Al Gore

[LightWorker]

Dear Friend,

In Bali, Indonesia thousands of delegates from nearly 190 countries have gathered at the UN Conference on Climate Change.

In ten days, I will address the conference to urge the adoption of a visionary new treaty to address global warming and I want to bring your voices with me.

I will bring your signatures on stage with me as a clear demonstration of our resolve.

Together, we will call on the US government to assume a new leadership role in solving the climate crisis.

World leaders including British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, French President Nicolas Sarkozy, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and newly elected Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd have all agreed to aggressively battle the climate crisis - yet our country still lags behind.


Over the next ten days, I would like you to help me get people from across the country to sign our message to the global community. We can demonstrate that the American people understand the immediacy of the climate crisis and want to work with the nations of the world to solve it. Time is short - we need to mobilize everyone to bring this message to Bali.

The American people want a visionary treaty to address climate change and for the US government to play a positive leadership role in its development.
Thank you,
Al Gore

P.S.After signing the petition (http://whatcounts.com/t?r=1502&c=1105474&l=37893&ctl=1A7AE0F:16BEC2D8B66005F1AF9E2568C9CC27217CC333 1E5D7D1EA6&), please urge your friends and family to sign the petition and join the movement.

[seacrestkristi]

Thanks, Lightworker. Okay, I signed it. In the memo I asked him to please run with Hillary. :D

[LA033]

I heard that one of the scientist that received the Nobel Peace Prize (along side Al Gore) gave it back. This is unconfirmed. Just wondering if anyone else heard this.

[seacrestkristi]

On what stance?

[30A Skunkape]

Thousands of delegates burning hundreds of thousands of gallons of jet fuel to tell us knuckleheads to quit using so much gas. I feel chillier already:roll:

[wrobert]

Dear Friend,

In Bali, Indonesia thousands of delegates from nearly 190 countries have gathered at the UN Conference on Climate Change.

In ten days, I will address the conference to urge the adoption of a visionary new treaty to address global warming and I want to bring your voices with me.

I will bring your signatures on stage with me as a clear demonstration of our resolve.

Together, we will call on the US government to assume a new leadership role in solving the climate crisis.

World leaders including British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, French President Nicolas Sarkozy, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and newly elected Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd have all agreed to aggressively battle the climate crisis - yet our country still lags behind.


Over the next ten days, I would like you to help me get people from across the country to sign our message to the global community. We can demonstrate that the American people understand the immediacy of the climate crisis and want to work with the nations of the world to solve it. Time is short - we need to mobilize everyone to bring this message to Bali.

The American people want a visionary treaty to address climate change and for the US government to play a positive leadership role in its development.
Thank you,
Al Gore

P.S.After signing the petition (http://whatcounts.com/t?r=1502&c=1105474&l=37893&ctl=1A7AE0F:16BEC2D8B66005F1AF9E2568C9CC27217CC333 1E5D7D1EA6&), please urge your friends and family to sign the petition and join the movement.


Wonder how he will be getting there. Solar powered airplane?

[LA033]

Like I said i'm not 100% , but I believe it was because he felt the evidence was not clear on whether the current global warming trend was a naturally occurring cycle or caused by man.

[30A Skunkape]

Well, you can't accuse this crew of picking a bad location for a global warming conference. The average November temperature in Bali is 27.8 Celsius (about 82 degrees). Can't have this hot air conference in:

North Dakota which is experiencing record setting snowfall http://www.kxmb.com/News/187023.asp

or...

Maine, where a 107 year snowfall record has just been tied http://news.mainetoday.com/updates/019270.html

What a waste of good jet fuel:lol:

[Tootsie]

Well, you can't accuse this crew of picking a bad location for a global warming conference. The average November temperature in Bali is 27.8 Celsius (about 82 degrees). Can't have this hot air conference in:

North Dakota which is experiencing record setting snowfall http://www.kxmb.com/News/187023.asp

or...

Maine, where a 107 year snowfall record has just been tied http://news.mainetoday.com/updates/019270.html

What a waste of good jet fuel:lol:

oh, go stuff it in your hat skunky-poo! :lol:

only kidding.

http://hairlarious.files.wordpress.com/2006/10/global-warming.jpg

[Minnie]

Tootsie, too cute.

[sowalgayboi]

I signed it.

It always kills me that something like heavy snowfall triggers a "global warming is a hoax" crowd, but rediculously hot temperatures keeps them quit. I subscribe to the climate change theory. This means that you can have warming and freakish winters or strange erradic weather in general, i.e. record snowfalls after a record hot summer.

[NotDeadYet]

Thank you, gaiboi. :clap:The voice of reason.
Global warming triggers climate change. Which does not mean it is hot all the time everywhere. Why is that so hard to understand? :idontno:

[InletBchDweller]

Well, you can't accuse this crew of picking a bad location for a global warming conference. The average November temperature in Bali is 27.8 Celsius (about 82 degrees). Can't have this hot air conference in:

North Dakota which is experiencing record setting snowfall http://www.kxmb.com/News/187023.asp

or...

Maine, where a 107 year snowfall record has just been tied http://news.mainetoday.com/updates/019270.html

What a waste of good jet fuel:lol:

;-):floor:Punzy sez we do think alike...

[30A Skunkape]

Thank you, gaiboi. :clap:The voice of reason.
Global warming triggers climate change. Which does not mean it is hot all the time everywhere. Why is that so hard to understand? :idontno:

As the ancient Greeks blamed Zeus, American Indians blamed Thunderbirds and the Norse chalked it up to Thor, I suppose it is only right we have our own weather related mythology:wave:

[savvytangerine]

So -- IF Global Warming is all some big scam and we all treat the world and enviroment better because we bought into the scam --- what would be the outcome?

Oh yeah. Cleaner air, water, alternate energy sources ... who wants that stuff? :idontno:

[30A Skunkape]

So -- IF Global Warming is all some big scam and we all treat the world and enviroment better because we bought into the scam --- what would be the outcome?

Oh yeah. Cleaner air, water, alternate energy sources ... who wants that stuff? :idontno:


It isn't a big scam, it is just junk science injected into politics resulting in a green monster run wild.

Please let me know what these guys propose we do that will have a notable impact on climate change? Kyoto is the biggest gun in the arsenal to fight global warming as I understand it;I also think it will cost us tons of money without achieving the logical endpoint of 'cooling' the Earth. Please consult the Kyoto Clock. Ouch! http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Kyoto_Count_Up.html

[savvytangerine]

Economists have been trying to analyse the overall net benefit of Kyoto Protocol through cost-benefit analysis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost-benefit_analysis). Just as in the case of climatology[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)], there is disagreement due to large uncertainties in economic variables.[86] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol#_note-80) Some of the estimates indicate either that observing the Kyoto Protocol is more expensive than not observing the Kyoto Protocol or that the Kyoto Protocol has a marginal net benefit which exceeds the cost of simply adjusting to global warming.[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)] However, a study in Nature[87] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol#_note-81) found that "accounting only for local external costs, together with production costs, to identify energy strategies, compliance with the Kyoto Protocol would imply lower, not higher, overall costs."
The recent Copenhagen consensus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_consensus) project found that the Kyoto Protocol would slow down the process of global warming, but have a superficial overall benefit. Defenders of the Kyoto Protocol argue, however, that while the initial greenhouse gas cuts may have little effect, they set the political precedent for bigger (and more effective) cuts in the future.[88] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol#_note-82) They also advocate commitment to the precautionary principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle). Critics point out that additional higher curbs on carbon emission are likely to cause significantly higher increase in cost, making such defence moot. Moreover, the precautionary principle could apply to any political, social, economic or environmental consequence, which might have equally devastating effect in terms of poverty and environment, making the precautionary argument irrelevant. The Stern Review (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern_Review) (a UK government sponsored report into the economic impacts of climate change) concluded that one percent of global GDP is required to be invested in order to mitigate the effects of climate change, and that failure to do so could risk a recession worth up to twenty percent of global GDP.[89] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol#_note-83)


The full wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol)is really interesting. Personally I think this is a step in the right direction but that doesn't mean it is the only answer -- or even the best answer.

[LightWorker]

Thanks, Lightworker. Okay, I signed it. In the memo I asked him to please run with Hillary. :D

I signed it.

It always kills me that something like heavy snowfall triggers a "global warming is a hoax" crowd, but rediculously hot temperatures keeps them quit. I subscribe to the climate change theory. This means that you can have warming and freakish winters or strange erradic weather in general, i.e. record snowfalls after a record hot summer.


Thanks :cool:

[sowalgayboi]

As the ancient Greeks blamed Zeus, American Indians blamed Thunderbirds and the Norse chalked it up to Thor, I suppose it is only right we have our own weather related mythology:wave:

Well that's just :banging:. I don't ever remember seeing the totem pole with scientific data on it. Perhaps you could find that pic for me? To equate tons of verifiable, reproducible, and in some cases tested; research and data to "thunder gods" is rediculous.

If I'm following that logic then 30-A is just like Branson cause people like to go there.

[30A Skunkape]

Well that's just :banging:. I don't ever remember seeing the totem pole with scientific data on it. Perhaps you could find that pic for me? To equate tons of verifiable, reproducible, and in some cases tested; research and data to "thunder gods" is rediculous.

If I'm following that logic then 30-A is just like Branson cause people like to go there.

OK, so 100% of the research and data supports the CO2 equals global warming hypothesis? That isn't how I understand it;perhaps you can cite a study that elevates the 'theory' to a 'law'. Let me save you a trip to Google...none exist.

Is it possible that Al Gore is right? Yes. But extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence and that evidence does not yet exist. People get very emotional because politics have been injected into this and hyperbole fans the flame of debate among well meaning people.

Please view this clip, I think there is an analagous relationship to the global warming petition. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yi3erdgVVTw

[hnooe]

It seems the people who want to deny global warming are also the ones driving the fat ass Yukons, pouring Co2 emissions into the atmosphhere, and at the same time stuffing the pockets of radical armed Muslims in oil producing countries. They want to deny both the cause and the effect.

[Dune-AHH]

It seems the people who want to deny global warming are also the ones driving the fat ass Yukons, pouring Co2 emissions into the atmosphhere, and at the same time stuffing the pockets of radical armed Muslims in oil producing countries. They want to deny both the cause and the effect.

:blink:

[30A Skunkape]

It seems the people who want to deny global warming are also the ones driving the fat ass Yukons, pouring Co2 emissions into the atmosphhere, and at the same time stuffing the pockets of radical armed Muslims in oil producing countries. They want to deny both the cause and the effect.

I drive a 1997 Honda Civic and bet you I have a smaller carbon footprint than you do. Want to put your theory to the test?

