Green=Gold for Al Gore anyway

[texas1willy2]

Originally Posted by clmetal

Yeah, only the government should take the risk and only lobbying/political connected millionaires should get the profits.

If it was a viable (profitable) concept, VCs would fund invest as equity partners or banks/financial institutions would lend to them.

Only the government would take all the risk and allow others to take the reward. And in this case, it doesn't even create jobs.

I looked everywhere for a video I watched awhile back it was a you-tube clip of a congressional grilling on these loans your talking about, it was beyond bizarre. The tax payers are on the hook for all the risk and receive none of the profits if the shady deal happens to work out.

I've heard several more people talking over the last couple days saying algore is fixing to become the first carbon billionaire. I don't know about the rest of you but that makes me think real bad thoughts.

[Dochter]

Originally Posted by Conan Memories

"Continued warming based on available data..."

You pasted 2 pro global warming blog links. Nothing more. There is nothing being omitted from the graphs. I don't understand why you keep saying we're on a warming trend. It's an outright lie.

BBC NEWS | Science & Environment | What happened to global warming?

That article isn't "cherry picking" data

I want you to answer these questions

Why do you believe the people who are poised to make billions off something. Why are you not questioning it? Why are you not questioning people who are set to make billions and control how you live your life in the process? I seriously question anyone's sanity that would buy into alarmist junk science like you do.

Your BBC link doesn't work. However if they are arguing that there is a cooling trend they are necessarily ignoring surface and sea temperatures and using data from only one of many data repositories. They're also having to intentionally mis-analyze the data. You don't test trends by picking one arbitrary year as the starting point, you use moving averages. The moving averages demonstrate continued warming, even with the cherry-picked data.

I'm happy to answer those questions: I do question what people say, that's why I look at all the data, not just that presented by media sources. Look at the actual data, not just that available based on only a few satellites.

As for who stands to make money, how hypocritical are you? The individuals putting out cherry-picked data and pushing false assertions, like there being a cooling trend, are the ones that are currently making billions. For example about who is getting rich, one of the individuals on your list Richard Lindzen is indeed a well trained climatologist. Guess who funds his endowed faculty position and for whom he is a highly paid consultant?

Individuals like Gore stand to make a hell of a lot of money but if you think that professional scientists working in academia (you know, the ones that actually do science) are getting rich off of global warning you're sadly misinformed. Professors can sometimes end up on the upper-middle class end of things but being a "scientist" lobbying against environmental controls will get you rich.

[Sigh GunRanger]

Farmers Almanac says global cooling may be underway. I trust them over Gore who purposely lied in his documentary.

[Dochter]

Originally Posted by Conan Memories

I don't understand why you keep saying we're on a warming trend. It's an outright lie.

If you go by all the data it isn't a lie. The only way to argue for a cooling trend is to use a small subset of the data.

Here's what the people talking about cooling do: They start with 1998, and only 1998, and regress temperatures from then till now over time. Doing so, using some of the data, you find a relationship that isn't distinguishable from zero (i.e. not warming). The problem is that if you start from any time other than 1998 you get a positive relationship.

This is in part because 1998 was the warmest year, ever, on record. This is also why you don't use arbitrary starting points (you could similarly bias things if you started from a single excessively cool year and thereby demonstrated much accelerated warming). Instead you should use moving averages, often 5 or ten year averages.

[Conan Memories]

Dude

The link works

The warming trend you keep talking about is a LIE

Stop LYING

The warmest on record you mean the warmest in the last 100 years. 100 years is nothing. The earth has been around a billion+ years with climate cycle after climate cycle. Solar cycle after solar cycle. Tons and tons of ash and garbage belched in the air by volcanoes and other natural upheavals, but somehow man with his SUV is making global temperatures rise.

Give me a break.

[KrntlyJrknOv]

Originally Posted by texas1willy2

How convenient to hand pick companies to invest in then lobby congress to use those same companies.


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/bu...gore.html?_r=1

.....your a myope. Let me propose a similarly plausible storyline like the one being suggested by this "news" story.

