An Inconvenient Truth Premiere & Discussion Friday 6/16

[buffalopundit]

This Friday (June 16th) is the Buffalo premiere of Al Gore's documentary "An Inconvenient Truth (http://www.climatecrisis.net)".

For anyone even remotely concerned about the issue of climate change, Gore's movie is pretty much a must-see.

You can purchase tickets in advance by clicking this link. (http://www.dipsontheaters.com/showtimes/showtime.php?showtimeID=107521)

I'll be going to the 7pm screening, as will many members of the WNY Coalition for Progress (http://www.wnyprogress.org). Immediately after that screening, we'll hold a general meeting and post-movie discussion forum at Bobby McGee's next door.

That discussion and meeting will probably kick off around 8:45 pm. So:

What: Movie Screening of "An Inconvenient Truth (http://www.climatecrisis.net/)" and General Meeting/Discussion
When: Friday June 16th, Movie at 7:00 pm and General Meeting at 8:45 pm
Where: Movie: Dipson's Amherst Theatre, 3500 Main Street, Buffalo, General meeting: Bobby McGee's, also 3500 Main Street, Buffalo.

Please sign up and RSVP through meetup (http://johnkerry.meetup.com/113/), so we can get an approximate headcount.

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/_4ofSx6NsQs"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/_4ofSx6NsQs" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

[Ragin]

Looks interesting. I'll see you there Pundit

[300miles]

I don't understand ...

If this is an urgent crisis, why he didn't do something about it while he was vice-president of the most powerful country on Earth for 8 years?

[buffy]

Buffy & Dave are going...

ummm, b/c it wasn't that urgent 8 years ago? :D

[buffalopundit]

I don't understand ...

If this is an urgent crisis, why he didn't do something about it while he was vice-president of the most powerful country on Earth for 8 years?

He tried. But people didn't take it seriously then, and the administration denies that climate change exists today.

[moonshine]

But people didn't take it seriously then

Thankfully nothing has changed. It's still the same load of crap it was 8 years ago.

[Nicolas II]

Well, I wonder........ for instance on Channel 2 News the other day they were clamoring on how global warming and the increase in CO2 has resulted in an over abundance of poison ivy......as an aside, the "botanist" stated that all flora was growing in over abundance. Well, harkening back to my ill advised Pre-Med days, I seem to remember that plants converted CO2 into 02. So, isn't that sort of a natural balancing?

Frankly, the real issue isn't pollution per se, but rather extreme over-population (to which I have contributed my share) which breeds, at an exponential rate, pollution.....

[LHardy]

The theory of global warming caused by man is a farce that there is not one shred of viable evidence for.
Is the globe warming? Maybe. Yet again it could just be a natural balancing act that occurs every so many years.
Many science publications of late have just flat out called the Gore project an absolute lie and myth without basis in fact.
The available data on climate change is no more then 100 years old and barely accurate. Without extrapolative information collected for thousands of years, there is not one scientific way to make global warming claims that are even close to probable.
Making a quantum leap from warm weather to global warming is just that; a leap.
Fact global warming leads to an increase in the ice caps of both N and S poles.
I would like to know from all you "man causes global warming" theorists, what do you do about volcanoes which spew more CO2 into the atmosphere in one eruption than all of mankind has since the industrial revolution?

[buffalopundit]

Well, that's sort of the point of seeing the movie, isn't it? To see what the other side's evidence is?

But if you're already convinced of one side and you refuse to hear the other, then there's no sense in even discussing it, really.

[moonshine]

But if you're already convinced of one side and you refuse to hear the other, then there's no sense in even discussing it, really.

Refuse to hear the other side's arguments? How could any human with a pulse NOT hear the other side's arguments? Every day we are reminded by the media how evil the human race is and we should all move back to caves before the Earth gets really mad and explodes.

I love the global warning prophets. They're a hysterical bunch that offer some needed comedy relief.

[LHardy]

Well, that's sort of the point of seeing the movie, isn't it? To see what the other side's evidence is?

But if you're already convinced of one side and you refuse to hear the other, then there's no sense in even discussing it, really.

See the funny part is there is NO EVIDENCE of man made global warming.
That is why you can not discuss this issue with one shred of factual evidence. There is none.

Buffy stating that global warming was not an issue 8 years ago has not followed the news much. In the late seventies and eighties that was all we heard about. It is only an issue if political hay can be made from it. Nothing more.

[LHardy]

The movie should be titled - "An Inconvenient Truth - Al Gore still wants to be President"

[Nicolas II]

761

Here is something from back in the day, the glorious 1970's.....Funny how we never see this flying anymore............:confused:

[buffy]

Buffy stating that global warming was not an issue 8 years ago has not followed the news much.

I was joking, hence the :D

[Ragin]

Well, that's sort of the point of seeing the movie, isn't it? To see what the other side's evidence is?

But if you're already convinced of one side and you refuse to hear the other, then there's no sense in even discussing it, really.

That's part of the reason I'm going.

I'm not a member of Al Gore's fan club, but I really don't see the harm in watching a movie. If you've ever attended one of Pundits discussions, you'd see how well he presents the issue.

[Chris in Parkside]

You can pre-order tickets online at:

http://www.dipsontheatres.com/showtimes/showtime.php?showtimeID=107521

[WNYresident]

Hey if i zip down union to main and turn right.. how far down are the theatres?

[buffy]

you have to turn left at Union/Main - theater is across from the UB South campus at the old University Plaza, just past Bailey on the right - plenty of parking.

[crlachepinochet]

...although you may want to hop on the highway and avoid Williamsville traffic...

90E -> 290 and get off on Main St. WEST... the movie theater is just past our fancy new yet-to-open Dunkin' Donuts.

[Nicolas II]

Same place where Moore's Fahrenheit 911 was initially screened---the theater of the intelligentsia

[speaker]

The movie should be titled - "An Inconvenient Truth - Al Gore still wants to be President"

That's what's really behind your reply, isn't it, Hardy? The democrats thought of it first, and the fact that it might cost the repub's beloved corporations some money? And Al Gore--nemesis!
What exactly is the harm in taking care of the earth. Just by the way of making things cleaner and safer we might be doing something for our descendants--oh no! A benefit that we don't even get to see. What's the use?
All kinds of people would benefit, come to think about it, but heck, they're halfway around the world and don't have any money besides. So why bother?
Well, I like Al Gore's values, Hardy, and I wish our present president had a few of them.

[Nicolas II]

I always thought Tipper might be a fun date after a few drinks in her.....:p

[Jim Ostrowski]

My concern is that the earth slowed down one second last year and I wasted it.

[buffy]

This is a must see documentary, thought provoking & compelling. I'm glad I saw it.

[300miles]

This is a must see documentary, thought provoking & compelling. I'm glad I saw it.
Yeah Yeah... you said the same thing about Over The Hedge.

;)

[steven]

This is a must see documentary, thought provoking & compelling. I'm glad I saw it.

Ragin and I should up early and didnt see you guys.

Next time you got to stop by hemmingways with us for the pre event event:D

[LHardy]

That's what's really behind your reply, isn't it, Hardy? The democrats thought of it first, and the fact that it might cost the repub's beloved corporations some money?

No not at all. Al Gore can make an ass out of himself and the Dem party all he wants. That is just fine with me. It is also apparant that the Dems are sheep and have no independent thought when it comes to the real sciences not the junk science they bow to for re -election bids.


What exactly is the harm in taking care of the earth. Just by the way of making things cleaner and safer we might be doing something for our descendants--oh no! A benefit that we don't even get to see. What's the use?

No harm at all. We all want a clean earth and less pollution. To use a false arguement of man causing global warming, specifically the USA is a lie and myth. No factual evidence exists.


All kinds of people would benefit, come to think about it, but heck, they're halfway around the world and don't have any money besides. So why bother?
Well, I like Al Gore's values, Hardy, and I wish our present president had a few of them.

I am happy to know their are more gullable dems out there like yourself. Willing to buy into the hyped claims of a man who told the world he invented the World Wide Web.

You go Dems! Keep up the good work!

[buffy]

go see the movie, Lhardy, then we'll talk :rolleyes:

[mikewrona]

I don't understand ...

If this is an urgent crisis, why he didn't do something about it while he was vice-president of the most powerful country on Earth for 8 years?

He did - The Kyoto Agreement: "The United States of America (USA), although a signatory (1998) to the protocol, has neither ratified nor withdrawn from the protocol. The signature alone is mostly symbolic, as the protocol is non-binding over the United States unless ratified."

No treaty becomes law unless ratified by Congress. The Republicans don't want it. So until they agree Clinton and Gore's efforts mean nothing.

[300miles]

They put zero effort into promoting Kyoto or trying to win any compromise. They knew it would fail and just let it flap in the wind. The treaty was flawed for many reasons and they knew that.

If they really wanted environmental results, the administration should have promoted a real US internal policy to cut emmissions or reduce waste. They did nothing but sign-on to a foreign plan that was/is unrealistic to obtain. And the work-arounds being used are defeating the whole purpose of the treaty anyway (as in "swapping credits" with non-polluting countries)

It was convenient for them to sign a treaty they knew would fail, then just leave it for the next administration to deal with. Now what did Gore actually do during those 8 years in office to "ward off environmental catastrophe".

[Jim Ostrowski]

Why do those who believe in "global warming" (artificially-caused and dangerous increase in the earth's temperature) spend so much time trying convince those who don't, and coerce those who don't, and so little time changing their own daily personal behavior which, they believe, contributes to global warming?

[LHardy]

go see the movie, Lhardy, then we'll talk :rolleyes:
I don't need to see a movie after having read science publication after publication.
Al Gore is not a scientist.
I find it hillarious that people want to believe, man caused global warming and
yet there is NO EVIDENCE or FACTS to back the claims.
An inconvient truth is just that. The Truth ignored by the movie and believers of man made global warming. It is not only ignorant of fact, it is self loathing.

The globe has been warming for thousands of years. Remember the ice age?

I have challenged all of you who believe man and CO2 are the cause of global warming. The challenge was and is how do you explain the FACT that volcanoes have produce more CO2 emissions per eruption than all of mankind throught history?

Not one of you has responded to that challenge.
Do we now cork all vocanoes? How do we stop them from polluting our atmosphere. More pollution then that coming from mankind.
Anyone care to take a stab at that?

[buffy]

You mean lead by example, JO? That's what the closing credits included - ways in which the average citizen can make green changes in daily habits.

All Gore used an expression "It's like taking a nature hike through the Book of Revelations" to describe the changes in weather that occurred in 2005 (the ten hottest temperatures occurred in the last decade witht THE hottest occurring in 2005)...Go see the movie!

[buffy]

I am not debating whether man caused it or not, if you GO SEE THE MOVIE you will be surprised that Gore used data from almost 300 SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS, published by Independent Review Boards, if that's not science, please tell me what is. Gore also notes that out of these journals NOT ONE has been disproved or debated, yet, the popular press is full of ppl saying "well, what about this or that?" Go see the movie.

[buffy]

I don't need to see a movie after having read science publication after publication.
Al Gore is not a scientist.
I find it hillarious that people want to believe, man caused global warming and
yet there is NO EVIDENCE or FACTS to back the claims.
An inconvient truth is just that. The Truth ignored by the movie and believers of man made global warming. It is not only ignorant of fact, it is self loathing.

The globe has been warming for thousands of years. Remember the ice age?

I have challenged all of you who believe man and CO2 are the cause of global warming. The challenge was and is how do you explain the FACT that volcanoes have produce more CO2 emissions per eruption than all of mankind throught history?

Not one of you has responded to that challenge.
Do we now cork all vocanoes? How do we stop them from polluting our atmosphere. More pollution then that coming from mankind.
Anyone care to take a stab at that?

Gore addresses several Ice Ages, in fact, a scientist charted them for him (like 7,000 years worth) drilled out of ice shelves...and I am not advocating that man caused everything, we just accellerated the process, plus, I believe, there is some divine order to this crisis, as in Revelation 16: 8-9 "and the fourth angle poured out his vial upon the sun and power was given to him to scorch men with fire. And men were scorched with great heat, and blasphemed the name of God, which has power over these plagues: and they repented not to give him glory.

and verse 15: "Blessed is he who watches"

I like to be aware of my surroundings and what is transpiring in the world around me...I'm keeping an open mind, but also keeping my EYES OPEN... I'm watching.

[300miles]

plus, I believe, there is some divine order to this crisis
Do you think Gore's ideas will stop God's divine plan?

[LHardy]

One last time.
How do you make science predictions about a specimen (the earth in this case) that is millions of years old and use data that is only decades old?
Any scientist that is willing to stick out his/her neck on such sloppy scientific practice should not have the right to call themselves scientists.
With the data that is available no one can assert any claim that man causes or has caused global warming. This does not require a degree in rocket science to conclude.
Man is less then a parasite in size when it comes to the workings of the earth and the universe.
Man can no more cause a traumatic shift in global temperatures then a bed bug can cause you to sleep less.
Not even if man uses nukes to attempt such change.
Ignorance of FACTS.

[buffy]

LHardy, maybe you don't have all the facts...and you are not listening to me...I'm basically saying - it's a runaway train...think of it, if scientists can't prove anything until data matches length of existance, then forget about it, runaway train...

and no, Gore isn't going to change things, that's not what the movie is about...his conscience is bothering him, he is interested and frustrated at the same time, he has no answers...he is simply saying - look at this and let us reason together.

[Jim Ostrowski]

"You mean lead by example, JO? That's what the closing credits included - ways in which the average citizen can make green changes in daily habits."

Well, is Al Gore continuing to use fossil fuels?


"All Gore used an expression "It's like taking a nature hike through the Book of Revelations" to describe the changes in weather that occurred in 2005 (the ten hottest temperatures occurred in the last decade witht THE hottest occurring in 2005)...Go see the movie!"

If I go see the movie, won't I be contributing to global warming: the gas in my car, the electricity in the theater, all the fossil fuels that went into the production of this film--sunk costs true, but I'll be encouraging others to worsen global warming by making more global warming films.

Oh the humanity!

[TheRightView]

No not at all. Al Gore can make an ass out of himself and the Dem party all he wants. That is just fine with me. It is also apparant that the Dems are sheep and have no independent thought when it comes to the real sciences not the junk science they bow to for re -election bids.



No harm at all. We all want a clean earth and less pollution. To use a false arguement of man causing global warming, specifically the USA is a lie and myth. No factual evidence exists.



I am happy to know their are more gullable dems out there like yourself. Willing to buy into the hyped claims of a man who told the world he invented the World Wide Web.

You go Dems! Keep up the good work!

No Factual evidence that God exists either, so what do you believe in, if you believe in anything at all? If nothing, that is definately fooLHardy.

[TheRightView]

Well, is Al Gore continuing to use fossil fuels?



If I go see the movie, won't I be contributing to global warming: the gas in my car, the electricity in the theater, all the fossil fuels that went into the production of this film--sunk costs true, but I'll be encouraging others to worsen global warming by making more global warming films.

Oh the humanity!

Well you could walk or bike to the theatre, the theatre could have used solar, wind, hydro energy for the a/c, lights, etc. Theproduction of the film falls into the same caterogory as the theatre.

Ah ha!

[mikewrona]

Well, is Al Gore continuing to use fossil fuels?



Funny you should ask, he drives a Ford Escape Hybrid. What do you think of that?

It really is too bad that you believe virtually everyone in the world is a hypocrit.

[mikewrona]

Funny you should ask, he drives a Ford Escape Hybrid. What do you think of that?

It really is too bad that you believe virtually everyone in the world is a hypocrit.
[B]

I got an email that said he has a leased Cadillac that is used for official functions when security needs to travel. That I don't know. I'm assuming its correct. So I'm tossing it into the mix.

[therising]

I'm suddenly finding the ignorance on this MB to be depressing.

Wake up people, just because you hate a politician doesn't mean you have to blast everything he does.

