Thank you Al Gore

[Rockstar]

Your diligence has paid pointing out it is all my fault how it is too late and nothing can be done we were all doomed to beach front property and flooded cities.

Looks like another ice age is on the way polar bears in you back yard, snow foxes eating your cats. Lets us come together and seek out who at fault this time for causeing this doom. DOOM is on the way again change your light bulbs back to incandesent, get back in your SUV's, we have to stop global cooling.

Arctic sea ice begins to re-freeze
This summer's dramatic loss of Arctic sea ice peaked on September 15, and the polar ice cap is finally beginning to re-freeze, according to a press release (http://nsidc.org/news/press/2007_seaiceminimum/20071001_pressrelease.html) issued by the National Snow and Ice Data Center on October 1. Extent of the September polar sea ice fell 39%, compared to the 1979-2000 average. To put this loss in perspective, in one year we lost as much ice as we lost during the previous 28 years. Summertime Arctic sea ice is now at 50% of what it was in the 1950s (Figure 1). One may look at at graph and wonder, but what about sea ice loss in other seasons? It hasn't been nearly so severe. True, but it is the summer ice we care most about, since summer is when the thick, multi-year ice melts, which can then precondition the Arctic for much greater ice loss in future years. As sea ice melts in response to rising temperatures, more of the dark ocean is exposed, allowing it to absorb more of the sun's energy. This further increases air temperatures, ocean temperatures, and ice melt in a process know as the "ice-albedo feedback" (albedo means how much sunlight a surface reflects). There is an excellent chance that the summer of 2007 will be remembered as the "tipping point" for Arctic sea ice, when an irreversible ice-albedo feedback process firmly established itself.

http://www.wunderground.com/education/seaice100years.png

Figure 1. Arctic sea ice extent since 1900, as estimated from satellite and ship reports compiled by Walsh and Chapman (2001). Image credit: University of Illinois cryosphere group (http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seasonal.extent.updated.jpg).

Northwest Passage opens for the first time in recorded history
Long before the Panama and Suez Canals made commercial trading between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans economically feasible, ships made the long and perilous trip around the African and South America continents. Explorers, traders, and world leaders looking for faster and less dangerous shipping routes to far-away areas of the world have long eyed two routes through the ice-choked Arctic Ocean--the fabled Northwest Passage, through the cold Arctic waters north of Canada, and the Northeast Passage, extending along the northern coast of Russia. The first recorded attempt to find and sail the Northwest Passage was in 1497, and ended in failure. The thick ice choking the waterways thwarted all attempts at passage for the next four centuries. Finally, in 1905, Roald Amundsen completed the first successful navigation of the Northwest Passage. It took his ship two-and-a-half years to navigate through narrow passages of open water, and his ship spent two cold, dark winters locked in the ice during the feat. More recently, icebreakers and ice-strengthened ships have on occasion battered their way through the ice-blocked route.

http://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/2007/N_passages_w_names.gif

Figure 2. The Northwest Passage shipping route (red line) and Northeast Passage (green line) superimposed on an ice coverage map from August 22, 2007. The Northwest Passage was ice-free and navigable for 36 days between August 14 and September 18, 2007. The Northeast Passage was blocked by a narrow strip of ice most of the summer. Image credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center. (http://nsidc.org/news/press/2007_seaiceminimum/20070810_index.html)

Times are changing. In 2001, the Bering Strait, a key portion of both the Northwest and Northeast Passages, was completely ice free. This was followed in 2005 by record-breaking sea-ice melt in the Arctic, leading to the first ever recorded opening of the Northeast Passage. The fabled Northwest Passage remained closed in 2005. Arctic ice recovered a bit in 2006, and both passages remained closed. But the unprecedented melting during the summer of 2007 saw the Northwest Passage become ice-free and navigable along its entire length without the need for an icebreaker as of August 14, 2007. Remarkably, the Northwest Passage remained ice-free for 36 days, finally refreezing over a small section on September 19. The Northeast Passage was blocked by a narrow strip of ice all summer. However, this strip of ice thinned to just 30% coverage on September 25 and 26, making the Northeast Passage passable for ordinary ships on those days.

When is the last time the Northwest Passage was open?
We can be sure the Northwest Passage was never open from 1900 on, as we have detailed ice edge records from ships. It is very unlikely the Passage was open between 1497 and 1900, since this was a cold period in the northern latitudes known as "The Little Ice Age". Ships periodically attempted the Passage and were foiled during this period, and the native Inuit people have no historical tales of the Passage being navigable at any time in the past.

A good candidate for the last previous opening of the Northwest Passage was the period 5,000-7,000 years ago, when the Earth's orbital variations brought more sunlight to the Arctic in summer than at present. Prior to that, the Passage was probably open during the last inter-glacial period, 120,000 years ago. Temperatures then were 2-3 degrees Centigrade higher than present-day temperatures, and sea levels were 4-6 meters higher.

Final thoughts
If we have reached the tipping point for Arctic ice, what are the implications? I'll discuss this more in a future blog. Sea ice is very complicated, and it is not a sure thing that we have reached the tipping point. For more on the complexities of sea ice, read wunderblogger Dr. Ricky Rood's latest blog (http://www.wunderground.com/blog/RickyRood/comment.html?entrynum=45&tstamp=200710).

NASA (http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/NaturalHazards/natural_hazards_v2.php3?img_id=14572) has posted a beautiful satellite image of the Arctic ice cap at the September 15 2007 minimum, showing the open water of the Northwest Passage.

I thank Edalin Michael of the University of Michigan's School of Natural Resources and Robert Grumbine of NOAA's Sea Ice Group for their contributions to this blog.

References
Walsh, J.E and W.L.Chapman, 2001, "Twentieth-century sea ice variations from observational data", (http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/igsoc/agl/2001/00000033/00000001/art00071) Annals of Glaciology, 33, Number 1, January 2001 , pp. 444-448.

Jeff Masters

[nikimcbee]

First the internet, now this!?! Is there no problem Algore can't solve:shifty: .


My prediction is... he will be a pioneer in spacetravel! YES!, To the Moon dare I say? Algore will PERSONALY invent some sort of rocket ship????

May I...bask in the warmth of your infinate knowledge...

[SUBMAN1]

There will be a point where we can directly influence the warming or cooling of this planet in the not too distant future. This though is not what bothers me, but what it will do to our somewhat mild weather is what bothers me. Tornados, Hurricanes, Flooding, Freezing, You name it, it's all about to get screwed up. I personally don't think we had much influence on the polar ice caps however. The Earth is going to go through cycles whether we are here or not. We may help nudge it one way or another, but overall, we are at it's mercy, SUV driving or not.

Why? Planets are also warming up in our solar system at this very moment. Pluto is even warming up right now. So is Jupiter. Something much bigger than us is the cause.

-S

[Tchocky]

Why? Planets are also warming up in our solar system at this very moment. Pluto is even warming up right now. So is Jupiter. Something much bigger than us is the cause.

It doesn't seem to be due to solar output, at least not on Earth anyway.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/07/the-lure-of-solar-forcing/

^great site for climate info :) ^

[JALU3]

I have to wonder if the source stated above is biased towards one policy preference or the other.

[TheBrauerHour]

The earth does indeed go through normal periods of warming and cooling. BUT, we have never added pollution into the equation. How pollution affects this warming and cooling is what worries me.

[Tchocky]

I have to wonder if the source stated above is biased towards one policy preference or the other. It aims to be politically neutral, written by climate scientists. The debate on this issue is beset by special-interest groups, however I've noticed that the majority of skewed reporting lies on the side of skepticism/denial, funded by fossil fuel groups. Example, check out the groups behind the recent High Court Inconvenient Truth case.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RealClimate

The earth does indeed go through normal periods of warming and cooling. BUT, we have never added pollution into the equation. How pollution affects this warming and cooling is what worries me. The relocation of massive quantities of carbon from under the ground to the atmosphere, yeah, sounds like it could have an effect :)

[mookiemookie]

It amazes me how people politicize this issue. So what if the people who believe the scientific evidence of climate change are wrong? Then they're wrong and the world doesn't turn to desert and we all live a bit cleaner and less reliant on fossil fuels. Is that such a BAD thing? I hate the fact that it's even a debate. It's turned into "prove the other side wrong at any cost" without thinking why they're even fighting in the first place. Right or wrong, reducing carbon emissions and taking care of our environment is a good thing.

You know, I respect Al Gore for the work he's done in raising awareness of this issue, but I believe his role as a politician has created more divisiveness due to small minded people opposing his every view on the general principle that he's a "DADGUM LIB'RUL WHO HATES 'MERKA!"

[bradclark1]

It amazes me how people politicize this issue. So what if the people who believe the scientific evidence of climate change are wrong? Then they're wrong and the world doesn't turn to desert and we all live a bit cleaner and less reliant on fossil fuels. Is that such a BAD thing? I hate the fact that it's even a debate. It's turned into "prove the other side wrong at any cost" without thinking why they're even fighting in the first place. Right or wrong, reducing carbon emissions and taking care of our environment is a good thing.

You know, I respect Al Gore for the work he's done in raising awareness of this issue, but I believe his role as a politician has created more divisiveness due to small minded people opposing his every view on the general principle that he's a "DADGUM LIB'RUL WHO HATES 'MERKA!"
BANG! Thats the sound of a nail being hit on the head.

[waste gate]

According to the British High Court it was Algore himself who politicized the issue.

[bradclark1]

According to the British High Court it was Algore himself who politicized the issue.
Why don't you read what the judge said the term 'political' meant?

[waste gate]

According to the British High Court it was Algore himself who politicized the issue.
Why don't you read what the judge said the term 'political' meant?

Enlighten me.

[bradclark1]

According to the British High Court it was Algore himself who politicized the issue.
Why don't you read what the judge said the term 'political' meant?

Enlighten me.
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=123443&page=2

[mookiemookie]

According to the British High Court it was Algore himself who politicized the issue.

Great. It still doesn't matter. I still think you're missing the point. Even if Gore's right or wrong, we need to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels and find greener alternative energy sources.

There's been some debate on whether or not we've reached "peak oil." That too, still doesn't matter. If "peak oil" was yesterday, 10 years from now, or 50 years from now, it's either happened or will happen relatively soon. And the fact that we know about it, yet choose to do nothing makes us nothing more than bickering, lazy, decadent fools. It's incumbent upon us to do something about it, whether or not you believe that carbon emissions are raising global temperatures.

New technologies take decades to research and deploy. What happens if we remain sitting on our hands, doing nothing and oil stocks really become indisputably depleted. You think there's wars for oil now? Wait until it starts becoming more and more scarce. Wait until the price of heating oil skyrockets and people start freezing to death during winter because they can't afford to heat their home. Wait until fossil fuel based fertilizers become cost prohibitive and crop yields plummet. And then there will be the cost of transporting the food to markets...wait until people are starving to death because someone wanted to remain complacent and argue about global warming being part of the "liberal agenda." It'll be too late to do anything then.

[waste gate]

In the last decade, Al Gore has won the triple crown: an Oscar, a Nobel Peace Prize, and (this is disputed) Florida. Now, winning an Oscar is hard—you usually have to pretend to be handicapped, or speak with a semi-convincing English accent, or spend hours in an uncomfortable period costume. And Gore himself would have trouble telling you how to claim the Sunshine State. But the Nobel Prize is easy. The important thing to remember is that peace doesn't have much to do with it. One of the very first winners was Theodore Roosevelt, a man who described the Spanish-American War as "fun." The Peace Prize is more of a Humanitarian of the Year Award, with humanitarian defined loosely enough to include Yasser Arafat and Henry Kissinger.

Broadly speaking, there are three ways to get it:

1. Be a famous humanitarian. This is the obvious approach. It is also the hardest. The Nobel Peace Prize has been awarded to Albert Schweitzer, who built hospitals in Africa; to Norman Borlaug, who developed high-yield strains of wheat; to Muhammed Yunus, who devised a new method of giving loans to low-income entrepreneurs; and to the Dalai Lama, who...actually, I'm not sure what the Dalai Lama does, but evidently it impresses a lot of people.

Does your achievement need to be related to peace? It can—as with, say, Linus Pauling, who capped off an impressive scientific career with a crusade against above-ground nuclear testing. But the peace angle isn't necessary. It isn't even strictly necessary that your accomplishments be as impressive in practice as they are in your intentions. (You'll note that Gore has not actually stopped global warming.) The best way to get credit in Oslo is to conduct your humanitarian pursuits while working with some vast global agency. Indeed, if you don't think you have the chops to, say, revolutionize Third World agriculture, you can always get a Peace Prize the next way:

2. Start an international organization. Or, if you can swing it, be an international organization. Over the years, the Nobel Peace Prize has gone to Amnesty International, Doctors Without Borders, the UN's International Labor Organization, and the Red Cross. Gore himself will share his prize with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

The Peace Prize has also gone to Cordell Hull, who helped found the United Nations; to Dag Hammarskjöld, the former head of the United Nations; to Kofi Annan, another former head of the United Nations; and to a wide range of delegates to and officials within the United Nations. UNICEF won it once. The UN's refugee office won it twice. When Annan took the prize, he shared it with the entire United Nations. And before there was a United Nations, the Nobel committee promoted the League of Nations. (In 1919 it gave the prize to League founder Woodrow Wilson, whose previous contribution to peace was to plunge the United States into the most pointless major war in its history.) Before there was a League of Nations, the Nobel committee honored groups like the Inter-Parliamentary Union and the Institute for International Law.

Now, some of those organizations do worthy things. But they don't have much to do with peace, unless you define peace as "international cooperation." Sometimes, as with Amnesty International and Doctors Without Borders, that means a bottom-up movement of individuals collaborating across national lines. More often the award honors institutions of global governance, whether or not they're particularly pacific. One year it went to the UN's peacekeeping forces, which advance the cause of peace by shooting people.

You'll see a similar trend in the non-institutional figures who win the Peace Prize. Occasionally it goes to a Carl von Ossietzky, a Martin Luther King, an Andrei Sakharov, a Lech Walesa—that is, to a person nonviolently struggling against an oppressive state. But the award is as likely to go to a current or former government official: a George Marshall, a Willy Brandt, a Mikhail Gorbachev, a Jimmy Carter. Some of those statesmen aren't exactly pacifists, which leads us to the third and easiest way to win the Peace Prize:

3. Kill a lot of people, then stop. In 1973, the Nobel Peace Prize was shared by Henry Kissinger and Le Duc Tho. Kissinger's CV included the "secret" bombing of Cambodia and the "Christmas" bombing of North Vietnam; just a month before his prize was announced, he was complicit in the coup that installed a brutal dictatorship in Chile. So why did he win? Because he and Tho had reached a truce to end the Vietnam War. Tho wasn't a particularly peaceful man either, but at least he had the common courtesy to refuse the award.

More recently, the prize went to Palestine Liberation Organization chief Yasser Arafat, a man whose career to that point had been spent arranging terrorist assaults on civilians. He shared the award with Israel's Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin; the three of them, like Kissinger and Tho, had negotiated an end to a war. In this case the peace agreement didn't hold, and both the state of Israel and various Palestinian groups went on to produce many more corpses. So don't worry if you develop a taste for blood during the initial stage of your Peace Prize campaign: You're free to resume killing once Mr. Nobel's money is safely in your hands.

By this method, the prize could conceivably go next year to Dick Cheney, the Janjaweed, or anyone else in a position to bring a war to a temporary stop. That someone could be you!

My advice to anyone who wants to follow in the footsteps of Linus Pauling and the Dalai Lama is to fuse approaches two and three. Start an NGO devoted to murder and mayhem—something on the SPECTRE/Al Qaeda/Medellin Cartel model—and then agree to a truce. In theory, you could accomplish this in an afternoon, but to make a splash big enough to impress the Nobel judges it's probably best to bargain with something larger than the Nashville Police Department's hostage negotiations unit. Choose your target wisely.
Either that, or make a movie.

[SUBMAN1]

I find it amazing that some people on this forum have such tiny minds that they think every post is a political one, and post everything in a political way. Quite frankly, that is not the case.

Anyway, as it has already been found - the hottest year on record global average wise was in the past. Not now.

Why? There was a Y2K bug in NASA's model and NASA quietly re-corrected the data - leaving Al Gore out in the cold literally. Pun intended. The 1930's have the record for the hottest year on record as a result. I look at the problem, not the political problem, and listening to Al Gore is a political, not a scientific problem, so he is best avoided.

My point is, there are many factors at work here. To be so short sighted and say that only human population is the cause for something. What I believe is that there are a multitude of environmental factors going on here. Human population accounts for some of it, but only a fraction of it.

There are many competing theories out there as to why this is happening. Some include:

Stardust - The solar system is going through a major increase in stardust. Here is a graph showing temperature changes related to it:

http://biocab.org/Projection_281205.jpg


Earth can also be in a normal hot and cool period. In Medieval times, the Earth was a much hotter place than it is today. Here is a chart showing that:

http://biocab.org/GWMA-002_op_987x740.jpg


Volcanic eruptions, massive amounts of hydrocarbons on the sea floor, the list is endless.

