Reply With Quote
Skeptical Scientists Urge World To ‘Have the Courage to Do Nothing' At UN Conference
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...3-68f67ebd151c
Gore rides some public bus to the award ceremony, then has his luggage taken by a Mercedes Limousine for s sake. Not to mention his jet, his house, his stocks.
Keep eating it up green sheeple.
Skeptical Scientists Urge World To ‘Have the Courage to Do Nothing' At UN Conference
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...3-68f67ebd151c
Here's always been my question for the kooks that don't believe in warming. So, maybe one of you could answer it for me.
If pollution doesn't cause warming, what does happen to all the smoke we release into the air? What does it do? I mean do you reject the idea that the Planet Earth is a closed system, thus the pollution just bounces out to space?
If not, do you think all that smoke and pollution is just chilling out in the atmosphere, not causing any harm? Do you think a layer of pollution and co2 has no effect on light particles whatsoever?
I mean, matter cannot disappear. It has to go somewhere and it has to do something. So if it isn't causing warming, what is pollution doing? Nothing? Do you think pollution is the only form of matter capable of disappearing from existence? Do you even believe pollution and smoke exist to begin with?
Last edited by balli; 12-11-2007 at 08:12 PM.
We are not kooks, and we believe there is insignificant anthropogenic (man-caused) global warming. We acknowledge there is a warming trend, but consider it a natural cycle of the earth.
Pollution has both positive and negative feedbacks depending on the type of pollution and height.
Pollution generally gets cleansed out of the atmosphere with rain. It appears you jump to conclusions. Those of us believeing we puny humans are not the cause of warming do understand the closed system as well, or better than those who believe in man-made warming. I say that because it really takes a great deal of learning to see through the propaganda.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It is not as dramatic as the alarmists make out:
It's not as simple as smoke and pollution. There are different types, and the USA leads the world in pollution control technology. The primary concern we face is the demonization of CO2.
Talk to China about pollution. In the USA, we have very little industries polluting compared to before about 1974.
Pollution does have a negative effect. In fact, black carbon (soot) from China is making it's way within the Arctic Circle. It falls on the ice, and then traps heat that would normally be reflected. This is why the northern ice is melting, not from global warming. This however does cause warming. The ice, normally reflecting about 90% of the sun, now melted, gets absorbed by the ocean!
A real good speaker found on the subject by Yoni:
Want more info, look at some past threads dealing with Global Warming:
Damn Climate Change
"Global Warming" or not? Doesn't matter.
I am one that believe the primary driver of global warming is the sun. Carbon 14 is the perfect proxy for it, and tracks well with the temperature:
There is also cooling primarily by volcanic eruptions:
I forgot about that one
'The canary has died'
MSNBCJust last year, two top scientists surprised their colleagues by projecting that the Arctic sea ice was melting so rapidly that it could disappear entirely by the summer of 2040.
This week, after reviewing his own new data, NASA climate scientist Jay Zwally warned that "at this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012, much faster than previous predictions."
So scientists in recent days have been asking themselves these questions: Was the record melt seen all over the Arctic in 2007 a blip amid relentless and steady warming? Or has everything sped up to a new climate cycle that goes beyond the worst case scenarios presented by computer models?
"The Arctic is often cited as the canary in the coal mine for climate warming," said Zwally, who as a teenager hauled coal. "Now as a sign of climate warming, the canary has died. It is time to start getting out of the coal mines."
Don't you just love it when a hypocrite like Gore gets up in
front of a bunch of foreign people and trashes his own government.
Especially since it during Clintons and his administration that
the Kyoto accords were rejected. What a guy.
Financial Times FT.com
FT.com logo
Gore hits at US over climate change
By John Aglionby in Nusa Dua, Bali and agencies
Published: December 13 2007 13:35 | Last updated: December 13 2007 14:52
Al Gore savaged the US government’s “obstructing” at ude and urged delegates at the UN conference on climate change to ignore Washington if necessary to pursue the “moral imperative” of a new global regime.
“My country is principally responsible for obstructing progress here in Bali,” the former US vice-president told 2,000 of the 12,000 people attending the conference on Thursday. “[But] over the next two years the United States is going to be somewhere it is not now.”