Al Gore, a noted environmental activist, is introduced to a fledgling company that specializes in Green products and technologies. Al Gore in amazed at the creativity and talents of the employees. He decides that he wants to attach his name and finances to this company.

This company has some excellent new technologies that could be a benefit to the US Government, considering the goals of the new administration. Al Gore uses his political connections to be heard on the matter. Congress is similarly impressed and decides to invest in Al Gore's company.

....Bu spinning this bull shit story you reduce yourself to Glen Beck status.

[chardog]

Originally Posted by KrntlyJrknOv

.....your a myope. Let me propose a similarly plausible storyline like the one being suggested by this "news" story.

Dick Cheney, a noted former CEO of Haliburton, is introduced to the Iraq war. Dick Cheney is amazed at the evidence of saddam having WMD's. He decides to push for a war.

His former company has some excellent new technologies that could be a benefit to the US Government, considering the goals of the new administration. Dick Cheney uses his political connections to be heard on the matter. Congress is similarly impressed and decides to invest in Dick's former company.

....Bu spinning this bull shit story you reduce yourself to Michael Moore status.

[Dochter]

Originally Posted by Conan Memories

Dude

The link works

The warming trend you keep talking about is a LIE

Stop LYING

The warmest on record you mean the warmest in the last 100 years. 100 years is nothing. The earth has been around a billion+ years with climate cycle after climate cycle. Solar cycle after solar cycle. Tons and tons of ash and garbage belched in the air by volcanoes and other natural upheavals, but somehow man with his SUV is making global temperatures rise.

Give me a break.

The link didn't work for me. Also, since you're so into "facts" take a look at the actual data.

What is funny about this is that the "cooling" nonsense will be a dead story in about two months. Why? Simple, it only holds for 1998-2008. Any other years and the purported trend (based on only a small portion of the data) goes away. 2009 is currently on track to be the 6th warmest year in recorded history. As a result, even using an absurdly restricted data set, there won't be any glimmer of a non-positive trend.

Do you get what is going on here? The only way to demonstrate a non-positive trend is to only use 1998-2008 (1999-2009 won't work). That goes against how trends are commonly tested; and even that won't work in a few months.

I answered your questions, here's something for you to do in return: Assuming you have Excel plug the 1997-2008 data in and run a regression. Then 1998-2008. Then 1999-2008. Then the running 5-year averages for 1998-2008.

You could do this with more sophisticated statistical packages but if you had ready access to such things you wouldn't be making this argument; so excel will do.

[Allcomplete]

Global Warming is a marketing scheme to push an agenda through fear to become profitable and gain even more control on the people. Just as the Government did with 'Terrorism'. The only person in this thread who has not realized this it seems is Doucher.

JK man, I had to do it lol. I watched StepBrothers a few days ago.

[texas1willy2]

Originally Posted by KrntlyJrknOv

.....your a myope. Let me propose a similarly plausible storyline like the one being suggested by this "news" story.

Al Gore, a noted environmental activist, is introduced to a fledgling company that specializes in Green products and technologies. Al Gore in amazed at the creativity and talents of the employees. He decides that he wants to attach his name and finances to this company.

This company has some excellent new technologies that could be a benefit to the US Government, considering the goals of the new administration. Al Gore uses his political connections to be heard on the matter. Congress is similarly impressed and decides to invest in Al Gore's company.

....Bu spinning this bull shit story you reduce yourself to Glen Beck status.

I haven't had to spin this story I just read it, I find it mind boggling that anybody could defend this clown.

As a private citizen, Mr. Gore does not have to disclose his income or assets, as he did in his years in Congress and the White House. When he left government in early 2001, he listed assets of less than $2 million, including homes in suburban Washington and in Tennessee.

Representative Marsha Blackburn, Republican of Tennessee, asserted at a hearing this year that Mr. Gore stood to benefit personally from the energy and climate policies he was urging Congress to adopt.

Gore is poised to reap hundreds of millions from investments in the companies that will benefit from the government's increased emphasis on green technology. According to The New York Times's John Broder, Gore could become the world's first "carbon billionaire."

Al Gore, the world's first carbon billionaire? -- DailyFinance
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/bu...gore.html?_r=2