The point is, you are looking at a combination of effects. To blame everything on man made pollution (which doesn't help mind you) is to look at the wider picture through a set of very narrow blinders.

-S

[mookiemookie]

You're still not getting it. So WHAT if it's natural or not? You can throw all the charts and graphs in the world at me, but at the end of the day, I'll ask you the same question: is living cleaner and reducing dependance on oil a good thing or not?

[SUBMAN1]

You're still not getting it. So WHAT if it's natural or not? You can throw all the charts and graphs in the world at me, but at the end of the day, I'll ask you the same question: is living cleaner and reducing dependance on oil a good thing or not?
Oh I got that point. I never said it wasn't. THe problem is a technology gap. Everything must be replaced by hydrogen at some point, but on the flip side, how would one accomplish that with current technology? You can't. So the answer is to use current fuel sources until a technology gap can be closed.

However, this is not going to solve our warming problem.

-S

PS. A thought just came to me - In about 20 years, Nanotech will solve out problem I think. Imagine tiny robots floating in the air that transform pollutants to ecologically safe compounds? And do it all day every day long? That will fix any human impact.

[waste gate]

The virtues of hydrogen.

http://fanfare.michael-praed.com/images/NewsIcons/NewsIcons2006/Hindenburg.jpg

[waste gate]

You're still not getting it. So WHAT if it's natural or not? You can throw all the charts and graphs in the world at me, but at the end of the day, I'll ask you the same question: is living cleaner and reducing dependance on oil a good thing or not?

Whose definition of 'living cleaner and reducing dependance on oil' should we use?
Certainly you don't want to use Algore's personal definition do you?

The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWh—more than 20 times the national average.

Last August alone, Gore burned through 22,619 kWh—guzzling more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year. As a result of his energy consumption, Gore’s average monthly electric bill topped $1,359.

Not to mention his energy credit boondogle.

Perhaps you should start a new thread for the discussion of some realistic ideas mookiemookie. A grassroots movement would be more palatable than allowing snake oil salesmen lead the way.

[mookiemookie]

So instead of doing something about solving the problem, like carpooling, walking instead of driving, looking at Hybrid cars instead of SUVs, doing dishes by hand instead of running a dishwasher, replacing lightbulbs with CFL/LED lightbulbs....we sit and blame Al Gore and debate his personal energy useage. It's much easier to do, I give you that, but it does precisely nothing towards making America more energy efficient.

That's what I find silly in this whole issue. We put other people on the spot instead of ourselves.

[AVGWarhawk]

http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/gore-gets-a-cold-shoulder/2007/10/13/1191696238792.html

[waste gate]

So instead of doing something about solving the problem, like carpooling, walking instead of driving, looking at Hybrid cars instead of SUVs, doing dishes by hand instead of running a dishwasher, replacing lightbulbs with CFL/LED lightbulbs....we sit and blame Al Gore and debate his personal energy useage. It's much easier to do, I give you that, but it does precisely nothing towards making America more energy efficient.

That's what I find silly in this whole issue. We put other people on the spot instead of ourselves.

I guess you aren't seeing the hypocracy of illuminating how we use too much energy, oil based or otherwise, whilst using 20x the average for himself.?

Snake oil salesman and you seem to be buying.

“As the spokesman of choice for the global warming movement, Al Gore has to be willing to walk the walk, not just talk the talk, when it comes to home energy use,” said Tennessee Center for Policy Research President Drew Johnson.

[SUBMAN1]

The virtues of hydrogen.

http://fanfare.michael-praed.com/images/NewsIcons/NewsIcons2006/Hindenburg.jpg

Don't use the Hindenberg on me. Hydrogen is safer than gasoline that is in your car! :D

-S

[waste gate]

The virtues of hydrogen.

http://fanfare.michael-praed.com/images/NewsIcons/NewsIcons2006/Hindenburg.jpg

Don't use the Hindenberg on me. Hydrogen is safer than gasoline that is in your car! :D

-S

And kerosene is safer than gasoline, yet, if asked, most people wouldn't want to heat their homes with jet fuel.:D

[mookiemookie]

Snake oil salesman and you seem to be buying.

Name one way the Earth would be worse off for doing any of the things I suggested. These aren't Al Gore's ideas, you know. Some people refuse to separate the idea of being responsible and an environmentalist and the idea of supporting Al Gore. You seem to be buying that.

[The Avon Lady]

These aren't Al Gore's ideas
Oh, the subtle irony! :yep:

[mookiemookie]

These aren't Al Gore's ideas Oh, the subtle irony! :yep:

*dingdingdingding* We have a winner!

It's actually the point I'm trying to make! :up: So many people get down on environmentalism because they see him as the face of it.

[bradclark1]

In the last decade, Al Gore has won the triple crown: an Oscar, a Nobel Peace Prize, and (this is disputed) Florida. Now, winning an Oscar is hard—you usually have to pretend to be handicapped, or speak with a semi-convincing English accent, or spend hours in an uncomfortable period costume. And Gore himself would have trouble telling you how to claim the Sunshine State. But the Nobel Prize is easy. The important thing to remember is that peace doesn't have much to do with it. One of the very first winners was Theodore Roosevelt, a man who described the Spanish-American War as "fun." The Peace Prize is more of a Humanitarian of the Year Award, with humanitarian defined loosely enough to include Yasser Arafat and Henry Kissinger.

Broadly speaking, there are three ways to get it:

1. Be a famous humanitarian. This is the obvious approach. It is also the hardest. The Nobel Peace Prize has been awarded to Albert Schweitzer, who built hospitals in Africa; to Norman Borlaug, who developed high-yield strains of wheat; to Muhammed Yunus, who devised a new method of giving loans to low-income entrepreneurs; and to the Dalai Lama, who...actually, I'm not sure what the Dalai Lama does, but evidently it impresses a lot of people.

Does your achievement need to be related to peace? It can—as with, say, Linus Pauling, who capped off an impressive scientific career with a crusade against above-ground nuclear testing. But the peace angle isn't necessary. It isn't even strictly necessary that your accomplishments be as impressive in practice as they are in your intentions. (You'll note that Gore has not actually stopped global warming.) The best way to get credit in Oslo is to conduct your humanitarian pursuits while working with some vast global agency. Indeed, if you don't think you have the chops to, say, revolutionize Third World agriculture, you can always get a Peace Prize the next way:

2. Start an international organization. Or, if you can swing it, be an international organization. Over the years, the Nobel Peace Prize has gone to Amnesty International, Doctors Without Borders, the UN's International Labor Organization, and the Red Cross. Gore himself will share his prize with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

The Peace Prize has also gone to Cordell Hull, who helped found the United Nations; to Dag Hammarskjöld, the former head of the United Nations; to Kofi Annan, another former head of the United Nations; and to a wide range of delegates to and officials within the United Nations. UNICEF won it once. The UN's refugee office won it twice. When Annan took the prize, he shared it with the entire United Nations. And before there was a United Nations, the Nobel committee promoted the League of Nations. (In 1919 it gave the prize to League founder Woodrow Wilson, whose previous contribution to peace was to plunge the United States into the most pointless major war in its history.) Before there was a League of Nations, the Nobel committee honored groups like the Inter-Parliamentary Union and the Institute for International Law.

Now, some of those organizations do worthy things. But they don't have much to do with peace, unless you define peace as "international cooperation." Sometimes, as with Amnesty International and Doctors Without Borders, that means a bottom-up movement of individuals collaborating across national lines. More often the award honors institutions of global governance, whether or not they're particularly pacific. One year it went to the UN's peacekeeping forces, which advance the cause of peace by shooting people.

You'll see a similar trend in the non-institutional figures who win the Peace Prize. Occasionally it goes to a Carl von Ossietzky, a Martin Luther King, an Andrei Sakharov, a Lech Walesa—that is, to a person nonviolently struggling against an oppressive state. But the award is as likely to go to a current or former government official: a George Marshall, a Willy Brandt, a Mikhail Gorbachev, a Jimmy Carter. Some of those statesmen aren't exactly pacifists, which leads us to the third and easiest way to win the Peace Prize:

3. Kill a lot of people, then stop. In 1973, the Nobel Peace Prize was shared by Henry Kissinger and Le Duc Tho. Kissinger's CV included the "secret" bombing of Cambodia and the "Christmas" bombing of North Vietnam; just a month before his prize was announced, he was complicit in the coup that installed a brutal dictatorship in Chile. So why did he win? Because he and Tho had reached a truce to end the Vietnam War. Tho wasn't a particularly peaceful man either, but at least he had the common courtesy to refuse the award.

More recently, the prize went to Palestine Liberation Organization chief Yasser Arafat, a man whose career to that point had been spent arranging terrorist assaults on civilians. He shared the award with Israel's Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin; the three of them, like Kissinger and Tho, had negotiated an end to a war. In this case the peace agreement didn't hold, and both the state of Israel and various Palestinian groups went on to produce many more corpses. So don't worry if you develop a taste for blood during the initial stage of your Peace Prize campaign: You're free to resume killing once Mr. Nobel's money is safely in your hands.

By this method, the prize could conceivably go next year to Dick Cheney, the Janjaweed, or anyone else in a position to bring a war to a temporary stop. That someone could be you!

My advice to anyone who wants to follow in the footsteps of Linus Pauling and the Dalai Lama is to fuse approaches two and three. Start an NGO devoted to murder and mayhem—something on the SPECTRE/Al Qaeda/Medellin Cartel model—and then agree to a truce. In theory, you could accomplish this in an afternoon, but to make a splash big enough to impress the Nobel judges it's probably best to bargain with something larger than the Nashville Police Department's hostage negotiations unit. Choose your target wisely.
Either that, or make a movie.


Or one could not show their ignorance and know what the prize is about.

[waste gate]

Snake oil salesman and you seem to be buying.

Name one way the Earth would be worse off for doing any of the things I suggested. These aren't Al Gore's ideas, you know. Some people refuse to separate the idea of being responsible and an environmentalist and the idea of supporting Al Gore. You seem to be buying that.

My total power bill (gas and electric) last month for my 2100 sq/ft home was $59.13 (Gore’s average monthly electric bill topped $1,359.). I think I'm doing OK with the enviroment. Its the Algores of the world whith their do as I say attitude who drive me to distraction.

[SUBMAN1]

So instead of doing something about solving the problem, like carpooling, walking instead of driving, looking at Hybrid cars instead of SUVs, doing dishes by hand instead of running a dishwasher, replacing lightbulbs with CFL/LED lightbulbs....we sit and blame Al Gore and debate his personal energy useage. It's much easier to do, I give you that, but it does precisely nothing towards making America more energy efficient.

That's what I find silly in this whole issue. We put other people on the spot instead of ourselves.Let me emphasize something here on the human issue - YOU and Al Gore ARE DESCRIBING A BAND-AID SOLUTION TO THE BIGGER PROBLEM

The main problem from a human perspective is COAL FIRED POWER PLANTS which accounts for 80% of the pollution and particulate matter in the atmosphere.

Your solutions that you list here are not the answer. Some thoughts on each one - I hate the light produced by your CFL and LED light bulbs - they are un-natural light and give me a headache personally. I want my dishes sterilized and clean, and with all the bacteria that is built up in the average sink, thrust me, you need this - dishwashers are not for good looks alone! Hybrid cars are killing Canada with the massive increasing in nickel production (and the coal output to produce nickel and the toxicity of it is a worse trade off), and Lithium is not the answer because they are much more unstable and prone to fire if shorted or over charged - not a good thing in a car, especially in an accident.

If you did all these things, energy use would still rise due to population increase, leaving us in the same boat as before.

The point being, to get rid of all the things you describe is not the answer. Cars are the least of the problems since 80% of all pollutants are coal fired power plants. So the answer is sitting with a technology that everyone hates, yet is the cleanest and most efficient way of making power - Nukes. There is no other power source that comes close to making a power of a nuke reactor. Only one dam in the entire world can make as much power as a reactor, and that is the Grand Coulee dam in Washington. That comes at the expense of destroying the river system it is on for salmon runs and the like, so building dams like this is not the answer - it is worse for the environment. Yes, you have waste material, but this only effects one tiny area of the continent, and is contained at that location. I am still not sure why we have so many coal fired plants in place of nukes, but I can tell you that the FUD (Fear uncertainty doubt) campaign surrounding nukes is very effective at not cleaning up our country and reducing our emissions.

Al Gore should be campaigning to build more of these nukes to fix our problems instead of blaming the common person, since it would truely remove the human elelment from the equation of global warming. Then we can concentrate on what else we can do to the environment to fix the other 80% of the cause, that is if anything can be done - which it probably can't. Soemthing tells me that with the messed up logic of this world that the FUD campaign will continue and our band aid wound will never be healed. So quit worrying about 5 watts on your light bulb and start concentrating on what needs to be done to fix the real problem.

And guess what? With a Nuke, you get 0 pollutants into the atmosphere! Imagine that! Problem solved.

-S

[mookiemookie]

The main problem from a human perspective is COAL FIRED POWER PLANTS which accounts for 80% of the pollution and particulate matter in the atmosphere. Agreed that power generation is part of the problem. Isn't that what the whole environmentalist movement is about? Finding greener and more sustainable energy alternatives? So far you're on our side...

Some thoughts on each one - I hate the light produced by your CFL and LED light bulbs - they are un-natural light and give me a headache personally. Doesn't mean they're not better for the environment

want my dishes sterilized and clean, and with all the bacteria that is built up in the average sink, thrust me, you need this - dishwashers are not for good looks alone!My fiance is a health and safety inspector for a corporate foodservice kitchen and will tell you that you're full of it on this one. Hot water and antibacterial dish soap are all you need.

Hybrid cars are killing Canada with the massive increasing in nickel production (and the coal output to produce nickel and the toxicity of it is a worse trade off), and Lithium is not the answer because they are much more unstable and prone to fire if shorted or over charged - not a good thing in a car, especially in an accident. Have not read about this but it sounds interesting. link please?

If you did all these things, energy use would still rise due to population increase, leaving us in the same boat as before. Is that a reason not to do what we can to reduce the problem now? Of course not.

The point being, to get rid of all the things you describe is not the answer. Cars are the least of the problems since 80% of all pollutants are coal fired power plants. Wrong, wrong, wrong.

The process of generating electricity is the single largest source of CO2 emissions in the United States, representing 39 percent of all CO2 emissions...The transportation sector is the second largest source of CO2 emissions in the U.S. Almost all of the energy consumed in the transportation sector is petroleum based, including gasoline, diesel and jet fuel. These quotes are taken from an EPA report here: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/co2_human.html

I think you're not making the connection here...reducing energy useage at home reduces the need for coal fired plants. Reducing the amount you drive, or buying more fuel efficient cars means you can go further on less fuel...reducing the overall demand for it.

So the answer is sitting with a technology that everyone hates, yet is the cleanest and most efficient way of making power - Nukes. I agree.

[waste gate]

But Algore's people hate nuclear power also. Think of the children!!

I for one have no particular dislike for nuc power. I think it is probably the best way to go when it comes to a sustainable energy source. Of course the Chernoble/Three Mile Island incidents have to be overcome, psychologically, but they were both local events. The French have been using nuclear for quite some time without great hardship, no green-eyed, purple-skinned, people-eaters so far.

But, again, the enviromentalists are apposed to the idea. That is the rub in the whole thing. The 'enviros' want to be less dependent on so called fossil fuels, but are also resistant to nuc energy, and probably hydrogen also Subman. That is the flaw in their agrument, they want to have it both ways. Less fossil fuel and no nuclear energy. Once again the left is myopic to consequences.

[XLjedi]

I don't mind the save the planet crusade an all...

But if you're gonna self-appoint yourself planetary savior you better darn well get your own house in order before tellin me I gotta ride my bicycle to work.

I think it's the gross hypocracy that most people find so distasteful. Comes across as being more of a self-serving role he's chosen to create and fill rather than something he legitimately believes in. ...or believes in enough to at least take some action himself.

As for the Nobel prize... I think in recent history it's lost all credibility. I s'pose a very loose connection could be made by avoiding a war that might ensue to grab up the shrinking warm areas of the Earth? Was that actually their reasoning?

[XLjedi]

I for one have no particular dislike for nuc power. I think it is probably the best way to go when it comes to a sustainable energy source. Of course the Chernoble/Three Mile Island incidents have to be overcome, psychologically, but they were both local events. The French have been using nuclear for quite some time without great hardship, no green-eyed, purple-skinned, people-eaters so far.

Unfortunately, nukes are just too expensive to build new ones in the US right now, and no banks are willing to finance the things.

You'll see wind energy in the US continue to grow into the next decade. There will be some new solar, but areas conducive to large-scale solar are limited. You can anticipate new power plants to be either the newer 'clean' coal plants or more nat gas powered combined cycle facilities. Probably not too much in the realm of new hydro or geo-thermal either.

Not sure I'd refer to Chernoble as a "local event" our first notion that something bad happened is when radiation detectors at a nuke plant in Sweden started going off. 3-Mile island was a contained accident, Chernobyl let loose a radioactive cloud that spanned several countries.

