Thank you Al Gore

[Tchocky]

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

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
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
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

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]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

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
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
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

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]

Originally Posted by 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. .........

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]

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

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.

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.

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.

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]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

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]

Originally Posted by 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..."
............................
[

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]

Originally Posted by bradclark1

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]

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

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]

Originally Posted by Fish

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?