I love when average Joes suddenly have the ability to know more about science than actual scientists. :rolleyes:

[moonshine]

John Stossel addressed the global warming fiction in his book. The following excerpt is from Walter Williams article dated June 7, 2006.
http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/articles/06/help.html

Hardly a day goes by without some kind of warning that mankind's use of fossil fuels, especially in the U.S., is causing global warming. Stossel looks at the numbers. Half of this century's global warming happened between 1900 and 1945. Stossel asks, "If man is responsible, why wasn't there much more warming in the second half of the century? We burned much more fuel during that time."

By the way, if there's global warming, it might be a godsend. According to Harvard astrophysicist Sallie Baliunas, added carbon dioxide helps plants grow. Warmer winters give farmers a longer growing season, and the warming might end the droughts in the Sahara desert.

There's another consideration. For the past 800,000 years, there have been periods of approximately 100,000 years called Ice Ages, followed by a period of 10,000 years, a period called Interglacial, followed by another Ice Age. We're about 10,500 years into the present Interglacial period, namely, we're 500 years overdue for another Ice Age. If indeed mankind's activity contributes to the planet's warming, we might postpone the coming Ice Age.

John Stossel's "Myths, Lies and Downright Stupidity" exposes the false basis for the public fright often caused by an uninformed media and academic elite. Exposure is precisely what's needed because politicians use public fright as a means to gain greater control over our lives. (emphasis added by moonshine)

[mikewrona]

John Stossel addressed the global warming fiction in his book. The following excerpt is from Walter Williams article dated June 7, 2006.
http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/articles/06/help.html

Hardly a day goes by without some kind of warning that mankind's use of fossil fuels, especially in the U.S., is causing global warming. Stossel looks at the numbers. Half of this century's global warming happened between 1900 and 1945. Stossel asks, "If man is responsible, why wasn't there much more warming in the second half of the century? We burned much more fuel during that time."

By the way, if there's global warming, it might be a godsend. According to Harvard astrophysicist Sallie Baliunas, added carbon dioxide helps plants grow. Warmer winters give farmers a longer growing season, and the warming might end the droughts in the Sahara desert.

There's another consideration. For the past 800,000 years, there have been periods of approximately 100,000 years called Ice Ages, followed by a period of 10,000 years, a period called Interglacial, followed by another Ice Age. We're about 10,500 years into the present Interglacial period, namely, we're 500 years overdue for another Ice Age. If indeed mankind's activity contributes to the planet's warming, we might postpone the coming Ice Age.

John Stossel's "Myths, Lies and Downright Stupidity" exposes the false basis for the public fright often caused by an uninformed media and academic elite. Exposure is precisely what's needed because politicians use public fright as a means to gain greater control over our lives. (emphasis added by moonshine)

If you like John Stossel's book on global warming, you should like Martin Yan's book: "We're In For Some Szechuan Style Weather"

Martn Yan, host of the Public Broadcasting TV program "Wok With Yan" has written a study about global warming. He claims if you like Szechuan style food, you'll love the weather that's coming. ;)

[buffy]

I don't CARE who or what is to blame, fact is, it is happening.
Let's talk about recent facts...2005 was an all-time record breaking hot year and mild winter. Hurricane Katrina came into Florida as a category 1 hurricane, while crossing into the Gulf of Mexico, with its warmer than usual water temperature, Katrina sped into a category 5 breaking levies and leaving countless people homeless ...what if these types of storms become normal, or even worse? Can we handle it?

If you absolutely do not want to see the movie, just start paying attention to the weather...hurricanes, forest fires, volcanoes, earthquakes, all of it. Don't get too hung up on just global warming; there's alot going on, my friends.

[buffy]

Read this for the correct age of the ice core sample that was drilled out of an ice shelf http://buffalopundit.wnymedia.net/archives/3177

But, I was correct in the number of scientific review journals, more like 287ish (i said about 300) not the nearly 1,000 Buffalo Pundit posted.:)

[moonshine]

The cool part of this global warming fiction is that 20 years from now we'll be able to sit back and laugh about this entire thread. Pop-media will move onto another fear mongering topic and the grant money will follow.

Res, how about a SUWNY time capsule? Slap a label on it that says: "The corny stuff that people believed in 2006". What a hoot!

[buffy]

you're proving the prophets right, moonshine..."like a thief in the night" that means it will sneak up on you. That means you aren't expecting it...b/c you don't believe it will happen. That's what is written. Spooky.

[WNYresident]

The ocean doesn't lie. There really are mass die offs of corals in various areas of earth. Areas which have been "alive" for 1000's of years. These areas are having a hard time with increasing water temps.

[moonshine]

you're proving the prophets right, moonshine

Thanks buffy, you made my morning. :D

[buffy]

anytime, happy father's day, all you fathers

[Jim Ostrowski]

How do we go from:

Well, is Al Gore continuing to use fossil fuels?

--to

It really is too bad that you believe virtually everyone in the world is a hypocrit.

??????

We know that Al Gore continues to use fossil fuels, more than I do I am sure because he travels more than I do.

All I'm saying is people who want the rest of us to take them seriously that the planet is in danger, should at least substantially cut back their own destructive personal behavior.

[mikewrona]

If a person asks a question in which they already know the answer, might it be construed they have an ulterior motive?

[crlachepinochet]

It seems like a pretty childish argument for anyone to criticize Al Gore for flying around to talk his points. Regardless of how you actually feel about global warming, is it really so hard to understand that avoiding all use of fossil fuels is close to impossible right now? Gore's message isn't for everyone to go fossil-free tomorrow, so it's not exactly a contradiction that he uses fossil fuels.

Do you avoid using services or disobey laws you disagree with? Can you always? Do you bathe in bottled water because you don't like ECWA? Would you insist on putting out your house fire yourself because you think BPD has too many firefighters? Do you insist all of your service employees "negotiated" their wage with their employer without being "bound" by the minimum wage law?

[Jim Ostrowski]

The motive for asking if Al Gore is continuing to deliberately worsen global warming is so obvious that it can't be ulterior.

[colossus27]

Hurricane Katrina came into Florida as a category 1 hurricane, while crossing into the Gulf of Mexico, with its warmer than usual water temperature, Katrina sped into a category 5 breaking levies and leaving countless people homeless ...what if these types of storms become normal, or even worse? Can we handle it?

If you absolutely do not want to see the movie, just start paying attention to the weather...hurricanes, forest fires, volcanoes, earthquakes, all of it. Don't get too hung up on just global warming; there's alot going on, my friends.

Well, 1940-1950 was much worse...so far, that is...alarming to say the least...

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pastdec.shtml
http://www.fumento.com/img6/chart.jpg

[mikewrona]

I don't CARE who or what is to blame, fact is, it is happening.
Let's talk about recent facts...2005 was an all-time record breaking hot year and mild winter. Hurricane Katrina came into Florida as a category 1 hurricane, while crossing into the Gulf of Mexico, with its warmer than usual water temperature, Katrina sped into a category 5 breaking levies and leaving countless people homeless ...what if these types of storms become normal, or even worse? Can we handle it?

If you absolutely do not want to see the movie, just start paying attention to the weather...hurricanes, forest fires, volcanoes, earthquakes, all of it. Don't get too hung up on just global warming; there's alot going on, my friends.

There's some good pictures at this site.

http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/

[crlachepinochet]

The motive for asking if Al Gore is continuing to deliberately worsen global warming is so obvious that it can't be ulterior.
Well, the others arguing on your side are telling us that all of mankind couldn't possibly in their wildest dreams affect something as massive as the Earth. Now you're telling us that Al Gore's points are invalidated if his security drives a Caddy? One man's travels directly effect global climate change?

[DelawareDistrict]

Al Gore presents a worst case scenario. Extremism at its best. It makes for a good opportunity to seize control under the auspices of "working in everyone's best interest".

The computer models which show dangerous levels of global warming rely on a myriad of assumptions - in short, we are being duped by guess work.

[mikewrona]

Al Gore presents a worst case scenario. Extremism at its best. It makes for a good opportunity to seize control under the auspices of "working in everyone's best interest".

The computer models which show dangerous levels of global warming rely on a myriad of assumptions - in short, we are being duped by guess work.

Sounds a lot like what happens when people use economic theory doesn't it? :rolleyes:

[Ragin]

Al Gore presents a worst case scenario. Extremism at its best. It makes for a good opportunity to seize control under the auspices of "working in everyone's best interest".

The computer models which show dangerous levels of global warming rely on a myriad of assumptions - in short, we are being duped by guess work.

Well if it isn't Mighty Mouse! I've been expecting you. :rolleyes:

[buffy]

Al Gore presents a worst case scenario. Extremism at its best. It makes for a good opportunity to seize control under the auspices of "working in everyone's best interest".

The computer models which show dangerous levels of global warming rely on a myriad of assumptions - in short, we are being duped by guess work.
I guess the polar bears are being duped by guesswork too...they are drowning...they never drown, unless they have to swim farther and farther to find solid ice.

let's make Al Gore the antichrist, b/c the antichrist comes "working in everyone's best interest" too.

[moonshine]

let's make Al Gore the antichrist

Geez buffy, first it was prophets, then the antichrist. All very scientific. Maybe you spent a little too much time in church this weekend? :p

[DelawareDistrict]

I guess the polar bears are being duped by guesswork too...they are drowning...they never drown, unless they have to swim farther and farther to find solid ice.

let's make Al Gore the antichrist, b/c the antichrist comes "working in everyone's best interest" too.
All I said was that Gore is an extremist. There is no concrete evidence that we are headed, like a "run away train", toward severe global warming. The same group of greenies were trying to convince us that we were about to enter another ice age in the '70s.

Polar Bear Status Report (http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/bear-facts/)

Polar bears are a potentially threatened (not endangered) species living in the circumpolar north. They are animals which know no boundaries. They pad across the ice from Russia to Alaska, from Canada to Greenland and onto Norway's Svalbard archipelago. No adequate census exists on which to base a worldwide population estimate, but biologists use a working figure of perhaps 22,000 to 25,000 bears with about sixty percent of those living in Canada.

In most sections of the Arctic where estimates are available, polar bear populations are thought to be stable at present. Counts have been decreasing in Baffin Bay and the Davis Strait, where about 3,600 bears are thought to live, but are increasing in the Beaufort Sea, where there are around 3,000 bears.

[Ragin]

Thanks for the link Delaware District.

Did you read the entire report? :confused:

Polar Bear Status Report (http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/bear-facts/climate-change/)


Climate Change

The Arctic's climate is changing, with a noticeable warming trend that is affecting polar bears. The region is experiencing the warmest air temperatures in four centuries. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the U.S. EPA, and the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment all report on the effect of this climatic change on sea-ice patterns. there has been a 7% reduction in ice cover in just 25 years and a 40% loss of ice thickness.A recent report notes that It also predicts a mostly ice-free arctic summer by 2080 if present trends continue.

Many scientists believe that the Arctic will continue to grow warmer as a result of human activity, namely, the introduction into the atmosphere of increasing quantities of carbon dioxide and other “greenhouse gases”. While there is no consensus on whether human activity is the most significant factor, the Arctic has in fact been warming, whatever the cause.

Polar bears depend on a frozen platform from which to hunt seals, the mainstay of their diet. Without ice, the bears are unable to reach their prey. In fact, for the western Hudson Bay population of polar bears (the population near Churchill in the Province of Manitoba, Canada), researchers have correlated earlier melting of spring ice with lower fitness in the bears and lower reproduction success. If the reduced ice coverage results in more open water, cubs and young bears may also not be able to swim the distances required to reach solid ice.

Further north, in areas where the ice conditions have not changed as much, seal populations have grown (either through migration or more successful reproduction) and .polar bear populations are expanding

Because polar bears are a top predator in the Arctic, changes in their distribution or numbers could affect the entire arctic ecosystem. There is little doubt that ice-dependent animals such as polar bears will be adversely affected by continued warming in the Arctic. It is therefore crucial that all factors which may affect the well-being of polar bears be carefully analyzed. Conservative precautionary decisions can only be made with a full understanding of the living systems involved.

[DelawareDistrict]

Yes, I read it. The last sentence sums it up pretty well.

Conservative precautionary decisions can only be made with a full understanding of the living systems involved.
In other words, there is no clear-cut evidence what is causing the problem, whether or not it is just a natural cycle and more studies need to be done to determine, what, if anything, should be done.

[Ragin]

Yes, I read it. The last sentence sums it up pretty well.


Conservative precautionary decisions can only be made with a full understanding of the living systems involved.

In other words, there is no clear-cut evidence what is causing the problem, whether or not it is just a natural cycle and more studies need to be done to determine, what, if anything, should be done.

Five paragraphs discussing the climate change and its effects on the polar bears, (which you failed to mention in your own post that linked this site), and that's your interpretation of the very last sentence??. *sigh* Maybe you should read the whole paragraph. :rolleyes:

Let's see how you spin this one:


Many scientists believe that the Arctic will continue to grow warmer as a result of human activity, namely, the introduction into the atmosphere of increasing quantities of carbon dioxide and other “greenhouse gases”.

[DelawareDistrict]

Let's see how you spin this one:
Spin is what one does when they take a limited number of facts and make unfounded assumptions and come up with a ridiculous doomsday scenario. I am sticking to the facts without letting emotions cloud my view.


More than 17,800 American scientists have signed the "Oregon Petition," where it is underlined that there is insufficient proof that human emission of greenhouse gases will cause a disastrous global warming. There are many other projects that argue against the established view; for instance, the "Leipzig Declaration," signed by 80 scientists who concluded that there is no scientific consensus about global warming and that no measures need to be taken.

The consensus about global warming appears as even more peculiar when looking at how the climate debate has changed during the 20th century. The earth actually became colder between 1940 and 1975, despite industrialization and increased emission of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide. The environmentalists then claimed that global cooling and a new ice age was emerging. Today, the same people have convinced most politicians in the world that the earth is becoming warmer due to these emissions. Climate changes are in fact natural. During the last 160,000 years, the temperature has been varying with 18°F, mainly due to changes in solar activity.

Since 1880, the temperature has increased by only 1° Fahrenheit. 90% of this increase occurred before 1940. Most industrial activity has taken place after 1940, and no global warming has been measured during this time when the increase in cars and industries emitted a lot more carbon dioxide than before. If the temperature was indeed related to emissions, then the increase should have happened after 1940, not before.

These facts imply that it is very difficult to predict how the climate is going to vary in the future. More important, they suggest that the correlation between global warming and emission of greenhouse gases is insignificant. But despite this, a remarkable consensus around global warming has been established.

[steven]

Al Gore presents a worst case scenario. Extremism at its best. It makes for a good opportunity to seize control under the auspices of "working in everyone's best interest".

The computer models which show dangerous levels of global warming rely on a myriad of assumptions - in short, we are being duped by guess work.

Atually he used historical trends as his model. If there are 50 tons of Ice in the antarctic and only 30 tons 10 yrs later seems to me something needs to be fixed (an oversimplification of what was presented but you get the gist of it).

Global warming is happening, wether you blame it on volcanos or spray deoderant is another discussion entirly.

Since niether I nor anyone else in this thread that I know of is a climatoligist. Everyon is just basing their opinion on what they have heard.

[steven]

More than 17,800 American scientists have signed the "Oregon Petition," where it is underlined that there is insufficient proof that human emission of greenhouse gases will cause a disastrous global warming..


LOL thats a joke right?

The oregon petition is on the internet and any joe blow that wants to can sign it and say they are a scientists.

Here ya go buddy, you to can be a climatoligist
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p37.htm

and dont forget
"Please send more petition cards for me to distribute.__ "

:D :D :D :D :D

[DelawareDistrict]

The signatures have to be mailed, that is snail mailed, so the signatures can be verified.

The Antarctic Peninsula is where ice is being lost, that area comprises about 2% of the total mass of the Antarctic, and in the rest of the areas, the ice is getting thicker.