[SUBMAN1]

Agreed that power generation is part of the problem. Isn't that what the whole environmentalist movement is about? Finding greener and more sustainable energy alternatives? So far you're on our side...Yes I am, but not entirely in the same manner as you.

Doesn't mean they're not better for the environmentTry simply turning off the light for once. Does wonders for energy conservation. I practice this daily.

My fiance is a health and safety inspector for a corporate foodservice kitchen and will tell you that you're full of it on this one. Hot water and antibacterial dish soap are all you need. Well, ask her about this one - http://www.aces.edu/dept/extcomm/newspaper/feb5a04.html - Just one example. Anything Anti-Bacterial in that manner I would rather not eat either, and anything that kills is probably not good for your environmental cause as well.

Have not read about this but it sounds interesting. link please?No problem. There is a reason NASA tests moon rovers here - it is because it is so destroyed an barren that it resembles the moon. Anyway, see below for pics.

Is that a reason not to do what we can to reduce the problem now? Of course not.I am not after a band-aid solution. Our energy needs are going to go way way way up and a light bulb is not going to help, and will be massively dwarfed by the electronic gadgets you will have in the future, if not already. We will need massive more power down the road that we cannot provide today. No other way to look at it. Changing the light bulb vs. shutting it off - doesn't take rocket science to figure out which is more efficient. Computers are actually much much more the cause of our energy problems. Offices should try turning these off at night, only leaving critical systems operating. That will have a much larger impact - probably 100 fold.

The point being, to get rid of all the things you describe is not the answer. Cars are the least of the problems since 80% of all pollutants are coal fired power plants. Wrong, wrong, wrong.

The process of generating electricity is the single largest source of CO2 emissions in the United States, representing 39 percent of all CO2 emissions...The transportation sector is the second largest source of CO2 emissions in the U.S. Almost all of the energy consumed in the transportation sector is petroleum based, including gasoline, diesel and jet fuel. These quotes are taken from an EPA report here: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/co2_human.html

I think you're not making the connection here...reducing energy useage at home reduces the need for coal fired plants. Reducing the amount you drive, or buying more fuel efficient cars means you can go further on less fuel...reducing the overall demand for it.

I'm talking particulate matter here (I worry about this more for my health over energy savings), not CO2, which may be a greenhouse gas, but the trees love it! And I will say again, it is a band-aid solution. Just covers the wound. Doesn't fix the problem. THe problem is, we will need massive amounts more power in the future - on the scale of 10x. Changing ones energy habits to reduce power consumption by 2% is not going to affect the problem - because you are going to go fire up your computer and it draws more power than all the lights on in your entire house right now! You are needing PSU's upwards of 600 to 700 Watts, or even 1000 Watts of power!!! This is where energy conservation must focus - 250 Watt consuming video cards are the problem. And this is just your computer. ALl electronic devices now seem to have a stand-by mode - all consuming more electricity than your light bulb you are talking about, and how many devices do you have in standby right now? THe light bulb is not the answer. On the car - I usually drive my SAAB that gets 30 MPG, and I don't worry about lead acid spilling out from the floorboards! My Land Rover gets 17 MPG on the highway, but I need it for utility tasks or off road, or snow. It fits the bill for many problems. The problem is, many people can't afford 2 cars for themselves, so what should they do if they need to roll up everything into one car? I hate SUV's, but I also understand they are a necessary evil as well for many people.

And now my last question - where do you live? It is not practical to walk to any one place in America. We are so spread out as compared to Europe. I work 25 miles away. I shop 5 miles away. I mean, some relatives came over not long back, and they couldn't understand that such large swaths of land that were many miles long are not owned by anyone! THey don't grasp the concept.

Anyway, my whole point is, I don't see Al Gore's solutions more than for what they are. That is my major complaint. There is a problem from a health perspective. I discount that this is the major cause of the warming perspective. This is where I stand.

So the answer is sitting with a technology that everyone hates, yet is the cleanest and most efficient way of making power - Nukes. I agree.Good we agree on this point. I only wish more people could see the light. It would fix a ton of man made environmental problems, but would of course not be able to fix whatever the Earth decides to do on warming.

-S

PS. Here is some pics what processing Nickel does to the landscape, especially one with high sulfur content:

June 16, 2005

The Inco Mine at Sudbury, Ontario


http://www.sprol.com/images/sudbury9.jpg

The Inco mine at Sudbury, Ontario - digging into a layer of sulfuriferous rock to reach the remains of an ancient metallic bolide rich with copper and nickel. This image clearly shows what is the largest smokestack in North America, and the second tallest on earth.

http://www.sprol.com/images/sudbury8.jpg

It spews out sulfur dioxide produced by Inco's Copper Cliff smelting operation — and is probably the single largest point-source for acid rain-causing emissions on the entire continent.

http://www.sprol.com/images/sudbury7.jpg

[bradclark1]

Here is whats happening with nuclear energy presently. There is a lot of renewed interest in it world wide.
Six US power-plant operators are preparing combined construction and operating license (COL) requests to the NRC that could restart construction in the next five years.
http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-59/iss-2/p19.html
I think it's a good thing. The only problem is what to do with the spent fuel. As soon as a storeage sites are constructed they get filled and no one wants a storeage facility in their back yard.

[SUBMAN1]

Oh - I forgot to mention - I did buy a couple mountain bikes this year! So I am doing my part on that point, but they are not the best way to get anywhere in which case I need to haul something home! :D


-S

[SUBMAN1]

Here is whats happening with nuclear energy presently. There is a lot of renewed interest in it world wide.
Six US power-plant operators are preparing combined construction and operating license (COL) requests to the NRC that could restart construction in the next five years. http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-59/iss-2/p19.html
I think it's a good thing. The only problem is what to do with the spent fuel. As soon as a storeage sites are constructed they get filled and no one wants a storeage facility in their back yard.

Well, hopefully Batelle will fix that problem for all of us. Their glass rod storage is working OK, but they need to bring the costs down. THis is a minor problem compared to what coal fired plants do however.

-S

[bradclark1]

I don't mind the save the planet crusade an all...

But if you're gonna self-appoint yourself planetary savior you better darn well get your own house in order before telling me I gotta ride my bicycle to work.

Actually it's not such a bad thing. Because of who he is and what he is and what he does it polarizes the subject thereby making more people aware who otherwise might not have been interested. The media wouldn't be as interested if it was professor Smutley from Whatever University.

[waste gate]

I think it's a good thing. The only problem is what to do with the spent fuel. As soon as a storeage sites are constructed they get filled and no one wants a storeage facility in their back yard.

My point exactly. Decisions must be made. Which do you want bc, nuc waste in your backyard or fossil fuel byproducts in the atmosphere?

Enviros ( see i didn't say liberal) want neither. This is our only means at this time, pick one.

[bradclark1]

Well, hopefully Batelle will fix that problem for all of us. Their glass rod storage is working OK, but they need to bring the costs down. THis is a minor problem compared to what coal fired plants do however.

-S
True, but it is a problem. As more plants come on-line more thought will be given to storage or destruction probably.

[XLjedi]

I don't mind the save the planet crusade an all...

But if you're gonna self-appoint yourself planetary savior you better darn well get your own house in order before telling me I gotta ride my bicycle to work.

Actually it's not such a bad thing. Because of who he is and what he is and what he does it polarizes the subject thereby making more people aware who otherwise might not have been interested. The media wouldn't be as interested if it was professor Smutley from Whatever University.

Arnoldo?

...I guesso, if you believe it. I think there's a lot of truth to it... and probably a lot of creative exageration.

[AVGWarhawk]

You're still not getting it. So WHAT if it's natural or not? You can throw all the charts and graphs in the world at me, but at the end of the day, I'll ask you the same question: is living cleaner and reducing dependance on oil a good thing or not?

It is a good thing for the environment but economically speakin oil drives the economy around the world. We will never see it go away in your and my lifetime.

[waste gate]

Not sure I'd refer to Chernoble as a "local event" our first notion that something bad happened is when radiation detectors at a nuke plant in Sweden started going off. Chernobyl let loose a radioactive cloud that spanned several countries.

No extra arms or ears on me. Local, you know like Kosovo.

[Tchocky]

I don't mind the save the planet crusade an all...

But if you're gonna self-appoint yourself planetary savior you better darn well get your own house in order before telling me I gotta ride my bicycle to work.
Actually it's not such a bad thing. Because of who he is and what he is and what he does it polarizes the subject thereby making more people aware who otherwise might not have been interested. The media wouldn't be as interested if it was professor Smutley from Whatever University. Movements need figureheads, and Gore isn't the worst. It does bring up problems though, being a former elected official in a politically polarised country, the same country that is in the top 3 polluters in the world. It creates a lot of problems, brad. You're right in that having a publicly-recognisable figure as a figurehead raises awareness, and that's good. But it seems the shortcuts that he's taken in Inconvienent Truth (which I still think is an excellent film, natch :p), have angered some scientists.
As for his personal energy usage, there was a lot of discussion on this between myself, August & Sea Demon on this (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=117070) thread.

[XLjedi]

It does bring up problems though, being a former elected official in a politically polarised country, the same country that is in the top 3 polluters in the world.

Hmmm... that's a little disappointing; I would've thought #1. We could just bomb or invade the other 2 I s'pose. :hmm:

Ya know, do our part for the good of humanity. Now don't everyone thank us at once.

[Tchocky]

Hmmm... I would've thought #1.
I thought so, but I wasn't 100% sure. It's a nasty place in the listings to occupy, so I was circumspect :)

Here Paul Krugman on the "right-wing's" problem with Al Gore. I usually can't stand economists writing politics, but Paul is an exception. World-class economist with his head screwed on

Link (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/15/opinion/15krugman.html?ei=5087&em=&en=da7b1a47329aacb0&ex=1192593600&pagewanted=print)

[Sea Demon]

Thank you Al Gore...for what?!?!? :rotfl: :rotfl:

http://newsbusters.org/node/13948

Consensus my a$*. ;)

[waste gate]

Consensus my a$*. ;)

Great point Sea Demon. Saying its a concensus doesn't make it fact.

Oops how stupid do the liberal intelligencia think people are? :rotfl: :rotfl:

More like the liberal snake oil salesmen, used auto salesmen, you get the drift.

[bradclark1]

Thank you Al Gore...for what?!?!? :rotfl: :rotfl:

http://newsbusters.org/node/13948

Consensus my a$*. ;)

Seems they forgot the bits in the beginning.;) They suffer from selective editing.

Scientists not involved in the study cautioned, however, that current climate change is so driven by pollution from power plants, industry, and other human activity that it is nearly impossible to draw a meaningful conclusion about the durability of Greenland's ice.
"Whatever occurred in the past almost surely occurred much more slowly," said Raymond S. Bradley, director of the Climate System Research Center at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst. "Human activity is pushing warming at a much faster rate than in the past. Change is occurring in decades or centuries, not over millennia."

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/07/06/greenland_ice_yields_hope_on_climate/

[Tchocky]

It's easier to read the source article than NewsShouters spin. (just saw your post, brad :))
The Globe piece does not say what NewsBusters or Sea Demon want it to.
Greenlands ice is be more resilient than previously thought, but it's the ocean ice that's melting faster. The loss of ocean ice is more harmful, the darker water absorbs more heat than would have been reflected by glossy ice.

[bradclark1]

Its amazing what you can make something say or get a certain spin when one uses selective editing.

[SUBMAN1]

Seems they forgot the bits in the beginning.;) They suffer from selective editing.

Scientists not involved in the study cautioned, however, that current climate change is so driven by pollution from power plants, industry, and other human activity that it is nearly impossible to draw a meaningful conclusion about the durability of Greenland's ice.
"Whatever occurred in the past almost surely occurred much more slowly," said Raymond S. Bradley, director of the Climate System Research Center at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst. "Human activity is pushing warming at a much faster rate than in the past. Change is occurring in decades or centuries, not over millennia."
Not even close. If you read my earlier posts, you would have seen it was a Y2K bug that screwed up the NASA models, bringing them more in line with a normal warming. It is no where near as bad as the middle ages once had. The Medieval times is the time in history of the hottest weather, increasing at a faster rate than our own is now.

This evidence kind of screws up people doomsday BS they are posting all over the web.

-S

[bradclark1]

The effect of the correction on global temperatures is minor (some 1-2% less warming than originally thought), but the effect on the U.S. global warming propaganda machine could be huge.

Edit: Or this http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/index.html
This is the guys site that found the bug. http://www.climateaudit.org/ I absolutely can't understand a thing he is saying. It goes waay over my head.

[mookiemookie]

And here's where I come in and remind everyone....who gives a flying f*ck!?

So global warming has been debunked, eh? We can all rest easy, get in our Chevy Suburbans, and eat a nice McDonalds meal of corn based, fossil fuel fertilized, processed food. And make sure you throw out those nasty oil based plastic wrappers on the side of the road, kids!

Who cares if global warming is true or not. It's a stupid debate that draws everyone's attention away from finding a more sustainable and green way of living.

And thus the "broken record" portion of your evening has been concluded.

[Tchocky]

Not even close. If you read my earlier posts, you would have seen it was a Y2K bug that screwed up the NASA models, bringing them more in line with a normal warming. It is no where near as bad as the middle ages once had. The Medieval times is the time in history of the hottest weather, increasing at a faster rate than our own is now.

This evidence kind of screws up people doomsday BS they are posting all over the web.

-S
The NOAA don't agree with this interpretation, SUBMAN.

Check here - http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/medieval.html

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/images/nhemmill.gif

Here's a RealClimate piece on the misuse of the Medieval Warm Period - http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/the-weirdest-millennium/

And another focusing on the Greenland-Ice story Sea Demon posted - http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=458

[fatty]

And here's where I come in and remind everyone....who gives a flying f*ck!?

So global warming has been debunked, eh? We can all rest easy, get in our Chevy Suburbans, and eat a nice McDonalds meal of corn based, fossil fuel fertilized, processed food. And make sure you throw out those nasty oil based plastic wrappers on the side of the road, kids!

Who cares if global warming is true or not. It's a stupid debate that draws everyone's attention away from finding a more sustainable and green way of living.

And thus the "broken record" portion of your evening has been concluded.

Quoted for truth. I would quote this all day for truth. I don't pretend to understand the science behind climate change (and ergo I'm still on the fence about it) but I don't need to be a scientist to know that exploding hydrocarbons and releasing poisonous byproducts into the same air that I breathe, and that someday maybe my future children will breathe, is not really a great and sustainable way to exist.

Taking public transit or turning off lights does not, to my knowledge, put extra money in the pockets of Al Gore or any other gosh darn alarmist liberal yuppy. I'm sure many posters here would also like to see the West less dependent on Middle Eastern oil. Take a guess how to start.

[Sea Demon]

But then there's this.....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=481613&in_page_id=1811

My whole point is that there is absolutely no consensus from scientists that man is creating an irreversible climate disaster. And to ward it off, we now have to destroy national economies, sign job killing Kyoto protocols, and allow worldwide socialistic redistribution schemes to be enacted and managed by the UN and other such institutions.....lest we all die. What I'm saying is, let's not burn the barn down because the loudest voices want us to. ;)

[The Avon Lady]

Goodbye academic diversity (http://hotair.com/archives/2007/10/01/scientist-silenced-by-politician-for-his-position-on-global-warming/).

Similarly: From Red to Green (http://www.melaniephillips.com/diary/?p=1679). You can listen to a clever lecture by Professor Stott on the subject here (http://www.cps.org.uk/mp3file.asp?id=798).

[Tchocky]

My whole point is that there is absolutely no consensus from scientists that man is creating an irreversible climate disaster.
And yet, most of the evidence you have posted to back this statement up has been dubious at best. There are indeed disagreeing voices, but it's politically-directed crap like this that clouds our vision.
Example - There is no oil money behind the book, it's all natural gas. :roll: Link (http://www.desmogblog.com/zero-oil-money-behind-singer-avery-denier-text-funding-came-from-natural-gas)
But there's plenty of oil money behind the two individuals, check out the Science & Environmental Policy Project, and the Hudson Institute.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/11/avery-and-singer-unstoppable-hot-air/

Here, a climate scientist listens to Avery & Singers arguments.

Gosh it is fun looking at this total lack of consensus.

[The Avon Lady]

Example - There is no oil money behind the book, it's all natural gas. :roll: Link (http://www.desmogblog.com/zero-oil-money-behind-singer-avery-denier-text-funding-came-from-natural-gas).
Using your rationale, NASA's James Hansen is a farce. Thank you, George Soros (http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=275526219598836&kw=Soros). There he is again.

[Tchocky]

Using your rationale, NASA's James Hansen is a farce. Thank you, George Soros (http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=275526219598836&kw=Soros). There he is again.
According to Hansen himself - The bottom line is: I did not receive one thin dime from George Soros. Perhaps GAP did, but I would be surprised if they got $720,000.

