Weather Channel Founder Blasts Gore, Blames Him for Economic Woes

Weather Channel Founder Blasts Gore, Blames Him for Economic Woes (327045)	Home · Maps · About

Home > OTChat

[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]

(327045)	view threaded
Weather Channel Founder Blasts Gore, Blames Him for Economic Woes
Posted by Mitch45 on Fri Jun 13 15:02:55 2008 edf40wrjww2msgDetailOT:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d I guess this man is a GOP stooge too? Courtesy Drudge. Global Warming and the Price of a Gallon of Gas by John Coleman You may want to give credit where credit is due to Al Gore and his global warming campaign the next time you fill your car with gasoline, because there is a direct connection between Global Warming and four dollar a gallon gas. It is shocking, but true, to learn that the entire Global Warming frenzy is based on the environmentalist’s attack on fossil fuels, particularly gasoline. All this big time science, international meetings, thick research papers, dire threats for the future; all of it, comes down to their claim that the carbon dioxide in the exhaust from your car and in the smoke stacks from our power plants is destroying the climate of planet Earth. What an amazing fraud; what a scam. The future of our civilization lies in the balance. That’s the battle cry of the High Priest of Global Warming Al Gore and his fellow, agenda driven disciples as they predict a calamitous outcome from anthropogenic global warming. According to Mr. Gore the polar ice caps will collapse and melt and sea levels will rise 20 feet inundating the coastal cities making 100 million of us refugees. Vice President Gore tells us numerous Pacific islands will be totally submerged and uninhabitable. He tells us global warming will disrupt the circulation of the ocean waters, dramatically changing climates, throwing the world food supply into chaos. He tells us global warming will turn hurricanes into super storms, produce droughts, wipe out the polar bears and result in bleaching of coral reefs. He tells us tropical diseases will spread to mid latitudes and heat waves will kill tens of thousands. He preaches to us that we must change our lives and eliminate fossil fuels or face the dire consequences. The future of our civilization is in the balance. With a preacher’s zeal, Mr. Gore sets out to strike terror into us and our children and make us feel we are all complicit in the potential demise of the planet. Here is my rebuttal. There is no significant man made global warming. There has not been any in the past, there is none now and there is no reason to fear any in the future. The climate of Earth is changing. It has always changed. But mankind’s activities have not overwhelmed or significantly modified the natural forces. Through all history, Earth has shifted between two basic climate regimes: ice ages and what paleoclimatologists call “Interglacial periods”. For the past 10 thousand years the Earth has been in an interglacial period. That might well be called nature’s global warming because what happens during an interglacial period is the Earth warms up, the glaciers melt and life flourishes. Clearly from our point of view, an interglacial period is greatly preferred to the deadly rigors of an ice age. Mr. Gore and his crowd would have us believe that the activities of man have overwhelmed nature during this interglacial period and are producing an unprecedented, out of control warming. Well, it is simply not happening. Worldwide there was a significant natural warming trend in the 1980’s and 1990’s as a Solar cycle peaked with lots of sunspots and solar flares. That ended in 1998 and now the Sun has gone quiet with fewer and fewer Sun spots, and the global temperatures have gone into decline. Earth has cooled for almost ten straight years. So, I ask Al Gore, where’s the global warming? The cooling trend is so strong that recently the head of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had to acknowledge it. He speculated that nature has temporarily overwhelmed mankind’s warming and it may be ten years or so before the warming returns. Oh, really. We are supposed to be in a panic about man-made global warming and the whole thing takes a ten year break because of the lack of Sun spots. If this weren’t so serious, it would be laughable. Now allow me to talk a little about the science behind the global warming frenzy. I have dug through thousands of pages of research papers, including the voluminous documents published by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I have worked my way through complicated math and complex theories. Here’s the bottom line: the entire global warming scientific case is based on the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from the use of fossil fuels. They don’t have any other issue. Carbon Dioxide, that’s it. Hello Al Gore; Hello UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Your science is flawed; your hypothesis is wrong; your data is manipulated. And, may I add, your scare tactics are deplorable. The Earth does not have a fever. Carbon dioxide does not cause significant global warming. The focus on atmospheric carbon dioxide grew out a study by Roger Revelle who was an esteemed scientist at the Scripps Oceanographic Institute. He took his research with him when he moved to Harvard and allowed his students to help him process the data for his paper. One of those students was Al Gore. That is where Gore got caught up in this global warming frenzy. Revelle’s paper linked the increases in carbon dioxide, CO2, in the atmosphere with warming. It labeled CO2 as a greenhouse gas. Charles Keeling, another researcher at the Scripps Oceanographic Institute, set up a system to make continuous CO2 measurements. His graph of these increases has now become known as the Keeling Curve. When Charles Keeling died in 2005, his son David, also at Scripps, took over the measurements. Here is what the Keeling curve shows: an increase in CO2 from 315 parts per million in 1958 to 385 parts per million today, an increase of 70 parts per million or about 20 percent. All the computer models, all of the other findings, all of the other angles of study, all come back to and are based on CO2 as a significant greenhouse gas. It is not. Here is the deal about CO2, carbon dioxide. It is a natural component of our atmosphere. It has been there since time began. It is absorbed and emitted by the oceans. It is used by every living plant to trigger photosynthesis. Nothing would be green without it. And we humans; we create it. Every time we breathe out, we emit carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. It is not a pollutant. It is not smog. It is a naturally occurring invisible gas. Let me illustrate. I estimate that this square in front of my face contains 100,000 molecules of atmosphere. Of those 100,000 only 38 are CO2; 38 out of a hundred thousand. That makes it a trace component. Let me ask a key question: how can this tiny trace upset the entire balance of the climate of Earth? It can’t. That’s all there is to it; it can’t. The UN IPCC has attracted billions of dollars for the research to try to make the case that CO2 is the culprit of run-away, man-made global warming. The scientists have come up with very complex creative theories and done elaborate calculations and run computer models they say prove those theories. They present us with a concept they call radiative forcing. The research organizations and scientists who are making a career out of this theory, keep cranking out the research papers. Then the IPCC puts on big conferences at exotic places, such as the recent conference in Bali. The scientists endorse each other’s papers, they are summarized and voted on, and viola, we are told global warming is going to kill us all unless we stop burning fossil fuels. May I stop here for a few historical notes? First, the internal combustion engine and gasoline were awful polluters when they were first invented. And, both gasoline and automobile