[maeby funke]

You made the mistake of using reason and those who deny global warming exists don't often utilize that principle.:D


So -- IF Global Warming is all some big scam and we all treat the world and enviroment better because we bought into the scam --- what would be the outcome?

Oh yeah. Cleaner air, water, alternate energy sources ... who wants that stuff? :idontno:

[30A Skunkape]

You made the mistake of using reason and those who deny global warming exists don't often utilize that principle.:D

Nobody denies we are experiencing a warming trend. Those with intellectual curiousity wonder if there is an explanation other than the hypothesis that mankind is to blame. Isn't that reasonable?:idontno:

[LA033]

I think it's ironic that Al Gore Sr. was vice president and member of the board of directors for Occidental Petroleum Co. and member of the board of petroleum and coal companies.

[LightWorker]

I heard that one of the scientist that received the Nobel Peace Prize (along side Al Gore) gave it back. This is unconfirmed. Just wondering if anyone else heard this.

Like I said i'm not 100% , but I believe it was because he felt the evidence was not clear on whether the current global warming trend was a naturally occurring cycle or caused by man.

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/images/medal_peace.jpg The Nobel Peace Prize 2007


"for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change"

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2007/ipcc.jpghttp://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2007/gore.jpg Photo: Scanpix/Tom HeveziIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Albert Arnold

(Al) Gore Jr.1/2 of the prize

1/2 of the prize Geneva, Switzerland

[LightWorker]

Live from Oslo


The Nobel Peace Prize Award Ceremony.



Al Gore - Nobel Lecture (http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2007/gore-lecture.html)





http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/press-releases/pr-121007.pdf (http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/press-releases/pr-121007.pdf)

[Andy A.]

So -- IF Global Warming is all some big scam and we all treat the world and enviroment better because we bought into the scam --- what would be the outcome?

Oh yeah. Cleaner air, water, alternate energy sources ... who wants that stuff? :idontno:
We all want that "stuff" but please don't try conning me and the rest of the public to get it.

[Romeosmydog]

I would put my 2 cents here, but according to my restraining order (due to my unhealthy obsession with Mr. Gore);:wub: I must refrain from commenting on any message that mentions his name.;-)

[LightWorker]

I would put my 2 cents here, but according to my restraining order (due to my unhealthy obsession with Mr. Gore);:wub: I must refrain from commenting on any message that mentions his name.;-)


OMG....Please don't let that stop you!!!:clap:

[fisher]

It seems the people who want to deny global warming are also the ones driving the fat ass Yukons, pouring Co2 emissions into the atmosphhere, and at the same time stuffing the pockets of radical armed Muslims in oil producing countries. They want to deny both the cause and the effect.


The Prophet Al Gore was actually driving a Cadillac Escalade in one of the scenes from An Inconvenient Truth and he was also flying in a private jet in one or two of the scenes. His mansion in Tennessee also uses a tad more energy than the homes of most Americans. So, it's not only the folks you refer to above that drive environmentally unsound vehicles. It's also the hypocritical global warming prophet himself. Oh, I forgot, he buys carbon offsets to make things right.:lolabove::floor:

[fisher]

You made the mistake of using reason and those who deny global warming exists don't often utilize that principle.:D

Nobody here denies that global warming exists. In fact, if you see An Inconvenient Truth, you will note the large graph of data that Al points to in his lecture that the earth has gone through numerous cycles of cooling and warming over the last 650,000 years. Unfortunately, Al focuses only on the last few years in making his leap of faith theory that says man is the primary cause of THIS cycle of warming which has only been going on for a few seconds (relatively speaking in geologic terms). He also fails to point out that we are still way, way below the zenith of temperatures that have occurred numerous times over the last 650,000 years. He also fails to point out that when the temperatures were much higher in the past, man wasn't around to cause this warming. Maybe, just maybe, you should consider that what is happening today is simply part of the natural cycle. Skunk is right, this is a political issue, with not much science to back it up.

[savvytangerine]

Well that's just :banging:. I don't ever remember seeing the totem pole with scientific data on it. Perhaps you could find that pic for me? To equate tons of verifiable, reproducible, and in some cases tested; research and data to "thunder gods" is rediculous.

Ha! No matter how many time I read this post it still makes me giggle.

OK, so 100% of the research and data supports the CO2 equals global warming hypothesis? That isn't how I understand it;perhaps you can cite a study that elevates the 'theory' to a 'law'. Let me save you a trip to Google...none exist.

Is it possible that Al Gore is right? Yes. But extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence and that evidence does not yet exist. People get very emotional because politics have been injected into this and hyperbole fans the flame of debate among well meaning people.

Please view this clip, I think there is an analagous relationship to the global warming petition. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yi3erdgVVTw

I'll be honest - I'm not watching the video because I have slow internet connection and it would simply take to long. Send me an article to read, I'll read it, really.

Um, this wonderful thing that we all rely on everyday... The science that helped create computers, make better cars, planes, and so many things that seemed like science fiction a few years ago. It takes time for people to agree on things sometimes. I'm not holding my breath that 100% will agree on anything when it comes to science, especially when there is money to be made on both sides.

I hate to break it to you, but I don't really do politics. I don't have a fave canidate to 2008, I don't consider myself to really be a part of any party. I do have views and opinions on a lot of things in life.

I feel strongly about this because I don't see believing that Global Warming is real hurts anything. I would rather be wrong than run the risk of not believing, not making changes in my life, and suffering greatly for it.

You made the mistake of using reason and those who deny global warming exists don't often utilize that principle.:D

It finnally clicked how I know your "name"! I so miss that show!

Nobody denies we are experiencing a warming trend. Those with intellectual curiousity wonder if there is an explanation other than the hypothesis that mankind is to blame. Isn't that reasonable?:idontno:

Nothing wrong with wondering. Nothing wrong with questioning motives, numbers, etc, etc. I think we all have to admit that we have changed the world forever. Our impact will live on beyond what we can ever imagine. How big that impact is, can be argued but my personal goal is lessening my impact. I do it at home, I do it at work, and I love sharing and learning about it.

We all want that "stuff" but please don't try conning me and the rest of the public to get it.

Or.. Sometimes we need to be shocked and scared to get people up and going. Is it right? No. Is it truthful? Unfortunately.

I would put my 2 cents here, but according to my restraining order (due to my unhealthy obsession with Mr. Gore);:wub: I must refrain from commenting on any message that mentions his name.;-)

:lol: Doesn't posting that notice go against your restraining order? :shock::leaving:

[sowalgayboi]

OK, so 100% of the research and data supports the CO2 equals global warming hypothesis? That isn't how I understand it;perhaps you can cite a study that elevates the 'theory' to a 'law'. Let me save you a trip to Google...none exist.

Is it possible that Al Gore is right? Yes. But extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence and that evidence does not yet exist. People get very emotional because politics have been injected into this and hyperbole fans the flame of debate among well meaning people.

Please view this clip, I think there is an analagous relationship to the global warming petition. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yi3erdgVVTw

Since we are all about analogies now...

As a medical professional I ask you if you are torn as to the cause of AIDS? I mean there is some scientific evidence showing that it is caused by HIV, but there are those that feel it is not and is just a ruse by the drug companies or perhaps some other environmental cause.



I realize this is way off the beaten path, but I'm just trying to get a point across. In addition that I would like to state that to the best of my knowledge HIV causes AIDS and one should always use safe sex practices unless in a monogamous committed relationship.

[LightWorker]

I watched the CNN Heroes show and was so moved by the change that one human being can make.

This is an amazing time to be alive.
Thank God we have evolved enough to communicate with the entire world.


If we start to run out of oil/gas.... then would you care?


I believe that this earth ...our earth is not a happy girl.

[30A Skunkape]

Since we are all about analogies now...

As a medical professional I ask you if you are torn as to the cause of AIDS? I mean there is some scientific evidence showing that it is caused by HIV, but there are those that feel it is not and is just a ruse by the drug companies or perhaps some other environmental cause.



I realize this is way off the beaten path, but I'm just trying to get a point across. In addition that I would like to state that to the best of my knowledge HIV causes AIDS and one should always use safe sex practices unless in a monogamous committed relationship.

:confused: There will always be fringe nut groups, but all one must do is innoculate a lab animal with HIV and monitor subsequent white blood cell counts to see the animal progress to AIDS. That is a simple cause and effect. To my knowledge cause and effect has not been established regarding humanity's impact on global climate. Nobody denies that over the lifespan of this planet there have been climate fluctuations, so are we convinced that during the latest fluctuation we are responsible? The jury is still out.

Furthermore, barrier protection to prevent HIV transmission works because we understand how HIV is transmitted. I worry about people getting caught up in the spirit to 'fix' global warming in an analagous fashion as 1)The cause of the Earth's latest warming trend has not been established 2)It makes no sense to remedy a problem that isn't a factor in climate change, especially when the fix is expensive and has dubious efficacy.

[hnooe]

I drive a 1997 Honda Civic and bet you I have a smaller carbon footprint than you do. Want to put your theory to the test?

Actually,
I only own a Vespa now--I borrow a Nissan Versa to go to VPS Arprt. (round trip) once a week-you tell me.
http://sowal.com/bb/images/buttons/collapse_tcat.gif (http://sowal.com/bb/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=324222#top) Additional Options

[hnooe]

The Prophet Al Gore was actually driving a Cadillac Escalade in one of the scenes from An Inconvenient Truth and he was also flying in a private jet in one or two of the scenes. His mansion in Tennessee also uses a tad more energy than the homes of most Americans. So, it's not only the folks you refer to above that drive environmentally unsound vehicles. It's also the hypocritical global warming prophet himself. Oh, I forgot, he buys carbon offsets to make things right.:lolabove::floor:

Wow..I think I was just busted--just tell me you don't drive a Yukon, so I dont feel any worse!

[30A Skunkape]

Actually,
I only own a Vespa now--I borrow a Nissan Versa to go to VPS Arprt. (round trip) once a week-you tell me.
http://sowal.com/bb/images/buttons/collapse_tcat.gif (http://sowal.com/bb/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=324222#top) Additional Options

Yeah, I used to have a TNG which got 70 MPG but got rid of it, wish I still had it. You must support frequent consumption of jet fuel so I am thinking my impact is smaller. Just a guess. But then again, carbon footprints mean nothing, so have a guilt free trip to VPS.:wave:

[hnooe]

Yeah, I used to have a TNG which got 70 MPG but got rid of it, wish I still had it. You must support frequent consumption of jet fuel so I am thinking my impact is smaller. Just a guess. But then again, carbon footprints mean nothing, so have a guilt free trip to VPS.:wave:


I was BUSTED AGAIN! once by Fisher and now by Skunkape. I will have to do better homework! :idontno:

[30A Skunkape]

I was BUSTED AGAIN! once by Fisher and now by Skunkape. I will have to do better homework! :idontno:

Better use recycled paper and eco-friendly pencils for that assignment.;-)

[hnooe]

AL: GORE TAKES MASS TRANSIT TO PICK UP PEACE PRIZE!!! Go Albert!