[mikewrona]

Never Let the Facts Get in the Way of a Good Story - Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine

The Marshall Institute co-sponsored with the OISM a deceptive campaign -- known as the Petition Project -- to undermine and discredit the scientific authority of the IPCC and to oppose the Kyoto Protocol. Early in the spring of 1998, thousands of scientists around the country received a mass mailing urging them to sign a petition calling on the government to reject the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was accompanied by other pieces including an article formatted to mimic the journal of the National Academy of Sciences. Subsequent research revealed that the article had not been peer-reviewed, nor published, nor even accepted for publication in that journal and the Academy released a strong statement disclaiming any connection to this effort and reaffirming the reality of climate change. The Petition resurfaced in 2001.

Spin: There is no scientific basis for claims about global warming. IPCC is a hoax. Kyoto is flawed.

Funding: Petition was funded by private sources.

Affiliated Individuals: Arthur B. Robinson, Sallie L. Baliunas, Frederick Seitz


Probably also affiliated with the Flat Earth Society

[colossus27]

Never Let the Facts Get in the Way of a Good Story - Oregon Institute of Science and MedicineSpin: There is no scientific basis for claims about global warming. IPCC is a hoax. Kyoto is flawed.

Spin? Please. Kyoto is, for lack of a better word, a joke.

Funny how people cite gasoline consumption in China as a reason for higher gas prices in the USA, but nobody takes issue with China's omission from Kyoto.

Nothing short of a treaty that requires compliance from China and India will be effective.

Does Mr Internet's infomercial mention increased solar output, or was that also An Inconvenient Truth?

[therising]

Well, 1940-1950 was much worse...so far, that is...alarming to say the least...

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pastdec.shtml
http://www.fumento.com/img6/chart.jpg

Nice chart, but you conveniently stopped in 1996.

2005 had 28 hurricanes, 7 which were Cat 3+
http://weather.unisys.com/hurricane/atlantic/2005/index.html

[colossus27]

Nice chart, but <s>you conveniently stopped </s> your reference ran to 1996.

2005 had 28 hurricanes, 7 which were Cat 3+
http://weather.unisys.com/hurricane/atlantic/2005/index.html

Fixed :)

[LHardy]

No Factual evidence that God exists either, so what do you believe in, if you believe in anything at all? If nothing, that is definately fooLHardy.

What I believe in is something I am not willing to FORCE down the throats of the public as FACT.

[moonshine]

A recent study done by the Arctic Council shows conclusively that global warming jokes in casual conversation are increasing at an alarming rate. Conversations today are 23% more likely to contain a cliché global warming joke than just five years ago.
On warm days the jokes generally take the form of "See, this global warming thing ain't so bad." On hot days they display a shift to "This global warming is a bitch, huh?" And on cold days the jokes are almost always "Where the hell's this global warming I've heard so much about?!" Occasionally a really funny guy will add "I'm gonna go spray some Lysol right now."

Barbershops are the locations hit hardest by this horrible trend. One hair stylist said she hears at least 30 global warming jokes a day. She stated, "Yesterday, I almost stabbed a guy with my scissors because I couldn't take it anymore. This trend makes me long for the days in 1998 when I heard 20 El Nino jokes a day."

http://www.bigfib.com/issue67/world3-en.html

[buffy]

I say "runaway train" because I think it would be nearly impossible to get all of the world on the same page...who is going to convince China to stop mining coal to fuel their economy? Gore debates whether it is a moral or a political issue, and decides it is moral...since WHEN does the world come together to solve moral issues? Then what? Do we start bombing countries who don't comply?

That's why I'm calling this a runaway train. I can't see a minority of concerned people stopping it.

Now I'll play devil's advocate, who stands to benefit from Al Gore's movie? Some say Al Gore...maybe, but remember, this is America and we are driven by economics...more likely, American automobile manufacturers. They are churning out hybrids in a last ditch effort to become competitive with the rest of the world; Gore spends a fair amount of time on that, enough to make me go, hmmmm.

[crlachepinochet]

The computer models which show dangerous levels of global warming rely on a myriad of assumptions - in short, we are being duped by guess work.



Since 1880, the temperature has increased by only 1° Fahrenheit. 90% of this increase occurred before 1940.

Ha! I can't help but laugh when the same person pans theoretical modeling in one post, and then four hours later talks about worldwide average temperature... how in the heck do you think they get that? Did the villagers in Kiribati take the temperature in 1880? Seems like a case of "the model agrees with me, so it must be true"...

[DelawareDistrict]

Ha! I can't help but laugh when the same person pans theoretical modeling in one post, and then four hours later talks about worldwide average temperature... how in the heck do you think they get that? Did the villagers in Kiribati take the temperature in 1880? Seems like a case of "the model agrees with me, so it must be true"...
The thermomenter was invented in 1612. That is 268 years before 1880. There was more than enough data to calculate the average temperature.

[mikewrona]

Spin? Please. Kyoto is, for lack of a better word, a joke.

Funny how people cite gasoline consumption in China as a reason for higher gas prices in the USA, but nobody takes issue with China's omission from Kyoto.

Nothing short of a treaty that requires compliance from China and India will be effective.

Does Mr Internet's infomercial mention increased solar output, or was that also An Inconvenient Truth?


Was yours a forced retirement from the intelligence community? You seem unable to follow a simple conversation.

I need to remind you this is about an alleged scientific survey..

[mikewrona]

The thermomenter was invented in 1612.




Wrong again. The thermometer was invented by Galileo Galilei in 1593. His thermometer consisted of water in a glass bulb

[DelawareDistrict]

Wrong again. The thermometer was invented by Galileo Galilei in 1593. His thermometer consisted of water in a glass bulb.
Instead of wasting your time trying to prove others wrong, why don't you take the time to actually learn something.


Galileo Galilei is often claimed to be the inventor of the thermometer. However the instrument he invented could not strictly be called a thermometer: to be a thermometer an instrument must measure temperature differences; Galileo's instrument did not do this, but merely indicated temperature differences. His instrument should rightly be called a thermoscope.

[300miles]

The thermomenter was invented in 1612. That is 268 years before 1880. There was more than enough data to calculate the average temperature.
It may have been invented in 1612, but how many people around the globe had access to it then? Probably few. And did those that did have a thermometer actually record monthly temperatures for years and years to get accurate data? Is there a log somewhere that tells us the temperature for a single day in London, Rome, Beijing, Moscow, and Bombay on June 19, 1615? How bout every day of the year in all those cities? I doubt it. (I could be wrong).

I'm guessing it took a long while before the thermometer was a universal tool and took a long while before it was actually used to scientifically record data for future use.

And then there's the issue of quality of the data and whether multiple thermometers were standardized to the proper calibration to accurately record temperature down to the precise degree as compared with today's thermometers.

[DelawareDistrict]

It may have been invented in 1612, but how many people around the globe had access to it then? Probably few. And did those that did have a thermometer actually record monthly temperatures for years and years to get accurate data? Is there a log somewhere that tells us the temperature for a single day in London, Rome, Beijing, Moscow, and Bombay on June 19, 1615? How bout every day of the year in all those cities? I doubt it. (I could be wrong).

I'm guessing it took a long while before the thermometer was a universal tool and took a long while before it was actually used to scientifically record data for future use.

And then there's the issue of quality of the data and whether multiple thermometers were standardized to the proper calibration to accurately record temperature down to the precise degree as compared with today's thermometers.

The NASA GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP) provides a measure of the changing global surface temperature with monthly resolution for the period since 1880, when a reasonably global distribution of meteorological stations was established.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

[crlachepinochet]

I didn't mean to question the existence of thermometers, but to say that evidence for global warming is invalid because there are assumptions built into the model while trumpeting your own model-based evidence is ridiculous. All models are based on assumptions that make them "work".

Yes, there were meterological stations in the 1800's and before, but there are still many assumptions built into the "fact" of worldwide average temperature. An "average" temperature would be readings taken simultaneously at regular intervals all across the globe. In 1880, this was impossible. In 2006, this is still impractical, and statistics are used. Potential problems with data from the 1800's: a non-random distribution of meterological stations, quality of the instruments used both in relation to each other and to modern-day instruments, as well as human error in the earliest readings.

[LHardy]

I don't CARE who or what is to blame, fact is, it is happening.
Let's talk about recent facts...2005 was an all-time record breaking hot year and mild winter. Hurricane Katrina came into Florida as a category 1 hurricane, while crossing into the Gulf of Mexico, with its warmer than usual water temperature, Katrina sped into a category 5 breaking levies and leaving countless people homeless ...what if these types of storms become normal, or even worse? Can we handle it?

If you absolutely do not want to see the movie, just start paying attention to the weather...hurricanes, forest fires, volcanoes, earthquakes, all of it. Don't get too hung up on just global warming; there's alot going on, my friends.

This is the perfect example of why man can not be the cause of global warming nor all other facts pointed out by buffy.

If you cannot stop it, you could not have started it.
For anything that man can make he can undo.
Unlike that of nature where man has not one ounce of influence in any direction, no matter how hard he may try.
Katrina
Tsunami
Earthquakes
Tornados
Landslides
El Nino/Nina
Forest Fires
Warming/Cooler temperatures
The wobble of the earth cause by planetary alignments

Which of these things, that are at times labeled as mans fault for increasing greenhouse gases, will end if man goes back to his cave and returns to the simple time of grunting, sticks and stones?

Answer: NONE

So stop blaming man, specifically the US, for the climate activities of nature.

No one dares take up the challenge about volcanic activity and its' effect on greenhouse gasses and global warming. Seems it is easier to say "Mans Fault!" instead of actually finding it is all a matter of balance created by nature and we are only along for the ride until such time nature breaks out the Flee-B-Gone.

[speaker]

C'mon, hardy, that's a bad reference. How about a car that's jamming along and can't put on the brakes fast enough to keep from hitting a pedestrian?
We all know that it's impossible to say if it's nature or us causing the warm up. We'd have to be around for 10,000 years to see if it's cyclical. Noone is overlooking volcanos or, I'm sure, anything else.
If your kid went out riding his bike, and you knew that chances were one in four that he'd fall off his bike, you'd make him wear his helmet.
We're past the time when humans found out coal was a great fuel, just very smoky. But we didn't have much else and so we polluted and polluted. We don't have to do that, now, and we might as well do the right thing.

[mikewrona]

Instead of wasting your time trying to prove others wrong, why don't you take the time to actually learn something.

Originally Posted by DelawareDistrict
The thermomenter was invented in 1612.

Why don't you stop raising stupid points like when the thermometer was invented as part of a conversation on global warming.

And besides, your 1612 example was a lousy choice for record keeping.
Santorio Santorio - the first thermometer
The Italian, Santorio Santorio (1561-1636) is generally credited with having applied a scale to an air thermoscope at least as early as 1612 and thus is thought to be the inventor of the thermometer as a temperature measuring device. Santorio's instrument was an air thermometer. Its accuracy was poor as the effects of varying air pressure on the thermometer were not understood at that time.

[LHardy]

Speaker that is not only a reference it is a fact.
Of course we do not want too intentionally pollute, yet we have not polluted to the effect that volcanos have. Fact.

Man cleaning up his pollutants is good. Blaming man for global warming is a farce.
That is what this debate is about. Not if man is polluting but if man is the cause of global warming and it is the US that is most at fault. That it is the US who must do something about it.

Jim O. brought it up before, it is amazing how the proponents of man made global warming do little to nothing to end their own personel contributions. Yet want everyone else to fall in line.
I see very few bicycles on the roads. Very little clean mass transits in our cities. No one declaring the end to all manufacturing of motor vehicles. Hello all you GM and Ford Workers.
How about all the chemicles used by plants like Delphi? Poluting our water system.
How about all the untreated grey water dumped into the Great Lakes?
How about that island of debris we know as Long Island NY?

It is strictly a political debate used to sway greenies into voting for a specific policy. A policy that would compromise national security. Yes economics is a national security issue.
Many countries see the folley of the Kyoto treaty and are backing away from it.

[mikewrona]

Jim O. brought it up before, it is amazing how the proponents of man made global warming do little to nothing to end their own personel contributions. Yet want everyone else to fall in line.



Hey, I brought up a discussion for using ethanol,which burns cleaner than gasoline. Guess who was against it? Your FB people. With every reason from wasting tax payer dollars, to lower mpg, to the impossiblilty of growing enough corn, and how it will never replace gasoline.

You guys are obstructionists.

[LHardy]

mike! Uh, mike!
I am not a member of Free Buffalo. I only referenced his statement.
Corn is not the answer and never will be. The free market does not support its' use and that is all that matters.
The auto makers could care less how the car runs as long as you buy it.

[LHardy]

Just a few notes for mike about one of his favorite resources

Ethanol's clearest air-quality benefit is that it significantly cuts carbon monoxide, he says. But ethanol also releases more nitrogen oxide, a key element of smog, and it evaporates more easily than gasoline, causing still other air-pollution problems,

"It certainly is not all that benign," said Tom Curtis, an official of the American Water Works Association, which represents professionals involved in the drinking-water-supply business.
Curtis cites research indicating that gasoline plumes containing ethanol degrade more slowly in groundwater than plumes of only gasoline. Toxic chemicals such as benzene in ethanol-blended gasoline disperse more widely and take longer to degrade.
"Ethanol does not increase energy security," says David Pimentel, an agricultural ecologist at Cornell University. "It remains a fact that it takes more energy to produce a gallon of ethanol than you get out of it."

ethanol has to be transported by truck or train instead of through the pipelines used for gasoline since it picks up water and impurities quickly. If water is found in ethanol it cannot properly mix with gasoline.

Ethanol also gives drivers less fuel efficiency than gasoline and since production and transport costs are high it will not necessarily be cheaper at the pump.

These are reasons why the government needs to subsidize ethonol for no one wants it. Except farmers.

Also corn is not renewable. At present you could not take an ear of corn from a farmers field, dry the seeds and plant them for new corn. They are engineered to be annual crops.

[crlachepinochet]

This is the perfect example of why man can not be the cause of global warming nor all other facts pointed out by buffy.

If you cannot stop it, you could not have started it.
For anything that man can make he can undo.
Unlike that of nature where man has not one ounce of influence in any direction, no matter how hard he may try.

Holy cow! Can we get a source on this? Jules Verne? Georg Hegel?

Man can undo anything he does? We can replace trees we cut down. Can we rebuild mountains that we have blown apart with dynamite? Can we do anything with radioactive waste other than stick it in the bottom of a mountain and hope the barrels don't leak?

[colossus27]

Was yours a forced retirement from the intelligence community? You seem unable to follow a simple conversation.

I need to remind you this is about an alleged scientific survey..

Once again, you just can't refute my points...At least you've got predictiblity going for you.

[colossus27]

Hey, I brought up a discussion for using ethanol,which burns cleaner than gasoline. Guess who was against it? Your FB people. With every reason from wasting tax payer dollars, to lower mpg, to the impossiblilty of growing enough corn, and how it will never replace gasoline.

You guys are obstructionists.

Cleaner than gasoline? Explain.

[colossus27]

Hey, I brought up a discussion for using ethanol,which burns cleaner than gasoline. Guess who was against it? Your FB people. With every reason from wasting tax payer dollars, to lower mpg, to the impossiblilty of growing enough corn, and how it will never replace gasoline.

You guys are obstructionists.

Was yours a forced retirement from <s>the</s> intelligence <s>community</s>? You seem unable to follow a simple conversation.

I need to remind you this is about an alleged scientific survey..

[Jim Ostrowski]

I just saw Al Gore on MSNBC.

You global warming people need to get a new messenger.

He was asked two questions from scientific critics and he smugly talked about the "peer-reviewed" journals.

If he doesn't know enough about the science to answer simple questions, get someone who can.

[steven]

The signatures have to be mailed, that is snail mailed, so the signatures can be verified.