engines continued to leave a layer of smog behind right up through the 1960’s. Then science and engineering came to the environmental rescue. Better exhaust and ignition systems, catalytic converters, fuel injectors, better engineering throughout the engine and reformulated gasoline have all contributed to a huge reduction in the exhaust emissions from today’s cars. Their goal then was to only exhaust carbon dioxide and water vapor, two gases widely accepted as natural and totally harmless. Anyone old enough to remember the pall of smog that used to hang over all our cities knows how much improvement there has been. So the environmentalists, in their battle against fossil fuels and automobiles had a very good point forty years ago, but now they have to focus almost entirely on the once harmless carbon dioxide. And, that is the rub. Carbon dioxide is not an environmental problem; they just want you now to think it is. Numerous independent research projects have been done about the greenhouse impact from increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide. These studies have proven to my total satisfaction that CO2 is not creating a major greenhouse effect and is not causing an increase in temperatures. By the way, before his death, Roger Revelle coauthored a paper cautioning that CO2 and its greenhouse effect did not warrant extreme countermeasures. So now it has come down to an intense campaign, orchestrated by environmentalists claiming that the burning of fossil fuels dooms the planet to run-away global warming. Ladies and Gentlemen, that is a myth. So how has the entire global warming frenzy with all its predictions of dire consequences, become so widely believed, accepted and regarded as a real threat to planet Earth? That is the most amazing part of the story. To start with global warming has the backing of the United Nations, a major world force. Second, it has the backing of a former Vice President and very popular political figure. Third it has the endorsement of Hollywood, and that’s enough for millions. And, fourth, the environmentalists love global warming. It is their tool to combat fossil fuels. So with the environmentalists, the UN, Gore and Hollywood touting Global Warming and predictions of doom and gloom, the media has scrambled with excitement to climb aboard. After all the media loves a crisis. From YK2 to killer bees the media just loves to tell us our lives are threatened. And the media is biased toward liberal, so it’s pre-programmed to support Al Gore and UN. CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times, The LA Times, The Washington Post, the Associated Press and here in San Diego The Union Tribune are all constantly promoting the global warming crisis. So who is going to go against all of that power? Not the politicians. So now the President of the United States, just about every Governor, most Senators and most Congress people, both of the major current candidates for President, most other elected officials on all levels of government are all riding the Al Gore Global Warming express. That is one crowded bus. I suspect you haven’t heard it because the mass media did not report it, but I am not alone on the no man-made warming side of this issue. On May 20th, a list of the names of over thirty-one thousand scientists who refute global warming was released. Thirty-one thousand of which 9,000 are Ph.ds. Think about that. Thirty-one thousand. That dwarfs the supposed 2,500 scientists on the UN panel. In the past year, five hundred of scientists have issued public statements challenging global warming. A few more join the chorus every week. There are about 100 defectors from the UN IPCC. There was an International Conference of Climate Change Skeptics in New York in March of this year. One hundred of us gave presentations. Attendance was limited to six hundred people. Every seat was taken. There are a half dozen excellent internet sites that debunk global warming. And, thank goodness for KUSI and Michael McKinnon, its owner. He allows me to post my comments on global warming on the website KUSI.com. Following the publicity of my position form Fox News, Glen Beck on CNN, Rush Limbaugh and a host of other interviews, thousands of people come to the website and read my comments. I get hundreds of supportive emails from them. No I am not alone and the debate is not over. In my remarks in New York I speculated that perhaps we should sue Al Gore for fraud because of his carbon credits trading scheme. That remark has caused a stir in the fringe media and on the internet. The concept is that if the media won’t give us a hearing and the other side will not debate us, perhaps we could use a Court of law to present our papers and our research and if the Judge is unbiased and understands science, we win. The media couldn’t ignore that. That idea has become the basis for legal research by notable attorneys and discussion among global warming debunkers, but it’s a long way from the Court room. I am very serious about this issue. I think stamping out the global warming scam is vital to saving our wonderful way of life. The battle against fossil fuels has controlled policy in this country for decades. It was the environmentalist’s prime force in blocking any drilling for oil in this country and the blocking the building of any new refineries, as well. So now the shortage they created has sent gasoline prices soaring. And, it has lead to the folly of ethanol, which is also partly behind the fuel price increases; that and our restricted oil policy. The ethanol folly is also creating a food crisis throughput the world – it is behind the food price rises for all the grains, for cereals, bread, everything that relies on corn or soy or wheat, including animals that are fed corn, most processed foods that use corn oil or soybean oil or corn syrup. Food shortages or high costs have led to food riots in some third world countries and made the cost of eating out or at home budget busting for many. So now the global warming myth actually has lead to the chaos we are now enduring with energy and food prices. We pay for it every time we fill our gas tanks. Not only is it running up gasoline prices, it has changed government policy impacting our taxes, our utility bills and the entire focus of government funding. And, now the Congress is considering a cap and trade carbon credits policy. We the citizens will pay for that, too. It all ends up in our taxes and the price of goods and services. So the Global warming frenzy is, indeed, threatening our civilization. Not because global warming is real; it is not. But because of the all the horrible side effects of the global warming scam. I love this civilization. I want to do my part to protect it. If Al Gore and his global warming scare dictates the future policy of our governments, the current economic downturn could indeed become a recession, drift into a depression and our modern civilization could fall into an abyss. And it would largely be a direct result of the global warming frenzy. My mission, in what is left of a long and exciting lifetime, is to stamp out this Global Warming silliness and let all of us get on with enjoying our lives and loving our planet, Earth. Story Created: Jun 12, 2008 at 12:53 PM PDT Story Updated: Jun 12, 2008 at 12:54 PM PDT Poll Should Barack Obama choose Hillary Clinton as his running mate? Yes, adding Hillary to the ticket would bolster his campaign. No, the presence of Hillary on the ticket would hurt the campaign. His chances would be neither helped nor hurt with Hillary on the ticket KUSI SUPERCAST High: Coast: 64, Inland: 68, Mtns: 65, Deserts: 90 Low: Coast: 60, Inland: 56, Mtns: 50, Deserts: 67 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Conditions Today Mostly cloudy and gray Wednesday, with highs in the mid 60's. More Weather Copyright © 2008McKinnon Broadcasting 4575 Viewridge Avenue, San Diego, CA 92123 858.571.5151 news@kusi.com This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Post a New Response