[30A Skunkape]

AL: GORE TAKES MASS TRANSIT TO PICK UP PEACE PRIZE!!! Go Albert!

Let me see if I understand this. Al Gore has a theory that the emission of CO2 as a byproduct of fossil fuel combustion results in increased global temperatures. He has parlayed this theory into a movie, a lucrative speaking tour and a Nobel prize. He then travels across the Atlantic in a jet, burning God knows how many gallons of jet fuel in the process to accept the prize. Then he has a photo op at the train leaving the Oslo airport and this is somehow impressive symbolism and sacrifice?! This is no different than somebody going belly up to an all-you-can eat soul food buffet and thinking they have somehow impacted the caloric disaster by washing down three plates of fried chicken with a diet coke. Please.

Wouldn't it have been more eco-friendly to just have the certificate e-faxed to him? After all, he did invent the, oh, never mind:roll:

[Bob]

Nobody here denies that global warming exists. In fact, if you see An Inconvenient Truth, you will note the large graph of data that Al points to in his lecture that the earth has gone through numerous cycles of cooling and warming over the last 650,000 years. Unfortunately, Al focuses only on the last few years in making his leap of faith theory that says man is the primary cause of THIS cycle of warming which has only been going on for a few seconds (relatively speaking in geologic terms). He also fails to point out that we are still way, way below the zenith of temperatures that have occurred numerous times over the last 650,000 years. He also fails to point out that when the temperatures were much higher in the past, man wasn't around to cause this warming. Maybe, just maybe, you should consider that what is happening today is simply part of the natural cycle. Skunk is right, this is a political issue, with not much science to back it up.it's a political issue if you're a conservative Repub. If you're willing to listen, there is scientific evidence of global warming. My question has always been what threat do conservatives see in lowering our emissions/pollution?

[30A Skunkape]

it's a political issue if you're a conservative Repub. If you're willing to listen, there is scientific evidence of global warming. My question has always been what threat do conservatives see in lowering our emissions/pollution?

Are you seriously suggesting that it is not a political issue for liberals? Conservatives (and that term is not to be used interchangebly with Republicans) worry (rightly so) that there may be a rush for change that needlessly obligates OUR money (not government's money) to boondoggles. I don't think any one group advocates increased emissions or pollution. If you doubt that, please see some of Newt Gingrich's comments on global warming.

[hnooe]

Are you seriously suggesting that it is not a political issue for liberals? Conservatives (and that term is not to be used interchangebly with Republicans) worry (rightly so) that there may be a rush for change that needlessly obligates OUR money (not government's money) to boondoggles. I don't think any one group advocates increased emissions or pollution. If you doubt that, please see some of Newt Gingrich's comments on global warming.

"Conservative and Republican are totally interchangeable." Just check out the repub debates--not counting the Libertarian dude.

.....And I suppose in your mind, investment in alternate fuel sources in advance of the rapidly depleted oil reserves counts as a "boodoggle..."

Eureka... I can predict your response to that already--it is a liberal left wing "conspiricy" that the oil reserves are rapidly dwindling..right?

[30A Skunkape]

"Conservative and Republican are totally interchangeable." Just check out the repub debates--not counting the Libertarian dude.

.....And I suppose in your mind, investment in alternate fuel sources in advance of the rapidly depleted oil reserves counts as a "boodoggle..."

Eureka... I can predict your response to that already--it is a liberal left wing "conspiricy" that the oil reserves are rapidly dwindling..right?

Seriously, you seem to have a very loose grasp on political reality. There are conservative republicans and liberal republicans, as there are conservative democrats and liberal democrats. If you want to see a conservative democrat, you need look no further than your own US Congressman (Mr Boyd).

I see no problem in investing in alternative fuel sources, not so much because the green libs lie about how quickly we will be 'dry' (;-)) but rather to lean less on foreign governments for our energy needs.

[hnooe]

Seriously, you seem to have a very loose grasp on political reality. There are conservative republicans and liberal republicans, as there are conservative democrats and liberal democrats. If you want to see a conservative democrat, you need look no further than your own US Congressman (Mr Boyd).

I see no problem in investing in alternative fuel sources, not so much because the green libs lie about how quickly we will be 'dry' (;-)) but rather to lean less on foreign governments for our energy needs.

Yes, on the surface there are "conservative" Republicans and liberal Republicans--but like Juliani, they all meld together to become bricks in that great wall of Christain /Evangelical/Conservatism in an effort to claim very huge blocks of votes.

[30A Skunkape]

Yes, on the surface there are "conservative" Republicans and liberal Republicans--but like Juliani, they all meld together to become bricks in that great wall of Christain /Evangelical/Conservatism in an effort to claim very huge blocks of votes.

All the while liberal democrats do their best to avoid being labeled 'liberal' because it is political poison in a national election. Hard to win the presidency with electoral votes from two or three states...just ask Fritz Mondale or Mike Dukakis.

[NoHall]

I signed it.

It always kills me that something like heavy snowfall triggers a "global warming is a hoax" crowd, but rediculously hot temperatures keeps them quit. I subscribe to the climate change theory. This means that you can have warming and freakish winters or strange erradic weather in general, i.e. record snowfalls after a record hot summer.

Thank you, gaiboi. :clap:The voice of reason.
Global warming triggers climate change. Which does not mean it is hot all the time everywhere. Why is that so hard to understand? :idontno:

Does the phrase "as changeable as the weather" mean anything to y'all?

I've been working outside for the last 13 years. Weather reports? If I go outside and my hair gets wet, it's raining. If I go out and start sweating, it's hot. If I go out and start shivering, it's cold...and so on.

When someone can tell me what the weather will be next week (or even tomorrow) I will think about listening to what they say about the long-term forecast. (And I'm not sure what it will take to make me consider a former VPs credibility as a meteorologist...)

[Smiling JOe]

AL: GORE TAKES MASS TRANSIT TO PICK UP PEACE PRIZE!!! Go Albert!
But did the public (the masses of "Mass Transit") get to ride or did Secret Service clear the train?

[Smiling JOe]

Let me see if I understand this. Al Gore has a theory that the emission of CO2 as a byproduct of fossil fuel combustion results in increased global temperatures. He has parlayed this theory into a movie, a lucrative speaking tour and a Nobel prize. He then travels across the Atlantic in a jet, burning God knows how many gallons of jet fuel in the process to accept the prize. Then he has a photo op at the train leaving the Oslo airport and this is somehow impressive symbolism and sacrifice?! This is no different than somebody going belly up to an all-you-can eat soul food buffet and thinking they have somehow impacted the caloric disaster by washing down three plates of fried chicken with a diet coke. Please.

Wouldn't it have been more eco-friendly to just have the certificate e-faxed to him? After all, he did invent the, oh, never mind:roll:

I am nominating this post for entry into the funniest post of the year. :floor:

[Smiling JOe]

Yes, on the surface there are "conservative" Republicans and liberal Republicans--but like Juliani, they all meld together to become bricks in that great wall of Christain /Evangelical/Conservatism in an effort to claim very huge blocks of votes.and your point is? You left off the other half about the Dems growing gov't programs to claim very huge blocks of votes. They are both doing whatever it takes to get votes, and screwing the People in the process.

[Smiling JOe]

And I'm not sure what it will take to make me consider a former VPs credibility as a meteorologist...):floor: You know, Aaron Burr graduated from what is known as Princeton at age 16 after studying only theology, before becoming a lawyer, later becoming VP, before he got angry at Hamilton for slander, then he popped a cap in his @ss when Hamilton's gun fired and missed. What's the point of this story? Al should be careful to control his anger and not let it lead to a duel, because it will eventually wreck his political chances, just like Burr's were hurt after they tried to convict him of murder. :funn:

[Smiling JOe]

Okay, I signed it. In the memo I asked him to please run with Hillary. :D

What a coincidence I also asked him to run with Hillary, but I added, "and don't stop until you hit China."

[hnooe]

I am nominating this post for entry into the funniest post of the year. :floor:

I am lactually ooking for someone to be elected funniest, sexist, 30-A redneck of the year----but alas, no one in So-Wal comes to mind...yet!

[Smiling JOe]

Like I said i'm not 100% , but I believe it was because he felt the evidence was not clear on whether the current global warming trend was a naturally occurring cycle or caused by man.

I am 100% for decreasing fuel consumption, creating self sustaining engine technology, getting out of the oil countries (northern Africa will be next), decreasing pollutants, etc. I have openly listened to both sides of this global warming debate, and I come away with one clear opinion -- scientists cannot seem to con-conclusively agree on the cause of our temperature increases. This planet has been changing forever.

I recall some independent scientist picking thru Gore's movie, and remember them talking about the big chart which Gore has, referencing carbon and global temp, over thousands of years. Looking at the chart and listening to Gore talk about it, makes it seem very believable. Gore talks about the Carbon levels correspond to the temp changes throughout history. These independent scientists mentioned something about the Gore's chart which Gore never spoke about -- which came first? These scientist say that the temperature changes came first and the carbon decreased or increased accordingly.

Again, one thing is for certain, the scientist disagree on the science. If they cannot conclusively figure it out, I sure as hell can't. What I can do is be aware of my imprint on the earth, and try to do what is right for the common good of the earth and all its people, creatures and plants.

[NoHall]

I am nominating this post for entry into the funniest post of the year. :floor:

:floor: You know, Aaron Burr graduated from what is known as Princeton at age 16 after studying only theology, before becoming a lawyer, later becoming VP, before he got angry at Hamilton for slander, then he popped a cap in his @ss when Hamilton's gun fired and missed. What's the point of this story? Al should be careful to control his anger and not let it lead to a duel, because it will eventually wreck his political chances, just like Burr's were hurt after they tried to convict him of murder. :funn:

What a coincidence I also asked him to run with Hillary, but I added, "and don't stop until you hit China."

JOE! The weather report (not forecast) says that y'all are experiencing unseasonably warm weather down there. Why aren't you out in a small, floating vessel somewhere?! Whatchoo doing glued to a computer today?

[Smiling JOe]

Made a sunrise splash in the water this morning. ;)

[NoHall]

Made a sunrise splash in the water this morning. ;)

oh...so jealous!!!

