Originally Posted by GogglesPisano (Post 2396684)

Read the Snopes article. It's a fairly easy read. "Taking the initiative in creating the internet" is a lot different than "inventing." He didn't claim to "create" it, either.

Highlights: In context, Gore’s response (which employed the word “created,” not “invented”) was clear in meaning:
the vice president was not claiming that he “invented” the Internet in the sense of having designed or implemented it, but rather that he was one of the visionaries responsible for helping to bring it into being by fostering its development in an economic and legislative sense,

To claim that Gore was seriously trying to take credit for the “invention” of the Internet is, frankly, just silly political posturing that arose out of a close presidential campaign. If, for example, President Eisenhower had said in the mid-1960s that he, while president, “took the initiative in creating the Interstate Highway System,” he would not have been the subject of dozens and dozens of editorials lampooning him for claiming he “invented” the concept of highways or implying that he personally went out and dug ditches across the country to help build the roadway. Everyone would have understood that Eisenhower meant he was a driving force behind the legislation that created the highway system, and this was the very same concept Al Gore was expressing about himself with interview remarks about the Internet."

Even some of the guys who actually invented the internet give him credit -- and rightly so.

"But a spirited defense of Gore’s statement penned by Internet pioneers Robert Kahn and Vinton Cerf (the latter often referred to as the “father of the Internet”) in 2000 noted that “Al Gore was the first political leader to recognize the importance of the Internet and to promote and support its development” and that “No other elected official, to our knowledge, has made a greater contribution [to the Internet] over a longer period of time”:

"Al Gore was the first political leader to recognize the importance of the Internet and to promote and support its development.

No one person or even small group of persons exclusively “invented” the Internet. It is the result of many years of ongoing collaboration among people in government and the university community. But as the two people who designed the basic architecture and the core protocols that make the Internet work, we would like to acknowledge VP Gore’s contributions as a Congressman, Senator and as Vice President. No other elected official, to our knowledge, has made a greater contribution over a longer period of time.

Last year the Vice President made a straightforward statement on his role. He said: “During my service in the United States Congress I took the initiative in creating the Internet.” We don’t think, as some people have argued, that Gore intended to claim he “invented” the Internet. Moreover, there is no question in our minds that while serving as Senator, Gore’s initiatives had a significant and beneficial effect on the still-evolving Internet. The fact of the matter is that Gore was talking about and promoting the Internet long before most people were listening. We feel it is timely to offer our perspective."

Originally Posted by GogglesPisano (Post 2396684)

Read the Snopes article. It's a fairly easy read. "Taking the initiative in creating the internet" is a lot different than "inventing." He didn't claim to "create" it, either.

Highlights: In context, Gore’s response (which employed the word “created,” not “invented”) was clear in meaning:
the vice president was not claiming that he “invented” the Internet in the sense of having designed or implemented it, but rather that he was one of the visionaries responsible for helping to bring it into being by fostering its development in an economic and legislative sense,

To claim that Gore was seriously trying to take credit for the “invention” of the Internet is, frankly, just silly political posturing that arose out of a close presidential campaign. If, for example, President Eisenhower had said in the mid-1960s that he, while president, “took the initiative in creating the Interstate Highway System,” he would not have been the subject of dozens and dozens of editorials lampooning him for claiming he “invented” the concept of highways or implying that he personally went out and dug ditches across the country to help build the roadway. Everyone would have understood that Eisenhower meant he was a driving force behind the legislation that created the highway system, and this was the very same concept Al Gore was expressing about himself with interview remarks about the Internet."

Even some of the guys who actually invented the internet give him credit -- and rightly so.

"But a spirited defense of Gore’s statement penned by Internet pioneers Robert Kahn and Vinton Cerf (the latter often referred to as the “father of the Internet”) in 2000 noted that “Al Gore was the first political leader to recognize the importance of the Internet and to promote and support its development” and that “No other elected official, to our knowledge, has made a greater contribution [to the Internet] over a longer period of time”:

"Al Gore was the first political leader to recognize the importance of the Internet and to promote and support its development.

No one person or even small group of persons exclusively “invented” the Internet. It is the result of many years of ongoing collaboration among people in government and the university community. But as the two people who designed the basic architecture and the core protocols that make the Internet work, we would like to acknowledge VP Gore’s contributions as a Congressman, Senator and as Vice President. No other elected official, to our knowledge, has made a greater contribution over a longer period of time.

Last year the Vice President made a straightforward statement on his role. He said: “During my service in the United States Congress I took the initiative in creating the Internet.” We don’t think, as some people have argued, that Gore intended to claim he “invented” the Internet. Moreover, there is no question in our minds that while serving as Senator, Gore’s initiatives had a significant and beneficial effect on the still-evolving Internet. The fact of the matter is that Gore was talking about and promoting the Internet long before most people were listening. We feel it is timely to offer our perspective."

