Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.

The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change

1…567911

Comments

  • Blu82
    Blu82 Member Posts: 1,673
    PurpleThrobber said:



    2001400ex said:

    Bendintheriver said:

    2001400ex said:

    RaceBannon said:

    2001400ex said:

    RaceBannon said:

    2001400ex said:

    RaceBannon said:

    Yep there is no money to be made from scaring the public with global warming or climate change


    You really think that's how Al Gore made his money?
    Yes
    Doubling down. I'll wait for @SFGbob to swoop in and start blasting you as a liar.

    https://business.financialpost.com/news/how-al-gore-amassed-a-200-million-fortune-after-presidential-defeat

    If you don't want to read that, his fortune was made selling a TV station and being on the Apple board. HTH
    And for the book and the two movies and the speaking fees

    Why so defensive? Lots of people get rich with religious scams. Quite common really

    The article you linked was speculation on the graft he collected from Al Jazeera for a worthless TC network and Apple stock given to him.

    He also lost tens of millions of dollars on green tech Nice to have a scam to fall back on
    You think the book and speaking fees are material to his hundred plus million? Race you are better then that.
    Again, I am amazed at your dishonesty or complete ignorance.

    Al Gore received a butt load of free stock in a Silicon Valley venture capital firm (same with Apple and numerous other companies looking for more tax payer generosity). That firm invested 45 million into a company called Silver Springs Networks which was a company that had some type of hardware or software (not sure which) that made the power grid more efficient. BO invested 2.5 billion in grants to the energy sector. Guess who was given $305 million of that 2 billion? You guessed it, energy companies that all had contracts with Silver Springs Networks. Ahh yes, the insider gift that keeps on giving.

    Al Gore was paid handsomely to do over 500 speeches (this is in a two year period just after the turn of the century) that dealt with one single solitary topic: Man made climate change. Guess what? Many government organizations paid him US Tax Dollars to speak on MMGW. Again, the insider gift that keeps on giving.

    Gore took all this free money from tax payers and then invested it in many other green initiatives that would go on to rely upon tax payer dollars to kick of their programs. Another scam on the US taxpayer that ended up right in his pocket. If Hillary had been elected and all of the carbon limiting companies Gore had invested in had been funded by her using our tax dollars he would have been over a billionaire.

    Suffice to say, your contention that Gore didn't make it off of MMGW is pure unadulterated bullshit.

    Now you care about how the wealthy spend their money? 500 speeches is chump change compared to selling his TV station and apple stock. Al Gore is shitty enough. You don't actually have to lie about his actions.
    Now, tell the rest of the story.

    Al Gore sold "his" TV network to Al-fucking-Jazeera.

    Ponder that, motherfucker. The mouthpiece/propoganda arm of Al Queda and Bin Laden.

    But but Trump....Russians.....Kavanaugh.

    That is some dirty fucking money. And that goddamned mansion is a carbon footprint nightmare.

    Fuck Al Gore.

    And that horse he rode in on.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • greenblood
    greenblood Member Posts: 14,566
    edited August 2019
    2001400ex said:

    greenblood said:

    2001400ex said:

    RaceBannon said:

    2001400ex said:

    Bendintheriver said:


    AG is worth 300MM. He sold his failing network for (his take) 100MM. At last check Al Jazeera is in a lawsuit with AG over the remaining balance owed of 64MM. That means he made exactly 36MM off of Current TV. Again, a just about bankrupt "network".

    Gore was given (how does one of the dumbest occupants ever of the WH get 74MM in free stock handed to him?) free stock and recently sold half of it. That total was 37MM for his shares.

    If he is worth 300MM and he received 110MM from the ventures you say is where he made all his money, where do you think the other 190MM came from?

    Dance you chicken, dance.