(327046)	view threaded
Re: Weather Channel Founder Blasts Gore, Blames Him for Economic Woes
Posted by Newkirk Images* on Fri Jun 13 15:15:25 2008, in response to Weather Channel Founder Blasts Gore, Blames Him for Economic Woes, posted by Mitch45 on Fri Jun 13 15:02:55 2008.* edf40wrjww2msgDetailOT:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d I agree with this post, but already have made my mind up about global warming sometime ago. I agree as stated in the post that the Earth has gone through a cycle of global warming and cooling without mankind's input. But Al Gore has the microphone as well as an Oscar, so the lemmings who believe him and his ilk are in full panic mode. God help us if the Earth starts a cooling trend and we revert back to blizzards much like the one of 1888 in New York. But Al Gore will still blame burning of fossil fuels for global cooling. It's a no win situation as I see it. Bill "Newkirk"
Post a New Response

(327047)	view threaded
Re: Weather Channel Founder Blasts Gore, Blames Him for Economic Woes
Posted by Spider-Pig* on Fri Jun 13 15:30:03 2008, in response to Weather Channel Founder Blasts Gore, Blames Him for Economic Woes, posted by Mitch45 on Fri Jun 13 15:02:55 2008.* edf40wrjww2msgDetailOT:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d The founder of the Weather Channel blames God for economic woes?
Post a New Response

(327048)	view threaded
Re: Weather Channel Founder Blasts Gore, Blames Him for Economic Woes
Posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Jun 13 15:31:01 2008, in response to Re: Weather Channel Founder Blasts Gore, Blames Him for Economic Woes, posted by Newkirk Images on Fri Jun 13 15:15:25 2008. edf40wrjww2msgDetailOT:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d The Blizzard of 1888 was caused by the eruption of Krakatoa. It had nothing to do with being in a "colder era."
Post a New Response

(327051)	view threaded
Re: Weather Channel Founder Blasts Gore, Blames Him for Economic Woes
Posted by Chris R16/R2730* on Fri Jun 13 15:50:14 2008, in response to Weather Channel Founder Blasts Gore, Blames Him for Economic Woes, posted by Mitch45 on Fri Jun 13 15:02:55 2008.* edf40wrjww2msgDetailOT:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d This is good because it lays out the vast and significantly educated numbers of global warming dissenters, one which can't be refuted with the lame, old "the oil companies are funding them". Debate lives, despite what Al Gore says.
Post a New Response

(327061)	view threaded
Re: Weather Channel Founder Blasts Gore, Blames Him for Economic Woes
Posted by Mitch45* on Fri Jun 13 16:03:36 2008, in response to Re: Weather Channel Founder Blasts Gore, Blames Him for Economic Woes, posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Jun 13 15:31:01 2008.* edf40wrjww2msgDetailOT:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d What about the Blizzard of 1947, which in some ways was as bad as the 1888 one?
Post a New Response

