‘This was not supposed to happen’: Gore’s sequel comes in dismal 15th at box office

Cypress said:
It's only being shown in select cities, and only in a relatively small number of theaters. It's a niche film for a niche audience.

This isn't 2006 anymore, when Climate Deniers roamed the Earth hollering that Global Warming wasn't real, and that an international conspiracy of scientists were faking the data and perpetrating a diabolical hoax.

No normal person even denies human emission of carbon are affecting the climate anymore. Even Trump, who claimed last year that global warming was a Chinese Hoax, has retreated, backtracked, and goal post moved. The posters here who, a decade ago, called global warming a complete hoax, now have backtracked and claimed they supposedly "always knew" that global warming was real, and humans are contributing to it.

Gore doesn't need to make his point in the same way he did in 2006. Climate denial is in permanent decline. . It is a different battle now. The question is not whether or not human carbon emissions are changing the climate. The question now is what do we do about it.
Click to expand...

ROFLMAO

It's over Johhny. You lost
 
Thing1 said:
Given population increases, these are fairly token measures. But I'm not even talking about AGW, which I personally don't put much stock in.

I'm talking about development & pollution, and how we treat the planet in general. We do not have a symbiotic relationship with the planet right now. Our planning, development and energy use do not account for even the next generation, much less 3,4, & 5 generations down the line. We're short-sighted, wasteful and give very little regard to habitat, the air & water. We're currently undergoing one of the biggest mass extinctions in natural history.

We need to change the way we do things - the way we consume, the way we travel, the way we produce energy...all of it. But no one even talks about a bare minimum of behavioral change. As some on the thread have said, the earth will survive, because it always does. Can man without clean air, water, and an adequate food supply?
Click to expand...

Who cares. You don't really care. You will be dead and gone
 
This is a surprise? Who is going to go to the movies and waste time watching bloated Al Gore bloviate over climate change?
 
I read a review (not good) about the movie. It's more a documentary of his lonely and pathetic life now that no one takes him seriously anymore. If he makes any more movies maybe he should go back to the histrionics of before and it could be in the comedy category.
 
Micawber said:
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/07/gov...icts-trump-on-climate-change-report-says.html
Click to expand...

And according to the publication (by the gubmint), the document says it is "extremely likely" that more than half (that's somewhere between 51% and 100%) of the global average temperature rise since 1951 could be linked to humans. It also found that it was "possible to attribute some extreme weather to climate change," the newspaper said.
Click to expand...

Do you have any idea how quickly something this nebulous would be rejected by a peer review board? It's completely meaningless.
 
Thing1 said:
Hey - honesty! Good to see.

That's how I think most on the right think.
Click to expand...

Yes. I am always honest. I don't believe in man made global warming. It is the height of arrogance to believe that our actions could materially impact something as complex as the climate.

Also, every single prediction is based on flawed mathematical models that can't even account for water vapor and use bogus data for inputs.

But if you want to materially change your life knock yourself out. I will not.
 
aloysious said:
Do you have any idea how quickly something this nebulous would be rejected by a peer review board? It's completely meaningless.
Click to expand...

That's because it is a report based upon peer reviewed science and is signed off by the National Academy of Science and 13 Government agencies, it is not a paper submitted for peer review at all. It is similar to a "white paper" but is provided as product to the government. It should guide policy, but of course your party, yes your party, prefers phrenology, tea leaves and Mr Coal's opinion to science.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/07/climate/climate-change-drastic-warming-trump.html

You are wilfully blind from spite. It is you who is meaningless.
 
Micawber said:
That's because it is a report based upon peer reviewed science and is signed off by the National Academy of Science and 13 Government agencies, it is not a paper submitted for peer review at all. It is similar to a "white paper" but is provided as product to the government. It should guide policy, but of course your party, yes your party, prefers phrenology, tea leaves and Mr Coal's opinion to science.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/07/climate/climate-change-drastic-warming-trump.html

You are wilfully blind from spite. It is you who is meaningless.
Click to expand...

How have you materially changed your life to save the erf from cataclysmic events of this so called man made global warming? What have you given up?

I mean if you really cared you would give up all of your electronic devices. You would give up washer and dryer. You can clean clothes without em. You would cook with wood. Give up your car altogether. Computer gone. Phone gone.

What have you given up?

I choose to give up nothing. I am pro choice on man made climate change. I choose not to believe. I am sorry if that makes you sad
 
Micawber said:
That's because it is a report based upon peer reviewed science and is signed off by the National Academy of Science and 13 Government agencies, it is not a paper submitted for peer review at all.
Click to expand...
And not one of those peered reviewed papers has ever come close to the conclusion that GW is Anthropogenic.
Micawber said:
It is similar to a "white paper" but is provided as product to the government.
Click to expand...
Which the gubmint gladly accepts what it wants and then rejects anything contrary to what it wants (and there's tons of that).
Micawber said:
It should guide policy, but of course your party, yes your party,
Click to expand...
By your definition anybody that does not have Trump Derangement Syndrome or Post Traumatic Trump Disorder prefers phrenology, tea leaves and Mr Coal's opinion to science.[/QUOTE] You left out scientific debate.
Micawber said:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/07/climate/climate-change-drastic-warming-trump.html
Click to expand...
Unlike an unthinking partisan hack like you I can see both sides, good and bad, of a pol, even my least favorite, hrc (she's smart). Trump says a lot of stupid shit but in respect to climate science he has indicated he wants honest and open debate. And you think that's bad. Go back to your slip and fall cases where I'm sure you excel.
Micawber said:
You are wilfully blind from spite. It is you who is meaningless.
Click to expand...
Wow, a report that uses terminology as "extremely likely" , "more than half" (that's somewhere between 51% and 100%) , "possible , and "some" actually means something to you tells me once again you are completely clueless when it comes to science.
 
aloysious said:
And not one of those peered reviewed papers has ever come close to the conclusion that GW is Anthropogenic. Which the gubmint gladly accepts what it wants and then rejects anything contrary to what it wants (and there's tons of that). By your definition anybody that does not have Trump Derangement Syndrome or Post Traumatic Trump Disorder prefers phrenology, tea leaves and Mr Coal's opinion to science. You left out scientific debate.
Unlike an unthinking partisan hack like you I can see both sides, good and bad, of a pol, even my least favorite, hrc (she's smart). Trump says a lot of stupid shit but in respect to climate science he has indicated he wants honest and open debate. And you think that's bad. Go back to your slip and fall cases where I'm sure you excel.
Wow, a report that uses terminology as "extremely likely" , "more than half" (that's somewhere between 51% and 100%) , "possible , and "some" actually means something to you tells me once again you are completely clueless when it comes to science.
Click to expand...

Blow it out your butt. The science is replete. It ain't me against your ilk, it's science against your ilk.
 
Micawber said:
Blow it out your butt. The science is replete. It ain't me against your ilk, it's science against your ilk.
Click to expand...

The science is against you and your failed computer models. Computer models is all you have ... not science :palm:
 
Sailor said:
Looks like PackD is getting his ass handed to him again.
Click to expand...



Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature

Posted on 16 May 2013 by dana1981, John Cook
A new survey of over 12,000 peer-reviewed climate science papers by our citizen science team at Skeptical Science has found a 97% consensus among papers taking a position on the cause of global warming in the peer-reviewed literature that humans are responsible.

https://skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=1994&p=5

Oh yes, sure. :palm:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top