The Antarctic Peninsula is where ice is being lost, that area comprises about 2% of the total mass of the Antarctic, and in the rest of the areas, the ice is getting thicker.


<DD>Scientific American took a random sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition—one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages.

The text states, "Indeed, over the past two decades, when CO2 levels have been at their highest, global average temperatures have actually cooled slightly." This was based on comparison of satellite and balloon data from 1979-99. At the time, this was not true: the data showed warming (+0.058 °C/decade). Since then the satellite record has been revised, and shows even more warming.


<DD>
</DD>

[mikewrona]

mike! Uh, mike!
I am not a member of Free Buffalo. I only referenced his statement.
Corn is not the answer and never will be. The free market does not support its' use and that is all that matters.
The auto makers could care less how the car runs as long as you buy it.

Is that right?

For the day-in, day-out, long-haul auto commuter, it would seem to be ideal: a peppy car that gets 40-plus miles to a gallon of fuel and, to boot, has an engine that could last half a million miles without an overhaul.
Sound interesting? Got your checkbook out? Well, you can have one if you live in Europe. But not here. The big sensation in France, Germany, Switzerland and other nations in Western Europe these days is the new, cleaner diesel engine.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2001/08/05/MN31179.DTL

Who doesn't want that car, the commuter or the manufacturer?

[mikewrona]

Cleaner than gasoline? Explain.

Ethanol looks just like moonshine, crystal clear and clean.

[mikewrona]

Once again, you just can't refute my points...At least you've got predictiblity going for you.

Can't refute my points? Explain

[mikewrona]

mike! Uh, mike!
I am not a member of Free Buffalo. I only referenced his statement.
Corn is not the answer and never will be. The free market does not support its' use and that is all that matters.
The auto makers could care less how the car runs as long as you buy it.

Did I say you were a member of FB?

If I said I don't follow your Buffalo Bills, does that mean you are a Buffalo Bill or a supporter of the Buffalo Bills.

[therising]

This is the perfect example of why man can not be the cause of global warming nor all other facts pointed out by buffy.

If you cannot stop it, you could not have started it.
For anything that man can make he can undo.
.

You're either kidding us, or you're really grasping at straws with this one. Disappointing, you're usually better than that.

As proof of your theory, why don't you douse your house with gasoline, then extinguish it before it does any damage?

Rememember
If you cannot stop it, you could not have started it.

[LHardy]

Is that right?

For the day-in, day-out, long-haul auto commuter, it would seem to be ideal: a peppy car that gets 40-plus miles to a gallon of fuel and, to boot, has an engine that could last half a million miles without an overhaul.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2001/08/05/MN31179.DTL

Who doesn't want that car, the commuter or the manufacturer?

mike you do realize that article is about diesel not ethanol?

How many diesel owners in the cold, cold, NE enjoy those plug in days?

For ethonal; here is some news for you mike.

Ethanol also gives drivers less fuel efficiency than gasoline and since production and transport costs are high it will not necessarily be cheaper at the pump.

Data from the American Coalition for Ethanol does not show any marked increase in efficiency that would cause americans to run for the ethanol hybrids. The increase in efficiency only accured at a blend of 25% the 30% blend actually showed signs of decreased or equal efficiency.
Ethanol is another source for fuel but not worth the conversions of millions of engines. Also to be noted is the fact that once the demand for corn by US Auto industry enters the market against the food industry, spikes in cost will be expected and sever. No savings will be gained.



Did I say you were a member of FB?



Guess who was against it? Your FB people. With every reason from wasting tax payer dollars, to lower mpg, to the impossiblilty of growing enough corn, and how it will never replace gasoline.

You guys are obstructionists.

Seems to be the assumation from you that I am. If not; so be it.

[mikewrona]

mike you do realize that article is about diesel not ethanol?

How many diesel owners in the cold, cold, NE enjoy those plug in days?

For ethonal; here is some news for you mike.

Ethanol also gives drivers less fuel efficiency than gasoline and since production and transport costs are high it will not necessarily be cheaper at the pump.

Data from the American Coalition for Ethanol does not show any marked increase in efficiency that would cause americans to run for the ethanol hybrids. The increase in efficiency only accured at a blend of 25% the 30% blend actually showed signs of decreased or equal efficiency.
Ethanol is another source for fuel but not worth the conversions of millions of engines. Also to be noted is the fact that once the demand for corn by US Auto industry enters the market against the food industry, spikes in cost will be expected and sever. No savings will be gained.

Seems to be the assumation from you that I am. If not; so be it.

I have the feeling that if you were around at the turn of the 19th century you'd be arguing for the horse against the car. Because the car was more expensive than the horse and was less efficient because it broke down and was hard to start..

[LHardy]

I have the feeling that if you were around at the turn of the 19th century you'd be arguing for the horse against the car. Because the car was more expensive than the horse and was less efficient because it broke down and was hard to start..
mike your just being silly now.
I have presented that there is not much of a difference between the two fuel types and you have responded with a comparison that is miles apart. The Horse versus the Automobile!?
Come on! You must be tired, to just throw that out there like a limp pitch begging to be batted out of the park.

[mikewrona]

mike your just being silly now.
I have presented that there is not much of a difference between the two fuel types and you have responded with a comparison that is miles apart. The Horse versus the Automobile!?
Come on! You must be tired, to just throw that out there like a limp pitch begging to be batted out of the park.

How do you know ethanol (or other now expensivle product) will not be a viable alternative in 10 years?

The horse people didn't believe the car would be viable in 10 years. And they were wrong.

[yokes]

more crazy scientist respond to "an Inconvenient Truth"

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm

[LHardy]

more crazy scientist respond to "an Inconvenient Truth"

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm

I have been saying this all along.
Your welcome.:cool:

[colossus27]

Can't refute my points? Explain

See post #103 for a clear example of your scientific awareness and how you apply it to refuting points or questions.

[DelawareDistrict]

The horse people didn't believe the car would be viable in 10 years. And they were wrong.
Entrepreneurs developed and marketed automobiles without government subsidies. The same can't be said for ethanol. Subsidies take away the incentive to develop a product economically. If you really feel strongly about ethanol's potential contact your representatives to cancel all subsidies, then the product might have a fighting chance.

[LaNdReW]

mike you do realize that article is about diesel not ethanol?

How many diesel owners in the cold, cold, NE enjoy those plug in days?

For ethonal; here is some news for you mike.

Ethanol also gives drivers less fuel efficiency than gasoline and since production and transport costs are high it will not necessarily be cheaper at the pump.

Data from the American Coalition for Ethanol does not show any marked increase in efficiency that would cause americans to run for the ethanol hybrids. The increase in efficiency only accured at a blend of 25% the 30% blend actually showed signs of decreased or equal efficiency.
Ethanol is another source for fuel but not worth the conversions of millions of engines. Also to be noted is the fact that once the demand for corn by US Auto industry enters the market against the food industry, spikes in cost will be expected and sever. No savings will be gained.



Seems to be the assumation from you that I am. If not; so be it.

How about not being totally dependent upon the middle east for MOST of our oil? That is a savings, maybe not just financial. How about a new industry? How about Jobs?


I would gladly pay 5$ a gallon and drive a less efficient car if it meant cutting our dependency signifigantly.

[mikewrona]

See post #103 for a clear example of your scientific awareness and how you apply it to refuting points or questions.

That's not an explanation.

[mikewrona]

Entrepreneurs developed and marketed automobiles without government subsidies. The same can't be said for ethanol. Subsidies take away the incentive to develop a product economically. If you really feel strongly about ethanol's potential contact your representatives to cancel all subsidies, then the product might have a fighting chance.

No subsidy, do you drive on autmomobile company roads or government roads?

Does the U.S. have any troops in foreign countries protecting oil supplies?

Is the navy patrolling the seas protecting oil tankers?

Is the government allowing oil companies to drill literally for free on public lands?

The Albion Monitor News:
The UCS study, "Money Down the Pipeline: Uncovering the Hidden Subsidies to the Oil Industry" concludes that the oil industry profits from preferential treatment in tax laws and government support. While the non-oil industries are taxed at a rate of 18 percent, the oil industry is taxed at a mere 11 percent. This reduced rate equates to $2 billion in federal corporate income tax benefits per year. They also benefit from low state and local sales tax rates on gasoline, an indirect subsidy exceeding $4 billion a year. Direct government funding of oil and motor vehicle infrastructure and services tops off at $45 billion a year. And taxpayers, not the oil industry, are left to pay the cleanup bill for oil-related health and environmental damage, which could be as high at $232 billion annually.

"The current system creates an energy policy by default through lower income tax rates for oil companies, government handouts, and hidden environmental costs," said Roland Hwang, author of the UCS report. "These subsidies fuel our unhealthy appetite for oil."



Francis deWinter: Taxes are quite biased. Railroad bridges and rights-of-way pay real estate taxes. Real estate is however "condemned" to build a road, after which the real estate pays no more taxes.

[DelawareDistrict]

We were talking about the development of the automobile vs. the subsidized development of ethanol. You are introducing a whole different subject.


No subsidy, do you drive on autmomobile company roads or government roads?
The sum of all taxes on automobiles and fuel more than covers the expenditure necessary to build and maintain roadways. There is still money left over for the government to squander on other programs.

Does the U.S. have any troops in foreign countries protecting oil supplies?
Yes, because of the interventionist policies of the government. Just leave the foreign countries alone, they will be more than happy to sell their oil, the want money and can't get it without selling the oil . . .D'OH!

Is the navy patrolling the seas protecting oil tankers?
See the last reply.

Is the government allowing oil companies to drill literally for free on public lands?
I have stated many times that government subsidies are harmful, that goes for the oil company too. They should not get them.

The Albion article points out some things but also ignores the fact the overall taxes on gasoline are higher than just about anything else.

[speaker]

And my only objection to ethanol is the oill companies would take over the production of it and jack up the prices to more than gasoline, as they did with deisel.
DD closes down a discussion, something like woodstock, with a blanket statement like IT WON'T WORK. Period.

I imagine the first light bulb cost a lot of money, considering everyone's time put into it. How much does a mass produced light bulb cost, now, DD?

[steven]

Jun 22, 2:37 PM EDT
By JOHN HEILPRIN
Associated Press Writer


WASHINGTON (AP) -- It has been 2,000 years and possibly much longer since the Earth has run such a fever. The National Academy of Sciences, reaching that conclusion in a broad review of scientific work requested by Congress, reported Thursday that the "recent warmth is unprecedented for at least the last 400 years and potentially the last several millennia."

A panel of top climate scientists told lawmakers that the Earth is heating up and that "human activities are responsible for much of the recent warming." Their 155-page report said average global surface temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere rose about 1 degree during the 20th century.
This is shown in boreholes, retreating glaciers and other evidence found in nature, said Gerald North, a geosciences professor at Texas A&M University who chaired the academy's panel.

The report was requested in November by the chairman of the House Science Committee, Rep. Sherwood Boehlert, R-N.Y., to address naysayers who question whether global warming is a major threat.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/G/GLOBAL_WARMING?SITE=NYBUE&SECTION=HOME


-------------------------------------------------------------

I am sure all the climatoligist and scientist we have on the board will refute this study, after all they no more then these schmucks

[speaker]

Jun 22, 2:37 PM EDT
By JOHN HEILPRIN
Associated Press Writer


WASHINGTON (AP) -- It has been 2,000 years and possibly much longer since the Earth has run such a fever. The National Academy of Sciences, reaching that conclusion in a broad review of scientific work requested by Congress, reported Thursday that the "recent warmth is unprecedented for at least the last 400 years and potentially the last several millennia."

A panel of top climate scientists told lawmakers that the Earth is heating up and that "human activities are responsible for much of the recent warming." Their 155-page report said average global surface temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere rose about 1 degree during the 20th century.
This is shown in boreholes, retreating glaciers and other evidence found in nature, said Gerald North, a geosciences professor at Texas A&M University who chaired the academy's panel.

The report was requested in November by the chairman of the House Science Committee, Rep. Sherwood Boehlert, R-N.Y., to address naysayers who question whether global warming is a major threat.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/G/GLOBAL_WARMING?SITE=NYBUE&SECTION=HOME


-------------------------------------------------------------

I am sure all the climatoligist and scientist we have on the board will refute this study, after all they no more then these schmucks


And remember, right after this came the edict hat the Feds could censor what the scientists put out to the public.:mad:

[DelawareDistrict]

And my only objection to ethanol is the oill companies would take over the production of it and jack up the prices to more than gasoline, as they did with deisel.
DD closes down a discussion, something like woodstock, with a blanket statement like IT WON'T WORK. Period.

I imagine the first light bulb cost a lot of money, considering everyone's time put into it. How much does a mass produced light bulb cost, now, DD?
Government subsidies weren't used to develop the light bulb and they shouldn't be used for ethanol. As far as blanket statements go, here's one for you - Government subsidies cost us money, they do not save money.

As far as closing down discussions go, look within and try some posting with substance. I deal with the issues, not personal/emotional bias.

Your argument that the oil companies took over diesel is hogwash, if there is a more cost effective way to produce it someone will do it in a free market economy. The only way oil companies could stop competition in diesel fuel production is if they have the help of government regulations creating an unfair playing field. If you believe that strongly about diesel you should deal with the cause - the government.

[steven]

what? No refuting of the study that came out today that was commsioned by congress?

Wow Now I have seen everything:D

[DelawareDistrict]

Sorry to disappoint you, it has been a long day and I'm tired. But I will offer a quick reply and that is that the key word in the study is "potentially", which is not a word with a great deal of certainty attached to it.

[TheRightView]

Yes, I read it. The last sentence sums it up pretty well.

In other words, there is no clear-cut evidence what is causing the problem, whether or not it is just a natural cycle and more studies need to be done to determine, what, if anything, should be done.


Didn't they do lots of studies in Pompii(sp.) before Mt. Vesuvius exploded...perhaps one too many virgins went in.:eek:

[TheRightView]

What I believe in is something I am not willing to FORCE down the throats of the public as FACT.

Oh really...then I better not see you writing anything about anybody because you try to push it as fact then.:rolleyes:

[steven]

Sorry to disappoint you, it has been a long day and I'm tired. But I will offer a quick reply and that is that the key word in the study is "potentially", which is not a word with a great deal of certainty attached to it.

Ya sure, we will just ignore the "400 yrs and "..... before the word potentionaly.

You guys kill me.

[mikewrona]

Government subsidies weren't used to develop the light bulb and they shouldn't be used for ethanol. As far as blanket statements go, here's one for you - Government subsidies cost us money, they do not save money.

As far as closing down discussions go, look within and try some posting with substance. I deal with the issues, not personal/emotional bias.

Your argument that the oil companies took over diesel is hogwash, if there is a more cost effective way to produce it someone will do it in a free market economy. The only way oil companies could stop competition in diesel fuel production is if they have the help of government regulations creating an unfair playing field. If you believe that strongly about diesel you should deal with the cause - the government.

The government has built and maintains the nation's harbors, river system, and the seaway. The government has built and maintains the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Columbia River Dams, the Colorado Rivers Dams, etc. The government has built the nations interstate highway system. The government does medical research that private businesses use to make fortunes. The government permits public lands to be used for mining, farming and cattle ranching.

If we did it your way we'd be a third world nation. You really live in a fantasy land.

I won't comment on your light bulb ethanol comparison. I'll attribute it to being unable to compare apples to apples.

[DelawareDistrict]

The government has built and maintains the nation's harbors, river system, and the seaway. The government has built and maintains the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Columbia River Dams, the Colorado Rivers Dams, etc. The government has built the nations interstate highway system. The government does medical research that private businesses use to make fortunes. The government permits public lands to be used for mining, farming and cattle ranching.

If we did it your way we'd be a third world nation. You really live in a fantasy land.

I won't comment on your light bulb ethanol comparison. I'll attribute it to being unable to compare apples to apples.
And the government built and maintained the levees in New Orleans . . . what's your point?