[savvytangerine]

Hey Skunky -

I want to try this a different way if you are up for it... :D

I am the kind of person that is able to change their mind. So - Skunky change it. Show me the science that 100% disproves Global Warming. Willing to read any articles that you send along, and I promise to do so with as open a mind as possible.

[NoHall]

Hey Skunky -

I want to try this a different way if you are up for it... :D

I am the kind of person that is able to change their mind. So - Skunky change it. Show me the science that 100% disproves Global Warming. Willing to read any articles that you send along, and I promise to do so with as open a mind as possible.

Oh, dear...show me the science that 100% disproves ANYTHING while you're at it. It's even harder to prove nothing than it is to prove something.

Take what you know, add it to what you believe, and mix in a little bit of what makes you feel good about your life and be happy with it. If you make it work in your own life, others will follow your example.

I need a bath and a Christmas movie...

[30A Skunkape]

Hey Skunky -

I want to try this a different way if you are up for it... :D

I am the kind of person that is able to change their mind. So - Skunky change it. Show me the science that 100% disproves Global Warming. Willing to read any articles that you send along, and I promise to do so with as open a mind as possible.

I can't find you an article that 100% 'disproves' (man made) global warming. Unlike the vast majority of those who subscribe to the theory of man made global warming, I can say this: I might be totally wrong and it could be that mankind's CO2 release is causing the Earth's temperature to rise. I am no meteorologist nor climatologist...all I bring to the table is 3 hours of a meteorology class at old LSU (and that is ironically probably more formal weather education than our friend Al Gore had) and a healthy sense of skepticism rooted in many hours of science education. Science usually moves slowly, cautiously and in 'good science' there is plenty of room for speculation and dissent...that is not the case here. Those such as myself who dare question the theory are branded neocon nuts, big oil employees or some such. Climatologists who are not comfortable with the theory would rather remain silent than rock the boat, be labeled a nut or lose research dollars. In short, not a healthy environment in which to get to the truth of the matter. Since we obviously do not fully understand the dynamics of the weather and the degree we may be impacting it, it is a horrific idea imho to start passing laws, signing treaties and agreeing to meet goals that will tie our hands as a country. That is a bad idea.

I will find some dissenting stuff for your inspection.

[savvytangerine]

OK, so 100% of the research and data supports the CO2 equals global warming hypothesis? That isn't how I understand it;perhaps you can cite a study that elevates the 'theory' to a 'law'. Let me save you a trip to Google...none exist.


Oh, dear...show me the science that 100% disproves ANYTHING while you're at it. It's even harder to prove nothing than it is to prove something.

Hey NoHall - check out the quote above from Skunky and see why I chose 100% :D :lol:


I will find some dissenting stuff for your inspection.

Cool. I look forward to reading it. And I do promise to be open minded about it.

[30A Skunkape]

SavvyT, I am going back through old threads where I have been posting stuff. This first repost sets the stage for the intimidation factor pointed at skeptics:


Weather Channel Climate Expert Calls for Decertifying Global Warming Skeptics
January 17, 2007

Posted by Marc Morano 202-224-5762 marc_morano@epw.senate.gov (8:50pm ET)

The Weather Channel’s most prominent climatologist is advocating that broadcast meteorologists be stripped of their scientific certification if they express skepticism about predictions of manmade catastrophic global warming. This latest call to silence skeptics follows a year (2006) in which skeptics were compared to "Holocaust Deniers" and Nuremberg-style war crimes trials were advocated by several climate alarmists.


The Weather Channel’s (TWC) Heidi Cullen, who hosts the weekly global warming program "The Climate Code," is advocating that the American Meteorological Society (AMS) revoke their "Seal of Approval" for any television weatherman who expresses skepticism that human activity is creating a climate catastrophe.

"If a meteorologist can't speak to the fundamental science of climate change, then maybe the AMS shouldn't give them a Seal of Approval. Clearly, the AMS doesn't agree that global warming can be blamed on cyclical weather patterns," Cullen wrote in her December 21 weblog on the Weather Channel Website. [Note: It is also worth taking a look at the comments section at the bottom of Cullen’s blog, very entertaining.] See: http://climate.weather.com/blog/9_11396.html This latest call to silence skeptics of manmade global warming has been the subject of discussion at the annual American Meteorological Society’s Annual conference in San Antonio Texas this week. See: http://www.ametsoc.org/meet/annual
"It's like allowing a meteorologist to go on-air and say that hurricanes rotate clockwise and tsunamis are caused by the weather. It's not a political statement...it's just an incorrect statement," Cullen added. [Note: Hurricanes (Cyclones) in the Southern Hemisphere do rotate clockwise. Also, Cullen and the media have ignored the growing climate skepticism by prominent scientists see: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...2-87381DE894CD ]

Cullen’s call for decertification of TV weatherman who do not agree with her global warming assessment follows a year (2006) in which the media, Hollywood and environmentalists tried their hardest to demonize scientific skeptics of manmade global warming. Scott Pelley, CBS News 60 Minutes correspondent, compared skeptics of global warming to "Holocaust deniers" and former Vice President turned foreign lobbyist Al Gore has repeatedly referred to skeptics as "global warming deniers." See: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...7-8FF923FD73F8 & http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...2-87381DE894CD

Cullen Featured Advocate of Nuremberg-Style Trials for Climate Skeptics

In addition, Cullen’s December 17, 2006 episode of "The Climate Code" TV show, featured a columnist who openly called for Nuremberg-style Trials for climate skeptics. Cullen featured Grist Magazine’s Dave Roberts as an eco-expert opining on energy issues, with no mention of his public call to institute what amounts to the death penalty for scientists who express skepticism about global warming. See: http://epw.senate.gov/fact.cfm?party=rep&id=264568


Cullen’s call for suppressing scientific dissent comes at a time when many skeptical scientists affiliated with Universities have essentially been silenced over fears of loss of tenure and the withdrawal of research grant money. The United Nations Inner Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) process has also steadily pushed scientists away who hold inconvenient skeptical views and reject the alarmist conclusions presented in the IPCC’s summary for policymakers. See: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...E-78FA8DE4850D

Cullen also participated in the New York premiere of the fictional Hollywood global warming disaster film The Day After Tomorrow in 2004 and has routinely promoted celebrity environmental views. See: http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialRe...20050414a.html & http://press.weather.com/index.php/p...eases/109.html The Weather Channel, which has billed itself as itself as the "pre-eminent provider of weather information," also served as a consultant to The Day After Tomorrow and allowed the use of its name and logo in the movie.
Broadcast meteorologists (TV weatherman) skeptical of climate alarmism have -- up until now -- been unburdened to speak out on climate issues. Cullen’s call for decertification by the AMS can only serve to intimidate skeptics and further chill free speech in the scientific community. Stripping the "Seal of Approval" from broadcast meteorologists could affect their livelihoods, impact their salaries and prestige. TV weathermen are truly the last of the independent scientists and past surveys have shown many of them to be skeptical of manmade global warming claims. Their independence is being threatened now. For more info on the background of the AMS seal, see: http://www.ametsoc.org/amscert

Intimidating scientists with calls for death trials, name calling and calls for decertification appears to be the accepted tactics of the climate alarmists. The real question is: Why do climate alarmists feel the need to resort to such low brow tactics when they have a compliant media willing to repeat their every assertion without question. See: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...B-304E3F6E0E2D

The alarmists also enjoy a huge financial advantage over the skeptics with numerous foundations funding climate research, University research money and the United Nations endless promotion of the cause.
Just how much money do the climate alarmists have at their disposal? There was a $3 billion donation to the global warming cause from Virgin Air’s Richard Branson alone. The well-heeled environmental lobbying groups have massive operating budgets compared to groups that express global warming skepticism. The Sierra Club Foundation 2004 budget was $91 million and the Natural Resources Defense Council had a $57 million budget for the same year. Compare that to the often media derided Competitive Enterprise Institute’s small $3.6 million annual budget.

In addition, if a climate skeptic receives any money from industry, the media immediately labels them and attempts to discredit their work. The same media completely ignore the money flow from the environmental lobby to climate alarmists like James Hansen and Michael Oppenheimer. (ie. Hansen received $250,000 from the Heinz Foundation and Oppenheimer is a paid partisan of Environmental Defense Fund)
The alarmists have all of these advantages, yet they still feel the need to resort to desperation tactics to silence the skeptics. Could it be that the alarmists realize that the American public is increasingly rejecting their proposition that the family SUV is destroying the earth and rejecting their shrill calls for "action" to combat their computer model predictions of a "climate emergency?" See http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...0-90C84A49134A

That may be the real Inconvenient Truth. After all, even the UN is reportedly downgrading man’s impact on the climate by 25% and now concedes that cow "emissions" are more damaging to the planet than C02 from cars. See: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...5-4B6CD20B983A


Related Links:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...2-611ef8047a6b
INHOFE SPEECH ON POLAR BEARS AND GLOBAL WARMING

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...5-4B6CD20B983A
UN DOWNGRADES MAN'S IMPACT AND COW 'EMISSIONS' MORE DAMAGING THAN CO2 FROM CARS

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...B-3E3B04D8D444
SENATOR INHOFE ANNOUNCES PUBLIC RELEASE OF "SKEPTIC’S GUIDE TO DEBUNKING GLOBAL WARMING"

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...8-32A396031D73
INHOFE SAYS NEW UN ASSESSMENT PROVES FEARS OF MANMADE CATASTROPHIC GLOBAL WARMING ARE ‘UNSUSTAINABLE’

[fisher]

Hey NoHall - check out the quote above from Skunky and see why I chose 100% :D :lol:



Cool. I look forward to reading it. And I do promise to be open minded about it.

How can anyone believe with such certainty what any meteorologists or climatologists say about global warming? Those of you that believe without any skepticism what the Goresters tell you are like lemmings following the pied piper to the cliffs.

We are talking about a climate system that changes over thousands to millions of years. Meteorologists and climatologists can't even get the next five day forecast right. How do you expect them to be predicting global warming (or cooling as these same folks were doing 30 years ago) five, ten, one hundred or one thousand years from now?

[fisher]

SavvyT, I am going back through old threads where I have been posting stuff. This first repost sets the stage for the intimidation factor pointed at skeptics:


Weather Channel Climate Expert Calls for Decertifying Global Warming Skeptics
January 17, 2007

Posted by Marc Morano 202-224-5762 marc_morano@epw.senate.gov (8:50pm ET)

The Weather Channel’s most prominent climatologist is advocating that broadcast meteorologists be stripped of their scientific certification if they express skepticism about predictions of manmade catastrophic global warming. This latest call to silence skeptics follows a year (2006) in which skeptics were compared to "Holocaust Deniers" and Nuremberg-style war crimes trials were advocated by several climate alarmists.