(327062)	view threaded
Re: Weather Channel Founder Blasts Gore, Blames Him for Economic Woes
Posted by Chris R16/R2730* on Fri Jun 13 16:04:53 2008, in response to Re: Weather Channel Founder Blasts Gore, Blames Him for Economic Woes, posted by Mitch45 on Fri Jun 13 16:03:36 2008.* edf40wrjww2msgDetailOT:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d The 1888 blizzard was much more deadly.
Post a New Response

(327067)	view threaded
Re: Weather Channel Founder Blasts Gore, Blames Him for Economic Woes
Posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Jun 13 16:23:49 2008, in response to Re: Weather Channel Founder Blasts Gore, Blames Him for Economic Woes, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Jun 13 16:04:53 2008. edf40wrjww2msgDetailOT:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d Which was not because it was a worse blizzard, but because it occurred in an era of less advanced technology.
Post a New Response

(327069)	view threaded
Re: Weather Channel Founder Blasts Gore, Blames Him for Economic Woes
Posted by Spider-Pig* on Fri Jun 13 16:24:12 2008, in response to Re: Weather Channel Founder Blasts Gore, Blames Him for Economic Woes, posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Jun 13 16:23:49 2008.* edf40wrjww2msgDetailOT:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d Although it may have been a worse blizzard, I don't know much about 1947.
Post a New Response

(327071)	view threaded
Re: Weather Channel Founder Blasts Gore, Blames Him for Economic Woes
Posted by JPC* on Fri Jun 13 16:36:49 2008, in response to Weather Channel Founder Blasts Gore, Blames Him for Economic Woes, posted by Mitch45 on Fri Jun 13 15:02:55 2008.* edf40wrjww2msgDetailOT:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d The scientific claims made here are junk, absolute junk. The climate of Earth is changing. It has always changed. This is true, this is absolutely true. Let me illustrate. I estimate that this square in front of my face contains 100,000 molecules of atmosphere. Of those 100,000 only 38 are CO2; 38 out of a hundred thousand. That makes it a trace component. Let me ask a key question: how can this tiny trace upset the entire balance of the climate of Earth? It can’t. That’s all there is to it; it can’t. Bullshit. I'll give you a glass of water. 38 out of 100,000 molecules will be of ricin, or dioxin, or arsenic trioxide, or any of several dozen other poisonous compounds I can name. Yes, trace quantities of any of them. As the above passage implies, what can trace quantities do? Nothing, of course, nothing at all. But trace quantities of any of these will surely kill you. FACT: during human history the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have increased enormously, from about 250 ppm before civilization to 380 ppm today. That's a significant difference. Nobody, nobody, nobody, disputes the fact that CO2 levels have increased significantly. FACT: Global temperatures today are somewhat higher (0.5-1 degree C) than they were in previous centuries (while the range of natural variation in temperature is significantly larger than this change, the rate at which this change has occurred, i.e. number of degrees shift per year) is alarming). Nobody disputes this fact, either. Now, the author is correct to point out that there is a difference between a correlation and a direct causation between the above two FACTS, he also makes it sound as if connecting the two were some great mystery, as if Al Gore just pulled two random facts out of his ass and said they were related. This is absolutely not the case. Simply put, there are a number of gases (the most important of which in the earth's case are water vapor, carbon dioxide and methane) which are largely transparent to the visible light received from the sun but less so to the infrared rays which are emitted back into space by the earth. It doesn't take an Einstein to realize that it is entirely plausible that an increase in atmospheric concentration of any of these gases makes it more difficult for the earth to radiate received solar energy back into space. Thus the earth's temperature (which is set by equilibrating the amount of energy received from the sun with the amount that the earth radiates into space) goes up. The problem is NOT that nobody understands this mechanism, or that any serious scientist doubts that it occurs. It does; the planet Venus is living (or nonliving) proof of this. The issue is that there are many competing factors playing off one another. Some of them result in negative feedback (i.e. increased water vapor in the atmosphere means more clouds, which reflect incident sunlight back into space, lowering the earth's temperature), some have positive feedback (increase in ocean temperature causes more CO2 dissolved in seawater to be released into the atmosphere, increasing the earth's temperature some more, which in turn causes more dissolved CO2 to be emitted...), and sorting all the factors out is a great endeavour. Do the negative feedback loops beat out the positive feedback loops? This is what is not obvious. However, most of the models currently indicate that at least some of the currently observed temperature increase is due to manmade factors. (Most models which correctly predict the earth's climate fail to do so when the manmade factors are omitted.) Long story short, even the most skeptical point of view is essentially this: ''We just don't know. There are too many variables to sort out. Maybe carbon emissions significantly affect our climate, perhaps they do not. There is a very plausible mechanism by which they can, although our data is not good enough to accurately determine whether it does or not.'' That is grounds, at the very least, for great caution. Even if we don't go the most radical extremes to curb carbon emissions, it should certainly give us great pause, and at least try to prevent future growth in emissions, and try to reasonably roll back emissions while researching alternatives. Imagine getting in your car, putting the key in the ignition, and then thinking that you may or may not have secured the seatbelt on the car seat for your baby. Nobody in their right mind would drive off and think, ''Well, I probably secured the seat, so it's okay for me to drive off.'' You would stop whatever you're doing, and make sure the baby is safely secured. That's what any sane person would do.
Post a New Response