[mikewrona]

And the government built and maintained the levees in New Orleans . . . what's your point?

Did you notice all the non-government constructed homes, businesses, buildings, casinos, etc. over a 100 mile area were also destroyed. What your point?

Yep, you'd make us a thrid world nation.

[buffy]

Supreme Court takes on global warming
Case over emissions caps sets up key environmental ruling

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court plunged on Monday into the acrimonious debate over global warming and whether the government should regulate "greenhouse" gases, especially carbon dioxide from cars. The ruling could be one of the court's most important ever on the environment.

Spurred by states in a pollution battle with the Bush administration, the court said it would decide whether the Environmental Protection Agency is required under the federal clean air law to treat carbon dioxide from automobiles as a pollutant harmful to health.

The decision could determine how the nation addresses global warming.

President Bush has rejected calls by environmentalists and some lawmakers in Congress to regulate carbon dioxide, the leading heat-trapping "greenhouse" gas going into the atmosphere. Bush favors voluntary actions and development of new technologies to curtail such emissions.

But a dozen states argued that carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping chemicals from automobile tailpipes should be treated as unhealthy pollutants. They filed a lawsuit in an effort to force the EPA to curtail such emissions just as it does cancer-causing lead and chemicals that produce smog and acid rain.
Fall ruling expected

The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to take the case after a divided lower court sided with the administration. A ruling is expected this fall.

"This is going to be the first major statement by the Supreme Court on climate change. ... This is the whole ball of wax," said David Bookbinder, an attorney for the Sierra Club, one of a number of environmental groups that joined the states in their appeal to the high court.

While the case doesn't specifically involve carbon releases from power plants, environmentalists said a court decision declaring carbon dioxide a harmful pollutant would make it hard for the agency to avoid action involving power plants which account for 40 percent or the carbon dioxide released into the air.

Cars and trucks account for about half that amount.

The EPA said in a statement that the agency "is confident in its decision" not to regulate the chemical under the federal Clean Air Act and plans to argue its case vigorously before the high court

Recently, Bush told reporters he views global warming as a serious problem and has "a plan to be able to deal with greenhouse gases" short of regulating their use. It includes developing new technologies for cleaner burning coal, using alternative motor fuels such as ethanol as substitutes for gasoline and expanding nuclear power to produce electricity.

Critics argue that carbon emissions have continued to increase -- though the rate of increase has declined -- and only regulation of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases will stem the amount going into the atmosphere.

"It is encouraging that the high court feels this case needs to be reviewed," said Sen. Jim Jeffords of Vermont, who has campaigned in Congress to regulate carbon dioxide. "It is high time to stop relying on technicalities and finger pointing to avoid action on climate change."
Debate over carbon dioxide

The states involved, which together account for more than a third of the car market, say the Clean Air Act makes clear carbon dioxide is a pollutant that should be regulated if it poses a danger to public health and welfare. They argue it does so by causing a warming of the earth.

The administration maintains that unlike other chemicals that must be controlled to ensure healthy air, carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels is not a dangerous pollutant under the federal law. And, officials argue, even if it is, the EPA has discretion over whether to regulate it, considering the economic costs involved.

The agency should not be required to "embark on the extraordinarily complex and scientifically uncertain task of addressing the global issue of greenhouse gas emissions" when voluntary ways to address climate change are available, the administration argued in its filing with the high court.

While a federal appeals court sided with the administration, its ruling was mixed.

One judge said the states and other plaintiffs had no standing because they had not proven harm. A second judge said even if the law gave the EPA authority to regulate carbon dioxide, the agency was not obligated to do so. A third judge, in the minority, said the EPA was violating the law by not regulating the chemical.

In their appeal, the states maintained the case "goes to the heart of the EPA's statutory responsibilities to deal with the most pressing environmental problem of our time" -- the threat of global warming.

Plaintiffs in the lawsuit were California, Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington.

They were joined by a number of cities including Baltimore, New York City and Washington D.C., the Pacific island of America Samoa, the Union of Concerned Scientists, Greenpeace, and Friends of the Earth.

[buffy]

Climate experts: Gore's movie gets the science right

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The nation's top climate scientists are giving "An Inconvenient Truth," Al Gore's documentary on global warming, five stars for accuracy.

The former vice president's movie -- replete with the prospect of a flooded New York City, an inundated Florida, more and nastier hurricanes, worsening droughts, retreating glaciers and disappearing ice sheets -- mostly got the science right, said all 19 climate scientists who had seen the movie or read the book and answered questions from The Associated Press.

The AP contacted more than 100 top climate researchers by e-mail and phone for their opinion. Among those contacted were vocal skeptics of climate change theory. Most scientists had not seen the movie, which is in limited release, or read the book.

But those who have seen it had the same general impression: Gore conveyed the science correctly; the world is getting hotter and it is a manmade catastrophe-in-the-making caused by the burning of fossil fuels.

"Excellent," said William Schlesinger, dean of the Nicholas School of Environment and Earth Sciences at Duke University. "He got all the important material and got it right."

Robert Corell, chairman of the worldwide Arctic Climate Impact Assessment group of scientists, read the book and saw Gore give the slideshow presentation that is woven throughout the documentary.

"I sat there and I'm amazed at how thorough and accurate," Corell said. "After the presentation I said, 'Al, I'm absolutely blown away. There's a lot of details you could get wrong.' ... I could find no error."

Gore, in an interview with the AP, said he wasn't surprised "because I took a lot of care to try to make sure the science was right."

The tiny errors scientists found weren't a big deal, "far, far fewer and less significant than the shortcoming in speeches by the typical politician explaining an issue," said Michael MacCracken, who used to be in charge of the nation's global warming effects program and is now chief scientist at the Climate Institute in Washington.

One concern was about the connection between hurricanes and global warming. That is a subject of a heated debate in the science community. Gore cited five recent scientific studies to support his view.

"I thought the use of imagery from Hurricane Katrina was inappropriate and unnecessary in this regard, as there are plenty of disturbing impacts associated with global warming for which there is much greater scientific consensus," said Brian Soden, a University of Miami professor of meteorology and oceanography.

Some scientists said Gore confused his ice sheets when he said the effect of the Clean Air Act is noticeable in the Antarctic ice core; it is the Greenland ice core. Others thought Gore oversimplified the causal-link between the key greenhouse gas carbon dioxide and rising temperatures.

While some nonscientists could be depressed by the dire disaster-laden warmer world scenario that Gore laid out, one top researcher thought it was too optimistic. Tom Wigley, senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, thought the former vice president sugarcoated the problem by saying that with already-available technologies and changes in habit -- such as changing light bulbs -- the world could help slow or stop global warming.

While more than 1 million people have seen the movie since it opened in May, that does not include Washington's top science decision makers. President Bush said he won't see it. The heads of the Environmental Protection Agency and NASA haven't seen it, and the president's science adviser said the movie is on his to-see list.

"They are quite literally afraid to know the truth," Gore said. "Because if you accept the truth of what the scientific community is saying, it gives you a moral imperative to start to rein in the 70 million tons of global warming pollution that human civilization is putting into the atmosphere every day."

As far as the movie's entertainment value, Scripps Institution geosciences professor Jeff Severinghaus summed it up: "My wife fell asleep. Of course, I was on the edge of my chair."

[LHardy]

Gorey Truths
25 inconvenient truths for Al Gore.


By Iain Murray
With An Inconvenient Truth, the companion book to former Vice President Al Gore’s global-warming movie, currently number nine in Amazon sales rank, this is a good time to point out that the book, which is a largely pictorial representation of the movie’s graphical presentation, exaggerates the evidence surrounding global warming. Ironically, the former Vice President leaves out many truths that are inconvenient for his argument. Here are just 25 of them.

1. Carbon Dioxide’s Effect on Temperature. The relationship between global temperature and carbon dioxide (CO2), on which the entire scare is founded, is not linear. Every molecule of CO2 added to the atmosphere contributes less to warming than the previous one. The book’s graph on p. 66-67 is seriously misleading. Moreover, even the historical levels of CO2 shown on the graph are disputed. Evidence from plant fossil-remains suggest that there was as much CO2 in the atmosphere about 11,000 years ago as there is today.

2. Kilimanjaro. The snows of Kilimanjaro are melting not because of global warming but because of a local climate shift that began 100 years ago. The authors of a report in the International Journal of Climatology “develop a new concept for investigating the retreat of Kilimanjaro’s glaciers, based on the physical understanding of glacier–climate interactions.” They note that, “The concept considers the peculiarities of the mountain and implies that climatological processes other than air temperature control the ice recession in a direct manner. A drastic drop in atmospheric moisture at the end of the 19th century and the ensuing drier climatic conditions are likely forcing glacier retreat on Kilimanjaro.”

3. Glaciers. Glaciers around the world have been receding at around the same pace for over 100 years. Research published by the National Academy of Sciences last week indicates that the Peruvian glacier on p. 53-53 probably disappeared a few thousand years ago.

4. The Medieval Warm Period. Al Gore says that the “hockey stick” graph that shows temperatures remarkably steady for the last 1,000 years has been validated, and ridicules the concept of a “medieval warm period.” That’s not the case. Last year, a team of leading paleoclimatologists said, “When matching existing temperature reconstructions…the timeseries display a reasonably coherent picture of major climatic episodes: ‘Medieval Warm Period,’ ‘Little Ice Age’ and ‘Recent Warming.’” They go on to conclude, “So what would it mean, if the reconstructions indicate a larger…or smaller…temperature amplitude? We suggest that the former situation, i.e. enhanced variability during pre-industrial times, would result in a redistribution of weight towards the role of natural factors in forcing temperature changes, thereby relatively devaluing the impact of anthropogenic emissions and affecting future temperature predictions.”

5. The Hottest Year. Satellite temperature measurements say that 2005 wasn't the hottest year on record — 1998 was — and that temperatures have been stable since 2001 (p.73). Here’s the satellite graph:

6. Heat Waves. The summer heat wave that struck Europe in 2003 was caused by an atmospheric pressure anomaly; it had nothing to do with global warming. As the United Nations Environment Program reported in September 2003, “This extreme wheather [sic] was caused by an anti-cyclone firmly anchored over the western European land mass holding back the rain-bearing depressions that usually enter the continent from the Atlantic ocean. This situation was exceptional in the extended length of time (over 20 days) during which it conveyed very hot dry air up from south of the Mediterranean.”

7. Record Temperatures. Record temperatures — hot and cold — are set every day around the world; that’s the nature of records. Statistically, any given place will see four record high temperatures set every year. There is evidence that daytime high temperatures are staying about the same as for the last few decades, but nighttime lows are gradually rising. Global warming might be more properly called, “Global less cooling.” (On this, see Patrick J. Michaels book, Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians, and the Media.)
8. Hurricanes. There is no overall global trend of hurricane-force storms getting stronger that has anything to do with temperature. A recent study in Geophysical Research Letters found: “The data indicate a large increasing trend in tropical cyclone intensity and longevity for the North Atlantic basin and a considerable decreasing trend for the Northeast Pacific. All other basins showed small trends, and there has been no significant change in global net tropical cyclone activity. There has been a small increase in global Category 4–5 hurricanes from the period 1986–1995 to the period 1996–2005. Most of this increase is likely due to improved observational technology. These findings indicate that other important factors govern intensity and frequency of tropical cyclones besides SSTs [sea surface temperatures].”

9. Tornadoes. Records for numbers of tornadoes are set because we can now record more of the smaller tornadoes (see, for instance, the Tornado FAQ at Weather Underground).

10. European Flooding. European flooding is not new (p. 107). Similar flooding happened in 2003. Research from Michael Mudelsee and colleagues from the University of Leipzig published in Nature (Sept. 11, 2003) looked at data reaching as far back as 1021 (for the Elbe) and 1269 (for the Oder). They concluded that there is no upward trend in the incidence of extreme flooding in this region of central Europe.

11. Shrinking Lakes. Scientists investigating the disappearance of Lake Chad (p.116) found that most of it was due to human overuse of water. “The lake’s decline probably has nothing to do with global warming, report the two scientists, who based their findings on computer models and satellite imagery made available by NASA. They attribute the situation instead to human actions related to climate variation, compounded by the ever increasing demands of an expanding population” (“Shrinking African Lake Offers Lesson on Finite Resources,” National Geographic, April 26, 2001). Lake Chad is also a very shallow lake that has shrunk considerably throughout human history.

12. Polar Bears. Polar bears are not becoming endangered. A leading Canadian polar bear biologist wrote recently, “Climate change is having an effect on the west Hudson population of polar bears, but really, there is no need to panic. Of the 13 populations of polar bears in Canada, 11 are stable or increasing in number. They are not going extinct, or even appear (sic) to be affected at present.”

[LHardy]

13. The Gulf Stream. The Gulf Stream, the ocean conveyor belt, is not at risk of shutting off in the North Atlantic (p. 150). Carl Wunsch of MIT wrote to the journal Nature in 2004 to say, “The only way to produce an ocean circulation without a Gulf Stream is either to turn off the wind system, or to stop the Earth’s rotation, or both”

14. Invasive Species. Gore’s worries about the effect of warming on species ignore evolution. With the new earlier caterpillar season in the Netherlands, an evolutionary advantage is given to birds that can hatch their eggs earlier than the rest. That’s how nature works. Also, “invasive species” naturally extend their range when climate changes. As for the pine beetle given as an example of invasive species, Rob Scagel, a forest microclimate specialist in British Columbia, said, “The MPB (mountain pine beetle) is a species native to this part of North America and is always present. The MPB epidemic started as comparatively small outbreaks and through forest management inaction got completely out of hand.”

15. Species Loss. When it comes to species loss, the figures given on p. 163 are based on extreme guesswork, as the late Julian Simon pointed out. We have documentary evidence of only just over 1,000 extinctions since 1600 (see, for instance, Bjørn Lomborg’s The Skeptical Environmentalist, p. 250).

16. Coral Reefs. Coral reefs have been around for over 500 million years. This means that they have survived through long periods with much higher temperatures and atmospheric CO2 concentrations than today.

17. Malaria and other Infectious Diseases. Leading disease scientists contend that climate change plays only a minor role in the spread of emerging infectious diseases. In “Global Warming and Malaria: A Call for Accuracy” (The Lancet, June 2004), nine leading malariologists criticized models linking global warming to increased malaria spread as “misleading” and “display[ing] a lack of knowledge” of the subject.

18. Antarctic Ice. There is controversy over whether the Antarctic ice sheet is thinning or thickening. Recent scientific studies have shown a thickening in the interior at the same time as increased melting along the coastlines. Temperatures in the interior are generally decreasing. The Antarctic Peninsula, where the Larsen-B ice shelf broke up (p. 181) is not representative of what is happening in the rest of Antarctica. Dr. Wibjörn Karlén, Professor Emeritus of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology at Stockholm University, acknowledges, “Some small areas in the Antarctic Peninsula have broken up recently, just like it has done back in time. The temperature in this part of Antarctica has increased recently, probably because of a small change in the position of the low pressure systems.” According to a forthcoming report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, climate models based on anthropogenic forcing cannot explain the anomalous warming of the Antarctic Peninsula; thus, something natural is at work.

19. Greenland Climate. Greenland was warmer in the 1920s and 1930s than it is now. A recent study by Dr. Peter Chylek of the University of California, Riverside, addressed the question of whether man is directly responsible for recent warming: “An important question is to what extent can the current (1995-2005) temperature increase in Greenland coastal regions be interpreted as evidence of man-induced global warming? Although there has been a considerable temperature increase during the last decade (1995 to 2005) a similar increase and at a faster rate occurred during the early part of the 20th century (1920 to 1930) when carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases could not be a cause. The Greenland warming of 1920 to 1930 demonstrates that a high concentration of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is not a necessary condition for period of warming to arise. The observed 1995-2005 temperature increase seems to be within a natural variability of Greenland climate.” (Petr Chylek et al., Geophysical Research Letters, 13 June 2006.)