The Weather Channel’s (TWC) Heidi Cullen, who hosts the weekly global warming program "The Climate Code," is advocating that the American Meteorological Society (AMS) revoke their "Seal of Approval" for any television weatherman who expresses skepticism that human activity is creating a climate catastrophe.

"If a meteorologist can't speak to the fundamental science of climate change, then maybe the AMS shouldn't give them a Seal of Approval. Clearly, the AMS doesn't agree that global warming can be blamed on cyclical weather patterns," Cullen wrote in her December 21 weblog on the Weather Channel Website. [Note: It is also worth taking a look at the comments section at the bottom of Cullen’s blog, very entertaining.] See: http://climate.weather.com/blog/9_11396.html This latest call to silence skeptics of manmade global warming has been the subject of discussion at the annual American Meteorological Society’s Annual conference in San Antonio Texas this week. See: http://www.ametsoc.org/meet/annual


Heidi Cullen is a nut case.

[30A Skunkape]

Another blast from the past, this one offering up speculation as to alternative cause of global warming. You can see the others in The Deniers' series by googling.


Look to Mars for the truth on global warming
The Deniers -- Part IX

Lawrence Solomon
Financial Post


Friday, February 02, 2007


January 26, 2007

Climate change is a much, much bigger issue than the public, politicians, and even the most alarmed environmentalists realize. Global warming extends to Mars, where the polar ice cap is shrinking, where deep gullies in the landscape are now laid bare, and where the climate is the warmest it has been in decades or centuries.

"One explanation could be that Mars is just coming out of an ice age," NASA scientist William Feldman speculated after the agency's Mars Odyssey completed its first Martian year of data collection. "In some low-latitude areas, the ice has already dissipated." With each passing year more and more evidence arises of the dramatic changes occurring on the only planet on the solar system, apart from Earth, to give up its climate secrets.


NASA's findings in space come as no surprise to Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov at Saint Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory. Pulkovo -- at the pinnacle of Russia's space-oriented scientific establishment -- is one of the world's best equipped observatories and has been since its founding in 1839. Heading Pulkovo's space research laboratory is Dr. Abdussamatov, one of the world's chief critics of the theory that man-made carbon dioxide emissions create a greenhouse effect, leading to global warming.

"Mars has global warming, but without a greenhouse and without the participation of Martians," he told me. "These parallel global warmings -- observed simultaneously on Mars and on Earth -- can only be a straightline consequence of the effect of the one same factor: a long-time change in solar irradiance."

The sun's increased irradiance over the last century, not C02 emissions, is responsible for the global warming we're seeing, says the celebrated scientist, and this solar irradiance also explains the great volume of C02 emissions.

"It is no secret that increased solar irradiance warms Earth's oceans, which then triggers the emission of large amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. So the common view that man's industrial activity is a deciding factor in global warming has emerged from a misinterpretation of cause and effect relations."

Dr. Abdussamatov goes further, debunking the very notion of a greenhouse effect. "Ascribing 'greenhouse' effect properties to the Earth's atmosphere is not scientifically substantiated," he maintains. "Heated greenhouse gases, which become lighter as a result of expansion, ascend to the atmosphere only to give the absorbed heat away."

The real news from Saint Petersburg -- demonstrated by cooling that is occurring on the upper layers of the world's oceans -- is that Earth has hit its temperature ceiling. Solar irradiance has begun to fall, ushering in a protracted cooling period beginning in 2012 to 2015. The depth of the decline in solar irradiance reaching Earth will occur around 2040, and "will inevitably lead to a deep freeze around 2055-60" lasting some 50 years, after which temperatures will go up again.

Because of the scientific significance of this period of global cooling that we're about to enter, the Russian and Ukrainian space agencies, under Dr. Abdussamatov's leadership, have launched a joint project to determine the time and extent of the global cooling at mid-century. The project, dubbed Astrometry and given priority space-experiment status on the Russian portion of the International Space Station, will marshal the resources of spacecraft manufacturer Energia, several Russian research and production centers, and the main observatory of Ukraine's Academy of Sciences. By late next year, scientific equipment will have been installed in a space-station module and by early 2009, Dr. Abdussamatov's space team will be conducting a regular survey of the sun.

With the data, the project will help mankind cope with a century of falling temperatures, during which we will enter a mini ice age.

"There is no need for the Kyoto Protocol now. It does not have to come into force until at least 100 years from no w," Dr. Abdussamatov concluded. "A global freeze will come about regardless of whether or not industrialized countries put a cap on their greenhouse- gas emissions."

Lawrence Solomon@nextcity.com

- - -

- Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Urban Renaissance Institute and Consumer Policy Institute, divisions of Energy Probe Research Foundation. www.Urban-Renaissance.org

CV OF A DENIER:

Habibullo Abdussamatov, born in Samarkand in Uzbekistan in 1940, graduated from Samarkand University in 1962 as a physicist and a mathematician. He earned his doctorate at Pulkovo Observatory and the University of Leningrad.

He is the head of the space research laboratory of the Russian Academies of Sciences' Pulkovo Observatory and of the International Space Station's Astrometry project, a long-term joint scientific research project of the Russian and Ukranian space agencies.

[30A Skunkape]

More for SavvyT.


Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide
Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?
By Timothy Ball

Monday, February 5, 2007

Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was the first Canadian Ph.D. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition. Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and that for 32 years I was a Professor of Climatology at the University of Winnipeg. For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening. Here is why.


What would happen if tomorrow we were told that, after all, the Earth is flat? It would probably be the most important piece of news in the media and would generate a lot of debate. So why is it that when scientists who have studied the Global Warming phenomenon for years say that humans are not the cause nobody listens? Why does no one acknowledge that the Emperor has no clothes on?

Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification. For example, Environment Canada brags about spending $3.7 billion in the last five years dealing with climate change almost all on propaganda trying to defend an indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets.

No sensible person seeks conflict, especially with governments, but if we don't pursue the truth, we are lost as individuals and as a society. That is why I insist on saying that there is no evidence that we are, or could ever cause global climate change. And, recently, Yuri A. Izrael, Vice President of the United Nations sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirmed this statement. So how has the world come to believe that something is wrong?

Maybe for the same reason we believed, 30 years ago, that global cooling was the biggest threat: a matter of faith. "It is a cold fact: the Global Cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species," wrote Lowell Ponte in 1976.

I was as opposed to the threats of impending doom global cooling engendered as I am to the threats made about Global Warming. Let me stress I am not denying the phenomenon has occurred. The world has warmed since 1680, the nadir of a cool period called the Little Ice Age (LIA) that has generally continued to the present. These climate changes are well within natural variability and explained quite easily by changes in the sun. But there is nothing unusual going on.

Since I obtained my doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England my career has spanned two climate cycles. Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact. By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling.

No doubt passive acceptance yields less stress, fewer personal attacks and makes career progress easier. What I have experienced in my personal life during the last years makes me understand why most people choose not to speak out; job security and fear of reprisals. Even in University, where free speech and challenge to prevailing wisdoms are supposedly encouraged, academics remain silent.

I once received a three page letter that my lawyer defined as libellous, from an academic colleague, saying I had no right to say what I was saying, especially in public lectures. Sadly, my experience is that universities are the most dogmatic and oppressive places in our society. This becomes progressively worse as they receive more and more funding from governments that demand a particular viewpoint.

In another instance, I was accused by Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki of being paid by oil companies. That is a lie. Apparently he thinks if the fossil fuel companies pay you have an agenda. So if Greenpeace, Sierra Club or governments pay there is no agenda and only truth and enlightenment?

Personal attacks are difficult and shouldn't occur in a debate in a civilized society. I can only consider them from what they imply. They usually indicate a person or group is losing the debate. In this case, they also indicate how political the entire Global Warming debate has become. Both underline the lack of or even contradictory nature of the evidence.

I am not alone in this journey against the prevalent myth. Several well-known names have also raised their voices. Michael Crichton, the scientist, writer and filmmaker is one of them. In his latest book, "State of Fear" he takes time to explain, often in surprising detail, the flawed science behind Global Warming and other imagined environmental crises.

Another cry in the wildenerness is Richard Lindzen's. He is an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT, renowned for his research in dynamic meteorology - especially atmospheric waves. He is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences and has held positions at the University of Chicago, Harvard University and MIT. Linzen frequently speaks out against the notion that significant Global Warming is caused by humans. Yet nobody seems to listen.

I think it may be because most people don't understand the scientific method which Thomas Kuhn so skilfully and briefly set out in his book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." A scientist makes certain assumptions and then produces a theory which is only as valid as the assumptions. The theory of Global Warming assumes that CO2 is an atmospheric greenhouse gas and as it increases temperatures rise. It was then theorized that since humans were producing more CO2 than before, the temperature would inevitably rise. The theory was accepted before testing had started, and effectively became a law.

As Lindzen said many years ago: "the consensus was reached before the research had even begun." Now, any scientist who dares to question the prevailing wisdom is marginalized and called a sceptic, when in fact they are simply being good scientists. This has reached frightening levels with these scientists now being called climate change denier with all the holocaust connotations of that word. The normal scientific method is effectively being thwarted.

Meanwhile, politicians are being listened to, even though most of them have no knowledge or understanding of science, especially the science of climate and climate change. Hence, they are in no position to question a policy on climate change when it threatens the entire planet. Moreover, using fear and creating hysteria makes it very difficult to make calm rational decisions about issues needing attention.

Until you have challenged the prevailing wisdom you have no idea how nasty people can be. Until you have re-examined any issue in an attempt to find out all the information, you cannot know how much misinformation exists in the supposed age of information.

I was greatly influenced several years ago by Aaron Wildavsky's book "Yes, but is it true?" The author taught political science at a New York University and realized how science was being influenced by and apparently misused by politics. He gave his graduate students an assignment to pursue the science behind a policy generated by a highly publicised environmental concern. To his and their surprise they found there was little scientific evidence, consensus and justification for the policy. You only realize the extent to which Wildavsky's findings occur when you ask the question he posed. Wildavsky's students did it in the safety of academia and with the excuse that it was an assignment. I have learned it is a difficult question to ask in the real world, however I firmly believe it is the most important question to ask if we are to advance in the right direction.


Dr. Tim Ball, Chairman of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project (www.nrsp.com), is a Victoria-based environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. He can be reached at letters@canadafreepress.com

[30A Skunkape]

More alternative theory ignored by the CO2=heat crowd


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/56456.stm

[30A Skunkape]

And maybe this was glossed over by CNN...

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

[30A Skunkape]

And finally in honor of the drowning computer animated polar bear in An Inconvenient Truth and seacrestkristi's out of context photographic postings of unfortunate polar bears:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=500424&in_page_id=1811

[Smiling JOe]

I find this one interesting.
Be sure to read the last paragraph in my post, and everyone needs to read the entire article at the link provided at the end. What's that old line? Follow the money.