(327073)	view threaded
Re: Weather Channel Founder Blasts Gore, Blames Him for Economic Woes
Posted by Chris R16/R2730* on Fri Jun 13 16:42:08 2008, in response to Re: Weather Channel Founder Blasts Gore, Blames Him for Economic Woes, posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Jun 13 16:23:49 2008.* edf40wrjww2msgDetailOT:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d True.
Post a New Response

(327076)	view threaded
Re: Weather Channel Founder Blasts Gore, Blames Him for Economic Woes
Posted by Chris R16/R2730* on Fri Jun 13 16:53:22 2008, in response to Re: Weather Channel Founder Blasts Gore, Blames Him for Economic Woes, posted by JPC on Fri Jun 13 16:36:49 2008.* edf40wrjww2msgDetailOT:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d The scientific claims made here are junk, absolute junk. Perhaps, but they demonstrate that there's no real reason to assume there's scientific consensus. Your rebuttal only proves that significant debate exists. Only Al Gore and his cabal insist all debate is over and one side has won the argument. However, most of the models currently indicate that at least some of the currently observed temperature increase is due to manmade factors. This is probably the only aspect of your post I am qualified to rebut. Models can be made to show anything, and there exist many models which demonstrate that man-made carbon dioxide emissions are not significant factors in climate change over time. Most of the models which DO are compiled by environmental scientists who either need new grants to further their studies or to placate politically motivated benefactors.
Post a New Response

(327097)	view threaded
Re: Weather Channel Founder Blasts Gore, Blames Him for Economic Woes
Posted by Olog-hai* on Fri Jun 13 19:56:34 2008, in response to Re: Weather Channel Founder Blasts Gore, Blames Him for Economic Woes, posted by JPC on Fri Jun 13 16:36:49 2008.* edf40wrjww2msgDetailOT:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d The scientific claims made here are junk, absolute junk You mean carbon dioxide does not affect increases in global temperatures? Absolutely right. Ambient global temperature is more dependent on water vapor concentration. during human history the levels of CO₂ in the atmosphere have increased enormously, from about 250 ppm before civilization to 380 ppm today. That's a significant difference It's not significant nor enormous (consider the lack of difference between 2.5 × 10^–4 and 3.8 × 10^–4), and it's certainly not a fact—it's an estimate, and a poor one at that, never mind thoroughly unscientific. Global temperatures today are somewhat higher (0.5-1 degree C) than they were in previous centuries (while the range of natural variation in temperature is significantly larger than this change, the rate at which this change has occurred, i.e. number of degrees shift per year) is alarming). Nobody disputes this fact, either You're mis-stating the facts. The estimate is that average global temperatures have risen by that infinitesimal amount over about two centuries' time. And nobody was able to measure global temperatures until the 20^th century, unless you're relying on Ye Olde Imperialle Sattellyte launched during the Elizabethan era? Remember the old adage, "All measurements are wrong"—for NIST compliance, you have to live by that maxim. Now, the author is correct to point out that there is a difference between a correlation and a direct causation between the above two FACTS, he also makes it sound as if connecting the two were some great mystery, as if Al Gore just pulled two random facts out of his ass and said they were related. This is absolutely not the case. Simply put, there are a number of gases (the most important of which in the earth's case are water vapor, carbon dioxide and methane) which are largely transparent to the visible light received from the sun but less so to the infrared rays which are emitted back into space by the earth. It doesn't take an Einstein to realize that it is entirely plausible that an increase in atmospheric concentration of any of these gases makes it more difficult for the earth to radiate received solar energy back into space Ridiculous. The "warming" is not failure to reflect radiated heat back into space (which is mostly due to the magnetic field, more so than cloud cover—imagine how fast we'd heat up if all the charged particles the sun emits were to reach the surface of the planet). Besides, there is no warming. (Remember, clouds have the effect of reflecting heat radiated from the earth's surface back down to the earth.) Again: carbon dioxide is not a significant "greenhouse gas" at all. Do you think the heat effect of a real greenhouse is due to carbon dioxide, which the many plants in there inhale to exhale oxygen? No! It's due to water vapor—that's the only significant gas, not that it has caused any so-called "global warming" or the unrelated "climate change". Al Gore didn't pull anything out of his (posterior). He cited the same false arguments promoted by the EU via the UN. most of the models currently indicate that at least some of the currently observed temperature increase is due to manmade factors They do no such thing. Putting labels on graphs do not make certain claims true. The problem is NOT that nobody understands this mechanism, or that any serious scientist doubts that it occurs. It does; the planet Venus is living (or nonliving) proof of this Um, what? Are you claiming that there was a civilization of carbon-based sentient beings on Venus that destroyed the planet due to increasing carbon dioxide output? because that's the only way that Venus will be proof of such an assertion. Long story short, even the most skeptical point of view is essentially this: ''We just don't know. There are too many variables to sort out. Maybe carbon emissions significantly affect our climate, perhaps they do not. There is a very plausible mechanism by which they can, although our data is not good enough to accurately determine whether it does or not.'' Please cite this quote. And frankly, that is not the view of so-called skeptics. That is grounds, at the very least, for great caution. Even if we don't go the most radical extremes to curb carbon emissions, it should certainly give us great pause, and at least try to prevent future growth in emissions, and try to reasonably roll back emissions while researching alternatives. Imagine getting in your car, putting the key in the ignition, and then thinking that you may or may not have secured the seatbelt on the car seat for your baby. Nobody in their right mind would drive off and think, ''Well, I probably secured the seat, so it's okay for me to drive off.'' You would stop whatever you're doing, and make sure the baby is safely secured. That's what any sane person would do Your last two paragraphs have no relation to the subject matter whatsoever. It's mere equivocation. Someone needs to read this and stop listening to EU propaganda, I think. The EU is pushing this so they can get their "carbon trading" scam going. Look deeper into that.
Post a New Response

(327098)	view threaded
Re: Weather Channel Founder Blasts Gore, Blames Him for Economic Woes
Posted by Olog-hai* on Fri Jun 13 19:57:10 2008, in response to Weather Channel Founder Blasts Gore, Blames Him for Economic Woes, posted by Mitch45 on Fri Jun 13 15:02:55 2008.* edf40wrjww2msgDetailOT:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d Meteorologists are very much in accord with this.
Post a New Response

(327101)	view threaded
Re: Weather Channel Founder Blasts Gore, Blames Him for Economic Woes
Posted by Olog-hai* on Fri Jun 13 20:00:58 2008, in response to Re: Weather Channel Founder Blasts Gore, Blames Him for Economic Woes, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Jun 13 15:50:14 2008.* edf40wrjww2msgDetailOT:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d Gore's quip "I used to be the next president of the United States" has disingenuity written all over it.
Post a New Response

(327152)	view threaded
Re: Weather Channel Founder Blasts Gore, Blames Him for Economic Woes
Posted by Mr Mabstoa* on Sat Jun 14 04:11:53 2008, in response to Re: Weather Channel Founder Blasts Gore, Blames Him for Economic Woes, posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Jun 13 15:31:01 2008.* edf40wrjww2msgDetailOT:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d So at least we know man wasn't responsible.
Post a New Response

(327153)	view threaded
Re: Weather Channel Founder Blasts Gore, Blames Him for Economic Woes
Posted by Mr Mabstoa on Sat Jun 14 04:13:46 2008, in response to Re: Weather Channel Founder Blasts Gore, Blames Him for Economic Woes, posted by Newkirk Images on Fri Jun 13 15:15:25 2008. edf40wrjww2msgDetailOT:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d Good point.
Post a New Response

(327157)	view threaded
Re: Weather Channel Founder Blasts Gore, Blames Him for Economic Woes
Posted by LuchAAA* on Sat Jun 14 04:45:21 2008, in response to Re: Weather Channel Founder Blasts Gore, Blames Him for Economic Woes, posted by Newkirk Images on Fri Jun 13 15:15:25 2008.* edf40wrjww2msgDetailOT:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d I believe Al Gore criss-crosses the US with the least fuel efficient jet on the market.
Post a New Response

(327158)	view threaded
Re: Weather Channel Founder Blasts Gore, Blames Him for Economic Woes
Posted by Fred G* on Sat Jun 14 05:56:21 2008, in response to Re: Weather Channel Founder Blasts Gore, Blames Him for Economic Woes, posted by LuchAAA on Sat Jun 14 04:45:21 2008.* edf40wrjww2msgDetailOT:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d You believe a lot of stuff. your pal, Fred
Post a New Response

(327163)	view threaded
Re: Weather Channel Founder Blasts Gore, Blames Him for Economic Woes
Posted by JPC* on Sat Jun 14 07:26:11 2008, in response to Re: Weather Channel Founder Blasts Gore, Blames Him for Economic Woes, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Jun 13 16:53:22 2008.* edf40wrjww2msgDetailOT:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d Perhaps, but they demonstrate that there's no real reason to assume there's scientific consensus. Your rebuttal only proves that significant debate exists. Only Al Gore and his cabal insist all debate is over and one side has won the argument. Not so fast. The ''humans have no impact on global warming'' school is very small. While there are many scientists in this school, they are greatly outnumbered by the ''humans have had at least some impact on global warming'' school. I would say that a fair consensus (although not unanimous) exists. And even still - if half the scientists say that if we keep doing the same thing there will be disastrous consequences, and the other half say there probably won't be, what is the logical thing to do (remember my example of the baby in the car seat). Models can be made to show anything, In the absence of hard data yes, although as more data becomes available, more and more models with reasonable input parameters indicate that manmade effects are at least partly responsible for observed climate change. The ''parameter space'' over which observed climate change can be solely attributed to natural cycles is quite small and shrinking. Most of the models which DO are compiled by environmental scientists who either need new grants to further their studies or to placate politically motivated benefactors. This is a true statement, but it's perhaps more powerful than you make it out to be, since it applies across the board. So the same is true for scientists who seek to prove that global warming is not caused by man (i.e. because they are receiving financial support from groups which would suffer if carbon emissions are curbed).
Post a New Response

(327191)	view threaded
Re: Weather Channel Founder Blasts Gore, Blames Him for Economic Woes
Posted by AlM* on Sat Jun 14 10:12:51 2008, in response to Weather Channel Founder Blasts Gore, Blames Him for Economic Woes, posted by Mitch45 on Fri Jun 13 15:02:55 2008.* edf40wrjww2msgDetailOT:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d On May 20th, a list of the names of over thirty-one thousand scientists who refute global warming was released. Do you really believe that? I keep on reading this kind of statement, and the only time I was ever able to track it down it was something about the need to proceed in a proper scientific manner and not let politics get in the way. It wasn't a refutation.
Post a New Response

(327193)	view threaded
Re: Weather Channel Founder Blasts Gore, Blames Him for Economic Woes
Posted by Mr Mabstoa on Sat Jun 14 10:14:50 2008, in response to Re: Weather Channel Founder Blasts Gore, Blames Him for Economic Woes, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Jun 13 16:53:22 2008. edf40wrjww2msgDetailOT:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d I agree. If science wants to say Climate Change is a theory I would be open to it, but to state its a fact, like Global Cooling was in the 70's is presumptuous.
Post a New Response

(327197)	view threaded
Re: Weather Channel Founder Blasts Gore, Blames Him for Economic Woes
Posted by AlM* on Sat Jun 14 10:24:06 2008, in response to Re: Weather Channel Founder Blasts Gore, Blames Him for Economic Woes, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Jun 13 16:53:22 2008.* edf40wrjww2msgDetailOT:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d Most of the models which DO are compiled by environmental scientists who either need new grants to further their studies or to placate politically motivated benefactors. Well, the inspector general of NASA disagrees with you. He thinks (after a long investigation) that the ploitical pressure on scientists was to underplay global warming, not overplay it.
Post a New Response

(327207)	view threaded
Re: Weather Channel Founder Blasts Gore, Blames Him for Economic Woes
Posted by Newkirk Images on Sat Jun 14 10:43:33 2008, in response to Re: Weather Channel Founder Blasts Gore, Blames Him for Economic Woes, posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Jun 13 15:31:01 2008. edf40wrjww2msgDetailOT:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d The Blizzard of 1888 was caused by the eruption of Krakatoa. It had nothing to do with being in a "colder era." I didn't know that, thanks Morris. Bill "Newkirk"
Post a New Response

(327209)	view threaded
Re: Weather Channel Founder Blasts Gore, Blames Him for Economic Woes
Posted by Railman718* on Sat Jun 14 10:47:41 2008, in response to Re: Weather Channel Founder Blasts Gore, Blames Him for Economic Woes, posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Jun 13 15:31:01 2008.* edf40wrjww2msgDetailOT:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d Actually seen a program about that eruption and the gobal ramifications it casued, very informative.
Post a New Response

(327213)	view threaded
Re: Weather Channel Founder Blasts Gore, Blames Him for Economic Woes
Posted by Fred G* on Sat Jun 14 11:10:11 2008, in response to Weather Channel Founder Blasts Gore, Blames Him for Economic Woes, posted by Mitch45 on Fri Jun 13 15:02:55 2008.* edf40wrjww2msgDetailOT:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d Ooohhh...a TV weatherman. your pal, Fred
Post a New Response

(327220)	view threaded
Re: Weather Channel Founder Blasts Gore, Blames Him for Economic Woes
Posted by Chris R16/R2730* on Sat Jun 14 11:43:14 2008, in response to Re: Weather Channel Founder Blasts Gore, Blames Him for Economic Woes, posted by JPC on Sat Jun 14 07:26:11 2008.* edf40wrjww2msgDetailOT:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d Not so fast. The ''humans have no impact on global warming'' school is very small. While there are many scientists in this school, they are greatly outnumbered by the ''humans have had at least some impact on global warming'' school. 50 years ago, an even greater majority of physicists believed in the steady-state universe.
Post a New Response

(327222)	view threaded
Re: Weather Channel Founder Blasts Gore, Blames Him for Economic Woes
Posted by Chris R16/R2730* on Sat Jun 14 11:44:54 2008, in response to Re: Weather Channel Founder Blasts Gore, Blames Him for Economic Woes, posted by AlM on Sat Jun 14 10:24:06 2008.* edf40wrjww2msgDetailOT:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d When did the inspector general of NASA (a political appointee) become the arbitor of what is and what isn't scientific consensus? You are another regurgitator.
Post a New Response

(327232)	view threaded
Re: Weather Channel Founder Blasts Gore, Blames Him for Economic Woes
Posted by Train Dude* on Sat Jun 14 11:56:14 2008, in response to Re: Weather Channel Founder Blasts Gore, Blames Him for Economic Woes, posted by Fred G on Sat Jun 14 05:56:21 2008.* edf40wrjww2msgDetailOT:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d Possibly so but invest 7 minutes of your time and learn something.
Post a New Response

(327258)	view threaded
Re: Weather Channel Founder Blasts Gore, Blames Him for Economic Woes
Posted by roscoman1986* on Sat Jun 14 15:34:40 2008, in response to Weather Channel Founder Blasts Gore, Blames Him for Economic Woes, posted by Mitch45 on Fri Jun 13 15:02:55 2008.* edf40wrjww2msgDetailOT:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d I believe carbon emissions are bad, however the climate change hype is nothing as bad as the danger of finite fossil fuels. Some geologists claim that at the rate that we are using fossil fuels, we won't even be able to cause significant climate change because we will exhaust all of our remaining fossil fuel reserves. Global warming is my SECOND environmental priority. The FIRST is also getting off fossil fuels, but for the reason that they are finite. Many people believe that global warming will really start to have a dramatic effect in FORTY years. Others believe that the finite nature of fossil fuels will have a dramatic impact in only FOUR years. So, which is a bigger crisis?
Post a New Response

