Enjoy an Ads-Free Jets Insider - Become a Jets Insider VIP!
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 54

Thread: It's Official.... Al Gore Is Full Of Sh!t...

  1. #1
    All Pro
    Annoying Chowd

    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    6,225
    Post Thanks / Like

    It's Official.... Al Gore Is Full Of Sh!t...

    [url]http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=927B9303-802A-23AD-494B-DCCB00B51A12[/url]

    [quote]Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now Skeptics
    May 15, 2007


    Posted by Marc Morano – [email]Marc_Morano@EPW.Senate.Gov[/email] - 9:14 PM ET

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

    Growing Number of Scientists Convert to Skeptics After Reviewing New Research

    Following the U.S. Senate's vote today on a global warming measure (see today's AP article: Senate Defeats Climate Change Measure,) it is an opportune time to examine the recent and quite remarkable momentum shift taking place in climate science. Many former believers in catastrophic man-made global warming have recently reversed themselves and are now climate skeptics. The names included below are just a sampling of the prominent scientists who have spoken out recently to oppose former Vice President Al Gore, the United Nations, and the media driven “consensus” on man-made global warming.

    The list below is just the tip of the iceberg. A more detailed and comprehensive sampling of scientists who have only recently spoken out against climate hysteria will be forthcoming in a soon to be released U.S. Senate report. Please stay tuned to this website, as this new government report is set to redefine the current climate debate.

    In the meantime, please review the list of scientists below and ask yourself why the media is missing one of the biggest stories in climate of 2007. Feel free to distribute the partial list of scientists who recently converted to skeptics to your local schools and universities. The voices of rank and file scientists opposing climate doomsayers can serve as a counter to the alarmism that children are being exposed to on a daily basis. (See Washington Post April 16, 2007 article about kids fearing of a “climactic Armageddon” )

    The media's climate fear factor seemingly grows louder even as the latest science grows less and less alarming by the day. (See Der Spiegel May 7, 2007 article: Not the End of the World as We Know It ) It is also worth noting that the proponents of climate fears are increasingly attempting to suppress dissent by skeptics. (See UPI May 10, 2007 article: U.N. official says it's 'completely immoral' to doubt global warming fears )

    Once Believers, Now Skeptics ( Link to pdf version )

    Geophysicist Dr. Claude Allegre, a top geophysicist and French Socialist who has authored more than 100 scientific articles and written 11 books and received numerous scientific awards including the Goldschmidt Medal from the Geochemical Society of the United States, converted from climate alarmist to skeptic in 2006. Allegre, who was one of the first scientists to sound global warming fears 20 years ago, now says the cause of climate change is "unknown" and accused the “prophets of doom of global warming” of being motivated by money, noting that "the ecology of helpless protesting has become a very lucrative business for some people!" “Glaciers’ chronicles or historical archives point to the fact that climate is a capricious phenomena. This fact is confirmed by mathematical meteorological theories. So, let us be cautious,” Allegre explained in a September 21, 2006 article in the French newspaper L'EXPRESS. The National Post in Canada also profiled Allegre on March 2, 2007, noting “Allegre has the highest environmental credentials. The author of early environmental books, he fought successful battles to protect the ozone layer from CFCs and public health from lead pollution.” Allegre now calls fears of a climate disaster "simplistic and obscuring the true dangers” mocks "the greenhouse-gas fanatics whose proclamations consist in denouncing man's role on the climate without doing anything about it except organizing conferences and preparing protocols that become dead letters." Allegre, a member of both the French and U.S. Academy of Sciences, had previously expressed concern about manmade global warming. "By burning fossil fuels, man enhanced the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere which has raised the global mean temperature by half a degree in the last century," Allegre wrote 20 years ago. In addition, Allegre was one of 1500 scientists who signed a November 18, 1992 letter titled “World Scientists' Warning to Humanity” in which the scientists warned that global warming’s “potential risks are very great.”

    Geologist Bruno Wiskel of the University of Alberta recently reversed his view of man-made climate change and instead became a global warming skeptic. Wiskel was once such a big believer in man-made global warming that he set out to build a “Kyoto house” in honor of the UN sanctioned Kyoto Protocol which was signed in 1997. Wiskel wanted to prove that the Kyoto Protocol’s goals were achievable by people making small changes in their lives. But after further examining the science behind Kyoto, Wiskel reversed his scientific views completely and became such a strong skeptic, that he recently wrote a book titled “The Emperor's New Climate: Debunking the Myth of Global Warming.” A November 15, 2006 Edmonton Sun article explains Wiskel’s conversion while building his “Kyoto house”: “Instead, he said he realized global warming theory was full of holes and ‘red flags,’ and became convinced that humans are not responsible for rising temperatures.” Wiskel now says “the truth has to start somewhere.” Noting that the Earth has been warming for 18,000 years, Wiskel told the Canadian newspaper, “If this happened once and we were the cause of it, that would be cause for concern. But glaciers have been coming and going for billions of years." Wiskel also said that global warming has gone "from a science to a religion” and noted that research money is being funneled into promoting climate alarmism instead of funding areas he considers more worthy. "If you funnel money into things that can't be changed, the money is not going into the places that it is needed,” he said.

    Astrophysicist Dr. Nir Shaviv, one of Israel's top young award winning scientists, recanted his belief that manmade emissions were driving climate change. ""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. In fact, there is much more than meets the eye,” Shaviv said in February 2, 2007 Canadian National Post article. According to Shaviv, the C02 temperature link is only “incriminating circumstantial evidence.” "Solar activity can explain a large part of the 20th-century global warming" and "it is unlikely that [the solar climate link] does not exist,” Shaviv noted pointing to the impact cosmic- rays have on the atmosphere. According to the National Post, Shaviv believes that even a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere by 2100 "will not dramatically increase the global temperature." “Even if we halved the CO2 output, and the CO2 increase by 2100 would be, say, a 50% increase relative to today instead of a doubled amount, the expected reduction in the rise of global temperature would be less than 0.5C. This is not significant,” Shaviv explained. Shaviv also wrote on August 18, 2006 that a colleague of his believed that “CO2 should have a large effect on climate” so “he set out to reconstruct the phanerozoic temperature. He wanted to find the CO2 signature in the data, but since there was none, he slowly had to change his views.” Shaviv believes there will be more scientists converting to man-made global warming skepticism as they discover the dearth of evidence. “I think this is common to many of the scientists who think like us (that is, that CO2 is a secondary climate driver). Each one of us was working in his or her own niche. While working there, each one of us realized that things just don't add up to support the AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) picture. So many had to change their views,” he wrote.

    Mathematician & engineer Dr. David Evans, who did carbon accounting for the Australian Government, recently detailed his conversion to a skeptic. “I devoted six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian government to estimate carbon emissions from land use change and forestry. When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty conclusive, but since then new evidence has weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause. I am now skeptical,” Evans wrote in an April 30, 2007 blog. “But after 2000 the evidence for carbon emissions gradually got weaker -- better temperature data for the last century, more detailed ice core data, then laboratory evidence that cosmic rays precipitate low clouds,” Evans wrote. “As Lord Keynes famously said, ‘When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?’” he added. Evans noted how he benefited from climate fears as a scientist. “And the political realm in turn fed money back into the scientific community. By the late 1990's, lots of jobs depended on the idea that carbon emissions caused global warming. Many of them were bureaucratic, but there were a lot of science jobs created too. I was on that gravy train, making a high wage in a science job that would not have existed if we didn't believe carbon emissions caused global warming. And so were lots of people around me; and there were international conferences full of such people. And we had political support, the ear of government, big budgets, and we felt fairly important and useful (well, I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet! But starting in about 2000, the last three of the four pieces of evidence outlined above fell away or reversed,” Evans wrote. “The pre-2000 ice core data was the central evidence for believing that atmospheric carbon caused temperature increases. The new ice core data shows that past warmings were *not* initially caused by rises in atmospheric carbon, and says nothing about the strength of any amplification. This piece of evidence casts reasonable doubt that atmospheric carbon had any role in past warmings, while still allowing the possibility that it had a supporting role,” he added. “Unfortunately politics and science have become even more entangled. The science of global warming has become a partisan political issue, so positions become more entrenched. Politicians and the public prefer simple and less-nuanced messages. At the moment the political climate strongly supports carbon emissions as the cause of global warming, to the point of sometimes rubbishing or silencing critics,” he concluded. (Evans bio link )

    Climate researcher Dr. Tad Murty, former Senior Research Scientist for Fisheries and Oceans in Canada, also reversed himself from believer in man-made climate change to a skeptic. “I stated with a firm belief about global warming, until I started working on it myself,” Murty explained on August 17, 2006. “I switched to the other side in the early 1990's when Fisheries and Oceans Canada asked me to prepare a position paper and I started to look into the problem seriously,” Murty explained. Murty was one of the 60 scientists who wrote an April 6, 2006 letter urging withdrawal of Kyoto to Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper which stated in part, "If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary.”

    Botanist Dr. David Bellamy, a famed UK environmental campaigner, former lecturer at Durham University and host of a popular UK TV series on wildlife, recently converted into a skeptic after reviewing the science and now calls global warming fears "poppycock." According to a May 15, 2005 article in the UK Sunday Times, Bellamy said “global warming is largely a natural phenomenon. The world is wasting stupendous amounts of money on trying to fix something that can’t be fixed.” “The climate-change people have no proof for their claims. They have computer models which do not prove anything,” Bellamy added. Bellamy’s conversion on global warming did not come without a sacrifice as several environmental groups have ended their association with him because of his views on climate change. The severing of relations came despite Bellamy’s long activism for green campaigns. The UK Times reported Bellamy “won respect from hardline environmentalists with his campaigns to save Britain’s peat bogs and other endangered habitats. In Tasmania he was arrested when he tried to prevent loggers cutting down a rainforest.”

    Climate scientist Dr. Chris de Freitas of The University of Auckland, N.Z., also converted from a believer in man-made global warming to a skeptic. “At first I accepted that increases in human caused additions of carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere would trigger changes in water vapor etc. and lead to dangerous ‘global warming,’ But with time and with the results of research, I formed the view that, although it makes for a good story, it is unlikely that the man-made changes are drivers of significant climate variation.” de Freitas wrote on August 17, 2006. “I accept there may be small changes. But I see the risk of anything serious to be minute,” he added. “One could reasonably argue that lack of evidence is not a good reason for complacency. But I believe the billions of dollars committed to GW research and lobbying for GW and for Kyoto treaties etc could be better spent on uncontroversial and very real environmental problems (such as air pollution, poor sanitation, provision of clean water and improved health services) that we know affect tens of millions of people,” de Freitas concluded. de Freitas was one of the 60 scientists who wrote an April 6, 2006 letter urging withdrawal of Kyoto to Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper which stated in part, “Significant [scientific] advances have been made since the [Kyoto] protocol was created, many of which are taking us away from a concern about increasing greenhouse gases.”

    Meteorologist Dr. Reid Bryson, the founding chairman of the Department of Meteorology at University of Wisconsin (now the Department of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences, was pivotal in promoting the coming ice age scare of the 1970’s ( See Time Magazine’s 1974 article “Another Ice Age” citing Bryson: & see Newsweek’s 1975 article “The Cooling World” citing Bryson) has now converted into a leading global warming skeptic. In February 8, 2007 Bryson dismissed what he terms "sky is falling" man-made global warming fears. Bryson, was on the United Nations Global 500 Roll of Honor and was identified by the British Institute of Geographers as the most frequently cited climatologist in the world. “Before there were enough people to make any difference at all, two million years ago, nobody was changing the climate, yet the climate was changing, okay?” Bryson told the May 2007 issue of Energy Cooperative News. “All this argument is the temperature going up or not, it’s absurd. Of course it’s going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we’re coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we’re putting more carbon dioxide into the air,” Bryson said. “You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide,” he added. “We cannot say what part of that warming was due to mankind's addition of ‘greenhouse gases’ until we consider the other possible factors, such as aerosols. The aerosol content of the atmosphere was measured during the past century, but to my knowledge this data was never used. We can say that the question of anthropogenic modification of the climate is an important question -- too important to ignore. However, it has now become a media free-for-all and a political issue more than a scientific problem,” Bryson explained in 2005.

    Global warming author and economist Hans H.J. Labohm started out as a man-made global warming believer but he later switched his view after conducting climate research. Labohm wrote on August 19, 2006, “I started as a anthropogenic global warming believer, then I read the [UN’s IPCC] Summary for Policymakers and the research of prominent skeptics.” “After that, I changed my mind,” Labohn explained. Labohn co-authored the 2004 book “Man-Made Global Warming: Unraveling a Dogma,” with chemical engineer Dick Thoenes who was the former chairman of the Royal Netherlands Chemical Society. Labohm was one of the 60 scientists who wrote an April 6, 2006 letter urging withdrawal of Kyoto to Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper which stated in part, “’Climate change is real’ is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified. Global climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural ‘noise.’”

    Paleoclimatologist Tim Patterson, of Carlton University in Ottawa converted from believer in C02 driving the climate change to a skeptic. “I taught my students that CO2 was the prime driver of climate change,” Patterson wrote on April 30, 2007. Patterson said his “conversion” happened following his research on “the nature of paleo-commercial fish populations in the NE Pacific.” “[My conversion from believer to climate skeptic] came about approximately 5-6 years ago when results began to come in from a major NSERC (Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada) Strategic Project Grant where I was PI (principle investigator),” Patterson explained. “Over the course of about a year, I switched allegiances,” he wrote. “As the proxy results began to come in, we were astounded to find that paleoclimatic and paleoproductivity records were full of cycles that corresponded to various sun-spot cycles. About that time, [geochemist] Jan Veizer and others began to publish reasonable hypotheses as to how solar signals could be amplified and control climate,” Patterson noted. Patterson says his conversion “probably cost me a lot of grant money. However, as a scientist I go where the science takes me and not were activists want me to go.” Patterson now asserts that more and more scientists are converting to climate skeptics. "When I go to a scientific meeting, there's lots of opinion out there, there's lots of discussion (about climate change). I was at the Geological Society of America meeting in Philadelphia in the fall and I would say that people with my opinion were probably in the majority,” Patterson told the Winnipeg Sun on February 13, 2007. Patterson, who believes the sun is responsible for the recent warm up of the Earth, ridiculed the environmentalists and the media for not reporting the truth. "But if you listen to [Canadian environmental activist David] Suzuki and the media, it's like a tiger chasing its tail. They try to outdo each other and all the while proclaiming that the debate is over but it isn't -- come out to a scientific meeting sometime,” Patterson said. In a separate interview on April 26, 2007 with a Canadian newspaper, Patterson explained that the scientific proof favors skeptics. “I think the proof in the pudding, based on what (media and governments) are saying, (is) we're about three quarters of the way (to disaster) with the doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere," he said. “The world should be heating up like crazy by now, and it's not. The temperatures match very closely with the solar cycles."

    Physicist Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, chairman of the Central Laboratory for the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Radiological Protection in Warsaw, took a scientific journey from a believer of man-made climate change in the form of global cooling in the 1970’s all the way to converting to a skeptic of current predictions of catastrophic man-made global warming. “At the beginning of the 1970s I believed in man-made climate cooling, and therefore I started a study on the effects of industrial pollution on the global atmosphere, using glaciers as a history book on this pollution,” Dr. Jaworowski, wrote on August 17, 2006. “With the advent of man-made warming political correctness in the beginning of 1980s, I already had a lot of experience with polar and high altitude ice, and I have serious problems in accepting the reliability of ice core CO2 studies,” Jaworowski added. Jaworowski, who has published many papers on climate with a focus on CO2 measurements in ice cores, also dismissed the UN IPCC summary and questioned what the actual level of C02 was in the atmosphere in a March 16, 2007 report in EIR science entitled “CO2: The Greatest Scientific Scandal of Our Time.” “We thus find ourselves in the situation that the entire theory of man-made global warming—with its repercussions in science, and its important consequences for politics and the global economy—is based on ice core studies that provided a false picture of the atmospheric CO2 levels,” Jaworowski wrote. “For the past three decades, these well-known direct CO2 measurements, recently compiled and analyzed by Ernst-Georg Beck (Beck 2006a, Beck 2006b, Beck 2007), were completely ignored by climatologists—and not because they were wrong. Indeed, these measurements were made by several Nobel Prize winners, using the techniques that are standard textbook procedures in chemistry, biochemistry, botany, hygiene, medicine, nutrition, and ecology. The only reason for rejection was that these measurements did not fit the hypothesis of anthropogenic climatic warming. I regard this as perhaps the greatest scientific scandal of our time,” Jaworowski wrote. “The hypothesis, in vogue in the 1970s, stating that emissions of industrial dust will soon induce the new Ice Age, seem now to be a conceited anthropocentric exaggeration, bringing into discredit the science of that time. The same fate awaits the present,” he added. Jaworowski believes that cosmic rays and solar activity are major drivers of the Earth’s climate. Jaworowski was one of the 60 scientists who wrote an April 6, 2006 letter urging withdrawal of Kyoto to Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper which stated in part: "It may be many years yet before we properly understand the Earth's climate system. Nevertheless, significant advances have been made since the protocol was created, many of which are taking us away from a concern about increasing greenhouse gases."

    Paleoclimatologist Dr. Ian D. Clark, professor of the Department of Earth Sciences at University of Ottawa, reversed his views on man-made climate change after further examining the evidence. “I used to agree with these dramatic warnings of climate disaster. I taught my students that most of the increase in temperature of the past century was due to human contribution of C02. The association seemed so clear and simple. Increases of greenhouse gases were driving us towards a climate catastrophe,” Clark said in a 2005 documentary "Climate Catastrophe Cancelled: What You're Not Being Told About the Science of Climate Change.” “However, a few years ago, I decided to look more closely at the science and it astonished me. In fact there is no evidence of humans being the cause. There is, however, overwhelming evidence of natural causes such as changes in the output of the sun. This has completely reversed my views on the Kyoto protocol,” Clark explained. “Actually, many other leading climate researchers also have serious concerns about the science underlying the [Kyoto] Protocol,” he added.

    Environmental geochemist Dr. Jan Veizer, professor emeritus of University of Ottawa, converted from believer to skeptic after conducting scientific studies of climate history. “I simply accepted the (global warming) theory as given,” Veizer wrote on April 30, 2007 about predictions that increasing C02 in the atmosphere was leading to a climate catastrophe. “The final conversion came when I realized that the solar/cosmic ray connection gave far more consistent picture with climate, over many time scales, than did the CO2 scenario,” Veizer wrote. “It was the results of my work on past records, on geological time scales, that led me to realize the discrepancies with empirical observations. Trying to understand the background issues of modeling led to realization of the assumptions and uncertainties involved,” Veizer explained. “The past record strongly favors the solar/cosmic alternative as the principal climate driver,” he added. Veizer acknowledgez the Earth has been warming and he believes in the scientific value of climate modeling. “The major point where I diverge from the IPCC scenario is my belief that it underestimates the role of natural variability by proclaiming CO2 to be the only reasonable source of additional energy in the planetary balance. Such additional energy is needed to drive the climate. The point is that most of the temperature, in both nature and models, arises from the greenhouse of water vapor (model language ‘positive water vapor feedback’,) Veizer wrote. “Thus to get more temperature, more water vapor is needed. This is achieved by speeding up the water cycle by inputting more energy into the system,” he continued. “Note that it is not CO2 that is in the models but its presumed energy equivalent (model language ‘prescribed CO2’). Yet, the models (and climate) would generate a more or less similar outcome regardless where this additional energy is coming from. This is why the solar/cosmic connection is so strongly opposed, because it can influence the global energy budget which, in turn, diminishes the need for an energy input from the CO2 greenhouse,” he wrote. [/quote]

  2. #2
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    5,428
    Post Thanks / Like

    Update

    Several others reputable scientists and doctors have also come out against global warming. Among them the esteemed Dr. Rush Limbaugh, Dr. Van Helsing, Dr. Doo Little and Dr. Frankenstein. They have come out in recent times condemning the preposterous notion that burning fossil fuels could be deleterious to the environment. Dr. Frankenstein said "we are in full support of the Exxon...err..um, the report that states that global warming is a silly notion".

  3. #3
    All Pro
    Annoying Chowd

    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    6,225
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan]Several others reputable scientists and doctors have also come out against global warming. Among them the esteemed Dr. Rush Limbaugh, Dr. Van Helsing, Dr. Doo Little and Dr. Frankenstein. They have come out in recent times condemning the preposterous notion that burning fossil fuels could be deleterious to the environment. Dr. Frankenstein said "we are in full support of the Exxon...err..um, the report that states that global warming is a silly notion".[/QUOTE]

    [b]UPDATE[/b]

    Their climatological knowledge and expertise is equal to Al Gore's....

  4. #4
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    14,376
    Post Thanks / Like
    [IMG]http://www.nicholsoncartoons.com.au/cartoons/new/2006-01-14%20Bush%20Promised%20Land%20Global%20Warming%20Int550.jpg[/IMG]

  5. #5
    All League
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    4,744
    Post Thanks / Like
    Darn I just put a downpayment on a plot in the local cemetary to! Maybe I will buy a lear jet instead!

  6. #6
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    6,279
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=DeanPatsFan][b]UPDATE[/b]

    Their climatological knowledge and expertise is equal to Al Gore's....[/QUOTE]

    Doubtful.

    But, even if it were, the credibility of global warming doesn't come from Al Gore, it comes from the overwhelming majority of the world's scientists, who have has placed a 90% probability of global warming being man made. That UN Report stating the 90% likelihood, btw, was in 2007 --which is more recent than most of the examples in the James Inhofe press release posted above.

    The percentage of scientists doubting man-made global warming at this point is not all that different than the percentage of historians doubting the Holocaust.

    Right-wingers need to understand that this should not be a partisan issue, and that some things are true even if Al Gore says them.

  7. #7
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    36,724
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=nuu faaola]Doubtful.

    But, even if it were, the credibility of global warming doesn't come from Al Gore, it comes from the overwhelming majority of the world's scientists, who have has placed a 90% probability of global warming being man made. That UN Report stating the 90% likelihood, btw, was in 2007 --which is more recent than most of the examples in the James Inhofe press release posted above.

    The percentage of scientists doubting man-made global warming at this point is not all that different than the percentage of historians doubting the Holocaust.

    Right-wingers need to understand that this should not be a partisan issue, and that some things are true even if Al Gore says them.[/QUOTE]

    For all your bluster, any truly honest and independant observer would also admit that Climate Science is still in it's infancy, and still cannot account for the literally millions of different factors and variables that make up the Earth Weather and Climate.

    Is Man-Caused Polution a factor? Yes, it is.

    Is it the only factor? The main factor? A factor that if changed, if it's even possible without some massive leaps in existing science and invention, will "end" detrimental Climate Change?

    Clearly, any even cursory glace at Earth long history would say it is not. We've had hot periods and Ice ages all well before mankind learned how to burn fossil fuels. Science today cannot say with certainty if it even IS stoppable at this point.

    Look, I am happy to continue to taxpayer publicly fund Climate Science. It is important, without a doubt. However, I am NOT going to listen to the obvious hypocricy and politics-fueled hysteria of Al Gore and his ilk, a huge polluter who somehow has convinced Liberals that his Carbon Offsets (which do nothing to reduce his actual pollution) make him some moral and valid figure on the topic.

    And I will ALSO continue to use the same grain of salt with Alt-Fuel funded Scientists, Publci University Scientists, and Liberal0-funded Scientists that the Left does with Oil Company Scientists. You say this "shouldn't be a partisan issue", yet you're the first one to line up and shrilly scream "Oil Lackey!! Oil Lackey!!" at anyone with even a shred of tie-in to Republicans or Oil Comapanies, without even reading their work. So if you really want this to not be a Partisan issue, perhaps you should open your own mind.

    90% of Scientists agreement means that the majority thinks this is the best idea....right now. Once upon a time, 90% of Scientists thought the Earth was the Center of the Universe too. Times, and new information and better measuring tools and new theories, change.

  8. #8
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    21,943
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish] Once upon a time, 90% of Scientists thought the Earth was the Center of the Universe too...[/QUOTE]


    [IMG]http://www.bibletopics.com/biblestudy/images/71.jpg[/IMG]

    Sorry about that, Copernicus...

  9. #9
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    6,279
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish]For all your bluster, any truly honest and independant observer would also admit that Climate Science is still in it's infancy, and still cannot account for the literally millions of different factors and variables that make up the Earth Weather and Climate.

    Is Man-Caused Polution a factor? Yes, it is.

    Is it the only factor? The main factor? A factor that if changed, if it's even possible without some massive leaps in existing science and invention, will "end" detrimental Climate Change?

    Clearly, any even cursory glace at Earth long history would say it is not. We've had hot periods and Ice ages all well before mankind learned how to burn fossil fuels. Science today cannot say with certainty if it even IS stoppable at this point.

    Look, I am happy to continue to taxpayer publicly fund Climate Science. It is important, without a doubt. However, I am NOT going to listen to the obvious hypocricy and politics-fueled hysteria of Al Gore and his ilk, a huge polluter who somehow has convinced Liberals that his Carbon Offsets (which do nothing to reduce his actual pollution) make him some moral and valid figure on the topic.

    And I will ALSO continue to use the same grain of salt with Alt-Fuel funded Scientists, Publci University Scientists, and Liberal0-funded Scientists that the Left does with Oil Company Scientists. You say this "shouldn't be a partisan issue", yet you're the first one to line up and shrilly scream "Oil Lackey!! Oil Lackey!!" at anyone with even a shred of tie-in to Republicans or Oil Comapanies, without even reading their work. So if you really want this to not be a Partisan issue, perhaps you should open your own mind.

    90% of Scientists agreement means that the majority thinks this is the best idea....right now. Once upon a time, 90% of Scientists thought the Earth was the Center of the Universe too. Times, and new information and better measuring tools and new theories, change.[/QUOTE]


    My mind is open to the fact that global warming may not be entirely reversable, but I am putting my faith in the best information available today. It is not infallible, of course, but there is overwhelming consensus that global warming is man made and can at least be slowed.

    That said, even if it is not reversible, there are other reasons we need to act to reduce certain alleged causes of GW:

    1) National security: Our oil consumption is financing our enemies in the war on terror. That is indisputable, and we need to continue to improve fuel efficiency standards and renewable technologies to reduce our dependence on the Middle East, where our Hummers help fund Saudi madrassas that train 9/11 hijackers. We will never be able to produce enough oil stateside to overcome our depency on that region, and we're basically one Al Qaeda strike on a Saudi oil plant away from an economic calamity.

    2) Non-GW environmental reasons: Whatever doubts exist about global warming, there are no doubts that fuel emissions worsen air quality, cause asthma and cancer, and cost us billions of dollars through our already strapped healthcare system. This needs to be addressed.

    I am willing to consider some solutions to this that many other liberals would not (like nuclear plants, provided they were guarded by the military at utility expense) to solve this. And I think if conservatives embraced some issues that have traditionally been anethma to them (gas taxes, fuel-economy standards consistent with those in Europe, or both) we could make some real progress very quickly.

  10. #10
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    6,828
    Post Thanks / Like
    Al Gore is coming to London, Ontario on Thursday...

    While I believe humans affect our environment a great deal, I would love to ask Al when he plans on giving up his 10,000 square foot home for a more modest lifestyle, one more conducive to what he is promoting....

  11. #11
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    6,279
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=CanadaSteve]Al Gore is coming to London, Ontario on Thursday...

    While I believe humans affect our environment a great deal, I would love to ask Al when he plans on giving up his 10,000 square foot home for a more modest lifestyle, one more conducive to what he is promoting....[/QUOTE]


    Too many people use their dislike of Al Gore as a distraction from the content of his message, and this post is a perfect example.

    Whether or not you like Al Gore, voted for him, plan to vote for him again, the facts --as they today are widely understood to be-- are completely on his side.

    Too often, people resort to character assasination rather than engaging the facts of his argument. Whether his house/home office uses too much power --and whether the offsets he buys make a difference-- may or may not reflect well on him, but it means little, if anything, in the context of the larger debate on this issue.

  12. #12
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,407
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=nuu faaola]Too many people use their dislike of Al Gore as a distraction from the content of his message, and this post is a perfect example.

    Whether or not you like Al Gore, voted for him, plan to vote for him again, the facts --as they today are widely understood to be-- are completely on his side.

    Too often, people resort to character assasination rather than engaging the facts of his argument. Whether his house/home office uses too much power --and whether the offsets he buys make a difference-- may or may not reflect well on him, but it means little, if anything, in the context of the larger debate on this issue.[/QUOTE]

    expecting someone to practice what they preach is character assasination??? comical.....

  13. #13
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    14,376
    Post Thanks / Like
    [IMG]http://www.awolbush.com/images/badboys-bring.jpg[/IMG]

    [SIZE=5]Who would ever do that?[/SIZE]


    [QUOTE=Come Back to NY]expecting someone to practice what they preach is character assasination??? comical.....[/QUOTE]

  14. #14
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    6,791
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=nuu faaola]My mind is open to the fact that global warming may not be entirely reversable, but I am putting my faith in the best information available today. It is not infallible, of course, but there is overwhelming consensus that global warming is man made and can at least be slowed.

    That said, even if it is not reversible, there are other reasons we need to act to reduce certain alleged causes of GW:

    1) National security: Our oil consumption is financing our enemies in the war on terror. That is indisputable, and we need to continue to improve fuel efficiency standards and renewable technologies to reduce our dependence on the Middle East, where our Hummers help fund Saudi madrassas that train 9/11 hijackers. We will never be able to produce enough oil stateside to overcome our depency on that region, and we're basically one Al Qaeda strike on a Saudi oil plant away from an economic calamity.

    2) Non-GW environmental reasons: Whatever doubts exist about global warming, there are no doubts that fuel emissions worsen air quality, cause asthma and cancer, and cost us billions of dollars through our already strapped healthcare system. This needs to be addressed.

    I am willing to consider some solutions to this that many other liberals would not (like nuclear plants, provided they were guarded by the military at utility expense) to solve this. And I think if conservatives embraced some issues that have traditionally been anethma to them (gas taxes, fuel-economy standards consistent with those in Europe, or both) we could make some real progress very quickly.[/QUOTE]

    Great post.

  15. #15
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    36,724
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=nuu faaola]Too many people use their dislike of Al Gore as a distraction from the content of his message, and this post is a perfect example.

    Whether or not you like Al Gore, voted for him, plan to vote for him again, the facts --as they today are widely understood to be-- are completely on his side.

    Too often, people resort to character assasination rather than engaging the facts of his argument. Whether his house/home office uses too much power --and whether the offsets he buys make a difference-- may or may not reflect well on him, but it means little, if anything, in the context of the larger debate on this issue.[/QUOTE]

    Ah, except you have skipped over one VERY important aspect:

    --Science does not dictate, create or enforce Policy. Science can (try) to tell the World that A. There is a problem, B. What the Problem is, C. What the Problem is Believed to be Caused by and D. How the problem can be avoided/stopped/prevented.

    --It is POLITICIANS (like Al Gore) however, than decide HOW (via mandate of law) to do what Science says must be done. And THAT is where all of the divission and controversy is right now.

    It is easy to believe what Science says, that Mankind is a "major contributor" as best as current modern Science can tell.

    It is a whole other thing to agree with some of the ideals POLITICIANS have for how to "fix" the problem.

    You may want to avoid Al Gore, because he is clearly a hypocrite with an agenda on this issue, but he IS relevant and it is he and folks liek him who will craft our future laws and policies on this very issue.

  16. #16
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    36,724
    Post Thanks / Like
    And for the Record, not that it's needed, having doubts about the Dire World-Soon-to-End Predictions of Science these days on this issue does NOT mean that one does not support the ideas fo Alternate Power Sources.

    The issue is raising my Tax Rate 10% to fund it.

    I am all for Wind Power, Nuclear Power etc. I am not as much in favor of Hydroelectric Dams, as they (Clean or not) have shown to have a very bad effect on native wildlife in every waterway in which they have been built.

    But again, the question comes down to a choice of tax use. Perhaps if we choose to cut Social Program Spending for this issue, I might be more apt to support public funding of Alternate Power.

  17. #17
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Long Island & Section 337
    Posts
    4,859
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=nuu faaola]Too many people use their dislike of Al Gore as a distraction from the content of his message, and this post is a perfect example.

    Whether or not you like Al Gore, voted for him, plan to vote for him again, the facts --as they today are widely understood to be-- are completely on his side.

    Too often, people resort to character assasination rather than engaging the facts of his argument. Whether his house/home office uses too much power --and whether the offsets he buys make a difference-- may or may not reflect well on him, but it means little, if anything, in the context of the larger debate on this issue.[/QUOTE]
    This post is the perfect example of cherry-picking facts to believe. To say there is no evidence to dispute global warming is false. The issue is not as cut and dry as you claim, and libs like Gore claim.

  18. #18
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    6,279
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish]And for the Record, not that it's needed, having doubts about the Dire World-Soon-to-End Predictions of Science these days on this issue does NOT mean that one does not support the ideas fo Alternate Power Sources.

    The issue is raising my Tax Rate 10% to fund it.

    I am all for Wind Power, Nuclear Power etc. I am not as much in favor of Hydroelectric Dams, as they (Clean or not) have shown to have a very bad effect on native wildlife in every waterway in which they have been built.

    But again, the question comes down to a choice of tax use. Perhaps if we choose to cut Social Program Spending for this issue, I might be more apt to support public funding of Alternate Power.[/QUOTE]

    I agree with you that alarmist rhetoric ultimately will not solve the problem, because people who don't have their minds made up tend to be polarized by it. (Although, in this case, it proved effective in bringing the issue back to the forefront.)

    I think the near-term middle ground on this issue is reform focusing (1) on emissions that need to be curbed for reasons other than global warming. Whether or not someone agrees with Al Gore on GW, they probably agree that we ought to have cleaner air, and that cancer and asthma are bad. This can get the ball rolling, at least.

    How do we do this?

    1) Mileage standards: There is simply no reason cars sold here shouldn't have the best gas mileage in the world. Seeing as the cars that do have good mileage are kicking the living crap out of Ford and GM in the marketplace, this shouldn't be a tough sell anymore.

    2) Nuclear plants: *If* they can be secured from terrorists --by our armed forces, not by the TSA high school dropouts who protect planes-- these need to be on the table.

    3) Tax incentives for renewable energy, both for individuals (who, say, install solar panels), and for companies that invest in cleaner, renewable energy.

    4) Tax penalties for excessive consumption: You wanna drive a new vehicle that gets less than 25 mpg? You pay a penalty. I am also in favor of at-the-pump taxes to discourage people from driving gas-guzzlers, and perhaps home-use penalties for people who's metered gas/energy usage is a certain % above average in their communities.

    All of have positive public-health and national-security benefits that are enormously helpful to society even if the current science on global warming winds up wrong. And if the science is right, we're doing the right thing for our planet, too.

  19. #19
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    6,279
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=HDCentStOhio]This post is the perfect example of cherry-picking facts to believe. To say there is no evidence to dispute global warming is false. The issue is not as cut and dry as you claim, and libs like Gore claim.[/QUOTE]

    The current science overwhelmingly suggests Gore is right.

    You are correct to say it is not 100%, but it is much closer to 100% than it is to 50%, at this point. The recent U.N. poll of global scientists said 90% probability its man-made. Of course, very few contemporary scientific claims ever reach 100% certainty. There are still people out there disputing evolution, too.

    Anyhow, what I am advocating is taking steps that have huge societal benefit whether GW science is correct or not. We have huge inventives to become less dependent on foreign oil, to have better air quality, etc... Addressing these 100%-certain symptoms of pollution can inadvertantly help reduce global warming. Isn't that reason enough to take some of these early actions I outlined above?

  20. #20
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=nuu faaola]I agree with you that alarmist rhetoric ultimately will not solve the problem, because people who don't have their minds made up tend to be polarized by it. (Although, in this case, it proved effective in bringing the issue back to the forefront.)

    I think the near-term middle ground on this issue is reform focusing (1) on emissions that need to be curbed for reasons other than global warming. Whether or not someone agrees with Al Gore on GW, they probably agree that we ought to have cleaner air, and that cancer and asthma are bad. This can get the ball rolling, at least.

    How do we do this?

    1) Mileage standards: There is simply no reason cars sold here shouldn't have the best gas mileage in the world. Seeing as the cars that do have good mileage are kicking the living crap out of Ford and GM in the marketplace, this shouldn't be a tough sell anymore.

    2) Nuclear plants: *If* they can be secured from terrorists --by our armed forces, not by the TSA high school dropouts who protect planes-- these need to be on the table.

    3) Tax incentives for renewable energy, both for individuals (who, say, install solar panels), and for companies that invest in cleaner, renewable energy.

    4) Tax penalties for excessive consumption: You wanna drive a new vehicle that gets less than 25 mpg? You pay a penalty. I am also in favor of at-the-pump taxes to discourage people from driving gas-guzzlers, and perhaps home-use penalties for people who's metered gas/energy usage is a certain % above average in their communities.

    All of have positive public-health and national-security benefits that are enormously helpful to society even if the current science on global warming winds up wrong. And if the science is right, we're doing the right thing for our planet, too.[/QUOTE]


    The reason why cars here haven't had the best gas mileage in the world is because gas mileage is only ONE FACTOR in determining what types of cars people buy and enjoy. Gas has been cheap for a while and so people didn't value it as much. People liked having larger cars. Now, with gas prices climbing, we are seeing consumers putting more emphasis on gas mileage and (gasp!) suppliers meeting this demand. It's the market and it works. You propose to have the government interfere here "for our own good" of course, as all forms of tyranny are rationalized.

    You can always talk about the positives and not provde any analysis whatsoever of the negatives. One way to get higher mileage on a car is to make it lighter, which means that the risks of a fatality in a collision go up, relative to heavier, less fuel-efficient cars. But hey, more fatalities means less carbon users, go Gaia would still be happy with that, no?

    Tons of things could be outlawed or fined and be spun to have 'public health' benefits. Why don't we fine or imprison people who are overweight or who eat more than their daily caloric intake should be? This would discourage over-consumption of food, right? It would (1) lower the healthcare costs for society and (2) leave more food for people who are starving? You wanna eat dessert tonight? Fine, you pay a penalty.

    And don't get me started on the science of global warming. Your summaries are, to put it lightly, ridiculous.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us