20. Sea Level Rise. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change does not forecast sea-level rises of “18 to 20 feet.” Rather, it says, “We project a sea level rise of 0.09 to 0.88 m for 1990 to 2100, with a central value of 0.48 m. The central value gives an average rate of 2.2 to 4.4 times the rate over the 20th century...It is now widely agreed that major loss of grounded ice and accelerated sea level rise are very unlikely during the 21st century.” Al Gore’s suggestions of much more are therefore extremely alarmist


21. Population. Al Gore worries about population growth; Gore does not suggest a solution. Fertility in the developed world is stable or decreasing. The plain fact is that we are not going to reduce population back down to 2 billion or fewer in the foreseeable future. In the meantime, the population in the developing world requires a significant increase in its standard of living to reduce the threats of premature and infant mortality, disease, and hunger. In The Undercover Economist, Tim Harford writes, “If we are honest, then, the argument that trade leads to economic growth, which leads to climate change, leads us then to a stark conclusion: we should cut our trade links to make sure that the Chinese, Indians and Africans stay poor. The question is whether any environmental catastrophe, even severe climate change, could possibly inflict the same terrible human cost as keeping three or four billion people in poverty. To ask that question is to answer it.”

22. Energy Generation. A specific example of this is Gore’s acknowledgement that 30 percent of global CO2 emissions come from wood fires used for cooking (p. 227). If we introduced affordable, coal-fired power generation into South Asia and Africa we could reduce this considerably and save over 1.6 million lives a year. This is the sort of solution that Gore does not even consider.

23. Carbon-Emissions Trading. The European Carbon Exchange Market, touted as “effective” on p. 252, has crashed.

24. The “Scientific Consensus.” On the supposed “scientific consensus”: Dr. Naomi Oreskes, of the University of California, San Diego, (p. 262) did not examine a “large random sample” of scientific articles. She got her search terms wrong and thought she was looking at all the articles when in fact she was looking at only 928 out of about 12,000 articles on “climate change.” Dr. Benny Peiser, of Liverpool John Moores University in England, was unable to replicate her study. He says, “As I have stressed repeatedly, the whole data set includes only 13 abstracts (~1%) that explicitly endorse what Oreskes has called the ‘consensus view.’ In fact, the vast majority of abstracts does (sic) not mention anthropogenic climate change. Moreover — and despite attempts to deny this fact — a handful of abstracts actually questions the view that human activities are the main driving force of ‘the observed warming over the last 50 years.’” In addition, a recent survey of scientists following the same methodology as one published in 1996 found that about 30 percent of scientists disagreed to some extent or another with the contention that “climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes.” Less than 10 percent “strongly agreed” with the statement. Details of both the survey and the failed attempt to replicate the Oreskes study can be found here.

25. Economic Costs. Even if the study Gore cites is right (p. 280-281), the United States will still emit massive amounts of CO2 after all the measures it outlines have been realized. Getting emissions down to the paltry levels needed to stabilize CO2 in the atmosphere would require, in Gore’s own words, “a wrenching transformation” of our way of life. This cannot be done easily or without significant cost. The Kyoto Protocol, which Gore enthusiastically supports, would avert less than a tenth of a degree of warming in the next fifty years and would cost up to $400 billion a year to the U.S. All of the current proposals in Congress would cost the economy significant amounts, making us all poorer, with all that that entails for human health and welfare, while doing nothing to stop global warming.

Finally, Gore quotes Winston Churchill (p. 100) — but he should read what Churchill said when he was asked what qualities a politician requires: “The ability to foretell what is going to happen tomorrow, next week, next month and next year. And to have the ability afterwards to explain why it didn't happen.”

[LHardy]

Scientists respond to Gore's warnings of climate catastrophe
"The Inconvenient Truth" is indeed inconvenient to alarmists
By Tom Harris
Monday, June 12, 2006

"Scientists have an independent obligation to respect and present the truth as they see it," Al Gore sensibly asserts in his film "An Inconvenient Truth", showing at Cumberland 4 Cinemas in Toronto since Jun 2. With that outlook in mind, what do world climate experts actually think about the science of his movie?

Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia gives what, for many Canadians, is a surprising assessment: "Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."

But surely Carter is merely part of what most people regard as a tiny cadre of "climate change skeptics" who disagree with the "vast majority of scientists" Gore cites?

No; Carter is one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant global climate change. "Climate experts" is the operative term here. Why? Because what Gore's "majority of scientists" think is immaterial when only a very small fraction of them actually work in the climate field.

Even among that fraction, many focus their studies on the impacts of climate change; biologists, for example, who study everything from insects to polar bears to poison ivy. "While many are highly skilled researchers, they generally do not have special knowledge about the causes of global climate change," explains former University of Winnipeg climatology professor Dr. Tim Ball. "They usually can tell us only about the effects of changes in the local environment where they conduct their studies."

This is highly valuable knowledge, but doesn't make them climate change cause experts, only climate impact experts.
So we have a smaller fraction.

But it becomes smaller still. Among experts who actually examine the causes of change on a global scale, many concentrate their research on designing and enhancing computer models of hypothetical futures. "These models have been consistently wrong in all their scenarios," asserts Ball. "Since modelers concede computer outputs are not "predictions" but are in fact merely scenarios, they are negligent in letting policy-makers and the public think they are actually making forecasts."

We should listen most to scientists who use real data to try to understand what nature is actually telling us about the causes and extent of global climate change. In this relatively small community, there is no consensus, despite what Gore and others would suggest.

Here is a small sample of the side of the debate we almost never hear:
Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years." Patterson asked the committee, "On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"

Patterson concluded his testimony by explaining what his research and "hundreds of other studies" reveal: on all time scales, there is very good correlation between Earth's temperature and natural celestial phenomena such changes in the brightness of the Sun.

Dr. Boris Winterhalter, former marine researcher at the Geological Survey of Finland and professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, takes apart Gore's dramatic display of Antarctic glaciers collapsing into the sea. "The breaking glacier wall is a normally occurring phenomenon which is due to the normal advance of a glacier," says Winterhalter. "In Antarctica the temperature is low enough to prohibit melting of the ice front, so if the ice is grounded, it has to break off in beautiful ice cascades. If the water is deep enough icebergs will form."

Dr. Wibj–rn KarlÈn, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden, admits, "Some small areas in the Antarctic Peninsula have broken up recently, just like it has done back in time. The temperature in this part of Antarctica has increased recently, probably because of a small change in the position of the low pressure systems."

But KarlÈn clarifies that the 'mass balance' of Antarctica is positive - more snow is accumulating than melting off. As a result, Ball explains, there is an increase in the 'calving' of icebergs as the ice dome of Antarctica is growing and flowing to the oceans. When Greenland and Antarctica are assessed together, "their mass balance is considered to possibly increase the sea level by 0.03 mm/year - not much of an effect," KarlÈn concludes.

The Antarctica has survived warm and cold events over millions of years. A meltdown is simply not a realistic scenario in the foreseeable future.
Gore tells us in the film, "Starting in 1970, there was a precipitous drop-off in the amount and extent and thickness of the Arctic ice cap." This is misleading, according to Ball: "The survey that Gore cites was a single transect across one part of the Arctic basin in the month of October during the 1960s when we were in the middle of the cooling period. The 1990 runs were done in the warmer month of September, using a wholly different technology."

KarlÈn explains that a paper published in 2003 by University of Alaska professor Igor Polyakov shows that, the region of the Arctic where rising temperature is supposedly endangering polar bears showed fluctuations since 1940 but no overall temperature rise. "For several published records it is a decrease for the last 50 years," says KarlÈn

Dr. Dick Morgan, former advisor to the World Meteorological Organization and climatology researcher at University of Exeter, U.K. gives the details, "There has been some decrease in ice thickness in the Canadian Arctic over the past 30 years but no melt down. The Canadian Ice Service records show that from 1971-1981 there was average, to above average, ice thickness. From 1981-1982 there was a sharp decrease of 15% but there was a quick recovery to average, to slightly above average, values from 1983-1995. A sharp drop of 30% occurred again 1996-1998 and since then there has been a steady increase to reach near normal conditions since 2001."

Concerning Gore's beliefs about worldwide warming, Morgan points out that, in addition to the cooling in the NW Atlantic, massive areas of cooling are found in the North and South Pacific Ocean; the whole of the Amazon Valley; the north coast of South America and the Caribbean; the eastern Mediterranean, Black Sea, Caucasus and Red Sea; New Zealand and even the Ganges Valley in India. Morgan explains, "Had the IPCC used the standard parameter for climate change (the 30 year average) and used an equal area projection, instead of the Mercator (which doubled the area of warming in Alaska, Siberia and the Antarctic Ocean) warming and cooling would have been almost in balance."

Gore's point that 200 cities and towns in the American West set all time high temperature records is also misleading according to Dr. Roy Spencer, Principal Research Scientist at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. "It is not unusual for some locations, out of the thousands of cities and towns in the U.S., to set all-time records," he says. "The actual data shows that overall, recent temperatures in the U.S. were not unusual."

Carter does not pull his punches about Gore's activism, "The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science."

In April sixty of the world's leading experts in the field asked Prime Minister Harper to order a thorough public review of the science of climate change, something that has never happened in Canada. Considering what's at stake - either the end of civilization, if you believe Gore, or a waste of billions of dollars, if you believe his opponents - it seems like a reasonable request.

[steven]

I cant believe this thread is still going. When a group of the countrys top scientits say a +b = c. why do you bother to debate with the board "shade tree" scientist?

Having a political opinion is one thing, when a group of some of the most respected scientits in the world (commisioned by the republican congress) say something its time to listen.

Its amazing how many climatoligist we have on this board :rolleyes:

[mikewrona]

I cant believe this thread is still going. When a group of the countrys top scientits say a +b = c. why do you bother to debate with the board "shade tree" scientist?

Having a political opinion is one thing, when a group of some of the most respected scientits in the world (commisioned by the republican congress) say something its time to listen.

Its amazing how many climatoligist we have on this board :rolleyes:

That's what happens when you stay at a Holiday Inn Express.

[LHardy]

There Is NO Man-Made Global Warming
By Tom DeWeese
CNSNews.com Commentary
December 02, 2004

There is no scientific evidence to back claims of man-made global warming. Period.

Anyone who tells you that scientific research shows warming trends -- be they teachers, newscasters, congressmen, senators, vice presidents or presidents -- is wrong.

In fact, scientific research through U.S. government satellite and balloon measurements shows that the temperature is actually cooling -- very slightly -- 0.037 degrees Celsius.

A little research into modern-day temperature trends bears this out. For example, in 1936, the Midwest of the United States experienced 49 consecutive days of temperatures over 90 degrees. There were another 49 consecutive days in 1955. But in 1992, there was only one day over 90 degrees and, in 1997, only five days.

Because of modern science and improved equipment, this "cooling" trend has been most accurately documented over the past 18 years. Ironically, that's the same period of time the hysteria has grown over dire warnings of "warming."

Changes in global temperatures are natural. In fact, much of the recent severe weather has been directly attributed to a natural phenomenon that occurs every so often called El Nino. It causes ocean temperatures to rise as tropical trade winds actually reverse for a time.

The resulting temperature changes cause severe storms, flooding and even drought on every continent on earth. It's completely natural. El Nino has been wreaking its havoc across the globe since long before man appeared.

How about the reports that the polar ice cap is melting? On Election Day, the Financial Times of London carried the hysterical headline: "Arctic Ice Cap Set to Disappear by the Year 2070."

The article stated that the Arctic ice cap is melting at an unprecedented rate. The article is based on a report titled "Impacts of a Warming Arctic," submitted by a group of researchers called the Arctic Climate Impact Assessement (ACIA).

It must be understood just who makes up this so-called group of researchers. The report is not unbiased scientific data. Rather, it is propaganda from political groups that have an agenda.

The report was commissioned by the Arctic Council, which is comprised of a consortium of radical envionmentalists from Canada, Denmark, Iceland, Finland, Norway, Russia, Sweden and the United States. All are nations that possess land within the Arctic Circle.

Many of these countries, through the Kyoto Protocol, have a financial stake in pushing the global warming agenda. One of the groups providing "scientists" to the ACIA "researchers" is the World Wildlife Fund, one of the leading chicken-little scaremongers that create junk science at the drop of a news release to terrify us all into proper environmental conduct.

The report is now being used at the global warming meeting currently underway in Buenos Aires to rally the troops and bully the United States into accepting the discredited Kyoto Protocol.

We are being warned of killer heat waves, vast flooding and the spread of tropical diseases. Ocean levels are rising, and America's coastlines are doomed, they tell us. Hurricanes and tornadoes have already become more violent, we're warned. Floods and droughts have begun to ravage the nation, they cry.

Any change in temperatures, an excessive storm or extended flooding is looked upon as a sure sign that environmental armageddon is upon us. Diabolical environmentalists are using the natural El Nino phenomenon to whip people into a global warming hysteria.

Two kinds of scientists

We are assured by such groups that scientists everywhere are sounding these warnings and that we may only have one chance to stop it. Well, as the debate rages, we find that there are really two kinds of scientists.

There are those who look at facts and make their judgments based on what they see and know. Their findings can be matched by any other scientist, using the same data and set of circumstances to reach the same conclusions. It's a age-old practice called "peer review." It's the only true science.

And then, there are those who yearn for a certain outcome and set about creating the needed data to make it so. Usually, you will find this group of scientists greatly dependent on grants supplied by those with a specific political agenda who demand desired outcomes for their money.

Let's just take NASA, for example -- the most trusted name in American science. A lot of NASA scientists have fallen into the money trap. Environmental science has become the life-blood of the space program as the nation has lost interest in space travel. To keep the bucks coming, NASA has justified launches through the excuse of earth-directed environmental research. And the budgets keep coming.

At the same time, many of NASA's scientists have a political agenda in great harmony with those who advocate global warming. And they're not above using their position to aid that agenda whenever the chance is available.

This was never more clearly demonstrated than in 1992, when a team of three NASA scientists was monitoring conditions over North America to determine if the ozone layer was in danger. Inconclusive data indicated that conditions might be right for ozone damage over North America -- if certain things happened.

True scientists are a careful lot. They study, they wait, and many times, they test again before drawing conclusions. Not so the green zealot.

Of this three-member NASA team, two could not be sure of what they had found and wanted to do more research. But one took the data and rushed to the microphones with all of the drama of a Hollywood movie and announced in hushed tones that NASA had discovered an ozone hole over North America.

Then Sen. Al Gore rushed to the floor of the Senate with the news and drove a stampede to immediately ban freon -- five years before Congress had intended -- and without a suitable substitute. He then bullied President George H.W. Bush to sign the legislation by saying the ozone hole was over Kennebunkport, Maine, Bush's favorite vacation spot.

Two months later, NASA announced -- on the back pages of the newspapers -- that further research had shown there was no such damage. But it was too late. The valuable comodity known as freon was gone forever.

Flawed computer models

Then there are those computer models. Night after night, Americans watch the local news as the weatherman predicts what kind of a day tomorrow will be. These meteorologists, using the most up-to-date equipment available, boldly give you the five-day forecast.

But it's well known that even with all of their research and expensive equipment, it really is just a "best guess." There are just too many variables. If the wind picks up here, it could blow in a storm. If the temperature drops there, it could start to snow. The earth is a vast and wondrous place. Weather does what it wants.

Yet those who are promoting the global warming theory have the audacity to tell you they can forecast changes in the global climate decades into the future.

The truth is that computer models are able to include only two out of 14 components that make up the climate system. To include the third component would take a computer a thousand times faster than what we have now.

To go beyond the third component requires an increase in computer power that is so large, only mathematicians can comprehend the numbers. Moreover, even if the computer power existed, scientists do not understand all the factors and the relationships between them that determine the global climate.