    Have you heard of investing and capital gains? Do you think his money just sits in a bank account?
    I heard that the rich didn't spend or invest their tax cuts

    So were you lying then or are you lying now?
    Investing in the stock market is different than a business making an investment leading to employment. You seriously are a dullard. And I chuckle at the others jumping on your fucktarded bandwagon.
    Last time I checked, buying stock in a company provides that company capital to make investments leading to employment.


    Um buying stock, unless involved in an IPO or pre IPO, gives nothing to a company. That's the dumbest thing I've ever read in here.
    So a company isn’t allowed to sell additional shares after an IPO? I’d like to see the law that says that. Please triple down on stupid.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • 2001400ex
    2001400ex Member Posts: 29,457
    greenblood said:

    2001400ex said:

    greenblood said:

    2001400ex said:

    RaceBannon said:

    2001400ex said:

    Bendintheriver said:


    AG is worth 300MM. He sold his failing network for (his take) 100MM. At last check Al Jazeera is in a lawsuit with AG over the remaining balance owed of 64MM. That means he made exactly 36MM off of Current TV. Again, a just about bankrupt "network".

    Gore was given (how does one of the dumbest occupants ever of the WH get 74MM in free stock handed to him?) free stock and recently sold half of it. That total was 37MM for his shares.

    If he is worth 300MM and he received 110MM from the ventures you say is where he made all his money, where do you think the other 190MM came from?

    Dance you chicken, dance.

    Have you heard of investing and capital gains? Do you think his money just sits in a bank account?
    I heard that the rich didn't spend or invest their tax cuts

    So were you lying then or are you lying now?
    Investing in the stock market is different than a business making an investment leading to employment. You seriously are a dullard. And I chuckle at the others jumping on your fucktarded bandwagon.
    Last time I checked, buying stock in a company provides that company capital to make investments leading to employment.


    Um buying stock, unless involved in an IPO or pre IPO, gives nothing to a company. That's the dumbest thing I've ever read in here.
    So a company isn’t allowed to sell additional shares after an IPO? I’d like to see the law that says that. Please triple down on stupid.
    For sure they can. But Al Gore was given his stock. Then I'm sure he reinvested in mutual funds and shit.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • greenblood
    greenblood Member Posts: 14,566
    edited August 2019
    2001400ex said:

    greenblood said:

    2001400ex said:

    greenblood said:

    2001400ex said:

    RaceBannon said:

    2001400ex said:

    Bendintheriver said:


    AG is worth 300MM. He sold his failing network for (his take) 100MM. At last check Al Jazeera is in a lawsuit with AG over the remaining balance owed of 64MM. That means he made exactly 36MM off of Current TV. Again, a just about bankrupt "network".

    Gore was given (how does one of the dumbest occupants ever of the WH get 74MM in free stock handed to him?) free stock and recently sold half of it. That total was 37MM for his shares.

    If he is worth 300MM and he received 110MM from the ventures you say is where he made all his money, where do you think the other 190MM came from?

    Dance you chicken, dance.

    Have you heard of investing and capital gains? Do you think his money just sits in a bank account?
    I heard that the rich didn't spend or invest their tax cuts

    So were you lying then or are you lying now?
    Investing in the stock market is different than a business making an investment leading to employment. You seriously are a dullard. And I chuckle at the others jumping on your fucktarded bandwagon.
    Last time I checked, buying stock in a company provides that company capital to make investments leading to employment.


    Um buying stock, unless involved in an IPO or pre IPO, gives nothing to a company. That's the dumbest thing I've ever read in here.
    So a company isn’t allowed to sell additional shares after an IPO? I’d like to see the law that says that. Please triple down on stupid.
    For sure they can. But Al Gore was given his stock. Then I'm sure he reinvested in mutual funds and shit.
    You sure? I think only Al knows for sure. But what difference does it make how he invests? Company stock purchased through a mutual fund still helps the company. Supply and demand
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • WestlinnDuck
    WestlinnDuck Member Posts: 17,911 Standard Supporter
    Hondo and Krugman seem to have the same view of free markets and love of chicoms.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • ClaraSorrenti
    ClaraSorrenti Member Posts: 73
    Gwad said:

    https://skepticalscience.com/consensus-boston-u.html

    When do 97% of people agree on anything, even ice cream? In scientific circles, consensus is a rare trophy, held to famously exacting standards. When a scientific consensus is finally reached — e.g., the Earth orbits the sun; water freezes at 32°F, 0°C; blood is red — a new fact joins the foundations of human discovery.