The Bali meeting is trying to reach an agreement to start negotiations that will culminate in 2009 with a new global deal to tackle climate change. The US is due to elect a new president in November 2008 and the majority of the frontrunners have a more proactive at ude to climate change than the Bush administration.
European Union nations said they might boycott a U.S.-led climate meeting next month unless Washington compromises to achieve a deal on Bali.
‘‘No result in Bali means no Major Economies Meeting,’’ said Sigmar Gabriel, top EU environment official from Germany, referring to a series of separate climate talks initiated by President Bush in September. ‘‘This is the clear position of the EU. I do not know what we should talk about if there is no target.’’
The US invited 16 other major economies, including European countries, Japan, China and India, to discuss a program of what are expected to be nationally determined, voluntary cutbacks in greenhouse gas emissions.
Mr Gore, fresh from receiving the Nobel peace prize jointly with the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said delegates must “find the grace to navigate around this enormous obstacle, the elephant in the room that I have been undiplomatic enough to name.”
The US delegation in Bali has repeatedly said it is committed to finding a consensus and reaching a deal but numerous countries have accused it, as well as Japan, Canada and Saudi Arabia, of blocking progress.
A substantial part of Mr’s Gore’s hour-long address was a recap of material he has used on numerous occasions since making An Inconvenient Truth, his Oscar-winning film, in 2006. He described how scientists are warning of a rapidly escalating crisis unless greenhouse gas emissions are significantly reduced.
He sought to inspire the audience by telling them they had the privilege of being some of the few people in the world who can make a difference in saving “the world’s civilisation”.
“The way ahead from Bali is difficult,” he said. “The truth is that is the maximum now considered possible even here in this conference is still far short of the minimum that will really solve this process. So we have to expand the limits of what’s possible. We must have the moral imagination of humankind to see ourselves as the symbol of global civilisation.”
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2007
"FT" and "Financial Times" are trademarks of the Financial Times. Privacy policy | Terms
© Copyright The Financial Times Ltd 2007.
Link
2012? If so then it's over and we're all gonna die.This week, after reviewing his own new data, NASA climate scientist Jay Zwally warned that "at this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012, much faster than previous predictions."
Doesn't the Mayan calendar end in 2012? Coincidence, I think not....
Both C&EN (Chemical and Engineering News - if you don't know) & Science are delivered to my house weekly, how about yours? There have been several published papers over the past several years in those peer reviewed, well-respected journals. None are conclusive, NONE of them have the tenor, or at ude of the 200 "Climatologists" that are demanding action now (or you). Not one has stated that man-made global warming is occuring, or that that is even LIKELY occurring.
I thought it was the Aztek's. Could be wrong, though.Doesn't the Mayan calendar end in 2012? Coincidence, I think not....
Well at least. Every. Single. Polar bear in the wild.
Me, I'm a survivor. Toilet paper and guns, baby, toilet paper and guns.
And it is the Mayans.
And here you have it. Gore the savior. Holy smokes I cant
believe someone wrote this crap.
Newsweek
Why Isn’t Gore Running?
The White House is the place to battle global warming.
By Michael Hirsh
Newsweek Web Exclusive
Updated: 3:54 PM ET Dec 13, 2007
There he was again on the world stage--in Oslo this time--celebrating his Nobel Peace Prize with singer Melissa Etheridge and actress Uma Thurman, the Hollywood hottie who called him "adorable" and said listening to him talk was "like watching a beautiful racehorse run." But Al Gore isn't running. Which raises the question: maybe Gore's gotten a little too adorable--too comfortable in his role as a globe-trotting guru. What about his own damn country? Why isn't Al Gore--Nobel laureate and enviro rock star, embodiment of the alternative history that never was, winner of the largest popular-vote total in U.S. presidential history--seeking the job that many people still think should have been his in 2000? Yes, we've all heard that Gore's reached a kind of peace within himself, and what fire that is left in his belly is guttering out. But shouldn't this Hamlet of the Hustings be tormented with a little of the melancholy Dane's anguished ambition, telling himself: "The time is out of joint; O cursed spite, that ever I was born to set it right?"