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/distro_Lawlessness_070927.pdf (http://www.columbia.edu/%7Ejeh1/distro_Lawlessness_070927.pdf)

From wiki - Hansen’s claims of censorship by NASA attracted the attention not only of the United States Congress and various media outlets, but also of several legal defense organizations. The 2006 George Soros Foundations Network Report detailed the work of the Open Society Institute (OSI) in conducting a “campaign on Hansen's behalf” run by “the Government Accountability Project (GAP), a whistleblower protection organization and OSI grantee.” The report indicated this campaign had “resulted in a decision by NASA to revisit its media policy .” The report further stated this campaign was prompted by the experience of Hansen who “protested attempts to silence him after officials at NASA ordered him to refer press inquiries to the public affairs office and required the presence of a public affairs representative at any interview.”. Hansen addressed this specific issue publicly and in writing, saying he did “accept pro bono legal advice for a while” from GAP but did not receive any direct funds.
Notice the timing, the money comes into the picture after Hansen goes public. A dissimiliar case to fossilfuel-funded books & programs.

[The Avon Lady]

Notice the timing, the money comes into the picture after Hansen goes public. A dissimiliar case to fossilfuel-funded books & programs.
Yes. Soros has to spot his pigeons first. Same ingedients. Same food on the platter.

[bradclark1]

Opposite scientific theories can be swapped from here to doomsday(pun intended). I take it as this then I'm done with the subject. Is ice at the Arctic and Greenland melting accelerated? Yes it is. Has breathing illness's and diseases increased in the last one hundred years? Dramatically so. Is earth warming naturally? Yes it is. Is pollution accelerating the process? Yes it is. Is the U.S. a major polluter? Yes it's the third highest in the world. That all I need to know to know humanity needs to address pollution. I don't need a bunch of charts from the middle ages to tell me this.

[Skybird]

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,druck-511722,00.html


The awarding of the Nobel Peace Price to former Vice President Al Gore could have a noticeable impact on the presidential election campaign in the United States. Suddenly the candidates are discovering their green sides -- even the Republicans.

If envy is the highest form of human recognition, Al Gore can't complain. The response from the White House to the Norwegian Nobel Committee's decision to award Gore the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize (http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,511063,00.html) was understated, to say the least. There was no comment from US President George W. Bush, nor from his press secretary, Dana Perino. The White House eventually sent its deputy press secretary, Tony Fratto, to face the cameras. "Obviously, it's an important recognition," said Fratto. Referring to the president, he added, "Of course he's happy for Vice President Gore."

Such terse responses will likely do the conservatives more harm than good. Indeed, the political aftershocks of the award will be considerable. The awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to an avowed anti-Bush activist only weeks before the official start of an election year could produce a tectonic shift in the already unstable US political landscape.

[nikimcbee]

So...When will he anounce? or will he go the VP route again?

[The Avon Lady]

Example - There is no oil money behind the book, it's all natural gas. :roll: Link (http://www.desmogblog.com/zero-oil-money-behind-singer-avery-denier-text-funding-came-from-natural-gas).
Using your rationale, NASA's James Hansen is a farce. Thank you, George Soros (http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=275526219598836&kw=Soros). There he is again.
One begins to wonder whether NASA itself thinks (http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/2007/10/16/pigs-in-space/) it's funded by Soros. :damn:

[SUBMAN1]

The NOAA don't agree with this interpretation, SUBMAN.


Mine is NOAA data, so they do agree with my interpretation.

-S

[Sea Demon]

Here's more people who think Gore is a fraud. Like it isn't obvious already.....:lol:

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html

More errors and inaccuracies in Gore's fallacious movie.

[nikimcbee]

Here's more people who think Gore is a fraud. Like it isn't obvious already.....:lol:


http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html

More errors and inaccuracies in Gore's fallacious movie.


Great find!:rock:

[Sea Demon]

Here's more uncertainty. Yes Mr. Gore, not everyone buys your nonsense......... :D

http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn12833-climate-is-too-complex-for-accurate-predictions.html

[LtCmdrRat]

Gents I still do not understand why USA does not build anymore new nuclear energy plants?
my answer is OIL companies(read Bush &Co) are not interested.
Democrat Al Gore as a Nobel Prize winner....
Same as G.W. Bush with his WMD in Iraq ... liberator


May be better to be subjects of the E-II Crown than to have such honorable gents ( and probably lady ) as head of state?( God, save us from Hillary!).
Bill of rights started to look like a mirage in the Sahara's sands.

Good sides to be subjects of the crown:
- better school education
- 40 and less hours to work
- bigger vacations
- you have time to read, to travel, for your loveones (including your kids and even wife)
- nobility ( knighthood)* and i am very serious about this.
- better health care
- professional police, they will not shoot you because they just had feeling that you are armed
- less shooting practice in schools
- freedom of speech including jokes about everything in airports.
- less sexual harasment cases
- no Darwin debates

Bad side:
- all ot the above &
- bigger taxes

[bradclark1]

Here's more people who think Gore is a fraud. Like it isn't obvious already.....:lol:


http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html

More errors and inaccuracies in Gore's fallacious movie.

Whats obvious is that you jump on anything at all that paints the picture you want but are too lazy to check if there is any accuracy in it. I picked one at random to research and stopped there because it's so obvious just reading his explanation that he's bs.
Gore says coral reefs are “bleaching” because of “global warming.” They are not. There was some bleaching in 1998, but this was caused by the exceptional El Nino Southern Oscillation that year. Two similarly severe El Ninos over the past 250 years also caused extensive bleaching. “Global warming” was nothing to do with it.
Ms. Kreider says, “The IPCC and other scientific bodies have long identified increases in ocean temperatures with the bleaching of coral reefs.” So they have: but the bleaching in 1998 occurred as a result not of “global warming” but of a rare, though not unique, severe El Nino Southern Oscillation.
First this idiot is talking about only 1998. WhooptyDo. If you want to know go to a marine biology site.
http://www.marinebiology.org/coralbleaching.htm

[bradclark1]

Gents I still do not understand why USA does not build anymore new nuclear energy plants?

There are a number of nuclear plants being planned and built. The problem before was the publics reaction to Three Mile Island and enforced by Chernobyl. Safety has made a lot of strides since then.

[Tchocky]

The NOAA don't agree with this interpretation, SUBMAN.

Mine is NOAA data, so they do agree with my interpretation.

-S
Link?

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=668905&postcount=57

[Sea Demon]

Whats obvious is that you jump on anything at all that paints the picture you want but are too lazy to check if there is any accuracy in it. I picked one at random to research and stopped there because it's so obvious just reading his explanation that he's bs.
[

Actually, I wish to show that there are other opinions out there that object to the :global warming hyteria" generated by people of Gore's ilk. I wish to show that there are many voices who object. This link shows that Gore's film , and "facts" within are debatable. It also shows that Gore doesn't kknow what the he## he's talking about. He's just another hack politician pushing some "global tragedy" snake oil. And there's many voices who object to his freak show.

[Tchocky]

Whats obvious is that you jump on anything at all that paints the picture you want but are too lazy to check if there is any accuracy in it. I picked one at random to research and stopped there because it's so obvious just reading his explanation that he's bs.
[
Actually, I wish to show that there are other opinions out there that object to the :global warming hyteria" generated by people of Gore's ilk. I wish to show that there are many voices who object. This link shows that Gore's film , and "facts" within are debatable. It also shows that Gore doesn't kknow what the he## he's talking about. He's just another hack politician pushing some "global tragedy" snake oil. And there's many voices who object to his freak show.
You've posted stuff from this guy before, Sea Demon. Hang on till I find the thread.
It is not a dissenting voice if it's being paid to be dissenting. Simple as. The articles you have posted do not show what you want them to show.
From Monckton at the SPPI. A man with no training in climate science, who runs an oil-and-gas funded think-tank. I'm sure this will be reasoned and non-biased.


This was written by Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, who is a bit of a joke (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/11/cuckoo-science/) to climate scientists. his scientific training is in classics. But he has another qualification. Journalism. Reporting the Trojan war, perfect. Scientific papers on climate change, 100% useless. His scientific articles have been ridiculed, here (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,,1947246,00.html) for example.

Listen to this from the head of the SPPI
Quote:
Robert Ferguson, SPPI president, said: “In these excellent papers, Christopher Monckton presents his powerful case ad rem, not ad hominem – he addresses the facts, but does not attack the person. He is refreshingly different from other public figures who are apparently incapable of debating the science. Al Gore is still dodging Lord Monckton’s open invitation to public debate, preferring to cower behind the Maginot Line of a ‘consensus’ which, if it ever existed, is now in tatters.
Does he sound rational and fair-minded? Seriously?http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=634875&postcount=167 (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=634875&postcount=167just)

just quoting myself, will look at the paper later, not holding out much hope, mind.

[Sea Demon]

You've posted stuff from this guy before, Sea Demon. Hang on till I find the thread.
From Monckton at the SPPI. A man with no training in climate science, who runs an oil-and-gas funded think-tank. I'm sure this will be reasoned and non-biased.
It is not a dissenting voice if it's being paid to be dissenting. Simple as.


No need Tchocky. Your article will be biased nonsense in favor of creating mass hysteria for the "global warming" tragedy people. For their own purposes or desires. There are many out there who disagree with the "whole world's coming to an end" nonsense that's spewing from the Internet these days. Did you know that most "published" scientists disagree with Gore and the "global warming" hucksters??? I posted a link in another thread. I'll try to find it. There are many voices in complete disagreement.

[mookiemookie]

Did you know that most "published" scientists disagree with Gore and the "global warming" hucksters??? I posted a link in another thread. I'll try to find it. There are many voices in complete disagreement.

Pardon the copypasta, but you're off base here.

A question which frequently arises in conveying the scientific opinion to a broader audience is to what extent that opinion rises to the level of a consensus. Several scientific organizations have explicitly used the term "consensus" in their statements:
American Association for the Advancement of Science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Association_for_the_Advancement_of_Scienc e): "The conclusions in this statement reflect the scientific consensus represented by, for example, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and the Joint National Academies' statement."[24] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#_note-22)
US National Academy of Science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_National_Academy_of_Sciences): "In the judgment of most climate scientists, Earth’s warming in recent decades has been caused primarily by human activities that have increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. ... On climate change, [the National Academies’ reports] have assessed consensus findings on the science..."[25] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#_note-23)
Joint Science Academies' statement, 2005: "We recognise the international scientific consensus of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)."[26] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#_note-24)
Joint Science Academies' statement, 2001: "The work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) represents the consensus of the international scientific community on climate change science. We recognise IPCC as the world’s most reliable source of information on climate change and its causes, and we endorse its method of achieving this consensus."[27] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#_note-25)
American Meteorological Society (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Meteorological_Society): "The nature of science is such that there is rarely total agreement among scientists. Individual scientific statements and papers—the validity of some of which has yet to be assessed adequately—can be exploited in the policy debate and can leave the impression that the scientific community is sharply divided on issues where there is, in reality, a strong scientific consensus. ...IPCC assessment reports are prepared at approximately five-year intervals by a large international group of experts who represent the broad range of expertise and perspectives relevant to the issues. The reports strive to reflect a consensus evaluation of the results of the full body of peer-reviewed research. ... They provide an analysis of what is known and not known, the degree of consensus, and some indication of the degree of confidence that can be placed on the various statements and conclusions."[28] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#_note-26)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

[Tchocky]

No need Tchocky. Your article will be biased nonsense in favor of creating mass hysteria for the "global warming" tragedy people. For their own purposes or desires. Sea Demon, this is very, very tiring.

There are many out there who disagree with the "whole world's coming to an end" nonsense that's spewing from the Internet these days. Yeah, there are lots of people who disagree. You're one of them. Unfortunately most of the people who know what they are talking about agree that anthropogenic climate change is a problem.
Did you know that most "published" scientists disagree with Gore and the "global warming" hucksters??? I posted a link in another thread. I'll try to find it. There are many voices in complete disagreement. Cool. *waits*

[moose1am]

You nailed it! Those small minds have a lot of money invested in fossil fuels and they won't give that money up easily. They will do whatever it takes to deny the truth.

All Gore is a great man. Anyone that belittles him is Afraid of him! That's too bad and very sad!

One note: This warming is taking place a faster pace than ever before. What use to take thousands of years is not happened much faster.


It amazes me how people politicize this issue. So what if the people who believe the scientific evidence of climate change are wrong? Then they're wrong and the world doesn't turn to desert and we all live a bit cleaner and less reliant on fossil fuels. Is that such a BAD thing? I hate the fact that it's even a debate. It's turned into "prove the other side wrong at any cost" without thinking why they're even fighting in the first place. Right or wrong, reducing carbon emissions and taking care of our environment is a good thing.

You know, I respect Al Gore for the work he's done in raising awareness of this issue, but I believe his role as a politician has created more divisiveness due to small minded people opposing his every view on the general principle that he's a "DADGUM LIB'RUL WHO HATES 'MERKA!"

[Sea Demon]

Pardon the copypasta, but you're off base here.

[quote]A question which frequently arises in conveying the scientific opinion to a broader audience is to what extent that opinion rises to the level of a consensus. Several scientific organizations have explicitly used the term "consensus" in their statements:

Not at all. They have their own opinions and biases on the issues. There are simply too many dissenting voices who have other opinions. The barn-burners in the "global warming" movement want to do alot of things, some of which may be harmful. Before you burn down the barn, there better be a darn good reason. And so far, the "global warming prophets" haven't done a very convincing job. Almost every tragedy brought along by these types of frauds in my lifetime have been nonsense, or just turned into the next tragedy of the day. The Ice Age of the 70's became global warming. In the 80's the acid rain was going to kill all our crops by the end of the century. There was a prediction in the 80's about how the oceans will be depleted in 10 years....and on.....and on....and on.......

Here's a good article by Mr. Buchanan on the topic:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58279

[Sea Demon]

Sea Demon, this is very, very tiring.

I'm sure it is. :lol: Be prepared to be exhausted because millions don't believe the hype. In 10 years I predict that the "global warming" issue will turn into some other disaster to sell to the "idealistic" types always looking for tragedy....

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=8641

[Sea Demon]

Unfortunately most of the people who know what they are talking about agree that anthropogenic climate change is a problem.

There are meteorologists and other experts who would soundly disagree with you.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=481613&in_page_id=1811

[Sea Demon]

All Gore is a great man. Anyone that belittles him is Afraid of him! That's too bad and very sad!


I wonder why Al Gore never goes into any open forum to debate anyone on the topic??:hmm:

And why does he own those really really big homes of his????? You do know how much his energy bills are for those home don't ya'???


An Inconvenient Utility Bill?? :lol:

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=nation_world&id=5072659

[mookiemookie]

Unfortunately most of the people who know what they are talking about agree that anthropogenic climate change is a problem.

There are meteorologists and other experts who would soundly disagree with you.:lol:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=481613&in_page_id=1811

Mr Avery is a fellow of the Hudson Institute, an independent U.S. thinktank that tends to side with big business.

Hmm...what reason could he have to disagree with environmentalists! :hmm:

[Sea Demon]

Unfortunately most of the people who know what they are talking about agree that anthropogenic climate change is a problem.

There are meteorologists and other experts who would soundly disagree with you.:lol:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=481613&in_page_id=1811
Mr Avery is a fellow of the Hudson Institute, an independent U.S. thinktank that tends to side with big business.
Hmm...what reason could he have to disagree with environmentalists! :hmm:
Or is it that his own views, education, and his own observed facts just match those of the businesss sector. Which is....the world isn't going to end tragically because the warming fraudsters say so. He and the business types aren't the only ones who disagree with "big environmentalism". ;)

[bradclark1]

There are meteorologists and other experts who would soundly disagree with you.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=481613&in_page_id=181 1

Lets look at these two experts.;)

Dennis T. Avery
He is the originator of a misleading claim that organic foods are more dangerous than foods sprayed with chemical pesticides.
He enjoys a high level of influence among some sectors, and his big-business-friendly articles are disseminated to thousands of newspapers as well as subscribers in governments, banks and businesses.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Dennis_Avery

A pretty good enviromentalist plot :)
http://www.prwatch.org/prwissues/1999Q4/avery.html

Another nut job.
http://www.ourstolenfuture.org/Myths/2002-0120avery.htm

Avery makes a lot of noise about belonging to the Hudson Institute. Now lets look at a few corporations that contributes funds to the Hudson Institute:

Monsanto: Their leading products are the Roundup herbicide, PCBs, DDT, Aspartame. Monsanto Co. routinely discharged toxic waste into a west Anniston creek and dumped millions of pounds of PCBs into oozing open-pit landfills.

Exxon Mobil

DuPont

Dow-Elanco: Agricultural Chemicals

American Crop Protection Association: Representing the manufacturers of pesticides and other agricultural chemicals.

CropLife International: A trade association representing the manufacturers of genetically engineered seed, pesticides and other agricultural chemicals.

Lets look at the other expert.