So it's an outrage for the World Wildlife Fund or the Sierra Club to tell you that man-made global warming is a fact and that we Americans must now suffer dire changes in our lifestyle to stop it.

[LHardy]

Scientists are not on the global warming bandwagon

And so, too, is it an outrage for the news media to tell you that most true scientists now agree that man-made global warming is a fact.

What it doesn't tell you is that roughly 500 scientists from around the world signed the Heidleburg Appeal in 1992, just prior to the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, expressing their doubts and begging the delegates not to bind the world to any dire treaties based on global warming.

Today, that figure has grown to more than 4,000 scientists. Americans aren't being told that a 1997 Gallop Poll of prominent North American climatologists showed that 83 percent of them disagreed with the man-made global warming theory.

And the deceit knows no bounds. The United Nations released a report at the end of 1996 saying global warming was a fact, yet before releasing the report, two key paragraphs were deleted from the final draft. Those two paragraphs, written by the scientists who did the actual scientific analysis, said:

1. "[N]one of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases."

2. "[N]o study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change to ... man-made causes."

Obviously, those two paragraphs aren't consistent with the political agenda the U.N. is pushing. So, science be damned. Global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the people of the world -- bar none.

The Kyoto Climate Control Protocol

Those who have been fighting against the radical green agenda have been warning that modern-day environmentalism has little to do with protecting the environment. Rather, it is a political movement led by those who seek to control the world economies, dictate development and redistribute the world's wealth.

They use the philosophical base of Karl Marx, the tactics of the KGB and the rhetoric of the Sierra Club. The American people have been assaulted from all directions by rabid environmentalists.

School children have been told that recycling is a matter of life and death. Businesses have been shut down. Valuable products like freon have been removed from the market. Chemicals and pesticides that helped to make this nation the safest and healthiest in the world are targeted for extinction. Our entire nation is being restructured to fit the proper green mold, all of it for a lie about something man has nothing to do with.

But the lie has grown to massive proportions -- and the game is about to get very serious indeed. Pressure is building again to impose the Kyoto Protocol worldwide.

Only a few years ago, this treaty appeared dead when President George W. Bush refused American participation. Now, however, Russia has signed on, and the U.N. has enough support to begin implementing its dire consequences -- even on the United States.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) has called the White House stance on global warming "terribly disappointing." McCain is now using the ACIA report to convene hearings on the "human effect on climate and what to do about it." McCain intends to help build pressure on the president to accept the Kyoto Protocol.

In fact, the Kyoto Protocol is a legally binding international treaty through which industrial nations agree to cut back their energy emissions to 7 percent below 1990 levels. This means that all of the energy growth since 1990 would be rolled back, plus 7 percent more. Such a massive disruption in the American economy, particularly since it has nothing to do with protecting the environment, would devastate this nation.

To meet such drastically reduced energy standards would -- in the short run -- cost the United States more than one million jobs. Some estimate it would cost more than seven million jobs in 14 years. If the treaty sends the economy into a tailspin, as many predict, it would cost even more jobs.

It would cost the average family $1,000 to $4,000 per year in increased energy costs. The cost of food would skyrocket. It has been estimated that in order for the United States to meet such a goal, our gross domestic product would be reduced by $200 billion -- annually.

To force down energy use, the Federal government would have to enforce a massive energy tax that would drive up the cost of heating your home by as much as 30 to 40 percent. In all likelihood, there would be a tax on gasoline -- as high as 60 cents per gallon.

There would be consumption taxes and carbon taxes. The Department of Energy has estimated that electricity prices could rise 86 percent -- and gasoline prices 53 percent.

The purpose of these punitive costs is to drive up the cost of modern living in order to force you to drastically change your lifestyle. That is the diabolical plan behind this restructuring scheme. Cars banned. Industry curtailed. Housing smaller. Family size controlled.

Every single product that is produced with the use of energy would increase in price. This includes items such as aspirin, contact lenses and toothpaste.

A study by the Department of Energy's Argonne Laboratory finds that the treaty would cripple U.S. industries, including paper, steel, petroleum refining, chemical manufacturing, aluminum and cement. That about sums up the economy.

Global raid on American wealth

But perhaps you still are not convinced. Maybe you still cling to the idea that such drastic action is necessary -- that those pushing the global warming agenda are truly in a panic over global warming and are just trying to find a solution.

If you are one of these people, ask yourself: Why does the Kyoto Protocol only bind developed nations to draconian emission levels?

Undeveloped Third World nations would be free to produce whatever they want. These would include China, India, Brazil and Mexico. Yet 82 percent of the projected emissions growth in future years would come from these countries.

Now ask yourself: If the Kyoto Climate Change Protocol is all about protecting the environment, then how come it doesn't cover everybody?

The truth, of course, is that the treaty is really about redistribution of the wealth. The wealth of the United States is, and has always been, the target. The new scheme to grab the loot is through environmental scare tactics.

And international corporations that owe allegiance to no nation would bolt America and move their factories lock, stock and computer chip to those Third World countries, where they would be free to carry on production.

But that means the same emissions would be coming out of the jungles of South America instead of Chicago. So where is the protection of the environment? You see, it's not about that, is it?

Still not convinced? One more thing. Hidden in the small print of the treaty is a provision that calls for the "harmonizing of patent laws." Now, robbing a nation of its patent protection is an interesting tactic for protecting the environment, don't you think?

And still more looting of the U.S. treasury is planned. Supporters of the Kyoto Protocol also want industrialized nations to subsidize poor countries' adaption to global warming to the tune of $73 billion per year. Obtaining such subsidies would be an interesting trick after the U.S. economy had been destroyed by the treaty. Looters rarely have the ability to think that far in advance.

Don't think this devastation can't happen. The U.N. and the European Union have exposed their hatred for the United States. They envy our wealth and think that legalized theft, rather than sound economic policy, is the way to obtain it.

The fact is that one person now stands between the global warming jackals and economic sanity: George W. Bush. Will he stand firm in his opposition to the Kyoto Protocol? Or will he capitulate to massive international pressure and sell America's soul?

(Tom DeWeese is the publisher/editor of The DeWeese Report and president of the American Policy Center, an activist think tank headquartered in Warrenton, Va.)

[steven]

That's what happens when you stay at a Holiday Inn Express.


Its funny, suddenly Joe the columnist knows more than real scientist........
I guess that bachelors in English trumps all.

[buffy]

It will be interesting to hear what the Supreme Court has to say.

[Dino330]

There's no question that the Earth is getting hotter—and fast. The real questions are: How much of the warming is our fault, and are we willing to slow the meltdown by curbing our insatiable appetite for fossil fuels?



Get a taste of what awaits you in print from this compelling excerpt.

Global warming can seem too remote to worry about, or too uncertain—something projected by the same computer techniques that often can't get next week's weather right. On a raw winter day you might think that a few degrees of warming wouldn't be such a bad thing anyway. And no doubt about it: Warnings about climate change can sound like an environmentalist scare tactic, meant to force us out of our cars and cramp our lifestyles.

Comforting thoughts, perhaps. But turn to "GeoSigns," the first chapter in our report on the changing planet. The Earth has some unsettling news.

From Alaska to the snowy peaks of the Andes the world is heating up right now, and fast. Globally, the temperature is up 1°F (.5°C) over the past century, but some of the coldest, most remote spots have warmed much more. The results aren't pretty. Ice is melting, rivers are running dry, and coasts are eroding, threatening communities. Flora and fauna are feeling the heat too, as you'll read in "EcoSigns." These aren't projections; they are facts on the ground.

The changes are happening largely out of sight. But they shouldn't be out of mind, because they are omens of what's in store for the rest of the planet.

Wait a minute, some doubters say. Climate is notoriously fickle. A thousand years ago Europe was balmy and wine grapes grew in England; by 400 years ago the climate had turned chilly and the Thames froze repeatedly. Maybe the current warming is another natural vagary, just a passing thing?

Don't bet on it, say climate experts. Sure, the natural rhythms of climate might explain a few of the warming signs you'll read about in the following pages. But something else is driving the planet-wide fever.

For centuries we've been clearing forests and burning coal, oil, and gas, pouring carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases into the atmosphere faster than plants and oceans can soak them up (see "The Case of the Missing Carbon," February 2004). The atmosphere's level of carbon dioxide now is higher than it has been for hundreds of thousands of years. "We're now geological agents, capable of affecting the processes that determine climate," says George Philander, a climate expert at Princeton University. In effect, we're piling extra blankets on our planet.

Human activity almost certainly drove most of the past century's warming, a landmark report from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) declared in 2001. Global temperatures are shooting up faster than at any other time in the past thousand years. And climate models show that natural forces, such as volcanic eruptions and the slow flickers of the sun, can't explain all that warming.

As carbon dioxide continues to rise, so will the mercury—another 3°F to 10°F (1.6°C to 5.5°C) by the end of the century, the IPCC projects. But the warming may not be gradual. The records of ancient climate described in "TimeSigns" suggest that the planet has a sticky thermostat. Some experts fear today's temperature rise could accelerate into a devastating climate lurch. Continuing to fiddle with the global thermostat, says Philander, "is just not a wise thing to do."

[speaker]

Could even be the expansion of the sun--preliminary to shrinking to a red dwarf. This'll take a million years, more or less.
But we should still do our part in case we're causing it. It won't do us any harm, Hardy.

[colossus27]

That's not an explanation.

Pot, meet kettle.

[colossus27]

If you are one of these people, ask yourself: Why does the Kyoto Protocol only bind developed nations to draconian emission levels?

Undeveloped Third World nations would be free to produce whatever they want. These would include China, India, Brazil and Mexico. Yet 82 percent of the projected emissions growth in future years would come from these countries.

Now ask yourself: If the Kyoto Climate Change Protocol is all about protecting the environment, then how come it doesn't cover everybody?

Sometimes doublethink requires too much to ask! Don't expect anybody to address this obvious point. :)

[steven]

Don't expect anybody to address this obvious point. :)

Please let me adress the obvious for you.

Here it is in a nutshell:

A panel of top climatoligist commsioned by congress vs Lhardy's crew:

Lets look at that crew shall we?

Tom Deweese - Columnist and president of the so called "American Policy Institue" Bio - Born and raised in Newark, Ohio, served as state coordinator for several local and national political organizations from 1968 to 1977. Lost election 1974 as a candidate for the Ohio legislature. In 1988 established the American Policy Center a conservitive gun rights organization where he is still the current president.

Ian Murray - Sits on the board of the "Competitive Enterprise Institute" a self proclaimed enviormental think tank. "A non-profit public policy organization dedicated to advancing the principles of free enterprise and limited government" Before that he was "an Analyst and then Director of Research at the Statistical Assessment Service" another nonprofit "think tank".

Tom Harris - holds a Bachelor of Engineering (Mechanical) from Carleton University and a Master of Engineering (Mechanical - thermo-fluids) from McMaster University, he is currently mechanical engineer and Ottawa Director of "High Park Group", a public affairs and public policy company that makes its money from big business.

I dont see climatoligist in any of Lhardy's bunch just a bunch of "political thinkers". Anyone else see a pattern here?

Think these same guys would have told you in the 50's that lake erie was to big to worry about dumping a little steel plant residue in it?

[LHardy]

Please let me adress the obvious for you.

Here it is in a nutshell:

A panel of top climatoligist commsioned by congress vs Lhardy's crew:

Lets look at that crew shall we?

I dont see climatoligist in any of Lhardy's bunch just a bunch of "political thinkers". Anyone else see a pattern here?



roughly 500 scientists from around the world signed the Heidleburg Appeal in 1992, just prior to the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, expressing their doubts and begging the delegates not to bind the world to any dire treaties based on global warming.

A study by the Department of Energy's Argonne Laboratory finds that the treaty would cripple U.S. industries,

NASA announced -- on the back pages of the newspapers -- that further research had shown there was no such damage. But it was too late. The valuable comodity known as freon was gone forever.

Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia

University of Winnipeg climatology professor Dr. Tim Ball.

Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson

Dr. Boris Winterhalter, former marine researcher at the Geological Survey of Finland and professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki,

Dr. Wibj–rn KarlÈn, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University,

Dr. Dick Morgan, former advisor to the World Meteorological Organization and climatology researcher at University of Exeter, U.K.

Carl Wunsch of MIT wrote to the journal Nature in 2004 to say, “The only way to produce an ocean circulation without a Gulf Stream is either to turn off the wind system, or to stop the Earth’s rotation, or both”

In “Global Warming and Malaria: A Call for Accuracy” (The Lancet, June 2004), nine leading malariologists criticized models linking global warming to increased malaria spread as “misleading” and “display[ing] a lack of knowledge” of the subject.

Dr. Peter Chylek of the University of California, Riverside,

(Petr Chylek et al., Geophysical Research Letters, 13 June 2006.)

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Dr. Benny Peiser, of Liverpool John Moores University in England,

The authors of a report in the International Journal of Climatology

United Nations Environment Program

Research from Michael Mudelsee and colleagues from the University of Leipzig

NASA

[LHardy]

Scientists opposing global warming consensus

Richard LindzenMIT meteorology professor and member of the National Academy of Sciences

Robert C. Balling, Jr., director of the Office of Climatology and an associate professor of geography at Arizona State University

William M. Gray, Colorado State University

Willie Soon, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics: Sallie Baliunas, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics

Frederick Seitz, retired, former solid-state physicist, former president of the National Academy of Sciences

Nir Shaviv, an astrophysicist at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem

Fred Singer, president of the Science & Environmental Policy Project
Bob Carter, researcher at the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University in Australia

Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and Professor of Geology at Carleton University in Canada.

Jan Veizer, Professor Emeritus, University of Ottawa,

Dr. Ian D. Clark, professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa

Dr. Tad Murty, former senior research scientist, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, former director of Australia's National Tidal Facility, and professor of earth sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide; currently adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa.

Dr. R. Timothy Patterson, professor, Department of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University, Ottawa.

Dr. Fred Michel, director, Institute of Environmental Science and associate professor, Department of Earth Sciences, Carleton University, Ottawa.

Dr. Madhav Khandekar, former research scientist, Environment Canada. Member of editorial board of Climate Research and Natural Hazards.

Dr. Paul Copper, FRSC, professor emeritus, Department of Earth Sciences, Laurentian University, Sudbury, Ontario.

Dr. Ross McKitrick, associate professor, Department of Economics, University of Guelph, Ontario.

Dr. Tim Ball Former professor of climatology, University of Winnipeg; environmental consultant.

Dr. Andreas Prokocon, adjunct professor of earth sciences, University of Ottawa; consultant in statistics and geology.

Mr. David Nowell, M.Sc. (Meteorology), fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, Canadian member, and past chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa.

Dr. Christopher Essex, professor of applied mathematics and associate director of the Program in Theoretical Physics, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario.

Dr. Gordon E. Swaters, professor of applied mathematics, Department of Mathematical Sciences, and member, Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Research Group, University of Alberta.

Dr. L. Graham Smith, associate professor, Department of Geography, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario.

Dr. G. Cornelis van Kooten, professor and Canada Research Chair in environmental studies and climate change, Department of Economics, University of Victoria.

Dr. Peter Chylek, adjunct professor, Department of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax.

Dr./Cdr. M. R. Morgan, FRMS, climate consultant, former meteorology advisor to the World Meteorological Organization. Previously research scientist in climatology at University of Exeter, U.K.

Dr. Keith D. Hage, climate consultant and professor emeritus of Meteorology, University of Alberta.

Dr. David E. Wojick, P.Eng., energy consultant, Star Tannery, Virginia, and Sioux Lookout, Ontario.

Rob Scagel, M.Sc., forest microclimate specialist, principal consultant, Pacific Phytometric Consultants, Surrey, B.C.

Dr. Douglas Leahey, meteorologist and air-quality consultant, Calgary.
Paavo Siitam, M.Sc., agronomist, chemist, Cobourg, Ontario.