As reported by the Associated Press:

"Gore, who won the Nobel Peace Prize last month for his work on climate change, joins Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers as it and dozens of other venture firms expand into so-called ‘clean-tech' investments worldwide.

...Also Monday, Kleiner Perkins partner John Doerr announced he's joining the advisory board of Generation Investment Management(GIM), the $1 billion investment firm that Gore founded with David Blood, who previously managed $325 billion in assets out of Goldman Sachs' London office. Doerr is one of Silicon Valley's most outspoken clean-tech advocates."

From HumanEvents.com:
The Money and Connections Behind Al Gore’s Carbon Crusade
by Deborah Corey Barnes
10/03/2007

...Gore’s Circle of Business

Al Gore is chairman and founder of a private equity firm called Generation Investment Management (GIM). According to Gore, the London-based firm invests money from institutions and wealthy investors in companies that are going green. “Generation Investment Management, purchases -- but isn’t a provider of -- carbon dioxide offsets,” said spokesman Richard Campbell in a March 7 report by CNSNews.

GIM appears to have considerable influence over the major carbon-credit trading firms that currently exist: the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) in the U.S. and the Carbon Neutral Company (CNC) in Great Britain. CCX is the only firm in the U.S. that claims to trade carbon credits.

CCX owes its existence in part to the Joyce Foundation, the Chicago-based liberal foundation that provided $347,000 in grant support in 2000 for a preliminary study to test the viability of a market in carbon credits. On the CCX board of directors is the ubiquitous Maurice Strong, a Canadian industrialist and diplomat who, since the 1970s, has helped create an international policy agenda for the environmentalist movement. Strong has described himself as “a socialist in ideology, a capitalist in methodology.” His former job titles include “senior advisor” to UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, “senior advisor” to World Bank President James Wolfensohn and board member of the United Nations Foundation, a creation of Ted Turner. The 78-year-old Strong is very close to Gore.

CCX has about 80 members that are self-confessed emitters of greenhouse gases. They have voluntarily committed themselves to reduce their emissions by the year 2010 to a level 6% below their emissions in 2000. CCX members include Ford Motor Company, Amtrak, DuPont, Dow Corning, American Electric Power, International Paper, Motorola, Waste Management and a smattering of other companies, along with the states of Illinois and New Mexico, seven cities and a number of universities. Presumably the members “purchase” carbon offsets on the CCX trading exchange. This means they make contributions to or investments in groups or firms that provide forms of “alternative,” “renewable” and “clean” energy.

CCX also has “participant members” that develop the carbon-offset projects. They have names like Carbon Farmers and Eco-Nomics Incorporated. Still, other participant member groups facilitate, finance and market carbon-offset projects to “sequester, destroy or displace” greenhouse gases. CCX aspires to be the New York Stock Exchange of carbon-emissions trading.

Along with Gore, the co-founder of GIM is Treasury Secretary and former Goldman Sachs CEO Hank Paulson. Last September, Goldman Sachs bought 10% of CCX shares for $23 million. CCX owns half the ECX, so Goldman Sachs has a stake there as well.

GIM’s “founding partners” are studded with officials from Goldman Sachs. They include David Blood, former CEO of Goldman Sachs Asset Management (GSAM); Mark Ferguson, former co-head of GSAM pan-European research; and Peter Harris, who headed GSAM international operations. Another founding partner is Peter Knight, who is the designated president of GIM. He was Sen. Al Gore’s chief of staff from 1977-1989 and the campaign manager of the 1996 Clinton-Gore re-election campaign.

Like CCX, the ECX has about 80 member companies, including Barclays, BP, Calyon, Endesa, Fortis, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and Shell, and ECX has contracted with the European Union to further develop a futures market in carbon trading. What’s in it for the companies? They will benefit either by investing in carbon credits or by receiving subsidies for doing so.

Front and Center

Clearly, GIM is poised to cash in on carbon trading. The membership of CCX is currently voluntary. But if the day ever comes when federal government regulations require greenhouse-gas emitters -- and that’s almost everyone -- to participate in cap-and-trade, then those who have created a market for the exchange of carbon credits are in a position to control the outcomes. And that moves Al Gore front and center. As a politician, Gore is all for transparency. But as GIM chairman, Gore has not been forthcoming, according to Forbes magazine. Little is known about his firm’s finances, where it gets funding and what projects it supports.

We do know that Goldman Sachs has commissioned the World Resources Institute (affiliated with CCX), Resources for the Future, and the Woods Hole Research Center to research policy options for U.S. regulation of greenhouse gases. In 2006, Goldman Sachs provided research grants in this area totaling $2.3 million. The firm also has committed $1 billion to carbon-assets projects, a fancy term for projects that generate energy from sources other than oil and gas. In October 2006, Morgan Stanley committed to invest $3 billion in carbon-assets projects. Citigroup entered the emissions-trading market in May, and Bank of America got in on the action in June.

Some environmentalist groups disparage Gore and his investment banker friends. They say the Gore group caters to others who share their financial interest in the carbon-exchange concept. The bulletin of the World Rainforest Movement says that members of a United Nations-sponsored group called the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) stand to gain by approving Gore’s carbon-trading enterprise. The IPCC has devised what it says is a scientific measure of the impact of greenhouse gases on global warming. In fact, the critics charge, the IPCC sanctions a mechanism that mainly promotes the sham concept of carbon exchange....

(full and very interesting article (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=22663))

[savvytangerine]

:yikes:Be careful what you ask for. :shock:

Needless to say this will take a little while to look through. But I am and will.

[savvytangerine]

SavvyT, I am going back through old threads where I have been posting stuff. This first repost sets the stage for the intimidation factor pointed at skeptics:

Weather Channel Climate Expert Calls for Decertifying Global Warming Skeptics
January 17, 2007

Related Links:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...2-611ef8047a6b
INHOFE SPEECH ON POLAR BEARS AND GLOBAL WARMING

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...5-4B6CD20B983A
UN DOWNGRADES MAN'S IMPACT AND COW 'EMISSIONS' MORE DAMAGING THAN CO2 FROM CARS

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...B-3E3B04D8D444
SENATOR INHOFE ANNOUNCES PUBLIC RELEASE OF "SKEPTIC’S GUIDE TO DEBUNKING GLOBAL WARMING"

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...8-32A396031D73
INHOFE SAYS NEW UN ASSESSMENT PROVES FEARS OF MANMADE CATASTROPHIC GLOBAL WARMING ARE ‘UNSUSTAINABLE’

None of these links work :idontno:.

Although I get your point with this post -- feeling like it is a little off topic.. :confused: Everything that it makes me think of, would only create a new argument and I don't know if I can handle more than one
intellectual conversation at time :blink:.

Still readin' :wave:

[jdarg]

And finally in honor of the drowning computer animated polar bear in An Inconvenient Truth and seacrestkristi's out of context photographic postings of unfortunate polar bears:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_ (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=500424&in_page_id=1811)
id=500424&in_page_id=1811 (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=500424&in_page_id=1811)

Don't be such a buzzkill.:roll:

[savvytangerine]

Another blast from the past, this one offering up speculation as to alternative cause of global warming. You can see the others in The Deniers' series by googling.

Look to Mars for the truth on global warming
The Deniers -- Part IX

Lawrence Solomon
Financial Post

Friday, February 02, 2007

January 26, 2007

Climate change is a much, much bigger issue than the public, politicians, and even the most alarmed environmentalists realize. Global warming extends to Mars, where the polar ice cap is shrinking, where deep gullies in the landscape are now laid bare, and where the climate is the warmest it has been in decades or centuries.

Abdusamatov claims that global warming results not from the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, but from an unusually high level of solar radiation and a lengthy - almost throughout the last century - growth in its intensity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation)."[2] (http://en.rian.ru/russia/20070115/59078992.html). This view contradicts the scientific consensus on climate change (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change). Abdusamatov also contends that even the natural greenhouse effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect) does not exist, stating "Ascribing 'greenhouse' effect properties to the Earth's atmosphere is not scientifically substantiated."[3] (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=edae9952-3c3e-47ba-913f-7359a5c7f723&k=0) He further states that "Heated greenhouse gases, which become lighter as a result of expansion, ascend to the atmosphere only to give the absorbed heat away." The latter statement contradicts measurements of the chemical composition of the atmosphere (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_atmosphere), while the former violates Fourier's law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourier%27s_law) of heat conduction.

I have honestly been poking through some of the articles on Solomon’s website. Some interesting ideas but nothing more for me personally. It is also a little questionable that his site continually asked you to register and pay to view the articles. Always a bit of a red flag when someone is making money off their opinions… Makes me question their fervor, regardless of the subject or their stance.

Solomon is accused on multiple places of not directly interviewing people, relying on old material (out dated articles) and even this case of using a website for quotes without the person's knowledge. Although he does apologize and the person seems to brush it off - it is a little unnerving to think of any journalist doing things like this. Doesn’t help with his creditability.

Well, the moral in this is case is that if you're a science reporter, consider running parts of your articles by your interviewees just to make sure you don't write rubbish, which is a smart thing to do, if you don't want to end up looking stupid. It is of course also a descent thing to do if you respect your readers.

Link for full info: http://www.sciencebits.com/NoInterview (http://www.sciencebits.com/NoInterview)


The climate of Mars was first measured by the Viking space probes launched by NASA in 1975, which means that Mr. Solomon, like the rest of us, has no hard evidence as to what the Martian climate was like in past centuries.

He must instead rely on what current observations tell us about the Martian past, and what observed trends and well-understood mechanisms like planetary orbits tell us about the likely Martian future.


There is a slight irony in people rushing to claim that the glacier changes on Mars are a sure sign of global warming, while not being swayed by the much more persuasive analogous phenomena here on Earth.

Link: http://www.raisethehammer.org/index.asp?id=536

The two quotes above are from two sources off the linked page above.

It is late and I think my brain could explode.:yikes: I will read lots more soon -- and in spite of the stuff I'm sending to you know that I really am trying to see your side.

[30A Skunkape]

SavvyT, it isn't 'my' side, it is simply another voice that is totally ignored. Sorry if some of those links don't work, they are oldies I pulled off an old thread.