Siegfried Frederick Singer
In 1995, as President of the Science and Environmental Policy Project (a think tank based in Fairfax, Virginia) S. Fred Singer was involved in launching a publicity campaign about "The Top 5 Environmental Myths of 1995," a list that included the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's conclusion that secondhand tobacco smoke is a human carcinogen. Shandwick, a public relations agency working for British American Tobacco, pitched the "Top 5 Myths" list idea to Singer to minimize the appearance of tobacco industry involvement in orchestrating criticism of the EPA. The "Top 5 Environmental Myths" list packaged EPA's secondhand smoke ruling with other topics like global warming and radon gas, to help minimize the appearance of tobacco industry involvement in the effort. According to a 1996 BAT memo describing the arrangement, Singer agreed to an "aggressive media interview schedule" organized by Shandwick to help publicize his criticism of EPA's conclusions.
In a September 24, 1993, sworn affidavit, Dr. Singer admitted to doing climate change research on behalf of oil companies, such as Exxon, Texaco, Arco, Shell and the American Gas Association.
However, on February 12, 2001, Singer wrote a letter to The Washington Post "in which he denied receiving any oil company money in the previous 20 years when he had consulted for the oil industry.

----------------------------------------------------
I just stopped any further research.

[bradclark1]

And why does he own those really really big homes of his????? You do know how much his energy bills are for those home don't ya'???:hmm::rotfl:


An Inconvenient Utility Bill?? :lol:

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=nation_world&id=5072659
Two businesses are run out of his home. I can't think you can run businesses and live in a house without running up an electricity bill. Do you have an itemized bill of what items they run?

[bradclark1]

Actually, I wish to show that there are other opinions out there that object to the :global warming hyteria" generated by people of Gore's ilk. I wish to show that there are many voices who object. This link shows that Gore's film , and "facts" within are debatable. It also shows that Gore doesn't kknow what the he## he's talking about. He's just another hack politician pushing some "global tragedy" snake oil. And there's many voices who object to his freak show.
Well I don't think it helps your position when all you ever do is supply nut job links in support. I don't think you have ever supplied a link on this subject where your 'proof' hasn't been proved worthless. These last two experts of yours case in point.

[Sea Demon]

----------------------------------------------------
I just stopped any further research.

Of course it matters not. Some of those who would "discredit" Avery are hacks for the environmental movement themselves, and are biased in it's view. Let's see Karen Charman, Theo Colborn???? Dianne Dumanowski??? All enviro-activist shills. You've got to take that with a grain of salt. Just read up on those people. I just did and saw that within 5 minutes..... None of them actually discredits anyone becaue they themselves are wrapped up in their own biases. Sorry, despite your hopes, many still don't believe your beliefs in "Global Doom".

[Sea Demon]

Well I don't think it helps your position when all you ever do is supply nut job links in support. I don't think you have ever supplied a link on this subject where your 'proof' hasn't been proved worthless. These last two experts of yours case in point.
That pretty much goes double for you. Almost every "global tragedy" source is a nut-job source. :doh: :rotfl::rotfl:

[Sea Demon]

And why does he own those really really big homes of his????? You do know how much his energy bills are for those home don't ya'???:hmm::rotfl:


An Inconvenient Utility Bill?? :lol:

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=nation_world&id=5072659 Two businesses are run out of his home. I can't think you can run businesses and live in a house without running up an electricity bill. Do you have an itemized bill of what items they run?

Uh-huh. Sure. I'm still impressed with his many homes and uses of private jets. My...here's a video of Gore polluting the atmosphere in a private jet.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VV309lbB8c

He's not living a life he advocates for us. But then again, you willfully put the "blindfold of ignorance" over your own eyes. Some of us can see the fraud that Al Gore clearly is.

[Sea Demon]

Here's some more disagreement. You can close your eyes and your mind if you'd like brad. :lol:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0927/p13s03-sten.html

[mookiemookie]

Ok, then we bring up my favorite point...

So what? So what if it's wrong. You're looking for validation that it's ok to drive an SUV that's as big as a house? You looking for a salve on the soul for the fact that gosh darnit, plastic packaging is so convenient? You looking for the green light to think that pollutants in our streams and air is just a tradeoff for modern living?

Or is it maybe, just maybe, you can't stand the politics of Al Gore and are so caught up in the partisan "disagree at any costs" routine that you don't really know what you're arguing for anymore?

[Sea Demon]

Ok, then we bring up my favorite point...

So what? So what if it's wrong. You're looking for validation that it's ok to drive an SUV that's as big as a house? You looking for a salve on the soul for the fact that gosh darnit, plastic packaging is so convenient? You looking for the green light to think that pollutants in our streams and air is just a tradeoff for modern living?

Or is it maybe, just maybe, you can't stand the politics of Al Gore and are so caught up in the partisan "disagree at any costs" routine that you don't really know what you're arguing for anymore?
Actually it's much simpler than this mookie. There are people out there pushing the same old..."We're All Going To Die.....The Sky Is Falling!!!!!!!!" routine and promoting very draconian measures for something they have not proven. Nor is there any agreement whatsoever what causes all the fluctuations in temperatures. Fluctuations in temperatures that have preceded the SUV. By many many centuries. I don't think it's wise to listen to these alarmist voices (frauds if you will) as they've been wrong everytime they've pushed their "doom and gloom" scenarios during my lifetime. We can't afford what they want to do. And they offer no solutions other than burning down the proverbial barn. This is why I'm opposed.

And yes, there is actually more out there to support that termperature fluctuations have been ongoing during Earth's existence. This has not just been happening ever since Hummer started putting out the H2. Yes. I support clean air and clean water and such. I want pollution reduced. I support alternative sources of energy if it can be implemented and cost effective. But I also think that our production, technology, and Capitalism can co-exist with a clean environment. Al Gore types apparently do not and wish to use harsh measures to punish behaviors they don't agree with. And yes, Gore's hypocrisy by polluting with private jets, and living in large homes, and generating $30,000 a month utility bills kind of shows a major discrepency. His own "carbon footprint" exceeds my whole neighborhood. Do as I say....not as I do. Right??

BTW.....what Business's is Al Gore running from his home? Just what does he produce in goods or services out of his home???

[bradclark1]

----------------------------------------------------
I just stopped any further research.

Of course it matters not. Some of those who would "discredit" Avery are hacks for the environmental movement themselves, and are biased in it's view. Let's see Karen Charman, Theo Colborn???? Dianne Dumanowski??? All enviro-activist shills. You've got to take that with a grain of salt. :lol: Just read up on those people. I just did and saw that within 5 minutes..... None of them actually discredits anyone becaue they themselves are wrapped up in their own biases. Sorry, despite your hopes, many still don't believe your beliefs in "Global Doom". ;)
If you can discredit one thing they've said please do. No, you can't? Only shoot the messenger if they are wrong.
I see you did your usual and ignored his Institute backing by Exxon Mobil, Monsanto, and a host of pesticide and chemical companies. You have heard of Monsanto haven't you?
You also forgot to back up Fredrick 'smoke isn't bad for you' Singer. Or his forgetfulness about working for the oil companies.

[Sea Demon]

If you can discredit one thing they've said please do. No, you can't?:hmm: Only shoot the messenger if they are wrong.;)
I see you did your usual and ignored his Institute backing by Exxon Mobil, Monsanto, and a host of pesticide and chemical companies.:yep:
You also forgot to back up Fredrick 'smoke isn't bad for you' Singer.:lol:

You're dodging brad. You have proven nothing about the messengers of the opponents of "Man-made global warming" theories except show people who are in bed with enviro-lunatics. You can't discredit anything about Avery. Nor can you discredit successfully any other dissenting voices. It doesn't matter anything about ExxonMobil or any other chemical companies. The burden of proof of man-made global warming is on the propponents. Something they have not proven. How come these lunatics refuse to see historical temperature fluctuations???? why is that?? Why does Al Gore refuse to debate in any open forum??? Using sources that are linked directly to the kooky environment movement won't get you far. Of course you have your google links and refuse to think for yourself. You post nutty links and have people like Theo Colborn, Karen Charmon, and Dianne Dumanowski do your thinking for you. The facts are, there are voices who don't buy man-made global warming. And those voices are growing. What you're concerned about is 30 years or more of fear-mongering is coming to an end.

[bradclark1]

And why does he own those really really big homes of his????? You do know how much his energy bills are for those home don't ya'???:hmm::rotfl:


An Inconvenient Utility Bill?? :lol:

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=nation_world&id=5072659 Two businesses are run out of his home. I can't think you can run businesses and live in a house without running up an electricity bill. Do you have an itemized bill of what items they run?

Uh-huh. Sure. I'm still impressed with his many homes and uses of private jets. My...here's a video of Gore polluting the atmosphere in a private jet.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VV309lbB8c

He's not living a life he advocates for us. But then again, you willfully put the "blindfold of ignorance" over your own eyes. Some of us can see the fraud that Al Gore clearly is.
Oh, so now he can't own more then one house. What is your reasoning for that? I hate to tell you you this but it's hard to make a donkey fly. Whats wrong with owning a private jet? I wouldn't mind one.

[Sea Demon]

And why does he own those really really big homes of his????? You do know how much his energy bills are for those home don't ya'???:hmm::rotfl:


An Inconvenient Utility Bill?? :lol:

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=nation_world&id=5072659 Two businesses are run out of his home. I can't think you can run businesses and live in a house without running up an electricity bill. Do you have an itemized bill of what items they run?

Uh-huh. Sure. I'm still impressed with his many homes and uses of private jets. My...here's a video of Gore polluting the atmosphere in a private jet.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VV309lbB8c

He's not living a life he advocates for us. But then again, you willfully put the "blindfold of ignorance" over your own eyes. Some of us can see the fraud that Al Gore clearly is.
Oh, so now he can't own more then one house. What is your reasoning for that? I hate to tell you you this but it's hard to make a donkey fly. Whats wrong with owning a private jet? I wouldn't mind one.

You're lost totally. :doh: Al Gore advocates a degraded lifestyle for the rest of us. He tells us to not fly as much. Ride bikes. Don't run air conditioners. And he generates a utility bill more than my entire neighborhood in one month than all of us put together. He flies private jets all over the world. "Polluting" the atmosphere. And you can't see it. :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: Arguing with a liberal democrat is true, priceless comedy.

[Sea Demon]

By the way brad...just what business is Gore running out of his home???hmmmm?? What goods and services is he providing from his house? What about Gore's other big house?

I recommend you learn something from your own sig.

[Sea Demon]

Gore's residence uses considerably more energy than the average American home.

Status: True


http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/gorehome.asp

Wake up and smell the hypocrisy.

[bradclark1]

If you can discredit one thing they've said please do. No, you can't?:hmm: Only shoot the messenger if they are wrong.;)
I see you did your usual and ignored his Institute backing by Exxon Mobil, Monsanto, and a host of pesticide and chemical companies.:yep:
You also forgot to back up Fredrick 'smoke isn't bad for you' Singer.:lol:

You're dodging brad. You have proven nothing about the messengers of the opponents of "Man-made global warming" theories except show people who are in bed with enviro-lunatics. You can't discredit anything about Avery. Nor can you discredit successfully any other dissenting voices. It doesn't matter anything about ExxonMobil or any other chemical companies.
I'm dodging what? Funny. I thought I did a good job of discrediting him. Go figure. Your last sentence is odd to say the least.

The burden of proof of man-made global warming is on the propponents. Something they have not proven. How come these lunatics refuse to see historical temperature fluctuations???? why is that??
I don't believe I have seen or heard about one person arguing against historical temperature variations. The only argueing I've heard of is the actual times in history when there was. Myself I don't care if their is a hundred year difference of opinion of bygone ages. I believe if you research a little you will find that the concern is that man made pollutants are accelerating the process past the norm.

Why does Al Gore refuse to debate in any open forum???
Because the guy you are referring to is a nut who has no support in the recognized scientific field. I believe I proved that last time you brought up the guys name(whoever he was) and his quest for a debate.

Using sources that are linked directly to the kooky environment movement won't get you far.
I'm assuming you mean my links above about Avery. I invite you to show me where they are wrong about him. Like I said only shoot the messenger if they are wrong.

Of course you have your google links and refuse to think for yourself. You post nutty links and have people like Theo Colborn, Karen Charmon, and Dianne Dumanowski do your thinking for you. How lazy. :lol:
See thats the problem. I research if I'm interested in something and I'll share my results. If I disagree with you I'll show you why I disagree. I'm not afraid of learning something new. If you can show I'm wrong great, you have taught me something. All you have to do is show me. Lazy? I think not.

The facts are, there are voices who don't buy man-made global warming. And those voices are growing. What you're concerned about is 30 years or more of fear-mongering is coming to an end.
Like I said above if you research a little you will find that the concern is that man made pollutants are accelerating the process past the norm. I believe that a major change is needed in how and what kind of energy is produced and used. It's more then a few million people turning a light off when not in use or Gore riding in a private jet. Cleaner energy and alternatives to fossil fuels have to be found. It's actually mind boggling to me that people don't or won't recognize that. Screw with mother nature and she will screw you. Simple as that.

[bradclark1]

Here's some more disagreement. You can close your eyes and your mind if you'd like brad. :lol:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0927/p13s03-sten.html
I suggest you read it yourself Sea Demon. It's interesting. Try reading past the first page.

[Sea Demon]

Here's some more disagreement. You can close your eyes and your mind if you'd like brad. :lol:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0927/p13s03-sten.html
I suggest you read it yourself Sea Demon. It's interesting. Try reading past the first page.

I read the whole thing. And Gore's staff is waffling and quibbling with excuses the whole way. You still haven't answered my question about what Gore's business is in his own home that warrants a $30,000 utility bill. No surprises there.:yep:

Even though you've claimed before how non-partisan you are. :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

[Sea Demon]

I'm dodging what? Funny. I thought I did a good job of discrediting him. Go figure. Your last sentence is odd to say the least.


You've discredited nothing. Especially by using links from environmental kooks. Who obviously have an agenda to push. You still leave alot unanswered like why Gore won't debate anyone in any open forum. Or how he generates humongous utility expenses, and can get away with telling everyone that they must reform their ways. I can't help you if you can't see the fraud.

The real funny thing is you work so hard googling up the world for bunk resources and get absolutely nowhere here. You simply cannot change minds, and have no effects on the amount of people waking up to Gore's ridiculous claims and hypocrisy.

By the way, did you know you're contributing to "global warming" right now in your own world? Computers use electricity you know. :)

[bradclark1]

Here's some more disagreement. You can close your eyes and your mind if you'd like brad. :lol:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0927/p13s03-sten.html
I suggest you read it yourself Sea Demon. It's interesting. Try reading past the first page.

I read the whole thing. And Gore's staff is waffling and quibbling with excuses the whole way.
No. I don't think you did. Who on there is Gore's staff? Where are the waffling and quibbling bits? I saw a reasonable scientific article myself.

You still haven't answered my question about what Gore's business is in his own home that warrants a $30,000 utility bill. No surprises there.:yep:
I save the uninteresting stuff for last. http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/gorehome.asp

[Sea Demon]

Here's some more disagreement. You can close your eyes and your mind if you'd like brad. :lol:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0927/p13s03-sten.html
I suggest you read it yourself Sea Demon. It's interesting. Try reading past the first page.

I read the whole thing. And Gore's staff is waffling and quibbling with excuses the whole way.
No. I don't think you did. Who on there is Gore's staff? Where are the waffling and quibbling bits? I saw a reasonable scientific article myself.

You still haven't answered my question about what Gore's business is in his own home that warrants a $30,000 utility bill. No surprises there.:yep:
I save the uninteresting stuff for last. http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/gorehome.asp

Yeah, they say Gore is trying to do these things. Alot of speculation about reductions and offsets. But still his energy usage is tremendously large. Geez, I can say the same and let everyone know what a good little greenie I can be, especially if I "try" to offset and advocate a "carbon neutral lifestyle". It's almost hilarious how you look at this. Remember his utility bill remains the same, and his energy consumption is still high regardless of how he tries to rationalize it. Let's not get started on his use of jet fuel to go to his shindigs. And you still cannot answer any of my questions. And Gore still cannot lead by example.


Edited to add. The csmonitor article is the one you're talking about up top...my bad. Actually it is a rather good article and totally shows that there is indeed a debate going on. And many questions left unanswered. It is not a settled debate at all. When I spoke of Gore's staff, I was referring to the second article.

[Sea Demon]

Seriously brad. Can you not see how it's wrong to advocate a certain lifestyle and push guilt and false premises to do it, and then become a glutton for energy usage in the reverse direction? Are you really incapable of seeing that? :) Do you know what leading by example is? It's really not that hard.

[Stealth Hunter]

We're definitely playing a role of some sort in Global Warming. Why this debate continues is something I've never known.

Why can't we just accept it? Burning natural gases is contributing to the equation.

Pure and simple.

Temperatures weren't this high in the 1700's. Hell, my grandmother could remember how cold winters were in the 1800's. Now, it's all starting to heat up with all this new technology... and from Earth's cycle that it goes on.

In short, I think we'd be screwed either way: SUV's or not. Just the factor of time that changes with what we do.

[bradclark1]

Or is it maybe, just maybe, you can't stand the politics of Al Gore and are so caught up in the partisan "disagree at any costs" routine that you don't really know what you're arguing for anymore?
I think that's more the point.