    Under normal circumstances, a 97% consensus of the world’s leading scientists on anything would establish it as fact and compel action if needed. But our circumstances are not normal. Only 12% of Americans realize that that the scientific consensus on climate change is greater than 90%. Even among people who are Alarmed or Concerned about climate change, the consensus is somewhat unknown. Of the Alarmed, 84% understand the scientific consensus on climate change (16% do not); and 73% of the Concerned (27%).

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • bigcc
    bigcc Member Posts: 900
    RaceBannon said:

    Gwad said:

    Ok dude that is why you're looking to a lawyer that claims himself a scientists to support your position.

    I'm not

    I'm a logician and I believe in real science

    Not half truths and phony stats

    The climate changes. We all know that. Its your religion that we dont agree with and that has no consensus
    https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/4/graphic-dramatic-glacier-melt/

    Very normal stuff, https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2908/landsat-illustrates-five-decades-of-change-to-greenland-glaciers/

    Is it overstated? Probably, but denying it is absurd, it will certainly create issues for our offspring, but probably not ourselves
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • HoustonHusky
    HoustonHusky Member Posts: 6,011
    bigcc said:

    RaceBannon said:

    Gwad said:

    Ok dude that is why you're looking to a lawyer that claims himself a scientists to support your position.

    I'm not

    I'm a logician and I believe in real science

    Not half truths and phony stats

    The climate changes. We all know that. Its your religion that we dont agree with and that has no consensus
    https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/4/graphic-dramatic-glacier-melt/

    Very normal stuff, https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2908/landsat-illustrates-five-decades-of-change-to-greenland-glaciers/

    Is it overstated? Probably, but denying it is absurd, it will certainly create issues for our offspring, but probably not ourselves

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • bigcc
    bigcc Member Posts: 900
    HoustonHusky said:


    bigcc said:

    RaceBannon said:

    Gwad said:

    Ok dude that is why you're looking to a lawyer that claims himself a scientists to support your position.

    I'm not

    I'm a logician and I believe in real science

    Not half truths and phony stats

    The climate changes. We all know that. Its your religion that we dont agree with and that has no consensus
    https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/4/graphic-dramatic-glacier-melt/

    Very normal stuff, https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2908/landsat-illustrates-five-decades-of-change-to-greenland-glaciers/

    Is it overstated? Probably, but denying it is absurd, it will certainly create issues for our offspring, but probably not ourselves

    I'm willing to bet you don't question sources about the great replacement the same way

    Funny how you types like to cherry pick your sources so lackadaisicallly
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • HoustonHusky
    HoustonHusky Member Posts: 6,011
    bigcc said:

    HoustonHusky said:


    bigcc said:

    RaceBannon said:

    Gwad said:

    Ok dude that is why you're looking to a lawyer that claims himself a scientists to support your position.

    I'm not

    I'm a logician and I believe in real science

    Not half truths and phony stats

    The climate changes. We all know that. Its your religion that we dont agree with and that has no consensus
    https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/4/graphic-dramatic-glacier-melt/

    Very normal stuff, https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2908/landsat-illustrates-five-decades-of-change-to-greenland-glaciers/

    Is it overstated? Probably, but denying it is absurd, it will certainly create issues for our offspring, but probably not ourselves

    I'm willing to bet you don't question sources about the great replacement the same way

    Funny how you types like to cherry pick your sources so lackadaisicallly
    Sources? I Googled Greenland melting. And would a snapshot of an individual iceberg at 2 different times to make sweeping statements be defined as a "cherry pick" of data?
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter