Democrats & Liberals: Archives

Global warming is a hoax, climate change is not man-made, we can’t do anything about it and AlGore IS a hypocrite-and a liar.
The Goracle has never been “a lone voice crying in the wilderness” (more proof that the Global Warming Cult is a religion-the use of Biblical imagery by its adherents). He’s always been the huckster he is now. He just gets more and more buffoonish.

traveller,

Global warming is a hoax, but we can’t do anything about it???

traveller,

Your comments make me sick. Some Republicans simply refuse to acknowledge global warming, that the war isn’t going well, etc. Some people never learn. Most Americans are appalled. What’s your position on evolution? Wait, don’t tell me, I don’t want to know.

The hypocrite card. I guess no one can have an opinion on this subject if they drive a car now? My favorite was a reporter reminding Leonardo DiCaprio that he is an environmentalist and asking how he travelled to a French movie premier. His reply “I drove across the Atlantic”.

Al Gore has committed the unforgiveable sin of being right.

Traveller is right. It’s a hoax and we’re powerless to do anything about it.

Gore is an entertainer now, so view his antics in that light. He is NOT a scientist or a statesman or a messiah. He is an entertainer. Like that Michael Moore guy only not as fat. Or as entertaining.

Oh and Max before you jump to conclusions I’ve been registered D for about 18 years now. I don’t vote party lines because that’s something only stupid people do, but in general I find myself aligning with the Ds much more than the Rs. Too bad Ds don’t understand the value in publicly carried firearms and the death penalty for murderers, but that’s not what this is about. It’s about how Al Gore is alleged to be somehow great because he made a movie that pushes bad science into popular culture.

Interesting how people who claim global warming is a hoax never offer any objective, scientific evidence. There’s a lot of talk about bad science, but no evidence it’s bad science. These arguments remind me of all those “studies” funded by they tobacco companies so they could claim “all the data’s not in yet” or “the science isn’t clear”.

rick kennerly,
There is a lot of objective scientific (a redundancy) evidence. Here is a very small sample, quickly gathered.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/07/science_magazine_waffles_on_wa.html

http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/a-chorus-of-thousands-does-not-justify-climate-change-prophecies/2007/07/06/1183351452273.html?page=fullpage

http://www.abc.net.au/westqld/stories/s1971899.htm?backyard

http://www.globalwarmingheartland.org/

http://www.conservative.org/pressroom/2007/070630jt.htm

http://www.globalwarminghysteria.com/

There is a lot more out there but be warned; it’s heresy to see the truth.

Max,
As I’ve atated before, I’m not a Republican. They disgust me as much as the Democrats do.
If the science supported the AGW hypothesis I would be a proponent. However, there is none that supports the belief that man is causing a catastrophic heating of the atmosphere that will devastate civilization if it’s not stopped. Indeed, everything I’ve found contradicts that belief.

All of you are wrong … Al Gore has shown me the light. Through his backing of concerts worldwide that generated not only a lot money, but also a lot of trash, big energy bills, and tons of additional carbon into our atmosphere, I realized that Al Gore is our modern day savior. We must all remember that every single word in “An Inconvenient Truth” was scripture to our new religious movement and whenever Honest Al talks, the skies part and rays of beautiful sunlight descend and bounce off of his slicked back hair, but still enhance his tan. Honest Al invented the Internet, which allows us to commune as one in his eternal benevolence. One of his many operations allows us to send him money for “carbon credits,” which, in turn, forgives us our sins of living in air-conditioned homes and driving around in our cars; while Honest Al does all that he can to save the Earth upon which we all live. Yes, we should all stop going to church and start worshipping at the winged-tipped feet of our new Messiah, Honest Al Gore.

Woody,

Congrats. Goomba, traveller, and EdB validate your point perfectly.

Oh Woody,

You have it entirely backwards. I am very thankful that Gore made such far reaching exaggerated statements. He started this debate up hard.
Now we are at a point where enough people have heard that “not all scientist are on the same page with Gore!” The fact he had to exaggerate means the facts he had in his hand were not enough to prove his point.

Again I would like to predict that “global warming” when all the facts are straight will be “global breathing” and that the term “global warming” goes by the way of “politically correct” as “global cooling” did within my lifetime. We will let history decide. I guess we will just have to wait.

Scepticism’ over climate claims - The public believes the effects of global warming on the climate are not as bad as politicians and scientists claim, a poll has suggested.
The Ipsos Mori poll of 2,032 adults - interviewed between 14 and 20 June - found 56% believed scientists were still questioning climate change.
There was a feeling the problem was exaggerated to make money, it found.

Now that BBC news!

You see when Gore went on Larry King and told us that finally the entire scientific world was on the same page as him, he lied! It did not take a day for thousands of scientist to get upset over that statement. You can go through many links in past posts to prove this point.

Here are some facts for you rick,

The salient facts are these. First, the accepted global average temperature statistics used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show that no ground-based warming has occurred since 1998. Oddly, this eight-year-long temperature stasis has occurred despite an increase over the same period of 15 parts per million (or 4 per cent) in atmospheric CO2.

The online study which polled nearly 4000 votes found that a staggering 71 percent of people think that the rise in air temperature happens naturally.

I think that this is a pretty ridiculous conversation. global warming or not—-there is no disagreement that the pollution in the air and water and our incredible disregard for the earth and the health of any of its inhabitants (animal or plant life) in pursuit of money and bigger and more things, has left us with more asthma, more allergies, more illness, more diseased fish and animal life, less clean air to breathe, more melanoma at earlier ages, and on and on and on. EVEN if you don’t believe that melting polar icecaps are a problem or rising sea levels might inconvenience you in the future—-why are you distracting from the conversation of clean air, clean water and better health to our planet and ourselves and making companies accountable to the rest of the world’s population? Even in kindergarden we were taught to clean up our own messes and that it was wrong to hurt someone else or to leave a mess for others to clean up. what difference does it make what you call it or what your reason is—-we have made a mess of the planet in terms of its health and well-being and we are all paying the price for it in many ways. it is time for all of us on the planet, especially those who made the biggest messes, to clean it up and live like good members of the community, not like selfish, greedy, totally self-obsorbed buffoons!

Here are some more:

Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says:
…Mars, too, appears to be enjoying more mild and balmy temperatures.
In 2005 data from NASA’s Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide “ice caps” near Mars’s south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row.

Singer and Avery note that most of the earth’s recent warming occurred before 1940, and thus before much human-emitted CO2. Moreover, physical evidence shows 600 moderate warmings in the earth’s last million years. The evidence ranges from ancient Nile flood records, Chinese court documents and Roman wine grapes to modern spectral analysis of polar ice cores, deep seabed sediments, and layered cave stalagmites.

So thank you Al Gore! and always remember:

The online study which polled nearly 4000 votes found that a staggering 71 percent of people think that the rise in air temperature happens naturally.
And 65 percent think that scientists’ catastrophic predictions if pollution isn’t curbed are ‘far fetched’.

What?!!! Global warming a hoax?? How can this be? If global warming wasn’t real, why would environmental movements and Honest Al Gore say that it is? Why would they accept money if what they are saying isn’t the God-holy Truth? Are you trying to tell me to think for myself and take the time to research the matter to find out about whether there has been any significant climate change in the past 100 years? To learn that the Earth is not static but dynamic and as such, has experienced global warming AND cooling infinite times during it 4-billion-year history? To ascertain what exactly the impact of carbon dioxide is, considering it makes up about .03 percent of the atmosphere? Are you trying to tell me that there could be a lot of other plausible explanations for global warming, such as sun spot activity, the Earth’s rotation, etc.? That just can’t be!!! Honest Al told us that global warming is OUR FAULT! I feel so guilty … what right do I have to stay alive considering how much pollution I am currently generating. I would kill myself, only cremation contributes to global warming and as I decomposed, I would emit more carbon dioxide. I guess my only answer is to reduce the size of my wallet (and carbon footprint) by sending all of my money to Honest Al.

Judy,

You are so right! So very Right. I am with you all the way. What you don’t realize is that Al Gore is not helping that cause, he hurts it by having to lie and exaggerate to prove his point.

It cannot be a hoax Goomba. Every scientis agrees with Al Gore, He told us that. (right before a bunch of thenm stood up and said: “I DON”T THINK SO!”)

Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now Skeptics

Scientists blame Hollywood for increased fears over global warming: …Professors Paul Hardaker and Chris Collier, both Royal Meteorological Society figures, criticized fellow scientists they accuse of “overplaying” the message.

Dr. Shariv, a prolific researcher who has made a name for himself assessing the movements of two-billion-year-old meteorites, no longer accepts this logic, or subscribes to these views. He has recanted: “Like many others, I was personally sure that CO2 is the bad culprit in the story of global warming. But after carefully digging into the evidence, I realized that things are far more complicated than the story sold to us by many climate scientists or the stories regurgitated by the media.

Now Rick,

Hand me some proof that we are about to “catastrophically destroy ourselves” as Al Gore claims.

You know I found those facts so easy.

So again I will say:
Look it UP!

Stay away from the political sites and sites that collect facts and make conclusions. You can come to your own conclusions.

The facts are out there.

Find them!

Then discuss YOUR conclusions. You will find you will be wrong less that way. And we all know that each of us have a percentage of wrong conclusions we hold onto.

We just don’t know which ones.

Hmmm … just thinking. Honest Al can say anything and use any kind of illustrations he wants; provided he hedges what he says in the context that the results of global warming won’t really hit until about 2040. By then it won’t any difference whether he was right or not — Honest Al would be long dead or so old that he wouldn’t be able to remember what he said in the past anyway. In the meantime, Honest Al continues to develop a new religious following of naive, easily duped individuals who will buy anything that this guy is selling. Honest Al is livin’ large — and not just his stomach and head! He gets carte blanche to violate every cardinal sin he pontificates against, while his bankroll grows expotentially larger than the amount of C02 being generated by China. By the way, Julye, only a fool would piss in the pot he has to drink from, so to pollute the world remains the wrong thing to do. But keep in mind that if you check EPA records you will find that overall, the air is cleaner, the water cleaner, there is less trash on the roadways, and cars and heating & cooling are more energy efficient than in the days before “global warming” ever started. If Al Gore and environmental groups were to admit these “Inconvenient Truths,” the amount of money they would pull in would drop dramatically, much like the amount of hot air produced if only Honest Al would keep his mouth shut.

Man, this thread has gotten shrill. The problem with the solar forcing theory, which seems be to uncritically accepted by those seeking any rhetorical recourse that serves their predetermined notions, is that it doesn’t account for all the observed data. If you read the IPCC report, you will see that the world’s scientists incorporated solar forcing as well as a host of other factors.

There is some legitimate dispute on the extent of solar forcing — the best estimates I’ve read claim it may account for 10-30 percent of the observed data. But climate studies are incredibly complex. After accounting for gadzillion factors, it appears that man-caused C02 is a very large factor. What do you want? When we are dealing with incredibly complex systems, we have to resort to probability, and the probability that man-made C02 is behind much of our global warming is very high — 92+ plus.

Read the science. That means of course that you can’t just cherry pick from the internet views that support your own. For the record, I hope that the scientists are wrong, that we’re not going to face huge disruptions. But I don’t allow my hopes to control my reasoning.

Has Gore made any verifiably, objectively false statements about global warming?

Woody,

Yes!

But I will not try to convince you. We will let the readers decide!

I’ll take that as a “No.”

Max, Woody, Gerrold,
Please review the link that scottie had above:

The salient facts are these. First, the accepted global average temperature statistics used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show that no ground-based warming has occurred since 1998. Oddly, this eight-year-long temperature stasis has occurred despite an increase over the same period of 15 parts per million (or 4 per cent) in atmospheric CO2.

This is from the IPCC! It is beyond reproach right? It is the holy scriptures. How can this be?

Thanks for answering.

You can take it how ever you want. Even many on the left will tell you that he way over exaggerated his claims. Look at many past blogs. In any debate, on any subject, when you have to over-exaggerate or hype to prove your point, it is a pretty good sign that you may not have enough evidence to prove your point.

scottie1321,

In any debate, on any subject, when you have to over-exaggerate or hype to prove your point, it is a pretty good sign that you may not have enough evidence to prove your point.

Thanks for the reminder.

Looking up at the comments on this thread, I know exactly how to apply it.

JimmyRay,

It must not be true! Woody has told us that there are no “verifiably, objectively false statements about global warming”

So all those scientist who adamantly disagree with “BIG AL” must be figments of our imagination. They don’t exist. Wonder where all those scientist went who, when I was in Elementary school, were telling us we were about to enter he next ICE AGE?

They must all be figments of our imagination. We had better have ourselves committed to the first local institution we can find.

Question:

I have heard that Al Gore owns a carbon tax company but haven’t been able to find anything to confirm this. Does anyone know if this is true?

Here is an interesting article:
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070705191403.gahmdtoi&show_article=1

You are comin’ round lawnboy!

scottie and goomba,

Great posts by the way.

Libs I’m still waiting…..

Wow, jimmyray, you’ve waited a whole 17 minutes on an internet forum before expounding on your great patience.

I’m amazed at your sufferance.

Too bad that you limit responses only to the “Libs”. Since, of course, there’s really no one in the world that responds to that name, I’m not sure who you are waiting for.

Perhaps you should have pointed your request at scientists in general since understanding the nature of scientific discovery isn’t really related to a side of the political spectrum.

Congrats, though, on your long-suffering forbearance.

At this point I don’t think it really matters whether global warming is man made or not. The problem is it is happening or at least something is happening to change our climate. Instead of arguing over whether it our fault or not we should be discussing what are we going to do to survive the loss of land mass and the change in agricultural production areas. Part of that discussion should probably include can we slow it down and how, as well.

Andy,

Yes he does, it is a carbon offset company. That might help your REASEACH.

Here is an interesting tidbit!

Companies and individuals rushing to go green have been spending millions on “carbon credit” projects that yield few if any environmental benefits.

See Lil Sue,

We already did. We fixed “global cooling” 30 years ago, so well that we shot ourselves right into “global warming” now we did that without the last 3 decades of brilliance that we have learned SINCE.

I am sure that within 30 years we can shoot ourselves just as easily back to worrying about the next ICE AGE.

So does anyone have a problem with Mr Gore pushing this global warming thing. Isn’t this simply brilliant marketing for his company? The guy gets the whole world in a frenzy just so he can make more money. Al Gore is a genius.

Here is a question.

Why during the years of 92-2000 did not “BIG AL” use his bully pulpit to discuss this topic that is so near and dear to his heart every day? Could it be that we had not yet solved “global cooling” or was it that “he” solved it so well that we only started catastrophically warming ourselves recently? And the whole time we have been getting cleaner and cleaner air. Just how does that work?

The nation’s air quality has improved over the long term. As the table below shows, we have seen substantial improvements in air quality, based on the six principal pollutants, since 1980.

Jimmyray,

Even assuming your quote is true, it’s irrelevant. Eight years means nothing; the data show frequent rises, dips, and periods of status quo. Look, when people point to a few years of increased hurricane activity as “proof” of something, they are being ridiculous. What matters is trends over longer periods of time. If you are serious about understanding the science, then spend some time on it. Looking for rhetorical points on the internet does not count as study.

The single best thing we should do now is get a carbon tax, which that diehard liberal Jack has been pushing for awhile.

Is Jack the head of marketing for Al’s carbon tax company?

I’m still hoping Al Gore can be convinced to run for president. It’s being floated that he could easily beat Hillary if he did, so I see no reason why he shouldn’t think about going for it.
Judging by the responses (repetitive trolling) in this thread, the prospect of a Al Gore presidency is likely to make a lot of global warming deniers and assorted dim bulbs apoplectic. No doubt that would be entertaining, too! :^)

You guys are being silly. Perhaps you know that. Wild charges of hoaxes, crazy speculation that Gore is brilliant enough to manipulate world opinion so that he can profit, nutty conspiracy theories about world socialism, nonsequitor quotes about polls of voter opinion, etc., etc. — argue with the science if you want, but account for the analysis that has already dealt with the objections being raised. You guys read something on the internet, think it sounds plausible, and then regurgitate it here as if no one ever thought of it before. That shows to me you are much less interested in discussing validity than in scoring rhetorical points by any possible means.

Look, it it possible that man-caused C02 is not a dominant factor in climate change. The IPCC says that — all factors considered, there is an 8 percent chance or less that the massive dumping off C02 by man in the atmosphere since the start of the industrial revolution has had little effect. You’ve got slightly more chance of hitting a gutshot straight in hold ‘em. It’s possible but it’s not the way to bet.

Adrienne,

Why should Gore settle for the presidency when his vast climate change hoax promises to let him take over the world?

Gerrold, did you read my link. The earth was hot before humans had invented to stone wheel.

here it is again if you didn’t:
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070705191403.gahmdtoi&show_article=1

You go Adrienne,

You can help us as much as “big al”

I would love to make “global warming” and “global cooling” a part of the election 2008 discourse. I am not afraid.

Well, it’s nice to see the bully pack out in full armament….and Woody, it’s also nice of you to give them something to vent about. Gives us something amusing to read, too. Doesn’t take a whole lot to get some guys skivvies in a wad real quick!!
LilSue and judye….you’re both right on with your comments, and you can see that the opposing factor is far too busy to pay attention to your quiet, but appropriate comments.
With any luck, a lot of us won’t be around to see the full impact of what this “HOAX” will do to our world, but I really do think we’re terribly self-centered and narrow-minded to think that we’re not leaving generations following us in a mess!!! Sorry kids… :(

Gerrold:
“Adrienne,

Why should Gore settle for the presidency when his vast climate change hoax promises to let him take over the world?”

Because from what I’ve gathered Gerrold, he hasn’t quite perfected the ability to shoot thunderbolts from the mighty tips of his fingers, or out of his arse. ;^)

scottie:
“You go Adrienne,”

Not always, but I certainly try.

Sandra, while the Earth may be experiencing global warming to some extent, no one — not Honest Al Gore, not the Sierra Club, not the League of Concerned Scientists — can honestly or accurately predict the climate in 100 years, 50 years, 10 years, or even next year. The Earth is not static, nor is its climate. Changes can occur rapidly or extremely slowly. No one here is saying “Go forth and pollute;” but rather than derail most of the world’s economies, increase global poverty (which would be far more catastrophic to more people), while allowing some countries such as China, Russia, and India to go on pumping crap into the atmosphere without any consequences — all based on the hunches and perceptions of those whose livelihoods and futures rest soundly in Junk Science — will leave the world in a far worse mess. As for the possible “devastation” to the Earth, keep in mind that apocalyptic scenarios for the future are nothing new and date back to centuries. Apocalyptic propheses are the basis of most religions, so Gore, like a lot of hucksters of the past, is only trying to capitalize on the Global Warming Apocalypse. Something else to think about — Remember Paul Ehrlich’s “Population Bomb?” We should all be living like those in Soylent Green by now, if he was correct. Better still: how about Global Cooling? For those of you too young to remember, that was another apocalyptic environmental scenario, which matches Honest Al’s predictions, only in the opposite. This came out in the mid 1970s and to read about it, click on this link:
http://denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm

The Ipsos Mori poll of 2,032 adults - interviewed between 14 and 20 June - found 56% believed scientists were still questioning climate change.

You see when Gore went on Larry King and told us that finally the entire scientific world was on the same page as him, he lied!

This is the second time I have seen a link to this article, and the same wrong conclusion was drawn from it. If you read the article, it says the majority of the public interviewed did not believe in Global Warming. It does not say that the scientists doubt global warming. So much for comprehension as a reading skill.

Singer and Avery note that most of the earthââ‚�(tm)s recent warming occurred before 1940

This one is humorous, Avery is an Economist and Singer receives grant money from oil and tobacco companies. Singer also wrote that he disagreed with the ill effects attributed to second hand cigarette smoke. Gee, you wonder if there is a conflict of interest that is affecting his analysis.

Dr. Shariv, a prolific researcher … I realize the story told us is far more complicated than the story told us …

Dr. Shariv an Astrophysicist has some valid points. But his qualifications as a climatogists is lacking. He beliefs that celestial factors contributing to global warming are more important than the factors created here on earth. He however, does not ever say that CO2 does not contribute to global warming. He only disagrees to what extent it contributes to global warming. You have to find a read his discourse on this, and of course the majority of qualified scientists disagree with him.

You know I found those facts so easy.

I wonder why?

how about Global Cooling?

This line of reasoning always amuses me. For some some reason, we should ignore the logical scientific conclusion based on the overwhelming mass of currently-available evidence because at one point a few scientists hypothesized something that turned out to be untrue.

Global Cooling was considered a fairly crackpot idea at the time. That it was found to be false doesn’t give any reason to doubt the serious, conclusive science behind a completely different supported theory 30 years later.

But hey, when you’re grasping at straws…

You are wrong to say the science is conclusive. There are just as many, if not more scientists that say global warming is not true.

I do not even understand what side Gerrold is on after reading his posts, but I think I agree with him. There are certainly many many factors involved which we do not understand clearly, such as coronal mass ejections.

In the micro-environment, it is pretty clear that having millions of machines that have to make fire and heat and run around on pavement that heats up, is not helpful.

It is pretty clear that global warming is occurring, denying it does not make any sense, whatever the contributing causes.

Ironically, the tenth commandment of the 613 commandments is: Not to test the prophet unduly.

There are just as many, if not more scientists that say global warming is not true.

Andy, your statement is in direct contradiction of the facts.

Perhaps within the subset of scientists you want to listen to you are correct. However, the reality is that the incredibly strong consensus of the scientific community is that Global Warming is a real issue, and that human influence is a/the primary cause.

Goomba,

Given the dire conditions many across the world live in, I would think population size is something to be concerned about. Most of the population growth is in underdeveloped countries. If you want to claim that it is possible for the earth to support our population growth, I would agree. But given what we see now, more people means more suffering.

At any rate, climate change isn’t about the end of the world — what serious person says that? But it is about largescale disruption, starvation, droughts, flooding, etc., etc. Will man survive? Of course. In fact, some regions will be better off. What we’re talking about now is trying to mitigate the most disruptive of the changes that are coming.

As far as labeling climatology “junk science,” I don’t know what to say about that. It bears little resemblence to Creationism, for example, which actively denies the validity of the available evidence. Would you say that climatology is a junk science if its conclusions were otherwise?

Gerrold,

I think you make a couple of mistakes. First, there is an assumption that ‘these things will happen’, but the fact is that is all a guess. If the trends continue and we are sure about the reasons, then yes. But I don’t think that we are sure that the trends will continue or what exactly are the causes. That is what leads into the second mistake. Climatology is not junk science. However, certain aspects that are labelled as such may be considered so, including putting weight into computer models that we can’t retrograde to the past and get accurate results or not knowing all of the variables and expecting that the predictions will hold up. In that respect some could say that aspect of climatology is akin to divination, but I’m not sure I agree completely with that. The models and predictions are relevant and necessary, but they are not necessarily what is going to happen beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Lawnboy,

I am saying there is no majority one way or the other. Also, the scientists I am listening to are still scientists.

Adrienne,

Unfortunately, I think Gore is sincere when he says he’s not interested in running again. That’s a shame because he’s clearly the best person for the job. Only the most rabid partisan can deny that this country would have been much better off if thoughtfulness had prevailed in 2000. But even today a full 28 or 29 percent of the country supports the current occupant of the White House.

Everyone here could write a paper on global warming. Is global warming caused by man or is it a natural cycle. Both would be backed by facts and both would look to be correct, but only one would be. So who would be right?

I am saying there is no majority one way or the other.

Actually, you said the majority denied Global Warming. But anyway…

Also, the scientists I am listening to are still scientists.

I’m sure they are. Heck, they might even have experience in a relevant field. However, they are the tiny minority whose objections are based on evidence that other scientists have considered and have answers for.

Actually, you said the majority denied Global Warming. But anyway�

Just as many means the same. But anyway…

Rhinehold,

You’re right. We don’t know beyond a shadow of a doubt. That’s why probabilities are assigned. I sincerely hope the naysayers are correct. In this case, I’d much rather be wrong than right.

Andy,

So what does “if not more” mean?

Anyway…

It means there are possibly more.

ok. Just as I thought.

Thanks.

Gerrold,

You said a couple of very important things.
1. It is a complex system.
2. It is a matter of probabilities

Please read this.

There is no way they can be 92+% sure.

Jimmyray,

I’m not going to accept as scientifically serious an article that finds it necessary to cite Google calculator for a simple mathematical calculation.

The author makes a lot of assumptions about the science and the math of Global Warming, basically saying it’s unknowable because it’s complex.

That’s just silly.

Jimmyray,

This is probably one of those scientists that you shouldn’t listen to. If certain people don’t like what he has to say then he is wrong and doesn’t know what he is talking about.

Lawnboy,

So you are saying that it is a complex system, but all the variables have been taken into account?

How long has Climatology on a global scale been part of the scientific community? And they have it all figured out do they? It boggles the mind….
Blind faith like that would make your Creator proud.

No, Andy. The reason not to listen to him is not that we don’t like his conclusion. The reason not to listen to him is that his methods are crap.

He makes up numbers (100! 99!), puts a bit of math on them, and then claims that those invented numbers are a result by which we can analyze the relevant science. I don’t know how anyone could claim with a straight face that we should accept or reject anything based on such made up and irrelevant number games.

Garbage in, garbage out.

And they have it all figured out do they?

Not at all. I’ll shock you here. I think that all the climate scientists are wrong.

Surprised?

I mean that there are still unknown parts of the system, there are still calculations untaken, there are still ideas not yet created. Because of all this, it’s not possible for anyone to be 100% correct.

However, that’s not limited to the issue of Global Warming; it’s true of all science. We don’t know the weight of the Sun down to the ounce, but that doesn’t mean that we don’t understand why the earth revolves around it. We don’t know the exact processes by which the heat of the Sun is created, but that doesn’t mean we don’t know how seasons work.

I’m not saying that all variable have been taken into account. What I will say, though, is that a lot of people smarter than you or I have thought a lot about this, and they have created models that both explain and predict amazingly well. They realize that they don’t know everything, and that doubt is taken into consideration when trying to figure out what’s going on.

It’s not blind faith to see that the scientific method works well, and that it is at work in the discipline under discussion.

I’m curious about the “Creator” jab at the end, but whatever.

“They realize that they don’t know everything, and that doubt is taken into consideration when trying to figure out what’s going on.”

Does this mean they are making up numbers? If so see below.

“I don’t know how anyone could claim with a straight face that we should accept or reject anything based on such made up and irrelevant number games.”

I’m sure these aren’t the numbers your are referring to though.

No, Andy. They know what they are doing. Nice try, though.

It was worth a shot.

jimmyray,

I read your link. Here are some things to consider. If your source’s analogy to a game of chance is correct, then we shouldn’t be able to predict the weather tomorrow with any degree of certainty. Yet we can do a fairly good job of it. We can’t be absolutely certain, but when the weatherman says there is a 90 percent chance of rain tomorrow, it’s foolish to plan for a picnic.

By reducing the issue the way your source does, he essentially assigns equal possibilities to a host of unpredicted outcomes. By his reasoning we could have a massive 20 degree drop in global temperature next year. Is it possible? One can create a scenario I assume for that. But I wouldn’t bet the farm on it.

When we launch a probe to, say, Jupiter, we are able to succeed most often despite the great many variables — gravitational fluctuations, solar wind, space debris, etc., etc. Some probes are capable of making minor course corrections, but if it weren’t possible to crunch most of the variables into an essentially correct trajectory from the beginning, probes to Jupiter would be impossible. So much for complexity alone eliminating the possibility of fairly accurate computation.

Here’s another example. I play a lot of hold ‘em. It’s a very complex game. You have to deal with many different types of invidual psychologies; you have to deal with probability with the cards. A certain play against one person may be smart; the same play against a different person may be dumb. The variables are far more than appear at first glance. Yet because I study the game, I am able to determine fairly accurately my rate of return over a long period of time. Complexity does not mean accurate prediction is impossible.

Look, this isn’t a matter of believing in climate change or not. I don’t “believe” in it. I don’t “believe” in evolution, either. I think the best evidence now say both are highly likely. I don’t buy the whole “hoax” business; in general I’m highly suspicious of elaborate conspiracies. I don’t think our government was behind 9/11, either.

Gerrold,

Great examples with meteorology and space probes.

Gerrold:
“Adrienne,

Unfortunately, I think Gore is sincere when he says he’s not interested in running again.”

Well, to quote the title of Studs Terkel’s last book: ‘Hope Dies Last.’ Personally, I’m not yet convinced, because if that was absolutely true, then why hasn’t he just come out and said “Sorry, NO. It’s never going to happen.” Since he hasn’t done that, I haven’t given up my hope.

“That’s a shame because he’s clearly the best person for the job.”

Indeed, and who better to guide America’s move toward energy independence? Why on Earth resist the chance to be in charge of such an important goal?

“Only the most rabid partisan can deny that this country would have been much better off if thoughtfulness had prevailed in 2000.”

I think we can convince him that we need that thoughtfulness and intelligence more than ever.

“But even today a full 28 or 29 percent of the country supports the current occupant of the White House.”

But thankfully, that’s not the majority.

Only the most rabid partisan can deny that this country would have been much better off if thoughtfulness had prevailed in 2000.‎

You mean the thoughtfullness that he used as VP during the administration that exacerbated the issue during the 90s to the point we saw in 2001? The one who did nothing of consequence to the group that attacked the WTC in 93, having 7 whole years to do something and failing miserably?

I’m sorry, but the notion that Gore would have been good for anything as president is laughable. Would he have been better than Bush? Probably not. Worse? Probably not. Different? Most definately. Gore would have gotten something right where Bush failed but would have screwed up in his own unique incompetent way.

To everyone.

Go through this post. Just look at the links. Ignoring all the rhetoric.

Then look at all the rhetoric. (on both sides)

Then compare it to these two paragraphs form goomba’s link from “global cooling”:

To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world’s weather. The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. “A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,” warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, “because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.”

I almost feel guilty about writing this. Have I given away the game? Will Al Gore critics keep it up, now that I’ve pointed out that they are really his pawns? Probably. The urge is pick on the class know-it-all is too hard to resist.
Posted by Woody Mena at July 9, 2007 08:00 AM

Woody…your attempt at some kind of reverse psychology just isn’t working with us conservative “subtle geniuses”. A.G. is just a money grubbing, hate monger who has conjured up a false crisis to enrich himself.

Gang, let’s keep it simple…a big Hummer is guzzling huge amounts of a limited resource that spews noxious fumes as well as co2…what part of this car/truck is good for this planet…the waste of fuel? The extra pollution? The obnoxious size of this ridiculous vehicle on our already crowded roads? The hazard if it strikes a normal vehicle? The extra wasted natural minerals it took to build this behemoth? Aside from stroking the ego of the owner, this vehicle has no credibility, nor others like it. And saying “it’s safe” at the cost of being a hazard to others doesn’t cut it. The same goes for wasteful thinking in our government, businesses and other personal acquisitions. We don’t need to waste just because at this point in time we can afford to. The dumps are growing larger and our resources are growing smaller…global warming is academic, at this point…we are hurting our future as a species and those around us, if we don’t curb our egos and excesses.

sorry folks. That was an oops!

You might want to look at these past NYT and Time magazine headlines throughout the last century.

NYT

TIMES

Rhinehold,

Well, I hope we have the opportunity to see who is correct.

scottie,

Some widgets are faulty.
Therefore, all widgets are faulty.

Hawaiian Don,

The Hummer is a stupid vehicle to have and only sells to those who need to … um … compensate for something.

Buying one is stupid and buying cars that get better gas mileage and better emissions just makes sense without making it into a religion about saving the planet.

We don’t need to believe or accept the Al Gore view of the climate to see that being energy independant and environmentally conservative makes the most sense for us as individuals AND as a country. By steeping that into the religion that is called ‘Global Warming’ (all the while using a phrase that makes little sense for what is being argued) just makes people with common sense rankle.

People should be trying to get us to be smart and sensible people without having to force their religion on us. Of Course, if we could do that though, there would probably be no Christianity…

*ducks under the table as the conversation explodes*

Well obviously you are right Gerrold. Let history give the final answer.

It already did on the subject of “global warmin” then “global cooling” then “global warming” again, then “global cooling” again and now we will wait to see on “global warming” again.

HMMMMMMM. Sounds alot like “global breathing” to me!

Now If I give you the pattern of 1,2,1,2,1,2, ?

What comes next? 2? no 6? no 1? yes yaaay.

global warming, global cooling, global warming, global cooling, global warming, ?

what comes next?

I’ll let the reader decide. But if someone wants to chime in with the answer,…..

Here is the text of Newsweek’s 1975 story on the trend toward global cooling. It may look foolish today, but in fact world temperatures had been falling since about 1940. It was around 1979 that they reversed direction and resumed the general rise that had begun in the 1880s, bringing us today back to around 1940 levels

HHMMMMMMM

No Gerrold,

Some wigets are faulty, some are not,

But some widgets can’t seem to be fixed no matter how hard the widget maker tries. They just won’t work. But not all of them tho!

jimmyray,

nice — grab an article from a right wing publication to prove your point.

it’s impossible to have constructive debate with people that can’t look at unbiased scientific research and say, hey… maybe their is something to this global warming thing.

here is some basic cause an effect scenerios, but i’m sure this will have no effect in persuading the diehards

Jimmyray and Scottie,

You guys got punk’d.

I found the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. You can see their data on slide 7 of this Powerpoint presentation

http://www.ipcc.ch/present/WMEF_FINAL.ppt

As you can see from the slide, it is true that temperatures have been stable since 1998. However, 1998 was the hottest year since 1850 (at least!) In fact, some of the hottest years on record have occurred since 1998. So the fact that the temperature has been “stable” since 1998 is not good news at all! It is really quite alarming, because it suggests the seemingly extreme heat of 1998 may actually be normal now.

Tony,

Open all the links on this post in separate tabs and see just which side is using “politically biased sources” which are not! Then say that again.

It’s amazing how much emotion is wrapped up in this subject. If you like Al Gore, what he says is right. If you don’t like Al Gore, what he says is wrong.

Well, it is not a question of what Gore says. It is a question of what may happen in the future. Scientists at NASA and scientists working on the UN report (otherwise known as IPCC report) say that probably we will be faced with increased temperatures this century that will cause havoc.

Well, since I’m working on a book on this subject, I have been reading what skeptics say.

Patrick J. Michaels and Robert C. Balling, Jr. are scientists that wrote a book called “Satanic Gases,‎ a title that tells you immediately they are skeptics. After spending most of the book discussing errors, approximations, uncertainties, misunderstandings and bad modeling, they say:

“â€�the best guess range of sea level rise during the next [21st] century would be about 5 – 11 inches.”

Since they and other scientists are unsure of the future, how come they believe this? And what makes them so sure that the sea level rise will not be 12 inches or even more?

Yes, scientists do not know. Nobody knows the future. However, we have very good reason to believe that CO2 will cause trouble in the future. Prudence says we must do something.

Scottie,

My only source came from you!

Paul,

You don’t need to like Al Gore if you believe the evidence.

Woody,

You just slapped us with a red herring! Ouch!

So sometime between 1850 and 2007 there was a “hottest year on record”-1998 Surprise me!

Guess what tho! There was also a coldest year on record during that time period too.

Yosemite used to be covered in glaciers also. What caused that cooling. Yosemite is way hotter now in 2007 than when those glaciers were there. That proves that global warming is going to be catastrophic and is real!

Come now!

That slide also fits with the concept of “global breathing”

Gore takes the worst case scenarios as fact. I fault him for that.

I agree with him on the carbon tax. He should use his influence with other Democrats to get them to back it too.

Scottie,

I don’t know if I can reason with you on this, but I’m an optimist so I’ll give it a shot. Please ask yourself a couple of questions:

First of all, who brought up the year 1998? (Hint: Someone you know well.)

Secondly, your friend had a temperature of 102 a week ago, and it’s been stable ever since. Is that good news?

Finally, please download that link and look at the chart of temperatures since 1850. Remember, it’s YOUR source.

Woody,

First, I did, and that link still does not conflict with “global cooling”

2nd Are you trying to tell me that the earth all of a sudden got up to 102 degrees and never came back down? My body temp never went above 102 before I was 32 when I had a 105 for a couple of hours. Oh my my body has in my thirties been inflicted with global warming.

Third refer to first.

Sorry: should be

First, I did, and that link still does not conflict with “global breathing”

Jack,

Carbon tax is a tough sell.

Scottie,

Yes, I’m saying the Earth had fever in 1998 and it it still sick.

So then when most of North America was covered in Ice we were really sick? Or was the earth sick when it got warm when all that Ice melted. And it STAYED THAT WAY! Was it sick when in the 70’s we were dealing with “global warming”

Global breathing senor.

Woody Mena- I think all these spinmeisters will
die from eating or drinking toxins long before
the world freezes or burns up, or maybe the
smog may get them, I would prefer meister Dust
be used on them. (”)smile!

Gotta love ya DAVID!

The debate on this issue boils down to these two sides.

On the anti-climate change side are those who in fact, bring out the critique of the probability models for assessing climate change.

On the pro-climate change side are those who bring out the consensus of a majority of scientists who upon viewing the data from many probability and statistic models and hypotheses, agree that climate change is taking place, and climate change means beneficial results for some, and disastrous consequences for others.

This is very much like the inverse argument between pro and anti Las Vegas betters. The anti-better side cites the data which demonstrates using probability and statistical modeling that over time, any player of Las Vegas house games will lose. The pro-better cites anecdotal stories from this friend, that newspaper, and that other magazine which demonstrate that a person can bet in Las Vegas and come away a very big winner.

Because this is an inverse analogy, the pro-betters represent the critics of global climate change. And the anti-betters represent the those who say we should act to ameliorate the effects of global climate change whether they be warming, cooling, or both, one after the other.

Jack
A voice in the wilderness. Yes a carbon tax. Your suggestion of spending the tax to pay off the SS bonds is brilliant.Getting the left to go along with it will be easy compared with getting the right to even aknowelege a problem. This thread is ample proof of that.Good luck.

For the shrill flatearthers. Too late. 2 billion people are motivated. That is the tipping point. From now on you can sit in the corner and mutter to yourselves.Where was the moon landing staged anyway?

No David,

It is much, much simpler than that.

Some feel that we are presently warming up and it will not stop because we have polluted too much.

Others believe that we are going through a naturally caused warming trend and as it always has it will reverse and go the other way. Like a breath.

My facts that back that up. So far, until now, even your scientist believe that in the past over time it has warmed and cooled.

What we don’t have is evidence that this current warming trend is totally man made or is not going to stop before it gets catastrophic. But didn’t we link that Mars is currently losing its polar Ice Caps? Those polluting Martians. Bad Martians.

BillS, beware the politicization of the carbon tax. It is already being designed by the wealthy special interests to become a bank in which credits and deposits may be made, similar to the Savings and Loan system, in which bankruptcy can be built into its future with the taxpayer becoming the bailout.

In theory, the carbon tax makes sense. In practice, with our wealthy corporate special interests at the legislative drafting table, theory and practice may well become a chasm for a bridge too far.

David

The carbon tax should be simple and elegant. There should be no offsets, no adjustments and no exceptions. It should be on carbon intensive energy sources and production and should be simply on the carbon produced. It would drive up the price of coal, more than oil and oil more than gas. There would not be many surprises. Cement production is one. Some alternatives would be tax free. That is a defacto subsidy. We need no others. Keep it simple and it is much harder to manipulate or cheat.

Jack, that is the theory, already rejected in Committee hearings by industry advocates and representatives a great many months ago. The carbon tax exchange market is already on the drawing boards, and the wealthiest players, like those of Wall Street, will reshape the theory to meet their practical and profitable needs.

The form is net caps, in which carbon credits and debits are traded to highest and lowest bidders, exempting those with competitive advantage and large bank accounts from curtailing their output. In theory, this should not affect the net cap reductions, BUT, in theory, our own economic system should not be carrying the personal, trade, and national debt obligation loads it is now carrying.

Compromise will be the political word used to build this bridge too long to sustain its own weight across a chasm too wide between theory and the profitable political expediency of our current wealthy special interest campaign financing system for political office.

I’ve heard it all now: 9/11 means we must invade Iraq, the war is going swell, deficits don’t matter, let’s gamble with our social security, why couldn’t those people have just left New Orleans, global warming isn’t real.

A couple of weeks ago the Bush appointed head of NASA said that it was arrogance for people to claim that one climate was “better” than another. The scientific, rational response was that that was correct: no climate is “better” than another, since that’s not an objective criterion. Republicans whooped this up.

Unsaid was that most scientists (yep, that’s right) think there’s a good chance that a huge amount of damage will be done and lives lost if we don’t take action now. But don’t believe that. Take the word of some crackpot bought by the oil industry. Gore has it right when he says the Republican party has been assaulting reason.

David

The carbon tax is the only thing that can work. I prefer the clean tax and will continue to advocate for it. Carbon trading is a less desirable variant, but still better than any of the alternatives.

We have to try to get the best and perhaps settle for something a bit less. The idea of the carbon tax is a good one. Nothing else will do the job.

Face the fact that the rich can always do better than the poor. That is the very definition of being rich. We should solve different problems separately. Our goal is to reduce CO2. We should be that in the most efficient way we can get. We should not use that as a tool for social engineering or redistribution. That was the fatal flaw in Kyoto.

Scottie, your comment to me is grossly misrepresentative of the reality that exists. The evidence indicates that humans have vastly increased greenhouse effect pollutants into the atmosphere since the dawn of the industrial revolution. This is hard science data.

The data also demonstrates that in the history of the world, massive volcanic eruptions, and meteorological events have had similar effects resulting in global climate change.

The conclusion of the majority of scientists is straightforward, increases in greenhouse effect pollutants whether volcanic gases and dust, or man made carbon pollutants, will have an effect on climatology if substantially increased.

Since, humans have significantly increased such pollutants, climate change will logically result, from the scientific evidence and correlations. Ergo, reversing mankind’s contributions to atmospheric pollution and greenhouse gases will have some reversing effect.

How much, how soon, and for how long, are debatable. But, the conclusions arrived at by the majority of scientists reviewing the data are logical and reasonably arrived at based on the data and evidence to date. Since, we are not gods, the data and evidence are all we have to work with, and until those conclusions or data change as a result of new evidence, it is logical given the potential consequences, that we should act in the best interests of mankind with the preponderance of the evidence we have available.

There are those who want this preponderance of the evidence to NOT COST them today. But, their search for evidence and consensus to defend policy which would not cost them, keeps coming up short either methodologically or logically. Your perspective appears to fit into this camp. And that’s OK. On any issue involving change, there will be those who resist. That too is a part of the natural way of things in human affairs. It is understandable. It is just not defensible in the face of overwhelming evidence and expert opinion supporting change.

Apologies for being flippant. Long day and I am kind of beat. There are some very good reasons to start weaning off fossil fuels other than climate change. Energy independance from unstable and despotic regimes is a pretty good one.Balance of trade,huge military cost to secure sea lanes etc. not to mention occasional wars.

David,

No, you are missing one very key piece to the puzzle. It makes many of the correct things you just said help you arrive at a wrong conclusion. None of us are questioning that we humans have put pollutants in the air that have caused damage to our environment. I am all for reducing those to the best of our ability.

The conclusion is what is at steak. I happen to believe mother earth is big enough to handle it. I believe that we would have a hard time destroying her if we purposely tried to “create global warming”

Many scientist, (and many came out of the woodwork when Al Gore said that they didn’t exist) agree with that premise based on facts and research. You guys would like the world to think that it is a small number and just a bunch of blind kooks.

This world has warmed and cooled over history. We know that! It has had warming trends and cooling trends that we can even count in the short time we have been recording them.

But the temperature records that you are looking at are not as reliable as you would want us to think.

Today we have great accurate technology. The ability to accurately record temperatures for every square inch of the earth. Only 70 years ago our record keeping and temperature measurements were few, not always accurate, and mildly placed around the world.

The point of this post from the beginning is that Al Gore is brilliant because in over-hyping and exaggerating facts and down right lying about the scientific community has made “us” preach his message.

My point would be if Al Gore would spend that time stirring up the big cities to get rid of the allergies, breathing problems, and just plain grossness that comes with smog, he would most likely be much more effective.

Instead he paints a fictional catastrophic situation and then wants a solution to fit his over sized problem. So does it sound to you like the best way to get a solution to the real problem?

Logically, this would over correct the problem and we will be talking about “global cooling” again. Yayyyyy. I like “global cooling” better! LOL

This is the problem that the Democrats let the far left try to solve the problems for many issues. They are always saying “the sky is falling” no matter what the subject. It comes from passion. I know that. But the fact remains that that is not the best way to come to a conclusion or a solution.

The scientific community is in disagreement on this. They by nature have a ever changing record based on theory and hypothesis. Their record over time has been .. wel… errr.. remember that long running series…. Christopher Columbus and the flat earth??

Mother earth however has a fantastic record of taking care of itself. She heals herself faster than we predict most of the time! Isny it amazing how you can cut yourself and you heal, cut a tree and it will heal.

We humans have the ability to scratch mother earth and not much more. The fact that Al Gore had to lie, exaggerate, and hype proves this point.

Global breathing. Scottie, do me a favor, put your mouth over a tail pipe, and see whether you or the car can blow that stuff out their harder. Actually, don’t do that. Let’s just assume that Cars can put out CO2 at a higher rate. I won’t even suggest that you try that stunt with a coal fired power plant.

Point would be that these machines put out CO2 at a much higher rate. A lot of these machines around, no? Also a lot of fossil fuels, as well, CO2 that hasn’t been banging around the atmosphere for quite a while. And we’re burning the living hell out of it.

You know, it’s got a certain isotopic mix. Something about the way that Carbon selectively gets taken up by plants. Because of nuclear decay, the mix is different for CO2 we’re producing from fossil fuels. That’s what nails us as the most likely source.

And we’re overloading the system. South seas around Antarctica, a known carbon sink, has stopped taking up the CO2, may have even stopped quite some time ago. The rate at which we’re putting this stuff out now exceeds the rate at which our environment can filter it out. Thus rising levels of CO2.

As for cycles, they tend to repeat, and it’s been a very long time since temperatures got this warm. Additionally climate has cycles, but over all, it doesn’t behave in nice smooth gradients. It has a tendency to change rather violently, the Sahara turning from grasslands to desert in just a couple of centuries.

On the subject of global cooling, it makes as much sense to bring that up as a disproof of global warming as it is to bring up Newtons laws of motion to disprove Einstein’s theory of Relativity. The thing people forgot to tell you was that modern climatology was only just beginning to properly model things then. Global Cooling was not considered minus global warming, but both outcomes were considered, in light of evidence that climate had shifted both ways, and that cooling effects had come of some pollution, as well as warming.

You’re getting your science in bits and pieces from people more interested in scoring rhetorical points than presenting a solid picture of science to you.

I have to go. We will let the readers decide who makes more sense.

Well folks it has been the toughest three quarters I’ve seen in Blog Ball since February 31st, 2006.

At the start of the 4th quarter:

Global Warming - 51
Global Refrigerantz - 32 Degrees … and dropping
Gore 4 President - FV = PV(1+i)^N

Sorry, this is the longest discussion in awhile. Why not have a blind participant score the contest?

I’m participating in a survey of the weather and climate measurement stations in the U.S.
This project documents the exact locations with Lat/Lon coordinates and elevation using GPS.
We also take photos of the sites from the north, south, east and west to document the measuring environment and equipment condition of weather and climate monitoring stations.
So far in the U.S. only 136 stations are in the database with 1085 to go.
Some of the stations have been in place for 100 years.
If you go to the website and look at the gallery to see where the stations are sited and then look at the graph of the temperature record at that location, the reliability of claims of 1998 being the warmest year on record becomes suspect. I would like to know which measuring sites were used as the basis for that claim.
I was amazed to learn that there is a site that actually has air conditioning exhaust blowing directly on it. Some sites are even in paved parking lots next to buildings. It’s no wonder they record a rise in average temperature over the last 100 years! The sites where an urban environment has grown up around them with asphalt, concrete, brick, machinery, etc. around them show a general rise in average temperature. The sites located in fields, pastures and rural areas show either a generally flat profile or a sight decrease in average temperature. It will be interesting to see if this trend continues as the database grows.
This is basic science-observation of empirical data without opinion or bias, letting the facts speak for themselves.

http://surfacestations.com/

Stephen, nicely done.

“Honest:
Sorry, this is the longest discussion in awhile.”

Well, not really. It’s just that one person posted so many times that it might seem that way.

Ever heard the term blogoholic? I’ve always thought of this entity as a unique and distinct form of baiting troll. The postings tend to be numerous, rapid, generally thoughtless and ill informed, yet often loaded with a lot of baseless arrogance.

Woody,

Die-hard Dem that I am, I just can’t get too warm and fuzzy about Gore!

Hell, he’s still having trouble convincing people that global warming is real???????????????

Not a good salesman!

NOW, Bush was a great salesman! Not so great anymore but the other old salesmen are trying to sell the wrong products with a worn out sales pitch.

Maybe I’m just pessimistic.

I’m still thinking we might come down to a Hillary vs. Gingrich ‘08 scenario and I hope Gore, Kerry, et al just STFU.

I won’t know the results until 2010 if that happens. I’ll demand the docs induce a chemical coma.

If Gingrich wins he’ll cut off the funding to wake me up so that’ll be that.

If Hillary wins I’ll wake up in the midst of the Lollipop Kids singing some ridiculous shit and I’ll just die!

I’ll work on my arrogance a frequent complain of my kids, however, I’d like to see more dialog and less accusations. This discussion needs more sharing of common ideas, like leaving the world a better place today than what we inherited. I first read that thought on this blog site. However it seems too many are entrenched in global warming being 100% true without reproach. I’d like to see more dialogs, less positions.

la la la la la la la la…. the flat earthers have heard our reasoning and that is their response. you can’t reason with this people.

I’d like to see more dialogs, less positions.

Good luck, Honest. As Tony just below you showed, if you don’t believe, you’re not worth being treated with any kind of respect. It’s a religion to too many people.

It reminds me to something Kevin Smith wrote for Chris Rock to say in Dogma.

Rufus: He said humanity took a good idea and, like always, built a belief structure on it.

Bethany: Having beliefs isn’t good?

Rufus: I think it’s better to have ideas. You can change an idea. Changing a belief is trickier. Life should malleable and progressive; working from idea to idea permits that. Beliefs anchor you to certain points and limit growth; new ideas can’t generate. Life becomes stagnant.

Many on both sides are functioning on ‘beliefs’ and not ‘ideas’. Therefore it just becomes a holy war with no exchange of ideas and dialog that could bring people together. Of course, this is a tactic by the major parties to keep us apart, instill beliefs into us instead of giving us a free flow of ideas to explore and build upon.

*sigh*

Perhaps one thing that everybody could agree on is that people should educate themselves about this issue before signing onto one side, drawing a line in the sand and vowing to defend that line to the death.

I’d suggest that everybody should stop for a minute and think about where they’re getting their information. Personally, I think it’s horrifying that the vast majority of people are getting their information about a scientific question not from scientists, but from what right or left wing blogs, talk radio hosts, actors, musicians, or politicians are telling them. It’s especially insidious because these bloggers, talk-show hosts, musicians and politicians are often invoking, without evidence, the supposed “views” of the scientific community to support their agenda—whatever that is.

If somebody tells you something like “The consensus of scientific opinion is X,” then do you believe X? Most people do, and that makes sense. Almost NOBODY has any damn clue about something as complicated as global climate patterns and are willing to defer to expert opinions.

But you don’t have to read very far into the literature about global warming to realize that this is actually a VERY contentious debate among the scientific community, and that those who talk about a “consensus” on one side of the other are stretching the definition of “consensus” very far.

Many of the most prominent top minds in the field disagree with each other about this question. Somehow that fact has gotten lost, but that’s the nature of our political culture.

But here is what is truly sad and pathetic.

The eyes of the public are not turned here to debates between Ivy League scientists about global warming, although those debates are taking place.

No.

The debates that the public pays attention to are between Al Gore and Sean Hannity, which is just as valuable and informative as a debate between Elmer Fudd and Bart Simpson.

Now read this.

Rhinehold,
That’s bunk. It’s not “religion” and “belief” when someone really takes a good long look at what the science is saying, and what all the most respected scientists are agreeing upon. As Gerrold said, it’s all about probabilities, and whether or not we should do something based upon what they appear to be, or just ignore them and hope for the best.

Btw, your comment #225482 was chock full of bunk, too. Of course Gore would have been a better president than Bush — because even a canned ham would have been a better president than Bush. And of course Gore wouldn’t have been worse — because at the very least he would not have lied us into a war, or instituted torture, or shredded the Constitution the way that Bush has. As for Incompetent, that is not a word anyone could honestly apply to Gore — unless they were a rabid liberal hater.
Case in point, if Gore has been so incompetent at what he’s been doing lately, then how is it possible that the whole world is now talking about global warming?

Traveller, the debate is Global climate change, not American climate change. Changes are not going to be equal across the planet nor simultaneous. I think we have to look at global monitoring to see the issue as the consensus of the scientists see it.

I can measure the change in Bahamas for example, and see little variation over time. However, the Serengetti is a very different picture. The total of change occurring around the globe is the issue. The earth has but one climatology, which will affect some others much faster and more dramatically than others. Hell, some areas on the globe will actually improve with global warming, and others will actually improve with global cooling. But, by and large, those areas won’t be where major population centers now exist. Though they may have to become new population centers if climate change causes the potential mass human migrations that a severe climate change will necessitate.

Scottie, my reply to you is to read Stephen Daugherty’s reply. In this particular case, we have the same things to say in reply.

Jack, there are other roads. You just don’t want research or witness them. The wealthy special interests killed the Electric Vehicle. Bringing the electric vehicle back into the U.S. could be a huge down payment on reducing CO2 emissions.

A number of home and small business development practices like earth berming could also dramatically reduce the need for coal fired electric plants. I am not saying we should ignore carbon tax caps and reductions, but, neither should we put all our eggs to address the problem in one basket.

If it appears the wealthy special interests are hijacking the carbon tax for their own interests instead of the globe’s and America’s, we will be far better off also having invested in many other avenues of CO2 emission reductions as well.

And no, nuclear power is not putting eggs in another basket. That is trading one set of horrendously expensive problems for another, until we develop a safe, cost effective, and efficient long term solution to nuclear waste, which already has our intelligence agencies squirming as the contemplate the horrendous lack of security for such wastes around the globe, and in our own country as well. Just two or three well aimed and targeted RPG’s could cost taxpayers 10’s of millions or more in HazMat cleanup, right here in America.

More the reason to secure our borders, don’t you think.

With the thousands of Companies making products
for all of us here, an threw out the world along with
all their scientists, with Federal, State,
Local, and Foreign Governments, Have all been in
Court settling cases for Pollution and had to clean
up their act. Scientists have been killed for whistle-blowing, an thousands of people have been
killed due to exposure too one type of chemical or
another. I do not want to write a book here but we can not trust these problems will ever go away
with out the motto of Trust but Verify attitude.
I would be willing to bet most of you here on
this site have poured things into the toilet on
down the drain. I see no reason that we can’t all
help to clean up the environment. Do your part!
When You quote a Scientist, please consider who
is paying them an the reason for reporting their
findings before you sign your name defending their
findings.

That’s bunk. It’s not “religion‎ and “belief‎ when someone really takes a good long look at what the science is saying, and what all the most respected scientists are agreeing upon.

No, it isn’t. But as I said, many on both sides are not doing this. Are you really going to tell me that there isn’t a large portion of people on both sides that treat this as a religion? Case in point, you attack my statement but completely miss what I was saying because of what you THOUGHT it said about said religion…

Btw, your comment #225482 was chock full of bunk, too.

Of course, it presses upon another of your beliefs.

Of course Gore would have been a better president than Bush

And you suggest this because? No one could be worse? Sorry, but your hatred deludes you, there could be (and have been IMO) much worse than Bush.

because at the very least he would not have lied us into a war, or instituted torture, or shredded the Constitution the way that Bush has.

No, he would have shredded it in how own unique incompetent way. Wasn’t he part of the administration that completely ignored the first attack on the WTC, arrested a few flunkies, and left the masterminds free and continuing to plot in other countries for another way to attack them (and other US interests) for the next 8 years?

I wonder what his answer to 9/11 would have been? Oh wait, I already know because he already did NOTHING before.

As for Incompetent, that is not a word anyone could honestly apply to Gore — unless they were a rabid liberal hater.

So, someone who has a different opinion is a ‘rabid liberal hater’ and couldn’t possibly have a valid disagreement with your point of view? Gee, doesn’t that sound like a RELIGION to you?

Case in point, if Gore has been so incompetent at what he’s been doing lately, then how is it possible that the whole world is now talking about global warming?

What has he accomplished? He has been talking about the environment for, what, 30 years? The majority of thinking people find his movie a huge exaggeration, even climatologists point out his use of Kilamonjaro was completely wrong, etc…

It is not Al Gore that has gotten people here, it has been the news media talking about it, ad naseum, that has shaped the views of people. Discovery Channel, National Geographic, the IPCC, etc. All of these organizations are what is pushing people to beleiving in ‘Global Warming’ (sigh), Al Gore is just in the same place he’s been in for 30 years at the right time to capitalize.

Please, give me a list of ANYTHING that he has accomplished that shows he is competent at anything, other than to funnel money from Chineese officials to the Clinton/Gore election fund in exchange for missle technologies without getting nailed to a tree for treason?

Hell, he couldn’t even beat George Freakin’ Bush as an incumbent with a booming economy and no war. And before you start with ‘he did win’ or some other silly garbage, it shouldn’t have been THAT CLOSE. He couldn’t even carry his own state!

BTW, Please do talk him into running and help him get the nomination. I don’t necessarily think we should have one single party running the country and this would help ensure Guiliani or Thompson or some other republican would have an easy talk to the White House.

David R. Remer,
The surface stations project was only launched in June of this year. The goal is to have all the monitoring stations around the world in the database eventually.
If the stations where the actual measurements are being made are flawed shouldn’t we know?
Actually, the debate is anthropogenic global warming vs. climate change.
The climate is constantly changing; it always has and always will.

“Changes are not going to be equal across the planet nor simultaneous.”

That’s what I’ve been saying all along. In fact, one of the reasons your cult is moving away from the phrase”global warming”and using the phrase “climate change” is the inescapable fact that global warming isn’t global. Some areas are warming and some aren’t. (like Greenland and Antarctica) Just tonight I read that the Jo’burg Live Earth concert was a flop because the cold weather kept the crowds away (how ironic) and Buenos Aires had its first snowfall since 1918.

“I think we have to look at global monitoring to see the issue as the consensus of the scientists see it.”

First, science isn’t consensus and consensus isn’t science. Trite, but true.
Monitoring is the point of the surface stations project; to verify that the data from the monitoring is valid.

“Hell, some areas on the globe will actually improve with global warming, and others will actually improve with global cooling. But, by and large, those areas won’t be where major population centers now exist.”

I agree with the first sentence. The second sentence is an assumption, just like the core belief of the GW cult, that CO2 is causing catastrophic global warming (proven false) and it’s all mankind’s doing.

Changing climate has caused major disruptions in civilizations before, many times, and will again.

Rhinehold,

The fact that the 2000 election was close in no way shows that he is “incompetent”. People voted for Dubya because he seemed like a friendly chap they would like to have a (nonalcoholic) beer with. All I can say to anyone who voted for him is: I hope you enjoyed your freakin’ beer!

Al Gore is just in the same place he’s been in for 30 years at the right time to capitalize.

Stoopid Al Gore, he should have stayed in the denial camp for a couple of decades first. Nobody likes a smartypants who was right all along…

traveller, speaking of cults, have you determined any of those internalist/le