[August]

Hell, my grandmother could remember how cold winters were in the 1800's.

Dude, your grandmother would have to be well over 110 years old to remember temperatures from the 1800's.

[Onkel Neal]

I think he means something like, in the 1960s his grandmother recalled cold weather from the 1800s.

[Fish]

Stop arguing:


The Prophet of Climate Change: James Lovelock

One of the most eminent scientists of our time says that global warming is irreversible — and that more than 6 billion people will perish by the end of the century




At the age of eighty-eight, after four children and a long and respected career as one of the twentieth century's most influential scientists, James Lovelock has come to an unsettling conclusion: The human race is doomed. "I wish I could be more hopeful," he tells me one sunny morning as we walk through a park in Oslo, where he is giving a talk at a university. Lovelock is a small man, unfailingly polite, with white hair and round, owlish glasses. His step is jaunty, his mind lively, his manner anything but gloomy. In fact, the coming of the Four Horsemen -- war, famine, pestilence and death -- seems to perk him up. "It will be a dark time," Lovelock admits. "But for those who survive, I suspect it will be rather exciting."
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/16956300/the_prophet_of_climate_change_james_lovelock


And:

WASHINGTON—An investigative report by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) and the Government Accountability Project (GAP) has uncovered new evidence of widespread political interference in federal climate science. The report, which includes a survey of hundreds of federal scientists at seven federal agencies and dozens of in-depth interviews, documents a high regard for climate change research but broad interference in communicating scientific results.
"The new evidence shows that political interference in climate science is no longer a series of isolated incidents but a system-wide epidemic," said Dr. Francesca Grifo, Director of the UCS Scientific Integrity Program. "Tailoring scientific fact for political purposes has become a problem across many federal science agencies."
http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/investigation-reveals-0007.html

[Sea Demon]

Or is it maybe, just maybe, you can't stand the politics of Al Gore and are so caught up in the partisan "disagree at any costs" routine that you don't really know what you're arguing for anymore?
I think that's more the point.

And you would be wrong.....once again.

Actually it's much simpler than this mookie. There are people out there pushing the same old..."We're All Going To Die.....The Sky Is Falling!!!!!!!!" routine and promoting very draconian measures for something they have not proven. Nor is there any agreement whatsoever what causes all the fluctuations in temperatures. Fluctuations in temperatures that have preceded the SUV. By many many centuries. I don't think it's wise to listen to these alarmist voices (frauds if you will) as they've been wrong everytime they've pushed their "doom and gloom" scenarios during my lifetime. We can't afford what they want to do. And they offer no solutions other than burning down the proverbial barn. This is why I'm opposed.

And yes, there is actually more out there to support that termperature fluctuations have been ongoing during Earth's existence. This has not just been happening ever since Hummer started putting out the H2. :lol: Yes. I support clean air and clean water and such. I want pollution reduced. I support alternative sources of energy if it can be implemented and cost effective. But I also think that our production, technology, and Capitalism can co-exist with a clean environment. Al Gore types apparently do not and wish to use harsh measures to punish behaviors they don't agree with. And yes, Gore's hypocrisy by polluting with private jets, and living in large homes, and generating $30,000 a month utility bills kind of shows a major discrepency. His own "carbon footprint" exceeds my whole neighborhood. Do as I say....not as I do. Right??:yep:

BTW.....what Business's is Al Gore running from his home? Just what does he produce in goods or services out of his home???

Sorry to requote myself, but you obviously didn't get the point. And I still think it might be over your head still.

[bradclark1]

:rotfl: More then 3/4 of your post talk about Gore. If you don't accept Gores reasons thats immaterial it's up to the individual. If you don't agree fine, don't, but what I gather from your posts is that if Gore has anything to do with the environment it's automatically wrong. Did Gore look stupid because of some of his non facts? Yes he did. Does that nullify the rest of what he is saying? No it doesn't. I've made my points plus discredited every reference you've shown in this thread because you don't research anything. You see a paragraph that suits your needs and go on about how great that scientist or meteorologist is because he is saying what you want to see and if you spent a minute to see who this person was you'd see if this person is credible or not and you wouldn't look like a fool when they are shot down. Before you go on about discrediting any references I've made, if you can't list them you don't have anything to say. Also if you think I haven't answered any of your questions tell me what I've missed and I'll address them because as far as I can tell you haven't asked any questions you just rant.
Here's a case in point:

Here's some more disagreement. You can close your eyes and your mind if you'd like brad. :lol:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0927/p13s03-sten.html
You didn't even know what you were referencing because it's a scientific article about different theories. There was nothing to disagree with. So check your own eyes and mind.
Let me tell you something. I would love to be proved wrong on this subject. It would make my day because I worry about mankind's future (yeah, really). Specificly I worry about my grandkids and their kids and I believe this is as serious as being rained on by nuke missiles.

[Sea Demon]

Did Gore look stupid because of some of his non facts? Yes he did. Does that nullify the rest of what he is saying? No it doesn't. I've made my points plus discredited every reference you've shown in this thread because you don't research anything. You see a paragraph that suits your needs and go on about how great that scientist or meteorologist is because he is saying what you want to see and if you spent a minute to see who this person was you'd see if this person is credible or not and you wouldn't look like a fool when they are shot down. Before you go on about discrediting any references I've made, if you can't list them you don't have anything to say. Also if you think I haven't answered any of your questions tell me what I've missed and I'll address them because as far as I can tell you haven't asked any questions you just rant.
Here's a case in point:
Let me tell you something. I would love to be proved wrong on this subject. It would make my day because I worry about mankind's future (yeah, really). Specificly I worry about my grandkids and their kids and I believe this is as serious as being rained on by nuke missiles.

No Gore looks like a hypocrit because of his refusal to practice what he preaches. When advocating a lower use lifestyle, one cannot become an energy glutton in the reverse. It's really not that hard to understand this. And yes, he and his message become suspect to many as a result. But then again, what business is Gore running from his home that warrants such huge energy usage. And why 2 homes? What about his constant travel in jets which put out emissions from jet engines? He's really doing a bang up job there, you think? You consider anything that goes against your grain of thinking as ranting. Maybe because you have no clear answers for anything yourself. I taalk of Gore alot because he is carrying alot of water for the movement. And many in the movement almost look at him like he's some sort of prophet, despite alot of inaccuracies in what he attempts to portray.

It's not a criticism, but you are seem totally devoted to man-made global warming theories and refuse to question any of it. You refuse to listen to any voices that totally disagree with the frauds of the warming movement. Why can't Gore debate in any open forum? I think you know the answer to that one. And that should make anybody with half a brain become at least a little skeptical. Why don't anybody in the warming movement ever adequately address solar radiation, historical temperature fluctuations, sunspot activity, the releases of CO2 and other greenhouse gases from natural sources like volcano's and the ocean floor itself. And how man-made emissions are dwarfed by natural emissions annually? They don't dismiss the data, they just actually ignore it. I'm not trying to prove you wrong here. But I wanted to show that it is not a settled issue. And I think I've succeeded in showing that there are voices who disagree. Rather than be closed minded, and allowing the warming movement people to think for you, you might want to listen to what everyone has to say. Indeed Al Gore has not convinced everyone that we are all causing doom. In fact he claimed on January of 2006 that we have 10 years left before it's all over. This is a very dubious claim, and it also means that we have 8 years and a couple months left before we're all dead. Throughout all of Earth's history, with all it's temperature changes, and cosmic anomalies that it's been through, do you really think we're all going to die in 8 years??? Please.

[mookiemookie]

I think a lot of the resentment towards Al Gore is that he's asking you to make a change and live your life in a more sustainable way, but it's percieved that he's not willing to practice what he preaches.

Does that make the message of "change your life and live in a more sustainable way" any less valid? Of course not. The benefits of reducing waste, lowering energy consumption and finding alternative energy sources are not in doubt. I think you'd be hard pressed to find someone willing to argue against the fact that these are good things.

So I think it really comes down to nobody having the fortitude to actually give a damn and do something and make a change. Do you really need Al Gore to do it first? If he did, would you care? Is that the only thing stopping you from carpooling, buying sustainably farmed food and recycling your trash? I highly doubt it. This just becomes another sideshow that people bicker about because it takes the onus off of them to do something they'd find uncomfortable. If they argue about Al Gore's electric bills, then they draw the attention away from themselves and don't have to defend the fact that they haven't really done squat in their own life to make a difference.

[Stealth Hunter]

I think he means something like, in the 1960s his grandmother recalled cold weather from the 1800s.

Hammer right on the nail.

[Tchocky]

No Gore looks like a hypocrit because of his refusal to practice what he preaches. When advocating a lower use lifestyle, one cannot become an energy glutton in the reverse. I remember going over this issue in another thread. Turns out that it's not as black-and-white as you are painting it. Energy glutton is not the phrase.
It's not a criticism, but you are seem totally devoted to man-made global warming theories and refuse to question any of it. You refuse to listen to any voices that totally disagree with the frauds of the warming movement. This statement could be accurately directed at your posting also. You use hysterical terms while decrying hysteria. Example - "enviro-lunatics". That's not helping anything. You seem to believe that Al Gore is where this issue begins and ends.
Why don't anybody in the warming movement ever adequately address solar radiation, historical temperature fluctuations, sunspot activity, the releases of CO2 and other greenhouse gases from natural sources like volcano's and the ocean floor itself. And how man-made emissions are dwarfed by natural emissions annually? OK, either you haven't bothered looking into any of these issues, or you have and decide to ignore what you've found. Or neither.
Solar radiation - THe sun is the source of all warming, but can the recent increases be attributed to increased solar activity, as Fred Thompson and other seem to think?
The Max Planck Institute say No (http://www.mps.mpg.de/images/projekte/sun-climate/climate.gif)
As for historical variations, yes the Earth has warmed before. But not like this. The big one that gets mentioned frequently is the Medieval Warm Period. Link (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/medieval.html)
You're right about there being many natural sources of CO2, there are millions. But the Earth can handle those. The relocation of the carbon from under the Earth to the atmosphere in a very short time is an additional dose that seems to upset the balance.

Why don't anybody in the warming movement ever adequately address... To me, this sounds like, "why don't they come up with an answer that I agree with"
Check out what climate scientists have to say about the sun's effect on the Earth's climate. Here (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/07/the-lure-of-solar-forcing)

They don't dismiss the data, they just actually ignore it. Please, please back this up.

I'm not trying to prove you wrong here. But I wanted to show that it is not a settled issue. And I think I've succeeded in showing that there are voices who disagree.You're aiming for something worthy, skepticism.
But as yet, most of the sources you've posted have been heavily biased. Some, you've posted twice, after others have pointed out flaws.

I see you've posted Avery & Singer again. The second time in this thread. Don't expect to be taken seriously, at least by me, if all you can find is gas-funded pseudo-research. Are you just googling "global warming skeptics" and posting up the results?

Also, I don't consider Pat Buchanan qualified to opine confidently on climate change. I just don't buy it.

[Sea Demon]

I remember going over this issue in another thread. Turns out that it's not as black-and-white as you are painting it. Energy glutton is not the phrase.


Sure it is. Al Gore doesn't seem too impressed with the lifestyle he advocates for the "average" man. Have you seen how many trips he takes in jet aircraft per month? Does that not cause pollution? What about all that enegy he consumes rather than conserves? Bottom line, if you advocate a low calorie diet for everyone, and make everyone feel guilty about every piece of food they eat using false premises, and unsound logic.......then you go and feast 5 out of 7 days and nights at Hometown Buffet with tons of fried chicken, lasagna, rolls, chocolate cake etc....then you are full of crap. And sorry, saying that you offset it by walking there rather than driving doesn't help you look any better. Where is the "conservation" crowd when you need them.




OK, either you haven't bothered looking into any of these issues, or you have and decide to ignore what you've found. Or neither.
Solar radiation - THe sun is the source of all warming, but can the recent increases be attributed to increased solar activity, as Fred Thompson and other seem to think?
The Max Planck Institute say No (http://www.mps.mpg.de/images/projekte/sun-climate/climate.gif)
As for historical variations, yes the Earth has warmed before. But not like this. The big one that gets mentioned frequently is the Medieval Warm Period. Link (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/medieval.html)
You're right about there being many natural sources of CO2, there are millions. But the Earth can handle those. The relocation of the carbon from under the Earth to the atmosphere in a very short time is an additional dose that seems to upset the balance.

Why yes. I have. And I also work alongside solar physicists at my job. I work in the commercial space sector and am in the process of of doing QA on new designs for the generation 2 satellites coming on line soon for my company. And these physicists look into trends of solar radiation cycles, CME's etc. so we can determine how they affect sub-systems onboard the satellites from first generation. And what considerations should be thought of for the next. I've talked to these people, and they have told me how the recent (10-15 years) solar cycles have been a factor in warming the atmosphere and there is a direct correlation into the heating of the surface. That affects long-term temperature averages. Of course their not publicly funded by George Soros, or ExxonMobile, so they don't have any discrediting Wiki articles about them. Thank goodness. I'm sure if they would be more public about it themselves, a nice little Wiki article would pop up out of nowhere to try and discredit anything that goes against the grain. I know thhat's how it works with the movement. Attack the messenger with a Wiki article and ignore the message. I'm not sure where these couple of people are politically. I've never asked them. But their reports don't seem favorable to the Internet articles I see posted from you or other hardcore man-made warming advocates. Take it or leave it...it's what it is.

[To me, this sounds like, "why don't they come up with an answer that I agree with"
Check out what climate scientists have to say about the sun's effect on the Earth's climate. Here (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/07/the-lure-of-solar-forcing)

Right, but I'll still listen to my colleagues (with real credentials) who study solar physics, and it's effects before I listen to supposed "climate scientists". ;) I'm not sure your link is credible. Realclimate???Geez.

You're aiming for something worthy, skepticism.
But as yet, most of the sources you've posted have been heavily biased. Some, you've posted twice, after others have pointed out flaws.

I see you've posted Avery & Singer again. The second time in this thread. Don't expect to be taken seriously, at least by me, if all you can find is gas-funded pseudo-research. Are you just googling "global warming skeptics" and posting up the results?

Also, I don't consider Pat Buchanan qualified to opine confidently on climate change. I just don't buy it.

Well it's just as easy to dismiss anybody from your sources. But the bottom line is I'm happy that real national governments aren't really taking the advice from your side. Kyoto, or anything like it, doesn't stand a chance in the USA. Which brings up another point. How come there are so many exemptions for China and India? Both of whom are gross polluters. Huge amounts of Carcinogens and other toxins flowing into lakes, streams and rivers. Which of course lead to the oceans? Have you seen some pictures of the water around some of China's naval bases? Have you seen pictures of China's major cities? Some days in Beijing make LA look like the Garden of Eden. And we don't hear a word from "big environmentalism" about any of it. Don't expect too much credibility until you tackle the big stuff first. You man-made global warming proponents kind of crack me up. Because any voice that goes against your conventional wisdom is thrashed. It's as if global warming is a religious venture for you. I'm not mocking you here. But there is so many inconsistencies brought forth. I don't know how much you've read in this thread, but I've said in one post above that I'm all for alternative sources of energy myself if it's feasible and cost effective. Solar, wind, hydro, etc. all sound good to me. Partly because I'm sick of my money going to the Middle East. Even though I disagree that we're on a path of doom, I still support the free market researching and developing methods for alternative sources. But what Gore, and others want in that movement seems untenable, unworkable, and just plain draconian. Especially for something they can't really prove. And I don't think we're going to get rid of fossil fuels for awhile despite any gains in alternative sources of energy. We can reduce consumption of it, but not eliminate it. That's just reality. And you guys are going to drive yourselves crazy. And you know what....we're not going to die. And in 20 years, the sky will be blue when it's supposed to, we'll still be able to enjoy an outing at the local lake, there will still be winter/spring/summer/fall, and we'll still have fluctuations in temperature ranges. And I'm sure your side will be pushing another doom and gloom scenario for the masses. Remember the 70's?

[Sea Demon]

I think a lot of the resentment towards Al Gore is that he's asking you to make a change and live your life in a more sustainable way, but it's percieved that he's not willing to practice what he preaches. .........

I think I already answered you quite adequately before. And no, there is no personal hatred for Al Gore. But tremendous skepticism...yes. ;)

[Sea Demon]

By the way Tchocky. How do you feel about nuclear powerplants? No trick question here. I'd just like to read your comments about it.

[CB..]