[Bob]

Are you seriously suggesting that it is not a political issue for liberals? Conservatives (and that term is not to be used interchangebly with Republicans) worry (rightly so) that there may be a rush for change that needlessly obligates OUR money (not government's money) to boondoggles. I don't think any one group advocates increased emissions or pollution. If you doubt that, please see some of Newt Gingrich's comments on global warming.Conservatives took their eye off the collective boondoggle ball by rubber stamping a trillion dollar Iraq War, and doing nothing about interest on the debt, entitlement transfer payment growth, immigration, and ethics. The Repubs have been poor stewards of our country...quick to fight anyone but negotiate with no one, and for 7 plus years denying we have a potentially catastrophic ecological problem at hand. With Repubs, the priorities are making money regardless of the damage to our own country by labeling the dismantiling of our manufacturing base "free trade". It's breathtakingly embarrassing, and not a record of any major accomplishment. Global Warming is not conducive to being competitive in BushWorld.

[30A Skunkape]

Conservatives took their eye off the collective boondoggle ball by rubber stamping a trillion dollar Iraq War, and doing nothing about interest on the debt, entitlement transfer payment growth, immigration, and ethics. The Repubs have been poor stewards of our country...quick to fight anyone but negotiate with no one, and for 7 plus years denying we have a potentially catastrophic ecological problem at hand. With Repubs, the priorities are making money regardless of the damage to our own country by labeling the dismantiling of our manufacturing base "free trade". It's breathtakingly embarrassing, and not a record of any major accomplishment. Global Warming is not conducive to being competitive in BushWorld.

No, like I said, you can't interchange the terms conservative and republican. The current crop of republicans are mighty disappointing as they have taken to spending like Teddy Kennedy at a bar. Relax Bob, Bush will be gone in about a year and you can ease off the Prozac;-)

[LightWorker]

Top 50 Things To Do To Stop Global Warming (Causes and Solutions) (http://globalwarming-facts.info/50-tips.html)

[fisher]

Conservatives took their eye off the collective boondoggle ball by rubber stamping a trillion dollar Iraq War, and doing nothing about interest on the debt, entitlement transfer payment growth, immigration, and ethics. The Repubs have been poor stewards of our country...quick to fight anyone but negotiate with no one, and for 7 plus years denying we have a potentially catastrophic ecological problem at hand. With Repubs, the priorities are making money regardless of the damage to our own country by labeling the dismantiling of our manufacturing base "free trade". It's breathtakingly embarrassing, and not a record of any major accomplishment. Global Warming is not conducive to being competitive in BushWorld.

And, Al Gore is fighting the global warming fight because he is a kind and compassionate humanitarian. NOT! The guy is as money grubbing as any Republican or Democrat out there. He is concerned only about gaining notoriety and a legacy because his legacy obviously won't come from being president.:clap: If he was as concerned about the environment as he says he is (he seems to be Cheerleader number one), he would take one for the team and drive a Prius (not an Escalade), live in a normal house (not a gigantic mansion), fly exclusively on mass airlines (not private jets), etc. No, mister Gore is out for old numero uno.

[Smiling JOe]

No comments on Gore buying a major stake in the only Carbon-offset company in the US as the Fed Gov't gains more controls on big business?

[30A Skunkape]

Top 50 Things To Do To Stop Global Warming (Causes and Solutions) (http://globalwarming-facts.info/50-tips.html)

#48 on that list fascinates me. Support legislation by John McCain the ecodestroying Republican and Joe 'get out of our Democrat party' Liberman. Guess that blows up sweeping generalizations made by a few talking point addicted eco-warriors on this forum.

[30A Skunkape]

Here is #51 for the list of ways to stop global warming::biggrin:
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22896334-2,00.html

[scooterbug44]

What a coincidence I also asked him to run with Hillary, but I added, "and don't stop until you hit China."

I almost spit out coffee on that one! :funn:

Seriously, how can us drastically changing the planet NOT have any consequences?

[Smiling JOe]

I totally believe in creating more efficient engines, alternative fuel and energy sources, less pollution, etc. Buying carbon credits from Al Gore (CCX) is not my personal idea of changing the planet.

[scooterbug44]

IMO buying carbon credits to save the environment is like justifying your inhumane business practices by donating $ to charity.

[Bob]

http://www.blog.newsweek.com/blogs/labnotes/archive/2007/12/10/climate-change-censored.aspx left wing propaganda??

[30A Skunkape]

http://www.blog.newsweek.com/blogs/labnotes/archive/2007/12/10/climate-change-censored.aspx left wing propaganda??

No doubt a left wing circus if Waxman is the ring master, but this goes back to what I think is the root of all global warming evil:politics and science mixing in such a manner that battle lines are drawn by combatants fighting over theory they percieve as dogma.

[fisher]

http://www.blog.newsweek.com/blogs/labnotes/archive/2007/12/10/climate-change-censored.aspx left wing propaganda??

At my office, the boss is allowed to edit anything we put out. Why is it that Bush, as POTUS, isn't allowed to edit the work of his underlings? If Bush doesn't believe that mankind is to blame for global warming with 95% certainty based on other credible scientists findings, why should he allow something coming from one of his departments to go out with something that isn't scientifically proven? It is HIS administration isn't it?

I don't understand all the fuss over editing the comments of a staffer when you disagree with the staffer. It's one thing if we are talking about facts. It's quite another when we are talking about theories that have strong scientific minds backing both sides of the story.

[Bob]

At my office, the boss is allowed to edit anything we put out. Why is it that Bush, as POTUS, isn't allowed to edit the work of his underlings? If Bush doesn't believe that mankind is to blame for global warming with 95% certainty based on other credible scientists findings, why should he allow something coming from one of his departments to go out with something that isn't scientifically proven? It is HIS administration isn't it?

I don't understand all the fuss over editing the comments of a staffer when you disagree with the staffer. It's one thing if we are talking about facts. It's quite another when we are talking about theories that have strong scientific minds backing both sides of the story.Bush should not edit because he obviously isn't a scientist. The ultimate comedy is GW editing out the work of high I.Q., technically educated, P.H.D. scientists. You'd rather go with Bush, right? Because he's smarter than those scientists, right? Scary!

[fisher]

Bush should not edit because he obviously isn't a scientist. The ultimate comedy is GW editing out the work of high I.Q., technically educated, P.H.D. scientists. You'd rather go with Bush, right? Because he's smarter than those scientists, right? Scary!

I guess you've never managed a large group of people before and had to make decisions based on the varying opinions of those working for you. POTUS must do this every day in the most complex organization on earth.

When you manage a large group of people, you will obviously have underlings that have varying points of view. Whether it be IT people, accounting people, marketing people, etc., it's the boss's job to sift through the varying opinions of these experts (the boss is never an expert in everything) and make a decision as to which expert opinion he or she will go with. That's just what GW did like every POTUS before him.

Do you honestly believe that every SCIENTIFIC mind advising the president has the same opinion on global warming?? I don't think so. Is it that hard to believe that he must make a choice as to which scientific theory on global warming his administration will adhere to. He chose the "other side" from your perspective and because he chose the other side you believe he is wrong and evil.

Politics are entering the scientific arena here. That's it and nothing more.

Not too hard to understand is it??

[30A Skunkape]

Meanwhile we take Al Gore's scientific speculation as gospel even though he didn't have a spectacular academic career and has no formal scientific education. This actually cuts both ways;Dr William Gray said his lab and others that were doing research into alternative causes of global warming mysteriously lost federal funding during a certain previous administration :scratch:

[Bob]

Meanwhile we take Al Gore's scientific speculation as gospel even though he didn't have a spectacular academic career and has no formal scientific education. This actually cuts both ways;Dr William Gray said his lab and others that were doing research into alternative causes of global warming mysteriously lost federal funding during a certain previous administration :scratch:As we discussed earlier, Dr. Gray may not be the "go to" guy.

[30A Skunkape]

As we discussed earlier, Dr. Gray may not be the "go to" guy.

Maybe, maybe not. But for your reading pleasure as well as Savvytangerine's, here is a fresh release with more names, studies and observations that challenge global warming's conventional wisdom.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=c9554887-802a-23ad-4303-68f67ebd151c

[Miss Kitty]

I feel a bit better about my high electric bills now. My A/C guy just left here after doing my winter inspection. He told me running a pool can add $175 - $200 to my summer bill. So, it is all Mr. Kitty's fault for wanting that dammm pool. :biggrin:

[Andy A.]

I feel a bit better about my high electric bills now. My A/C guy just left here after doing my winter inspection. He told me running a pool can add $175 - $200 to my summer bill. So, it is all Mr. Kitty's fault for wanting that dammm pool. :biggrin:
No, its all Al Gore's fault and you and Mr. Kitty should be ashamed of yourselves for contributing to global warming.

[LightWorker]