Dr. Chris de Freitas, climate scientist, associate professor, The University of Auckland, N.Z.

Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Dr. Freeman J. Dyson, emeritus professor of physics, Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton, New Jersey.

Mr. George Taylor, Department of Meteorology, Oregon State University; Oregon State climatologist; past president, American Association of State Climatologists.

Dr. Ian Plimer, professor of geology, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Adelaide; emeritus professor of earth sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia.

Dr. R.M. Carter, professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia.

Mr. William Kininmonth, Australasian Climate Research, former Head National Climate Centre, Australian Bureau of Meteorology; former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology, Scientific and Technical Review.

Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, former director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute.

Dr. Gerrit J. van der Lingen, geologist/paleoclimatologist, Climate Change Consultant, Geoscience Research and Investigations, New Zealand.

Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, professor of environmental sciences, University of Virginia.

Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner, emeritus professor of paleogeophysics and geodynamics, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden.

Dr. Gary D. Sharp, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, California.

Dr. Roy W. Spencer, principal research scientist, Earth System Science Center, The University of Alabama, Huntsville.

Dr. Al Pekarek, associate professor of geology, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Dept., St. Cloud State University, St. Cloud, Minnesota.

Dr. Marcel Leroux, professor emeritus of climatology, University of Lyon, France; former director of Laboratory of Climatology, Risks and Environment, CNRS

Dr. Paul Reiter, professor, Institut Pasteur, Unit of Insects and Infectious Diseases, Paris, France. Expert reviewer, IPCC Working group II,

Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, physicist and chairman, Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Warsaw, Poland.

Dr. Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, reader, Department of Geography, University of Hull, U.K.; editor, Energy and Environment.

Dr. Hans H.J. Labohm, former advisor to the executive board, Clingendael Institute (The Netherlands Institute of International Relations), and an economist who has focused on climate change.

Dr. Lee C. Gerhard, senior scientist emeritus, University of Kansas, past director and state geologist, Kansas Geological Survey.

Dr. Asmunn Moene, past head of the Forecasting Centre, Meteorological Institute, Norway.

Dr. August H. Auer, past professor of atmospheric science, University of Wyoming; previously chief meteorologist, Meteorological Service (MetService) of New Zealand.

Dr. Vincent Gray, expert reviewer for the IPCC, and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of "Climate Change 2001," Wellington, N.Z.

Dr. Howard Hayden, emeritus professor of physics, University of Connecticut.

Dr. Benny Peiser, professor of social anthropology, Faculty of Science, Liverpool John Moores University, U.K.

Dr. Jack Barrett, chemist and spectroscopist, formerly with Imperial College London, U.K.

Dr. William J.R. Alexander, professor emeritus, Dept. of Civil and Biosystems Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa. Member, United Nations Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters, 1994-2000

Dr. S. Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences, University of Virginia; former director, U.S. Weather Satellite Service.

Dr. Harry N.A. Priem, emeritus professor of planetary geology and isotope geophysics, Utrecht University; former director of the Netherlands Institute for Isotope Geosciences; past president of the Royal Netherlands Geological & Mining Society.

Dr. Robert H. Essenhigh, E.G. Bailey professor of energy conversion, Department of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University.

Dr. Sallie Baliunas, astrophysicist and climate researcher, Boston, Mass.

Douglas Hoyt, senior scientist at Raytheon (retired) and co-author of the book, The Role of the Sun in Climate Change; previously with NCAR, NOAA, and the World Radiation Center, Davos, Switzerland.

Dipl.-Ing. Peter Dietze, independent energy advisor and scientific climate and carbon modeller, official IPCC reviewer, Bavaria, Germany.

Dr. Boris Winterhalter, senior marine researcher (retired), Geological Survey of Finland, former professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, Finland.

Dr. Wibjörn Karlén, emeritus professor, Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden.

Dr. Hugh W. Ellsaesser, physicist/meteorologist, previously with the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, California; atmospheric consultant.

Dr. Art Robinson, founder, Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, Cave Junction, Oregon.

Dr. Arthur Rörsch, emeritus professor of molecular genetics, Leiden University, The Netherlands; past board member, Netherlands organization for applied research (TNO) in environmental, food, and public health.

Dr. Alister McFarquhar, Downing College, Cambridge, U.K.; international economist.

Dr. Richard S. Courtney, climate and atmospheric science consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, U.K.

Just to name a few

[buffy]

lhardy, did you go see the movie yet?

[steven]

lhardy, did you go see the movie yet?

can I answer that one?:D

[steven]

roughly 500 scientists from around the world signed the Heidleburg Appeal in 1992, just prior to the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, expressing their doubts and begging the delegates not to bind the world to any dire treaties based on global warming.......

:D Glad you mentioned that, Let me finsih this one for you buddy!

......its 72 Nobel laureates include 49 who also signed the "World Scientists' Warning to Humanity," which was circulated that same year by the liberal Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) and attracted the majority of the world's living Nobel laureates in science along with some 1,700 other leading scientists.

In contrast with the vagueness of the Heidelberg Appeal, the "World Scientists' Warning" is a very explicit environmental manifesto, stating that "human beings and the natural world are on a collision course" and citing ozone depletion, global climate change, air pollution, groundwater depletion, deforestation, overfishing, and species extinction among the trends that threaten to "so alter the living world that it will be unable to sustain life in the manner that we know." More recently, 110 Nobel Prize-winning scientists signed another UCS petition, the 1997 "Call to Action," which called specifically on world leaders to sign an effective global warming treaty at Kyoto.

Thanks for bringing that up I was looking for an excuse to throw that in the conversation.

Thumbs up!

[speaker]

Thanks, steven, for that.
What I can't believe is the total abandonment of responsibility for man's part in this, and for the unborn people of this world, our earth.
We clean up the world for ourselves, as well. Where is the crime there?
Oh, it'll cost.
We are not in the 19th century when burning coal for warmth, industry, was a thing for a much smaller population. And I use coal as an example, insert anything from insecticides to nuclear weapons to too many planes in the air.
Gotta put the brakes on. We HAVE to be contributing to the decay of the world.

[colossus27]

Please let me adress the obvious for you.

The obvious in Kyoto is omitting China and India from the agreement.

Forget the spin, forget the transparent logic in taking socialism and hammering it into environmentalism. This question has nothing to do with whether or not the logic is valid, if the earth is warming, or CO2 is the cause. Science has nothing to do with omitting these two countries- whose combined CO2 emissions exceeds the USA's emissions.

The lack of attention on this point reveals the underhanded purpose to this. Why were they omitted? Where was Mr Internet on this one, besides accepting underhanded campaign donations? Is it mentioned in this silly little shill for attention?

I don't need to see it to know it's not.

I hear all the time about how demand for Chinese demand for gas is raising US prices. Yet, for some reason, this very same increase in gasoline consumption is not an issue when Kyoto is discussed. Why?

Has China surreptitiously developed a car that emits 21% oxygen and 78% nitrogen? Maybe they've adapted Sharper Image's technology- that silly wire that "converts smog to pure oxygen"?

I have NEVER seen a scientific justification for omitting China and India. Supporters in forums just ignore the question. Pundits rip the thing apart just because of this. Yet nobody can defend the agreement. Because of this alone, Kyoto is not going to work.

[speaker]

OK, I agree, China and India should not be exempt so they can fill their quota of trashing the atmosphere.
They claim they will lose out in the race to become developed countries. This is garbage argument. They were poor because both countries overpopulated. This was one reason why they static development. And China was isolationist and India was occupied by England.
But these two countries are developing like lightening.

[speaker]

India's population is 1.3 billion people with China's being 967 million, and USA's at 295 million.
Projected populations for 2050 boggle the mind, for all counties but the British Isles and eastern Europe.

[steven]

The obvious in Kyoto is omitting China and India from the agreement.

I am talking about global warming, if you guys are talking about treatys that would seem to me to be an entire different discussion

[colossus27]

I am talking about global warming, if you guys are talking about treatys that would seem to me to be an entire different discussion


I have NEVER seen a scientific justification for omitting China and India. Supporters in forums just ignore the question. Pundits rip the thing apart just because of this. Yet nobody can defend the agreement. Because of this alone, Kyoto is not going to work.

See what I mean?

[steven]

See what I mean?

No I dont, politicians craft treatys not scientist.

I am talking about the scientific community not the political communitys reaction to the scientific community.

[granpabob]

supreme court can only rule on if our laws are being followed they are not scientist what they rule is not science it is law as written by congress. none of them are scientist either.
I have no idea if we are seeing anything but my own observation of our weather is cooler and wetter. I remember long hot summers and cold snowy winters .now we have milder winters and cooler summers. we also have rain rain and more rain.
i have not believed any thing Gore has said since he tried to take credit for inventing the intranet. something about the man always made me feel like he thought he was better then everyone else. Not quite sure why but he just always seemed like he was hiding something . just me but when I dont trust some one its hard to change my mind.
numbers can be read to state whatever you want I have seen articalls proving global warmer and disproving it both made sense so not being a scientist I will keep my coat and heavy blankets ready just incase it gets cold

[colossus27]

No I dont, politicians craft treatys not scientist.

I am talking about the scientific community not the political communitys reaction to the scientific community.

You can seperate the two in this day and age?

Global warming is the latest example of a political ****-hammer wrapped in velvety junk-science.

Remember the hysteria over AIDS in America in the late 80s? Oprah Winfrey saying one in 10 will die from it. That very same one that blossomed into more federal spending for AIDS research than cancer? How many people here know more that have died from AIDS versus cancer? We all know the answer there, don't we?

Too bad though- you publicly try to funnel AIDS research money into cancer, you're anti-gay, anti-UN, anti-Africa, a selfish American prick, whatever. Bono, charging $350 for front-row seats, comes out and publicly calls you an evil coldhearted fascist for not spending your money on it or his concert.

Meanwhile, your mother dies of breast cancer at 42, you evil gay-basher. In your life, a quarter of all the other people you'll ever meet will die from cancer.

That's a profound example of how the politicians impact science. This is no different. The Kyoto treaty is global welfare, disguised as really really weak science.

And since these very same dupes from the UN, et. al., establish the very same laws under which we all must Submit, it really doesn't matter what the scientific community really thinks, now does it?

[LHardy]

:D Glad you mentioned that, Let me finsih this one for you buddy!

......its 72 Nobel laureates include 49 who also signed the "World Scientists' Warning to Humanity," which was circulated that same year by the liberal Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) and attracted the majority of the world's living Nobel laureates in science along with some 1,700 other leading scientists.

Thanks for bringing that up I was looking for an excuse to throw that in the conversation.

Thumbs up!

Steven I do give you credit for independent thought.
Also the reply is very nice,
Thought provoked and a classic retort.


Though missing the amplitude of providential evidence.

[steven]

Im going to hit you with a water ballon next time I see you lhardy.
:D

[TheRightView]

supreme court can only rule on if our laws are being followed they are not scientist what they rule is not science it is law as written by congress. none of them are scientist either.
I have no idea if we are seeing anything but my own observation of our weather is cooler and wetter. I remember long hot summers and cold snowy winters .now we have milder winters and cooler summers. we also have rain rain and more rain.
i have not believed any thing Gore has said since he tried to take credit for inventing the intranet. something about the man always made me feel like he thought he was better then everyone else. Not quite sure why but he just always seemed like he was hiding something . just me but when I dont trust some one its hard to change my mind.
numbers can be read to state whatever you want I have seen articalls proving global warmer and disproving it both made sense so not being a scientist I will keep my coat and heavy blankets ready just incase it gets cold

I have also seen proof denying God's existence and proof supportting it and both make sense. Should I believe grandpabob that there is a God?

[TheRightView]

Weren't there also doctors/scienitists who said that smoking was good for you and they thousands of doctors agreeing to that fact? Didn't scientists/doctors recently also say there no harm from tobacco. You may get scientists to back these foolhardy ideals but I'll be they will be in the minority. These scientist also said that certain diseases were only relegated to particular population and would not affect any other only to be proved wrong. Just because you can get certain professionals who are in the minority to back you doesn't mean they are correct...otherwise I expect that all you against global warmings should get those doctor back and reccomeded pills, potion, lotions, etc, because how could they be wrong. They tell you of al the benefits, why wouldn't you want them?

[granpabob]

I have also seen proof denying God's existence and proof supportting it and both make sense. Should I believe grandpabob that there is a God?
why not i keep blankets and coat arround just incase global warming is wrong God is your own choice I pray just In case he is real, better safe then sorry. I,m not going to get rid of all my warm clothing just because someone thinks the world is getting warmer .I have not seen it my self and dont know enough to believe either side .as per God I dont want to pick the wrong side being left behind would not be fun.

[1964]

The fact is:

The Earth is inside the Milky Way and the Milky Way is passing through space with less particles. This is the same reason the Rings of Saturn are melting. The Global Warming fiasco is nothing more than the creation of the wandering minds of mankind. If you can beat Mother Nature at her own game, then you are GOD. If you try to play GOD, you are ALL fools.

Barry DiGregorio has the answers to this phenom, but it's nothing new to Earth which has seen it all in its multi billion year existence.

It's nice to see Al Gore has figured out a way to become filthy rich. He'll be one of those top 1% er's ... the ones you wackos abbohr.

If you can't clean up your own towns of it's trash, crime, and bloated finances and tax schemes, don't think for a second you can win this one. Mother Nature is doing her thing ... that's all. Learn to enjoy life, you'll all be dead before you know it.

[colossus27]

It's nice to see Al Gore has figured out a way to become filthy rich. He'll be one of those top 1% er's ... the ones you wackos abbohr.

He already is. Nobody runs for president w/out the coin to pay his way.

Note the boldface and connect the dots. If this is Really an issue, why did only nineteen scientists of a hundred bother to respond? Maybe only nineteen saw the movie? Why do you suppose that is?

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=2125293

WASHINGTON Jun 27, 2006 (AP)— The nation's top climate scientists are giving "An Inconvenient Truth," Al Gore's documentary on global warming, five stars for accuracy.

The former vice president's movie replete with the prospect of a flooded New York City, an inundated Florida, more and nastier hurricanes, worsening droughts, retreating glaciers and disappearing ice sheets mostly got the science right, said all 19 climate scientists who had seen the movie or read the book and answered questions from The Associated Press.

The AP contacted more than 100 top climate researchers by e-mail and phone for their opinion. Among those contacted were vocal skeptics of climate change theory. Most scientists had not seen the movie, which is in limited release, or read the book.

[EriePAMan]

That's part of the reason I'm going.

I'm not a member of Al Gore's fan club, but I really don't see the harm in watching a movie. If you've ever attended one of Pundits discussions, you'd see how well he presents the issue.

My sentiments exactly, Ragin. Al Gore is surely not one of my favorite Americans. However, the man may present some compelling evidence in the movie for global warming. This is why I want to see the movie. I may find it a load of propaganda, but that doesn't mean I'm going to be too narrow minded to go see it. Just like with the Michael Moore movie, I think how people react to this movie being in the theaters is very telling about their mindsets. People who are open minded and open to learning new things and who don't take a ridiculous pride in insisting on their opinions go ahead and watch these movies just to see what is being said. If they find the movie a load of garbage, chances are they got some good laughs watching it, and some fuel for good conversation. Unfortunately, the same people who couldn't at least go see Michael Moore's movie before picking the guy apart are going to do this with the Al Gore movie. This is why I want to SEE the movie before I tell everyone how nutty Al Gore is. Having not seen it yet, I am going in with the realistic mindset on global warming: Does it exist? We don't know. It sure seems to, but the operative word is seems. Last summer was warmer than average, yes, but what about this summer? Look at how much cooler this summer has been so far. And this is after a wimpy winter compared to the winter of 2003. Because this whole global warming thing is such a maybe, I want to see the movie to see what Mr. Gore is throwing out there.