How do you feel about nuclear powerplants? No trick question here. I'd just like to read your comments about it.
that's a fascinating question in relation to climate issues because it blurs the boundaries between the climate change debate and the war on terror debate..

what's the use of proposing a major switch to nuclear power if third world countries and or middle eastern countrys are to be discouraged from developing nuclear power?.forcing them to rely on coal/gas powered stations.or rendering them reliant on external power supply from other countys.(a political/economicaly unnaceptable situation for any country).anyhuw the climate issue at least in terms of popular conception boils down to the reduction of CO2 emissions.. so..if there is any truth to the situation what so ever....given that an area of CO2 gobbling forest the size of a small country is cut down every year (and not replaced) could it not be debated that those countrys who are committing these acts of eco terrorism be added to the axis of evil..lol..given that is...one accepts that the results of climate change could make all previous acts of "conventional" terrorism seem "minor" in comparison...lots of political capitol to be gained there no doubt...it's funny how in a shrinking world no matter what opinion you share every issue eventualy ends up being one and the same..lol

[Tchocky]

Why yes. I have. And I also work alongside solar physicists at my job. I work in the commercial space sector and am in the process of of doing QA on new designs for the generation 2 satellites coming on line soon for my company. And these physicists look into trends of solar radiation cycles, CME's etc. so we can determine how they affect sub-systems onboard the satellites from first generation. And what considerations should be thought of for the next. I've talked to these people, and they have told me how the recent (10-15 years) solar cycles have been a factor in warming the atmosphere and there is a direct correlation into the heating of the surface. That affects long-term temperature averages. Of course it affects temperature, if you click on the link from the Max Planck institute, you'll see that there is a tight correlation between solar irradiance variation and temperature variation. But in the second half of the 20th century, solar radiance remains stable while temperature climbs.
I'm not sure where these couple of people are politically. I've never asked them. But their reports don't seem favorable to the Internet articles I see posted from you or other hardcore man-made warming advocates. Take it or leave it...it's what it is. I wouldn't call myself hardcore, just saying what I see.

[To me, this sounds like, "why don't they come up with an answer that I agree with"
Check out what climate scientists have to say about the sun's effect on the Earth's climate. Here (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/07/the-lure-of-solar-forcing)
Right, but I'll still listen to my colleagues (with real credentials) who study solar physics, and it's effects before I listen to supposed "climate scientists". ;) I'm not sure your link is credible. Realclimate???Geez.:roll: Hey, I thought you were against attacking the messenger.
Go to realclimate, click on contributor profiles, and you'll see credentials. It's a damn sight more believable than "my friend at work told me, but ssshh! Don't let George Soros hear you!".
If you don't think it's credible, go check it out.
By the by, the full name in the Max Planck Institute for Astrophysics. Knock yourself out.

You're aiming for something worthy, skepticism.
But as yet, most of the sources you've posted have been heavily biased. Some, you've posted twice, after others have pointed out flaws.

I see you've posted Avery & Singer again. The second time in this thread. Don't expect to be taken seriously, at least by me, if all you can find is gas-funded pseudo-research. Are you just googling "global warming skeptics" and posting up the results?

Also, I don't consider Pat Buchanan qualified to opine confidently on climate change. I just don't buy it.
Well it's just as easy to dismiss anybody from your sources. Please do. If it's so easy.
I don't consider Buchanan qualified, because he has not training in any relevant field.
I'm bringing up relevant information about links you post, things like journalists pretending to be scientists, and oil money funding skewed psuedo-science. Oh, and when you post the same rubbish twice in one thread, pretending that it's relevant.
Go. Right. Ahead.
You man-made global warming proponents kind of crack me up. Because any voice that goes against your conventional wisdom is thrashed. It's as if global warming is a religious venture for you. I'm not mocking you here. But there is so many inconsistencies brought forth. No, this is posting on the Internet, a relaxed and very lazy way of communication. Nothing religious.
And in 20 years, the sky will be blue when it's supposed to, we'll still be able to enjoy an outing at the local lake, there will still be winter/spring/summer/fall, and we'll still have fluctuations in temperature ranges. And I'm sure your side will be pushing another doom and gloom scenario for the masses. Remember the 70's? :) That may well be the case. 20 years is not a long time. However, evidence suggests otherwise.
Take a look around for the Ice-Age Scare of the 1970's, it's not as impressive as you may think. Two books and a couple of papers. That was about it.

[Sea Demon]

Of course it affects temperature, if you click on the link from the Max Planck institute, you'll see that there is a tight correlation between solar irradiance variation and temperature variation. But in the second half of the 20th century, solar radiance remains stable while temperature climbs.

Right. But surface temperature continues to retain heat for a long time. Oh yeah, the emissions from natural C02 emissions is variable anually as well. I don't know who taught you that it's a constant. You at least alluded that by saying the Earth can offset so much, and we're now spinning out of control in some way because of the much much smaller amount brought forth by man.

Hey, I thought you were against attacking the messenger.
Go to realclimate, click on contributor profiles, and you'll see credentials. It's a damn sight more believable than "my friend at work told me, but ssshh! Don't let George Soros hear you!".
If you don't think it's credible, go check it out.
By the by, the full name in the Max Planck Institute for Astrophysics. Knock yourself out.

That's precisely why I never brought it up. Because you simply cannot source it for an internet forum. But it is still a part of my experience, and part of why I think the alarmists are doing nothing more than unnecessary fear-mongering. Like I said...take it or leave it. But if you just simply discount people's experiences, it's obvious you are not looking for truth. And you yourself are discredited.

Please do. If it's so easy.

I already did. Several times in fact.

I'm bringing up relevant information about links you post, things like journalists pretending to be scientists, and oil money funding skewed psuedo-science. Oh, and when you post the same rubbish twice in one thread, pretending that it's relevant.
Go. Right. Ahead.

Sometimes you have to post things more than once to get you guys to actaually look at it. I've had to requote myself to someone else on this thread who couldn't read my words when I posted them earlier. But why is it that people from the proponent side, like Gore himself never debate anyone in any open forum? How come Al Gore cannot live a lifestyle he advocates for everyone else? How come nobody on your side holds Gore accountable for it and calls for him to conserve energy and lead by example? How come China and India (2 of the grossest polluters I can see) are exempt from so many pieces of Kyoto? And why don't we see the man-made warming screamers holding them to account? And just what business is Gore running out of his home that warrants a $30,000 + utility bill? What goods and or services does Gore actually provide?


No, this is posting on the Internet, a relaxed and very lazy way of communication. Nothing religious.

I don't know. You seem to believe anything without question from sites like we'reallgoingtodiesoshutup.com. I swear if there is not going to be an official Church of Global Warming of Latter Day Alarmists someday soon. :p


Take a look around for the Ice-Age Scare of the 1970's, it's not as impressive as you may think. Two books and a couple of papers. That was about it.

Actually it's alot more than the 70's Ice Age. And yes, there were many magazine articles, newspaper reports, tv specials, etc. It was an issue then. I was alive and remember it. I also remember in the 80's the acid rain scares, the ocean depletions, the famines that would be within 10 years if we didn't reform. And I remember in the 90's the great big Ozone Hole of death. I remember the reactions to El Nino. I remember early this year of the warning of hurricanes this fall. Where were the hurricanes??? Doesn't bode very well for your side at all. And all this was more than a couple books and a couple of papers. It was the same type of fear-mongering we see now. We're looking at slight average temperature increases, and we're being told we're all going to die and need draconian reform...and quick. Despite actual scientific explanations, we see
realclimatewe're right...andeveryoneleseiswrongsoshutup.com putting in their 2 cents. Which is fine with me. But sorry, not everyone agrees. There is no scientific consensus forming from these OPINIONS. And all dissenting voices are discounted with Wiki articles immediately upon their mouths opening. The real shame is people are driving themselves crazy and forgetting to enjoy the world around them. I went out yesterday and enjoyed a nice sunset at the Lake. You should try it sometime. No really..you should.

[Sea Demon]

And how about your comments on nuclear energy? And I want your opinion. Don't give me someone else's opinion from the realclimate site or something. No google articles please. I actually would like your opinion. Do you not want to give me one?

And do you drive an automobile? If not do you ever plan to own one? Just curious.

[Fish]

The amount of carbon dioxide being absorbed by the world's oceans has reduced, scientists have said.
University of East Anglia researchers gauged CO2 absorption through more than 90,000 measurements from merchant ships equipped with automatic instruments.
Results of their 10-year study in the North Atlantic show CO2 uptake halved between the mid-90s and 2000 to 2005. Scientists believe global warming might get worse if the oceans soak up less of the greenhouse gas.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/uk_news/7053903.stm


Changes to ocean currents in the Atlantic may cool European weather within a few decades, scientists say.

Researchers from the UK's National Oceanography Centre say currents derived from the Gulf Stream are weakening, bringing less heat north.
Their conclusions, reported in the scientific journal Nature, are based on 50 years of Atlantic observations.
They say that European political leaders need to plan for a future which may be cooler rather than warmer. The findings come from a British research project called Rapid, which aims to gather evidence relating to potentially fast climatic change in Europe.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4485840.stm

[bradclark1]

Changes to ocean currents in the Atlantic may cool European weather within a few decades, scientists say.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4485840.stm

Further down the page.
The NOC researchers admit that the case is not yet proven.
The analysis involves only five sets of measurements, made in 1957, 1981, 1992 and 1998 from ships, and in 2004 from a line of research buoys tethered to the ocean floor
Michael Schlesinger from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, a leading expert in models of climate and ocean circulation, believes that even with these caveats, the NOC team has probably come up with a link to human-induced climate change.

Essentially it's a theory that needs more research.

[bradclark1]

These are the major U.S. scientific organizations that believe man is responsible for accelerating global warming.

The one negative was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG) until recently and has changed their stance a little recently.

As far as I'm concerned this is the end of argument list because it speaks for itself.

US National Academy of Science - "In the judgment of most climate scientists, Earth’s warming in recent decades has been caused primarily by human activities that have increased the amount of greenhouse gases
in the atmosphere. ... On climate change, [the National Academies’ reports] have assessed consensus findings on the science..."

National Registry of Environmental Professionals (NREP) is a the largest U.S. non-governmental environmental accrediting organization, and is recognized by the US Department of Energy and Environmental Protection Agency.

American Association for the Advancement of Science

American Astronomical Society

American Institute of Physics

American Geophysical Union

American Meteorological Society

National Research Council

American Association of State Climatologists

Negative organizations --------------------------

American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG)
The American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG) Position Statement on climate change states that "the AAPG membership is divided on the degree of influence that anthropogenic CO2 has on recent and
potential global temperature increases ... Certain climate simulation models predict that the warming trend will continue, as reported through NAS, AGU, AAAS and AMS. AAPG respects these scientific opinions but wants to add that the current climate warming projections could fall within well-documented natural variations in past climate and observed temperature data. These data do not necessarily support the maximum case scenarios forecast in some models."

Prior to the adoption of this statement, the AAPG was the only major scientific organization that rejected the finding of significant human influence on recent climate, according to a statement by the Council of
the American Quaternary Association. The AAPG updated its statement in part because the previous statement was "not supported by a significant number of our members and prospective members".

[Sea Demon]

These are the major U.S. scientific organizations that believe man is responsible for accelerating global warming.

The one negative was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG) until recently and has changed their stance a little recently.

As far as I'm concerned this is the end of argument list because it speaks for itself.

US National Academy of Science - "In the judgment of most climate scientists, Earth’s warming in recent decades has been caused primarily by human activities that have increased the amount of greenhouse gases
in the atmosphere. ... On climate change, [the National Academies’ reports] have assessed consensus findings on the science..."
............................
[

Very good brad. This is what I was waiting for. You have shown what I was talking about all along. That there are voices in doubt. It may not be what you intended, but that is the conclusion of this. Even Michael Schlesinger above doesn't sound too sure. And his group admits that the analysis is not complete. I also think that research into meteorology should continue. And scientists should continue looking into variations in atmospheric sciences. But at this point, we simply don't have enough supporting data to conclude that the draconian measures that are pushed by many of the proponents are necessary at all. And I do find the claim above by the US NAS above a little dubious at best. You know, the one about consensus. Your own posting here shows that it is totally in doubt itself.

Edited to add: BTW Fish. The links you posted are pretty much a far cry from Gore's Inconvenient propaganda flick. Still, I find those measurments interesting. And I don't necessarily discount it. Yet, it doesn't sound like they themselves understand the mitigating factors that can reverse those trends. Or when that will happen. They themselves cannot admit that the data itself falls off the cliff. Does it mean that the rate will never increase? Will it increase if we all go live like we're in pre-historic times? Looks like they don't have an answer to that.

[Sea Demon]

Let me tell you something. I would love to be proved wrong on this subject. It would make my day because I worry about mankind's future (yeah, really). Specificly I worry about my grandkids and their kids and I believe this is as serious as being rained on by nuke missiles.

OK. Understood. In all fairness to you, I can see that it is a legitimate concern to you.

[Fish]

These are the major U.S. scientific organizations that believe man is responsible for accelerating global warming.

The one negative was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG) until recently and has changed their stance a little recently.

As far as I'm concerned this is the end of argument list because it speaks for itself.

US National Academy of Science - "In the judgment of most climate scientists, Earth’s warming in recent decades has been caused primarily by human activities that have increased the amount of greenhouse gases
in the atmosphere. ... On climate change, [the National Academies’ reports] have assessed consensus findings on the science..."
............................
[

Very good brad. This is what I was waiting for. You have shown what I was talking about all along. That there are voices in doubt. It may not be what you intended, but that is the conclusion of this. Even Michael Schlesinger above doesn't sound too sure. And his group admits that the analysis is not complete. I also think that research into meteorology should continue. And scientists should continue looking into variations in atmospheric sciences. But at this point, we simply don't have enough supporting data to conclude that the draconian measures that are pushed by many of the proponents are necessary at all. And I do find the claim above by the US NAS above a little dubious at best. You know, the one about consensus. Your own posting here shows that it is totally in doubt itself.

Edited to add: BTW Fish. The links you posted are pretty much a far cry from Gore's Inconvenient propaganda flick. Still, I find those measurments interesting. And I don't necessarily discount it. Yet, it doesn't sound like they themselves understand the mitigating factors that can reverse those trends. Or when that will happen. They themselves cannot admit that the data itself falls off the cliff. Does it mean that the rate will never increase? Will it increase if we all go live like we're in pre-historic times? Looks like they don't have an answer to that.

Yeah, well, I think we are at a point, one, we should take measures or , two, we take the risk our grandchildren wil hate us like hell?
It's up to us. :hmm:

[August]

Yeah, well, I think we are at a point, one, we should take measures or , two, we take the risk our grandchildren wil hate us like hell?
It's up to us. :hmm:

What measures, aside from reducing the worlds population by a third or more, do you think will make any difference?

[bradclark1]

Very good brad. This is what I was waiting for. You have shown what I was talking about all along.
Waiting for what, 'most climate scientists'? If you want to wait till all agree, hell would be frozen over. Out of ten major scientific organizations nine have reached a consensus thats good enough. It's fine that some disagree but you don't not do anything because ten percent disagree. When ninety percent agree you start working at fixing the problem. To demand one hundred percent is completely ludicrous. You will never get one hundred percent of any group on the face of this planet to agree on anything.
If nine out of ten doctors say you have cancer are you going to ignore it because one disagrees? Somehow I don't think you would.

[Sea Demon]

Very good brad. This is what I was waiting for. You have shown what I was talking about all along. Waiting for what, 'most climate scientists'? If you want to wait till all agree, hell would be frozen over. Out of ten major scientific organizations nine have reached a consensus thats good enough. It's fine that some disagree but you don't not do anything because ten percent disagree. When ninety percent agree you start working at fixing the problem. To demand one hundred percent is completely ludicrous. You will never get one hundred percent of any group on the face of this planet to agree on anything.
If nine out of ten doctors say you have cancer are you going to ignore it because one disagrees? Somehow I don't think you would.
Well, that's very true. But in this situation, none of them have really determined that the patient really has cancer. There are alot of "may happens" and "maybes", but they can't even predict symptoms accurately. And in that regard, it would be rather stupid to begin Chemotherapy and other harsh cancer treatments without a true proper diagnosis. The same works in this case as well.

[Fish]

[quote=Fish] aside from reducing the worlds population by a third or more,

Good point.

Lowering our dependence on oil and develop alternative sources is what we shall do.
And then, hope for the best.

Oh, we forgot peakoil. :hmm:

[bradclark1]

Well, that's very true. But in this situation, none of them have really determined that the patient really has cancer. There are alot of "may happens" and "maybes", but they can't even predict symptoms accurately. And in that regard, it would be rather stupid to begin Chemotherapy and other harsh cancer treatments without a true proper diagnosis. The same works in this case as well.
Where did you get none of them have really determined?
US National Academy of Science - "In the judgment of most climate scientists, Earth’s warming in recent decades has been caused primarily by human activities that have increased the amount of greenhouse gases
in the atmosphere. ... On climate change
I don't see a 'may happen' or 'maybe' diagnosis in there. In this case as in the cancer you ignored the majority because you didn't want to hear you had cancer. You read what you wanted to read, not what is there.
The one divided organization/doctor is the American Association of Petroleum Geologists so you have about 9.5 out of 10 doctors saying you have cancer. I'd say it's time for treatment.

