Quote:
Originally Posted by John  Al Gore is making massively less than if he endorsed oil or gas companies. |
You mean how he owned stocks in Occidental Petroleum?
Also the CEO of Shell (Now the biggest company in the world) earns: €5,700,002.00
Al Gore earns: ??? A big secret. He is rumoured to be worth 100€ million.
You do the math. Besides he needs to earn money, if only to pay his monthly €500,- pool heating bill.
Quote:
|
Besides which, his facts come from non-biased sources, and I've yet to hear of even one Climatologist who disagrees with him.
|
Dr. Patrick J. Michaels.
But for the most you are asking catholic priests to be criticising the church.
On top of the fact that they are making money of it too. Quote:
|
Batteries are toxic, yes, but they do significantly less damage than burning fuel does.
|
How are batteries charged again? Oh yeah right by burning fuel.
Quote:
|
Seriously, a single battery can't do much to the global environment. (Indeed, if properly disposed of it can do nothing). A single tank of gas does far, far, far more harm.
|
Again that only goes for lithium-ion batteries though.
Quote:
|
That's a minor issue at best, actually.
|
Yes absorbing 800Gt of CO2 is very minor detail.
Quote:
|
Humans are releasing fossil CO2 into the atmosphere. CO2 that couldn't be taken up even before we started deforesting. We are, in fact, massively increasing the amount of CO2 in circulation while decreasing the earth's ability to take it out of circulation.
|
Not so sure about the first but I agree with the second.
Quote:
|
That's what happens every time you burn coal, or oil, or any oil-based product.
|
Or fart.
Quote:
|
No, there's a lot of BS on the denialist side, which includes insisting that there's BS on both sides.
|
People believed the earth was in the center of the galaxy, which others denied.
People believed the earth was flat, which others denied.
People in the 1970's believed we would be in a small ice age now, which others denied.
So yeah. But so you are saying that the 'humans are causing global warming by CO2 emissions' always speak the truth and never tell any sort of lies or BS?
Quote:
|
If you look up the facts, only one side is spouting nonsense and expecting to be believed.
|
Which side of scientists is that? Which side is producing nonsense scientific based research and tests?
Though in the end I must ask; isn't all just due to the population increase? We are all 37 degrees C. heaters, more than 6 billion of them. Aren't we also increasing the temperature just by being alive? That might sound silly but it sounds logical.
For a more scientific approach though:
If you look at the lines, the CO2 line follows the population line far more than the emissions due to fossil fuel burning line.
At the end though I think being sceptic to something is wise, following stuff blindly is never a good idea.