Nobel Peace Prize Acceptance Speech by Al Gore

Oslo, Norway
Your Majesties, Your Royal Highnesses, Honorable members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, Excellencies, Ladies and gentlemen.
I have a purpose here today. It is a purpose I have tried to serve for many years. I have prayed that God would show me a way to accomplish it.
Sometimes, without warning, the future knocks on our door with a precious and painful vision of what might be. One hundred and nineteen years ago, a wealthy inventor read his own obituary, mistakenly published years before his death. Wrongly believing the inventor had just died, a newspaper printed a harsh judgment of his life’s work, unfairly labeling him “The Merchant of Death” because of his invention — dynamite. Shaken by this condemnation, the inventor made a fateful choice to serve the cause of peace.
Seven years later, Alfred Nobel created this prize and the others that bear his name.
Seven years ago tomorrow, I read my own political obituary in a judgment that seemed to me harsh and mistaken — if not premature. But that unwelcome verdict also brought a precious if painful gift: an opportunity to search for fresh new ways to serve my purpose.
Unexpectedly, that quest has brought me here. Even though I fear my words cannot match this moment, I pray what I am feeling in my heart will be communicated clearly enough that those who hear me will say, “We must act.”
The distinguished scientists with whom it is the greatest honor of my life to share this award have laid before us a choice between two different futures — a choice that to my ears echoes the words of an ancient prophet: “Life or death, blessings or curses. Therefore, choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live.”
We, the human species, are confronting a planetary emergency — a threat to the survival of our civilization that is gathering ominous and destructive potential even as we gather here. But there is hopeful news as well: we have the ability to solve this crisis and avoid the worst — though not all — of its consequences, if we act boldly, decisively and quickly.
However, despite a growing number of honorable exceptions, too many of the world’s leaders are still best described in the words Winston Churchill applied to those who ignored Adolf Hitler’s threat: “They go on in strange paradox, decided only to be undecided, resolved to be irresolute, adamant for drift, solid for fluidity, all powerful to be impotent.”
So today, we dumped another 70 million tons of global-warming pollution into the thin shell of atmosphere surrounding our planet, as if it were an open sewer. And tomorrow, we will dump a slightly larger amount, with the cumulative concentrations now trapping more and more heat from the sun.
As a result, the earth has a fever. And the fever is rising. The experts have told us it is not a passing affliction that will heal by itself. We asked for a second opinion. And a third. And a fourth. And the consistent conclusion, restated with increasing alarm, is that something basic is wrong.
We are what is wrong, and we must make it right.
Last September 21, as the Northern Hemisphere tilted away from the sun, scientists reported with unprecedented distress that the North Polar ice cap is “falling off a cliff.” One study estimated that it could be completely gone during summer in less than 22 years. Another new study, to be presented by U.S. Navy researchers later this week, warns it could happen in as little as 7 years.
Seven years from now.
In the last few months, it has been harder and harder to misinterpret the signs that our world is spinning out of kilter. Major cities in North and South America, Asia and Australia are nearly out of water due to massive droughts and melting glaciers. Desperate farmers are losing their livelihoods. Peoples in the frozen Arctic and on low-lying Pacific islands are planning evacuations of places they have long called home. Unprecedented wildfires have forced a half million people from their homes in one country and caused a national emergency that almost brought down the government in another. Climate refugees have migrated into areas already inhabited by people with different cultures, religions, and traditions, increasing the potential for conflict. Stronger storms in the Pacific and Atlantic have threatened whole cities. Millions have been displaced by massive flooding in South Asia, Mexico, and 18 countries in Africa. As temperature extremes have increased, tens of thousands have lost their lives. We are recklessly burning and clearing our forests and driving more and more species into extinction. The very web of life on which we depend is being ripped and frayed.
We never intended to cause all this destruction, just as Alfred Nobel never intended that dynamite be used for waging war. He had hoped his invention would promote human progress. We shared that same worthy goal when we began burning massive quantities of coal, then oil and methane.
Even in Nobel’s time, there were a few warnings of the likely consequences. One of the very first winners of the Prize in chemistry worried that, “We are evaporating our coal mines into the air.” After performing 10,000 equations by hand, Svante Arrhenius calculated that the earth’s average temperature would increase by many degrees if we doubled the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Seventy years later, my teacher, Roger Revelle, and his colleague, Dave Keeling, began to precisely document the increasing CO2 levels day by day.
But unlike most other forms of pollution, CO2 is invisible, tasteless, and odorless — which has helped keep the truth about what it is doing to our climate out of sight and out of mind. Moreover, the catastrophe now threatening us is unprecedented — and we often confuse the unprecedented with the improbable.
We also find it hard to imagine making the massive changes that are now necessary to solve the crisis. And when large truths are genuinely inconvenient, whole societies can, at least for a time, ignore them. Yet as George Orwell reminds us: “Sooner or later a false belief bumps up against solid reality, usually on a battlefield.”
In the years since this prize was first awarded, the entire relationship between humankind and the earth has been radically transformed. And still, we have remained largely oblivious to the impact of our cumulative actions.
Indeed, without realizing it, we have begun to wage war on the earth itself. Now, we and the earth’s climate are locked in a relationship familiar to war planners: “Mutually assured destruction.”
More than two decades ago, scientists calculated that nuclear war could throw so much debris and smoke into the air that it would block life-giving sunlight from our atmosphere, causing a “nuclear winter.” Their eloquent warnings here in Oslo helped galvanize the world’s resolve to halt the nuclear arms race.
Now science is warning us that if we do not quickly reduce the global warming pollution that is trapping so much of the heat our planet normally radiates back out of the atmosphere, we are in danger of creating a permanent “carbon summer.”
As the American poet Robert Frost wrote, “Some say the world will end in fire; some say in ice.” Either, he notes, “would suffice.”
But neither need be our fate. It is time to make peace with the planet.
We must quickly mobilize our civilization with the urgency and resolve that has previously been seen only when nations mobilized for war. These prior struggles for survival were won when leaders found words at the 11th hour that released a mighty surge of courage, hope and readiness to sacrifice for a protracted and mortal challenge.
These were not comforting and misleading assurances that the threat was not real or imminent; that it would affect others but not ourselves; that ordinary life might be lived even in the presence of extraordinary threat; that Providence could be trusted to do for us what we would not do for ourselves.
No, these were calls to come to the defense of the common future. They were calls upon the courage, generosity and strength of entire peoples, citizens of every class and condition who were ready to stand against the threat once asked to do so. Our enemies in those times calculated that free people would not rise to the challenge; they were, of course, catastrophically wrong.
Now comes the threat of climate crisis — a threat that is real, rising, imminent, and universal. Once again, it is the 11th hour. The penalties for ignoring this challenge are immense and growing, and at some near point would be unsustainable and unrecoverable. For now we still have the power to choose our fate, and the remaining question is only this: Have we the will to act vigorously and in time, or will we remain imprisoned by a dangerous illusion?
Mahatma Gandhi awakened the largest democracy on earth and forged a shared resolve with what he called “Satyagraha” — or “truth force.”
In every land, the truth — once known — has the power to set us free.
Truth also has the power to unite us and bridge the distance between “me” and “we,” creating the basis for common effort and shared responsibility.
There is an African proverb that says, “If you want to go quickly, go alone. If you want to go far, go together.” We need to go far, quickly.
We must abandon the conceit that individual, isolated, private actions are the answer. They can and do help. But they will not take us far enough without collective action. At the same time, we must ensure that in mobilizing globally, we do not invite the establishment of ideological conformity and a new lock-step “ism.”
That means adopting principles, values, laws, and treaties that release creativity and initiative at every level of society in multifold responses originating concurrently and spontaneously.
This new consciousness requires expanding the possibilities inherent in all humanity. The innovators who will devise a new way to harness the sun’s energy for pennies or invent an engine that’s carbon negative may live in Lagos or Mumbai or Montevideo. We must ensure that entrepreneurs and inventors everywhere on the globe have the chance to change the world.
When we unite for a moral purpose that is manifestly good and true, the spiritual energy unleashed can transform us. The generation that defeated fascism throughout the world in the 1940s found, in rising to meet their awesome challenge, that they had gained the moral authority and long-term vision to launch the Marshall Plan, the United Nations, and a new level of global cooperation and foresight that unified Europe and facilitated the emergence of democracy and prosperity in Germany, Japan, Italy and much of the world. One of their visionary leaders said, “It is time we steered by the stars and not by the lights of every passing ship.”
In the last year of that war, you gave the Peace Prize to a man from my hometown of 2000 people, Carthage, Tennessee. Cordell Hull was described by Franklin Roosevelt as the “Father of the United Nations.” He was an inspiration and hero to my own father, who followed Hull in the Congress and the U.S. Senate and in his commitment to world peace and global cooperation.
My parents spoke often of Hull, always in tones of reverence and admiration. Eight weeks ago, when you announced this prize, the deepest emotion I felt was when I saw the headline in my hometown paper that simply noted I had won the same prize that Cordell Hull had won. In that moment, I knew what my father and mother would have felt were they alive.
Just as Hull’s generation found moral authority in rising to solve the world crisis caused by fascism, so too can we find our greatest opportunity in rising to solve the climate crisis. In the Kanji characters used in both Chinese and Japanese, “crisis” is written with two symbols, the first meaning “danger,” the second “opportunity.” By facing and removing the danger of the climate crisis, we have the opportunity to gain the moral authority and vision to vastly increase our own capacity to solve other crises that have been too long ignored.
We must understand the connections between the climate crisis and the afflictions of poverty, hunger, HIV-Aids and other pandemics. As these problems are linked, so too must be their solutions. We must begin by making the common rescue of the global environment the central organizing principle of the world community.
Fifteen years ago, I made that case at the “Earth Summit” in Rio de Janeiro. Ten years ago, I presented it in Kyoto. This week, I will urge the delegates in Bali to adopt a bold mandate for a treaty that establishes a universal global cap on emissions and uses the market in emissions trading to efficiently allocate resources to the most effective opportunities for speedy reductions.
This treaty should be ratified and brought into effect everywhere in the world by the beginning of 2010 — two years sooner than presently contemplated. The pace of our response must be accelerated to match the accelerating pace of the crisis itself.
Heads of state should meet early next year to review what was accomplished in Bali and take personal responsibility for addressing this crisis. It is not unreasonable to ask, given the gravity of our circumstances, that these heads of state meet every three months until the treaty is completed.
We also need a moratorium on the construction of any new generating facility that burns coal without the capacity to safely trap and store carbon dioxide.
And most important of all, we need to put a price on carbon — with a CO2 tax that is then rebated back to the people, progressively, according to the laws of each nation, in ways that shift the burden of taxation from employment to pollution. This is by far the most effective and simplest way to accelerate solutions to this crisis.
The world needs an alliance — especially of those nations that weigh heaviest in the scales where earth is in the balance. I salute Europe and Japan for the steps they’ve taken in recent years to meet the challenge, and the new government in Australia, which has made solving the climate crisis its first priority.
But the outcome will be decisively influenced by two nations that are now failing to do enough: the United States and China. While India is also growing fast in importance, it should be absolutely clear that it is the two largest CO2 emitters — most of all, my own country —- that will need to make the boldest moves, or stand accountable before history for their failure to act.
Both countries should stop using the other’s behavior as an excuse for stalemate and instead develop an agenda for mutual survival in a shared global environment.
These are the last few years of decision, but they can be the first years of a bright and hopeful future if we do what we must. No one should believe a solution will be found without effort, without cost, without change. Let us acknowledge that if we wish to redeem squandered time and speak again with moral authority, then these are the hard truths:
The way ahead is difficult. The outer boundary of what we currently believe is feasible is still far short of what we actually must do. Moreover, between here and there, across the unknown, falls the shadow.
That is just another way of saying that we have to expand the boundaries of what is possible. In the words of the Spanish poet, Antonio Machado, “Pathwalker, there is no path. You must make the path as you walk.”
We are standing at the most fateful fork in that path. So I want to end as I began, with a vision of two futures — each a palpable possibility — and with a prayer that we will see with vivid clarity the necessity of choosing between those two futures, and the urgency of making the right choice now.
The great Norwegian playwright, Henrik Ibsen, wrote, “One of these days, the younger generation will come knocking at my door.”
The future is knocking at our door right now. Make no mistake, the next generation will ask us one of two questions. Either they will ask: “What were you thinking; why didn’t you act?”
Or they will ask instead: “How did you find the moral courage to rise and successfully resolve a crisis that so many said was impossible to solve?”
We have everything we need to get started, save perhaps political will, but political will is a renewable resource.
So let us renew it, and say together: “We have a purpose. We are many. For this purpose we will rise, and we will act."

[30A Skunkape]

Lincoln's Gettysburg Address was about 270 words. Surely Gore could deliver a speech of similar length and limit his release of CO2 in the process:biggrin:

[elgordoboy]

I guess you've never managed a large group of people before and had to m