[Sea Demon]

Well, that's very true. But in this situation, none of them have really determined that the patient really has cancer. There are alot of "may happens" and "maybes", but they can't even predict symptoms accurately. And in that regard, it would be rather stupid to begin Chemotherapy and other harsh cancer treatments without a true proper diagnosis. The same works in this case as well.
Where did you get none of them have really determined?
US National Academy of Science - "In the judgment of most climate scientists, Earth’s warming in recent decades has been caused primarily by human activities that have increased the amount of greenhouse gases
in the atmosphere. ... On climate change
I don't see a 'may happen' or 'maybe' diagnosis in there. In this case as in the cancer you ignored the majority because you didn't want to hear you had cancer. You read what you wanted to read, not what is there.
The one divided organization/doctor is the American Association of Petroleum Geologists so you have about 9.5 out of 10 doctors saying you have cancer. I'd say it's time for treatment.

Well I'm not so sure you are just concerned anymore. You act like a posessed man on this forum. Like any of us here have the power to give you what you want. You work incredibly hard here trying to prove something which you will not be able to. The US NAS comment in itself is in doubt. I have noted and read other scientists who disagree. And even NASA itself a couple of months back noted it's own data has some errors in it. So to you, are these people in these few organizations the final word? Is everyone in those groups in total allegiance to the message? I'm unconvinced. If they told you to jump off the nearst bridge because they think so.....and they are all in agreement..would you? Don't you question and think for yourself? Do you observe the environment around you or do you just google up articles by left-wing organizations and organizations which make dubious types of claims about ...."everyone is in agreement"...when they're not. If you read the articles Fish posted, even they themselves don't sound too sure (Schlesinger notes that his work is probable in regards to the links to man) That doesn't sound too sure to me. And he's a supposed leader in his field. Looks like you will now ignore him since he's not totally saying what you want or how you want. You are not looking for truth. You are not questioning anything. It's actually your fanatacism which brings more doubt in my mind. You drive me further from your message with every post. People always become furiously determined, and crazy like when they try to push "the big lie".

The problem here is that you don't want to cure the patient. You want to kill the patient that may have nothing wrong with it. Your side is like the 18th century doctors that used to throw leeches on everybody, even when they had a case of the sniffles. In effect..killing the patient. You don't take drastic actions on trends. Especially when you have historically seen reversals that nobody can explain. That also makes some of the voices you present suspect. Any scientist I know (not google) don't work like that. Motives? Including those at the National Academy? Even Michael Schlesinger admits it indirectly. And there are major inconsistincies in regards to the policies derived from the mixed data. Like the exemptions in Kyoto for some of the worst polluters out there. The funny thing is, you can't answer most of those inconsistincies. And how the major water carriers don't live the lifestyle they advocate. BTW, how do you live? Do you drive a car? Do you burn fossil fuels? If so, why? You're killing the planet. How much electricity per day do you burn typing on this forum. Do you actually do anything real to push your cause, or do you just plant your rear-end in front of a forum that has no ability to enact your "concerns for your grandchildren"?

The funny thing is I do actually support the research into alternative energy. Partly because I'm sick of feeding the Middle East with money. I hope they continue, and they get my support to do it. But you're dreaming if you think fossil fuels are going away anytime soon. I think eventually we will reduce the amount, but not totally eliminate it. And still, we won't be dead. And the Earth will continue to spin on it's axis. I'm very happy that most national governments will not listen to you...the draconian extreme element that wants to upset the balance of humanity over something that cannot be proven reasonably.

[bradclark1]

I take major scientific organizations over what? A couple of for hires you keep throwing up who have been discredited time and again on this thread.
There isn't one major scientific organization that you can name that backs your beliefs, not one but you think you know more than them. Go ahead. Believe what you want to believe. You already proved you read what you want to see not whats there and then freak when your attention is brought to it. If you ever find a major scientific organization that backs you up let me know. We both know you won't.
This shows you've lost. When you get this idiotic you know you've lost.
BTW, how do you live? Do you drive a car? Do you burn fossil fuels? If so, why? You're killing the planet. How much electricity per day do you burn typing on this forum. Do you actually do anything real to push your cause, or do you just plant your rear-end in front of a forum that has no ability to enact your "concerns for your grandchildren"?

Further discussion is pointless I think.

[Sea Demon]

I take major scientific organizations over what? A couple of for hires you keep throwing up who have been discredited time and again on this thread.
There isn't one major scientific organization that you can name that backs your beliefs, not one but you think you know more than them. Go ahead. Believe what you want to believe. You already proved you read what you want to see not whats there and then freak when your attention is brought to it. If you ever find a major scientific organization that backs you up let me know. We both know you won't.
This shows you've lost. When you get this idiotic you know you've lost.
BTW, how do you live? Do you drive a car? Do you burn fossil fuels? If so, why? You're killing the planet. How much electricity per day do you burn typing on this forum. Do you actually do anything real to push your cause, or do you just plant your rear-end in front of a forum that has no ability to enact your "concerns for your grandchildren"?

Further discussion is pointless I think.

Actually, they haven't been discredited. Nor have any other voice of opinion on the matter that doesn't think we're all going to die. And yes, every single scientific organization cannot prove the link adequately to man-made warming. I question alot of the voices from proponent orgazniation and think many are political in nature. Why? Because they themselves are inconsistent. They themselves show many different discrepencies, and changes in their own data over time. Let's see some of the stuff that NAS says 2 years from now. I bet it will change. How many warming cultists pointed to increasing hurricanes as a sign of our impending global warming doom? Where were the hurricanes this year? Can you answer that? No you can't. Is there any reason why they don't even address their own innacuracies in these predictions? Well yes. Because they themselves don't know, can't predict weather patterns from year to year...month to month, and therefore cannot truly see what climate changes, fluctuations etc. we'll see in 10, 15, or 20 years. They have been wrong for the last 30 years in predicting massive global cooling and other matters of environmental scares. There are specific reasons why I remain a skeptic. This is not a political matter as much as it is a matter of scientific method. You want to destroy or radically alter our nation, and world using trends that can't be forecast accurately. Doing that may actually create more problems than you want to fix. And implementing radically all that new technology will take time, and it will be risky if done all at once. And expensive. And dare I say, the fabrication of all this new solar, wind, hydro, etc. equipment will probably emit megatons of the emissions you're so afraid of. Another thing that any thinking person should look at is the historical contexts of fluctuations throughout multiple centuries. I will never allow anybody to simply dismiss that data, or just simply explain it away without question so cheaply. The fact that many of these scientists give themselves a liferaft of credibility by saying key words like "maybe", "possibly" and others for when things look different from their own predictions show that they are often skeptical of their own results. Therefore, I take the National Academy's comments about "everyone agrees with man-made warming theories" as not very credible. I will listen to what they have to say. But I still think they leave alot of questions unanswered.

In addition to this, I think it is very relevant how you yourself live. What type of car you drive, and if you yourself burn fossil fuels considering what you propose hysterically is very relevant. I know Al Gore ain't alone. Also, what business do you have owning, much less operating a computer? How did that computer get to your desktop? Was the fabrication of it without greenhouse emissions? How about the fabrication of your car? Even if a hybrid? When they were built, was there any emissions from the production of it? Of course there was. How about thef abrication and processing of the materials alone, before manufacturing even starts? How about shipping those things to your door? Was fossil fuel not burnt to get it to your door? Does that not make you part of the problem if you own those things? Do you grow your own food? Or do you go to the grocery store? Does the food at a grocery store just magically appear? Or does it have to be trucked in. In refrigerated cars no less? Does that not make you part of the problem? Or are you...bradclark1 specially exempt.....and arrogantly dismissive of all other people who live in our world? You can leave the topic if you wish. I'm not going anywhere. I know it's wrong not to question the hysteria of people in this movement, pushing for things before the matter is adequately solved. They have not done this to many people's satisfaction. I certainly am for alternative energy myself. But you harcore enviro's hurt the push for it more than you help. Regular folks are normally turned off by such brutish fanatacism.

[Sea Demon]

Further discussion is pointless I think.

Of course it is, once you get asked the truly relevant and tough questions.

There isn't one major scientific organization that you can name that backs your beliefs, not one but you think you know more than them. Go ahead. Believe what you want to believe. You already proved you read what you want to see not whats there and then freak when your attention is brought to it. If you ever find a major scientific organization that backs you up let me know. We both know you won't.
This shows you've lost. When you get this idiotic you know you've lost.

Actually it's not idiotic to ask questions. But you fear these questions, because it's a splash of reality for you. Our world cannot afford what you want. You buy wholesale supposed facts you accept without any thinking on your part, or questioning of any data. I'm not looking for confirmation from scientific organizations, like you seem to be. I'm looking for them to prove their gloom and doom predictions and it's foundations in man-made sources. And they are not doing a very good job of convincing me and many others. You take it by the spoonful and refuse to actually think for yourself. I admit, I don't have a meteorology background. Other than knowing what I have to know to be a pilot. But I do have a BS in an engineering background, and in my Master's program had to study some coursework in organic chemistry, specifically the nature of hydrocarbons. Doesn't make me an expert in any way, but I know that you have to look at data in a certain way. And once discrepencies show up, you need to address it and ask why. What are your credentials that enable you to be so dismissive? What have you acheived in the field of climate science that makes you such an expert? And gives you the know how in interpreting any of the data fielded by any of these people? What meteorological programs have you taken that makes you think any of their data is actually any good? Especially since 30 years of predictions have not shown very great accuracy.

[Fish]

firewood to the discussion:
to

Humans at war with Earth on climate change says James Lovelock

29 Oct 2007

We could be on the brink of natural disaster and even the gloomiest predictions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) latest report are underestimating the current severity of climate change, Professor James Lovelock will say at a public lecture at the Royal Society (http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/event.asp?month=10&id=7142)(1) the UK National Academy of Science today (Monday 29 October 2007).

http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/news.asp?id=7226

[Fish]

Anyway, while discussing the eventual global warmig, we start with protecting measures.

My vilage has a 500 meters weak spot in the dunes, waterstaat (the organisation for waterworks) made the dicision to fix that.

The first pic is made at the end of the summerseason, the first dragline is starting to remove the top layer to reuse later (plant seeds).
http://aycu30.webshots.com/image/33789/2006348293605899768_th.jpg (http://allyoucanupload.webshots.com/v/2006348293605899768)

The second post is made from the roof of Huis Ter Duin a big hotel.
(the first pic was made near the yellow cabin a litle left and below the middle of the pic.

http://aycu08.webshots.com/image/33327/2006362419317237768_th.jpg (http://allyoucanupload.webshots.com/v/2006362419317237768)

And a drawing about what they have in mind.

http://aycu27.webshots.com/image/32586/2006325095638642548_th.jpg (http://allyoucanupload.webshots.com/v/2006325095638642548)

Vessel pressing sand to the shore.

http://aycu02.webshots.com/image/30561/2006164989801207389_th.jpg (http://allyoucanupload.webshots.com/v/2006164989801207389)

Spreading.

http://aycu32.webshots.com/image/30831/2005119388942116185_th.jpg (http://allyoucanupload.webshots.com/v/2005119388942116185)


Putting the basaltblocs in place.

http://aycu05.webshots.com/image/32684/2005149320495215648_th.jpg (http://allyoucanupload.webshots.com/v/2005149320495215648)

The head of the new dike is visual here.

http://aycu09.webshots.com/image/31768/2001873603960649881_th.jpg (http://allyoucanupload.webshots.com/v/2001873603960649881)

[Sea Demon]

I thought this was interesting. I'm sure it's not all inclusive either, but it outlines more than a century of climate disaster hysteria and how none of it came true.

http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2006/fireandice/fireandice.asp

[Boris]

Hey, has this video been posted yet?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDsIFspVzfI

Basically it uses clear, and generally sound non-scientific reasoning to answer the climate change question... simplifying the debate and not dealing with the overall situation.

[Sea Demon]

I have read dozens of scientific papers. I have talked with numerous scientists. I have studied. I have thought about it. I know I am correct. There is no run away climate change. The impact of humans on climate is not catastrophic. Our planet is not in peril. I am incensed by the incredible media glamour, the politically correct silliness and rude dismissal of counter arguments by the high priest of Global Warming.
In time, a decade or two, the outrageous scam will be obvious. As the temperature rises, polar ice cap melting, coastal flooding and super storm pattern all fail to occur as predicted everyone will come to realize we have been duped. The sky is not falling. And, natural cycles and drifts in climate are as much if not more responsible for any climate changes underway.

The founder of the Weather Channel speaks. His insight over the "planet in peril" warming stuff is very interesting.

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/comments_about_global_warming/

[DeepSix]

Thought your rule would always last
There were no lessons in your past.
I think the current popular argument about climate change is missing missing the mark on both sides. It certainly lacks perspective. Humans have a definite impact on the environment. In science, every action has a consequence - some great, some small. But nothing has no result. Global warming is not a new idea. To hear it politicized on the news you'd think it was just discovered last month. At the same time, it's specious to say that every climatic change is a dramatic one that directly results from the presence of one form of life. There is considerable disagreement as to whether evolution is largely a "baby step" or a "giant leap" process. There are plenty of examples of both kinds.

Man does have a pronounced effect on the natural environment, but, that said, I think it's too easy to argue about how many angels can stand on the head of a pin. Unfortunately, it seems that most discussion of "saving the earth" only has meaning to people in terms of their beach houses or gas prices. It's not the earth we should be concerned about - it's us. Applying the word "catastrophic" to natural processes is a laughably arrogant attitude - as arrogant as assuming the universe isn't big enough for more than one life-filled planent or as arrogant as atheism. But I digress. Catastrophic climate change would only be catastrophic for us. Mother Nature can look after herself quite well with or without us. The earth always keeps its balance one way or another; it is a holistic system of which we are one of many expendable components. We may be unique but we are not irreplaceable.

Oil is a finite resource - unless you consider that it never goes out of production and that in a few million years the peat-rich eastern third of my state alone will produce trillions more barrels of it. The trick, obviously, is not to burn up the barrels we have and then have to wait for the earth to restock. Sea levels have risen, yes - but on the other hand they've always risen and fallen and will probably continue to do that as long as the earth remains a planet. Ice ages come and go - as does all life.

In other words, it ain't just about the weather. In my opinion, Man will not be around as long as his current ecosystem; however, if we want to try to extend our longevity, we should be concerned about more subtle factors than fossil fuel or sea levels - disease for one. Virii and bacteria are evolving, too, with direct and indirect input from us. They are far more sophisticated than they seem, we know less about them than most people think, and these meek but resilient little buggers might indeed inherit the earth. Overpopulation is another factor. It makes no difference if the sea level rises a hundred feet if a population exceeds its ecosystem's carrying capacity first. At our current rate of increase, we'll starve to death long before we have to worry about "catastrophic" climate change.

Then, of course, there's always the possibility of a comet or a 10-mile-wide asteroid....

Anyhow. I just think a little wisdom is worth more than the fortune we have ammassed in knowledge.

[Sea Demon]

NASA says Arctic does an about face on circulation levels.......

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2007-131

Doesn't bode well for the "climate disaster" crowd at all. This isn't what the enviros predicted would happen here. In other words, skepticism on global doom and gloom is totally warranted.

[joea]

Well said DeepSix. :up:

[bradclark1]

NASA says Arctic does an about face on circulation levels.......

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2007-131

Doesn't bode well for the "climate disaster" crowd at all. This isn't what the enviros predicted would happen here. In other words, skepticism on global doom and gloom is totally warranted.

Still can't read beyond what you want to see. Further down you will see:
Morison cautioned that while the recent decadal-scale changes in the circulation of the Arctic Ocean may not appear to be directly tied to global warming, most climate models predict the Arctic Oscillation will become even more strongly counterclockwise in the future. "The events of the 1990s may well be a preview of how the Arctic will respond over longer periods of time in a warming world," he said.

[Sea Demon]

...

[Sea Demon]

Note also how Morison leaves himself a liferaft for his own future credibility. Using words like "may well be" doesn't sound too sure himself. Gee Mr. Patient, you have a small headache.....let's do major brain surgery just in case its out of control brain hemorrhage. That's basically the direction the enviro-movement wants us to take. No thanks.

Sea Demon
NASA says Arctic does an about face on circulation levels.......

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2007-131

Doesn't bode well for the "climate disaster" crowd at all. This isn't what the enviros predicted would happen here. In other words, skepticism on global doom and gloom is totally warranted.


Still can't read beyond what you want to see. Further down you will see:

Quote:
Morison cautioned that while the recent decadal-scale changes in the circulation of the Arctic Ocean may not appear to be directly tied to global warming, most climate models predict the Arctic Oscillation will become even more strongly counterclockwise in the future. "The events of the 1990s may well be a preview of how the Arctic will respond over longer periods of time in a warming world," he said.

Actually no. I read that too. But the fact that they couldn't even predict this trend doesn't give alot of faith in any future projections any of them can make. Like I said, skepticism is warranted as their own data changes over time. That's the only thing we can count on. And nature seems to do it's own natural changes regardless of what disastrous projections they can conjure up to sell to the public. This story is very damning to those that claim humans are killing the planet. Especially when their projections always come back to bite them in the rear. Perhaps you can learn how to interpret data correctly and leave your rampant enviro worshipping at the door.