Gore is obviously not without ambition to set things right: he appears to want to save the entire planet single-handedly. "Without realizing it, we have begun to wage war on the earth itself," he said in his Nobel acceptance speech. "It is time to make peace with the planet." After receiving his prize, Gore flew onto Bali, where the U.S. government this week succeeded in single-handedly blocking a proposal that called on industrialized nations to cut greenhouse-gas emissions by 25 percent to 40 percent by 2020. The Bush administration's lonely stand at the two-week-long meeting of nearly 190 nations--convened to start talks on a successor treaty to the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012--came even as new NASA satellite data showed a frightening acceleration in the melting of the Arctic. "My own country, the United States, is principally responsible for obstructing progress here in Bali," Gore declared as the Bali negotiations bogged down. And that comes after 10 years of limbo for Kyoto, thanks in large part to the Bush administration. Even Australia, whose zealously pro-Bush prime minister, John Howard, was defeated recently in part because of his opposition to Kyoto, has now signed the protocol. That leaves the United States as the only developed nation that has not joined the agreement.
Gore's passion and prescience on global warming are admirable. But let's get real: without a U.S. president who's fully behind an emission-reduction program, it's simply not going to happen. That's the lesson of Bali. America is still the only superpower, and there is no replacement on the horizon. The way to really save the planet is to move into the Oval Office. And a presidential race that only a short time ago some pundits were calling a Clinton coronation now seems wide open again. But Al Gore conveys no sense whatsoever that he's the man to set things right in Washington. He's already missed many of the filing deadlines for the primaries, discouraging the various Draft Gore campaigns from gathering signatures (undeterred, some have launched write-in campaigns). And Super Tuesday is less than two months away. "Please trust me to make good decisions about where I can do the most good," Gore told his supporters recently. "And don't automatically assume that running for president again is the right thing for me to do."
He's obviously still open to suggestion. I asked Donna Brazile, his campaign manager from 2000, whether there's any way Gore could still become president. "America might decide to turn to a 'recovering politician' in 2008, and Al Gore is ready to lead day one. I'm still a dreamer," she said by e-mail today. Gore, interviewed by CNN in Oslo, said cautiously that "I haven't ruled out the idea of getting back into the political process at some point in the future. I don't expect to. But if I did get back, it would be as a candidate for president, not in any other position." That's not much of a promise, but it's marginally more ambitious than what he said when he announced on Dec. 15, 2002 that he wouldn't run in 2004. "I made the decision in the full awareness that that probably means I will never have another opportunity to run for president, and I'm at peace with that," he said back then.
Well, Al, I'm glad you're at peace, but your planet and your country aren't. If you believe that instead of the "nuclear winter" that you and other politicians worked to avoid during the cold war we now face a "carbon summer," as you put it in your Nobel speech, then why the devil are you cavorting around on stage with Hollywood types in Oslo? Gore, we must remember, originally took himself out of what many Americans believed should have been his rightful rematch with George W. Bush when the former veep announced at the height of Bush's popularity that he wouldn't run again. Gore has had cause to regret that, obviously. Well, now there is a similar window of opportunity. Hillary Clinton's inevitability engine is stalled; the Democratic mantle seems up for grabs (at least between Hillary and Barack Obama). There is similar uncertainty on the Republican side, with the obscure Mike Huckabee filling the vacuum for the moment. It's clear that the nation and the world are looking for the right kind of American president.
Why not you, Al? The last time Gore decided not to run, memories of his close race with Bush were still fresh in the minds of unforgiving Dems. "In 2002, there was lot of anger at him within the Democratic Party," says one former adviser. "He could have taken Bush in 2004, but the road to the nomination was not going to be easy. The party really treated him terribly." Now he's got real hero status, having transformed his image from wooden wonk to globo-guy. And while the Dems have several candidates of substance to choose from, serious doubts about electability continue to plague the two front runners. But time is running out fast for Gore."The only way he becomes president now is if there's a catastrophic collapse of the field, and something we haven't seen in ages, a brokered convention," says the former adviser. Better that, perhaps, than a broken environment.