Originally Posted by qball (Post 2396700)

He did invent Global Warming....so there's that ;)

Originally Posted by Lemons (Post 2396737)

He said, "During my service in the United States Congress I took the initiative in creating the Internet". It's both laughable and ludicrous that he thought he had any contribution.

Originally Posted by GogglesPisano (Post 2396684)

Read the Snopes article. It's a fairly easy read. "Taking the initiative in creating the internet" is a lot different than "inventing." He didn't claim to "create" it, either.

Highlights: In context, Gore’s response (which employed the word “created,” not “invented”) was clear in meaning:
the vice president was not claiming that he “invented” the Internet in the sense of having designed or implemented it, but rather that he was one of the visionaries responsible for helping to bring it into being by fostering its development in an economic and legislative sense,

To claim that Gore was seriously trying to take credit for the “invention” of the Internet is, frankly, just silly political posturing that arose out of a close presidential campaign. If, for example, President Eisenhower had said in the mid-1960s that he, while president, “took the initiative in creating the Interstate Highway System,” he would not have been the subject of dozens and dozens of editorials lampooning him for claiming he “invented” the concept of highways or implying that he personally went out and dug ditches across the country to help build the roadway. Everyone would have understood that Eisenhower meant he was a driving force behind the legislation that created the highway system, and this was the very same concept Al Gore was expressing about himself with interview remarks about the Internet."

Even some of the guys who actually invented the internet give him credit -- and rightly so.

"But a spirited defense of Gore’s statement penned by Internet pioneers Robert Kahn and Vinton Cerf (the latter often referred to as the “father of the Internet”) in 2000 noted that “Al Gore was the first political leader to recognize the importance of the Internet and to promote and support its development” and that “No other elected official, to our knowledge, has made a greater contribution [to the Internet] over a longer period of time”:

"Al Gore was the first political leader to recognize the importance of the Internet and to promote and support its development.

No one person or even small group of persons exclusively “invented” the Internet. It is the result of many years of ongoing collaboration among people in government and the university community. But as the two people who designed the basic architecture and the core protocols that make the Internet work, we would like to acknowledge VP Gore’s contributions as a Congressman, Senator and as Vice President. No other elected official, to our knowledge, has made a greater contribution over a longer period of time.

Last year the Vice President made a straightforward statement on his role. He said: “During my service in the United States Congress I took the initiative in creating the Internet.” We don’t think, as some people have argued, that Gore intended to claim he “invented” the Internet. Moreover, there is no question in our minds that while serving as Senator, Gore’s initiatives had a significant and beneficial effect on the still-evolving Internet. The fact of the matter is that Gore was talking about and promoting the Internet long before most people were listening. We feel it is timely to offer our perspective."

Originally Posted by CBreezy (Post 2396753)

I know reading is hard. You should try it sometime. Maybe you'll learn something.

Originally Posted by deadseal (Post 2396878)

Separate church and state folks

Originally Posted by deadseal (Post 2396878)

When 97% of a scientific community is telling you climate change is real.

Originally Posted by trip (Post 2396911)

Agree, the climate change fanatics have definitely taken this issue to the religious level.

It cracks me up when pilots who are shoving dead dino's out the jetpipe at 1000's per hour can go a climate change rant at the same time.

Originally Posted by deadseal (Post 2396950)

..... that is where 97% of the people who are educated on this agree that it is linked to global warming....

Originally Posted by deadseal (Post 2396953)

why? you cant fly a plane and be allowed to read science journals (of course not in flight, i only read 757 vol 2 for 4 hours straight when in the seat)

if anything it makes me a hypocrite for staying in a job that i believe contributes to the unknown potential consequences of particulate distribution in our atmosphere

ive blown more dinos out the back of a 1.3 sortie than i would use in a year of driving. and that's one guy flying around by himself so you can up your stupid nonsensical red herring of an arguement to tens of thousands per hour

Originally Posted by Adlerdriver (Post 2396958)

ooooooooops......:rolleyes:
Now don't you mean "climate change"? The whole warming thing wasn't lining up with the narrative and reality so it made it easier to call it climate change a while back...... 'member?

Yeah, we're all so dumb. If only we were as enlightened as you of the 97% (that number again :p). It's just common sense, right? I like your fart in the room analogy. I've read lots of stuff, NASA, et al. There's no such thing as an un-politicized source on this. So, get back to me when some of the dire predictions of the future actually come to pass. Hint.... they won't. Al Gore and his ilk have been so spot on so far with those. If they make enough maybe they'll get lucky.

