boom, is still dangerous. It contaminates ground water. You can literally pull that shit out of the ground and light water on fire. So it's not realistic to say that man isn't directly involved in the corruption of the planet.

Agree, bit off-topic but if your interested into the business creating more green stuff, had a book for a class that (of what I read) was pretty interesting about some green ideas. It looks at from protecting the environment stance but also offers other reasons (namely, competitive advantage). Called Green to Gold by Daniel C. Esty and Andrew S. Winston. The big things I remember off-hand were house/building/neighborhood design, focus on selling services over product (as it incentives, according to them, making a quality product), and protecting natural capital (ecosystems, trees and stuff).

Another interesting one if you can find it online or something (can't find any links):
A Convenient Truth: Urban Solutions From Curitiba, Brazil - Rotten Tomatoes

They did quite a few things (like a good public transit system, recycling, etc.) and it ended up, at least according to the video (I haven't fact checked it) costing almost nothing to the city due to how they structured everything, or knock on effects (e.g. parks to control flooding caused high value homes to be built near the parks, increasing tax revenues). From what I remember of it, a lot of it didn't seem as though it was done entirely to be greener, as much as creative ways to fix problems without spending a lot of money they didn't have.

I think a solid public transport system in major US cities would fix a whole lot of things. From pollution to needless deaths. Unfortunately the car giants while never let that happen.

Originally Posted by WickedTribe

Your website doesn't support you. He gets his 4% figure by counting all of the CO2 in the entire atmosphere, not just the amount that's produced each year. Here's one of the rows from his table:

all concentrations expressed in parts per billion) Pre-industrial baseline Natural additions Man-made additions Total (ppb) Concentration Percent of Total
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 288,000 68,520 11,880 (2) 368,400 99.438%

Here you have four measurements: Baseline CO2, naturally-added CO2, added man-made CO2, and the total. You claimed that humans represent 4% of the contribution each year. In case you're feeling dishonest about that, here's your quote:


By his numbers, (68K + 11.9K) / 11.9K = 6.9K. He gets his 4% figure by dividing the much larger total, which includes the entire atmospheric content of CO2 (and then doing some very dubious math, which I'll get into), not just yearly production.

But it's just as well that this source didn't agree with you, because it's junk. I know that you guys don't like to hear your sources questioned, but seriously, this is junk.


1. He cites Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, but ignores their numbers when they contradict his claims:
Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC) Data - Global carbon emissions (1751-2008) - the Datahub
In the period 1751 to 1900, about 12 gigatonnes of carbon were released as carbon dioxide to the atmosphere from burning of fossil fuels, whereas from 1901 to 2008 the figure was about 334 gigatonnes(wikipedia). Apparently, they're only a good source when they agree with his agenda.

2. He gets his 11,880, human contribution number from a report titled Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change by IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme. He claims that this data is unaccessible now, and I can't find anything, anywhere about this paper. This number is central to his argument, and as far as I can tell, it's made-up. Why wouldn't he use the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center's numbers? They cover the addition of greenhouse gases by the burning of fossil fuels, so why ignore their numbers and instead mix in an unrelated, possibly fabricated study that no longer exists?

3. Another of his major sources for "human contribution" numbers is CO2 and the "Greenhouse Effect" Doom. This is a global-warming denialist website by "Tom V." The "paper" that it cites isn't published in a scientific publication, it's published by a political group - The Heartland Institute - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. It's a policy paper (it even offers an abridged "summary for policymakers" version.

I can go on. Do you want me to continue?

97% of scientists disagree with you. The best source that you can find is a shitty website that cites articles from right-wing pressure groups.

Once again, Wicked destroys a dishonest forum member with fact.

Wicked, you should change your name to...