URL: http://www.newsweek.com/id/77828
© 2007 Newsweek.com
Politics and Climate are two different sciences. I'm so tired of this being a political issue.
Thanks,
Mother Nature
Those are not scholarly journals. Those are magazines.
Examples of journals would be:
Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society
Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences
Journal of Climate
You are kidding, right? That is all this is a political issue.
Money. Tax the rich and give it to the poor.....horse hockey!
Now we know where the communist went, they became
earth warmers.
I'm guessing your parents are republican. I like how people hear what their parents say and regurgitate it like it was their own idea. Just making an observation.
Then you have the melting of Greenland's glaciers. Recent studies have found that the earth's crust is thinning in some places, and that is probably melting the ice:
Magma May Be Melting Greenland Ice
Heat From Earth's Magma Contributing To Melting Of Greenland Ice
That's what you get for guessing.
Funny how the Ice age ended without hairspray.
Actually, I don't beleive it. They're hiding the fossilized Aquanet cans at Langley, according to my text message from Vince Foster.
This thread would be funny if it weren't so pathetic.
there's a lot of truth in that.
Here is a couple a good resources for global-climate-change deniers...
Climate change controversies: a simple guide
Climate change controversies
The Royal Society has produced this overview of the current state of scientific understanding of climate change to help non-experts better understand some of the debates in this complex area of science.
This is not intended to provide exhaustive answers to every contentious argument that has been put forward by those who seek to distort and undermine the science of climate change and deny the seriousness of the potential consequences of global warming. Instead, the Society - as the UK's national academy of science - responds here to eight key arguments that are currently in circulation by setting out, in simple terms, where the weight of scientific evidence lies.
* Misleading argument 1 : The Earth's climate is always changing and this is nothing to do with humans.
* Misleading argument 2 : Carbon dioxide only makes up a small part of the atmosphere and so cannot be responsible for global warming.
* Misleading argument 3 : Rises in the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are the result of increased temperatures, not the other way round.
* Misleading argument 4 : Observations of temperatures taken by weather balloons and satellites do not support the theory of global warming.
* Misleading argument 5 : Computer models which predict the future climate are unreliable and based on a series of assumptions.
* Misleading argument 6 : It's all to do with the Sun - for example, there is a strong link between increased temperatures on Earth with the number of sunspots on the Sun.
* Misleading argument 7 : The climate is actually affected by cosmic rays.
* Misleading argument 8 : The scale of the negative effects of climate change is often overstated and there is no need for urgent action.
and...
Climate change: A guide for the perplexed
NewScientist.com news service
To bad those eight statements are misleading in themselves. They fall short of a full explanation, implying the general theory of each is flawed.
Take the CO2 lagging warming, then man adding more CO2. Their statement is true, but once so much CO2 in in the atmosphere, adding more has an insignificant effect. It has been determined that atr 280 ppm (parts per million) the CO2 has a warming effect of about six degree Celsius. It would take 3% (3000 ppm) of CO2 to have a 6.7 degree effect. I choose 3% because that is about as much as we mere mortals can tolerate.
The issue with CO2 shouldn't be global warming, but it's effect on life. Plants thrive, but at some point any oxygen breathing life is compromised. Who knows, maybe that's why the bees are disappearing? As long as the alarmists are going to lie to us, then I say THEM!
Now consider the statement of the sun. It too falls short of a proper explanation, cherry picking only facts that have little merit. The 11 year cycle has little effect because of the lag times involved. More important are the changes in solar radiation that we don't see. Our best indicator are proxies like Carbon 14. Until the full effect of the sun on C14 production was known, carbon 14 dating was dismissed as inaccurate. It is now known that the higher the suns intensity, the more C14 that is produced. C14 as a proxy shows us that there is a change in solar radiation large enough to account for large temperature variations.
I could probably dismiss the other six statements, but you guys just don't listen to scientific facts. You believe in the religion of global warming.
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 12-16-2007 at 04:38 PM.
For you Objectivist out there....(you know who you are)...
The Shift
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