Originally Posted by deadseal (Post 2396967)

i honestly dont even know the difference between global warming and climate change...its just makes sense to me that we have altered our particulate output dramatically and no one knows what the hell is going to happen, but ill trust the 97% of published climatologist....if you have a different number please say what it is instead of just standing there saying "no!!" louder and louder
maybe ease off the fox news dude, you may live longer

Originally Posted by Adlerdriver (Post 2396929)

:rolleyes: 97% huh? Ok..... let's go with that even though it's complete BS. 97% of some vague "scientific community" (whatever that is :p) is telling us climate change is real.

That means the climate is changing and of that, I have no doubt. It's changed in varying ways lots of times over the millennia. But, that's not what you really mean is it?

You want us to believe...... (cue the angelic chorus and golden beams of enlightenment from Al Gore's general direction wherever that might be - probably on his G-5 enroute from another boondoggle)... that's right, believe with all our heart that humans are the cause of "climate change", right? That for good or bad, we actually have the ability to control the climate on a global scale (cue the Bond villain wringing his hands in evil anticipation of the chaos he'll cause).

Get 97% of whatever "scientific community" has been promised enough research grant dollars courtesy of Uncle Sugar to agree to that premise much less prove it.

No one can or will prove that with real science because it's complete BS and your 97% of whatever knows it.

Originally Posted by deadseal (Post 2396878)

I am always amazed when adults that fly planes using science don't trust science When 97% of a scientific community is telling you climate change is real. It's a shame that it became politicized, and people can't separate their political desires from rational thinking. Separate church and state folks

Originally Posted by Adlerdriver (Post 2396958)

ooooooooops......:rolleyes:
Now don't you mean "climate change"? The whole warming thing wasn't lining up with the narrative and reality so it made it easier to call it climate change a while back...... 'member?

Originally Posted by GatorHog (Post 2396975)

Yeah, you're probably right. Scientists couldn't have possibly figured out with any degree of certainty that CO2 affects the atmosphere and, as a result, the climate. Oh, wait. They have. Just one example is cited below...unless you want to tell all of those idiots at NASA that they're wrong. All those engineers and rocket scientists are pretty dumb.

So, assuming you're willing to graciously admit that CO2 can affect the climate, take the following into consideration: there are 7+ BILLION people in the world; they have 1+ BILLION working automobiles, and every single one produces 4.7 metric TONS of CO2 every year; the vast number of military and civilian jets in the world that fly every single day; the tens of thousands of factories in the world; and the reduction in CO2-absorbing trees and plants from the growth and spread of the population. With all of that, uh, yeah, it's very easy to see how the global population of earth could affect the atmosphere and, by result, the climate.

I doubt any of that will make you change your mind, though. Because you don't want to. No amount of evidence in the world can make someone believe something they simply don't want to believe. They'll simply discount the evidence, no matter how strong or numerous, or discount the source of the evidence as biased, even if it's very clear and likely that it's not.

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Fe...ycle/page5.php
World Population Clock: 7.5 Billion People (2017) - Worldometers
World Vehicle Population Tops 1 Billion Units | News & Analysis content from WardsAuto
https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/gr...nger-vehicle-0

Originally Posted by Bozo the pilot (Post 2396982)

Super- Lets talk about reversal. What efforts can we take besides a meaningless Paris Climate Agreement where most of the world wont do jack$hit about their contribution to the problem and we make all the sacrifices? Also, what level of CO2 output would markedly reverse the trend?
I havent seen any data in this arena, but would be interested if you could pm me or post those numbers. This is a serious inquiry because I have failed to locate any of that info.
Thanks Gator

Originally Posted by GatorHog (Post 2396994)

Great question. And if I knew the answer I wouldn't be a pilot. I agree that stuff like the Paris Climate Accord is way more about politicians congratulating themselves than actually getting a thing done.

I thought this article was interesting, although its but one single source of info and I'm just putting it here as one anecdotal answer to your question ...it uses 450 ppm as a generally accepted benchmark that we need to not rise above.

https://www.climatecommunication.org...tialaction.pdf

Excerpt: "In order to stabilize CO2 concentrations at about 450 ppm by 2050, global emissions would have to decline by about 60% by 2050. Industrialized countries greenhouse gas emissions would have to decline by about 80% by 2050."

Originally Posted by StrykerB21 (Post 2397016)

What an appropriate place to have this conversation.

Originally Posted by RI830 (Post 2397018)

952 pages into a good TOTD thread and it'll get shut down cause of a couple T'sOTD.

Don't screw up a good thing over climate (un)change.

Originally Posted by RhinoPherret (Post 2397216)

I have my Climate Change/Global Warming prepper kit (cooler chest filled with ice and beers) ready to implement at a moment’s notice!

I tend to conduct many unannounced/unplanned emergency preparedness drills in my backyard and thus; I am always prepared, always hydrated, and always happy. :D

Peace out.

Originally Posted by LNL76 (Post 2397224)

Jeebus, some of you guys could screw up an erotic dream! :rolleyes:

Originally Posted by T28driver (Post 2397328)

Originally Posted by All In (Post 2397782)