(327275)	view threaded
Re: Weather Channel Founder Blasts Gore, Blames Him for Economic Woes
Posted by AlM* on Sat Jun 14 17:14:40 2008, in response to Re: Weather Channel Founder Blasts Gore, Blames Him for Economic Woes, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sat Jun 14 11:44:54 2008.* edf40wrjww2msgDetailOT:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d When did the inspector general of NASA (a political appointee) become the arbitor of what is and what isn't scientific consensus? Um, he was appointed by President Bush. And he did not draw scientific conclusions, he drew a political one. The political conclusion he drew was that the Bush Administration tried to put an incorrect slant the findings of NASA scientists.
Post a New Response

(327285)	view threaded
Re: Weather Channel Founder Blasts Gore, Blames Him for Economic Woes
Posted by Olog-hai* on Sat Jun 14 18:50:50 2008, in response to Re: Weather Channel Founder Blasts Gore, Blames Him for Economic Woes, posted by AlM on Sat Jun 14 10:24:06 2008.* edf40wrjww2msgDetailOT:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d Where did he say that?
Post a New Response

(327353)	view threaded
Re: Weather Channel Founder Blasts Gore, Blames Him for Economic Woes
Posted by JPC* on Sat Jun 14 21:19:35 2008, in response to Re: Weather Channel Founder Blasts Gore, Blames Him for Economic Woes, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sat Jun 14 11:43:14 2008.* edf40wrjww2msgDetailOT:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d 50 years ago, an even greater majority of physicists believed in the steady-state universe. Not sure about that (although I can ask around to some of the older faculty where I am). The steady state cosmology was entirely dead by the mid 1960's, (which was about when it was proposed by Hoyle et al), so the "steady state cosmology" per se was never accepted by anything resembling a majority of scientists. It was always fringe science. It was fringe when it was proposed, and it's on the extreme lunatic fringe today (especially now that COBE and WMAP have released their results, providing completely independent and orthogonal confirmation of the essential details of the Big Bang cosmology). It is true that prior to the 1930's most physicists believed in an eternal universe, but that was based entirely on philosophical considerations. There was zero scientific evidence for this (isn't now, and never was any), and in fact if you "read between the lines" using 20/20 hindsight there was substantial scientific evidence going back to at least the mid-1800's which militated for a universe of finite age; it was the philosophical objections to a singularity which prevented the scientific evidence from being considered as such until the 1930's, when the first direct measurements of galactic distance (using the Cepheid period-luminosity relationship) and redshift were made.
Post a New Response

(327358)	view threaded
Re: Weather Channel Founder Blasts Gore, Blames Him for Economic Woes
Posted by JPC* on Sat Jun 14 21:32:34 2008, in response to Re: Weather Channel Founder Blasts Gore, Blames Him for Economic Woes, posted by Olog-hai on Fri Jun 13 19:56:34 2008.* edf40wrjww2msgDetailOT:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d Ambient global temperature is more dependent on water vapor concentration. Absolutely. There is a greenhouse effect of several tens of degrees due to water vapor in the atmosphere. So H2O is actually a far more important greenhouse gas than CO2 is. Which is completely fine. The problem is not the size of the greenhouse effect caused, but how it changes in time. If it changes too rapidly, life cannot evolve (or at least relocate) to accomodate the changing climate, and mass extinction occurs. Um, what? Are you claiming that there was a civilization of carbon-based sentient beings on Venus that destroyed the planet due to increasing carbon dioxide output? because that's the only way that Venus will be proof of such an assertion. No. What I am saying is that there is ample geological evidence that Venus was once at least superficially similar to earth. Quite a bit warmer, but not entirely too bad. Nowadays, it's got 100 atmospheres, largely of CO2, and global temperatures hover around 800 degrees. In fact, Venus is substantially hotter than Mercury, which is nearly twice as close to the sun. It's a runaway greenhouse effect. I didn't mean to imply that I believed Venus once had life, just that it is a clear case of a runaway greenhouse effect. Please cite this quote. It's not a quote. It was my own logical deduction based on the following three premises: 1. We know that there has been a significant increase in average global temperatures over the past two centuries. 2. We know that there has been a significant increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration since prehistoric times. 3. We know of a plausible (i.e. sound physics) mechanism by which increasing CO2 atmospheric content can lead to increased global temperatures. Now, even if we don't have good enough data to determine whether 1 and 2 are related via 3, a reasonable skeptical point of view is that they might be related, and considering the potentially disastrous consequences of inaction if they are, it would be prudent to take corrective action. Would you put a gun to your head and pull the trigger, because you're pretty sure it's not loaded? If you're mostly sure it's not loaded? If you're almost absolutely sure but still have an inkling of a nagging doubt? (Okay, that's not a fair example - there is no substantial cost to not pulling the trigger in the above case, whereas the cost of capping carbon emissions will be substantial. But the essential idea is the same - the cost of inaction, in the (even if you think it's extremely unlikely) event that all those greenhouse scientists are right, will absolutely dwarf the costs of corrective action. That was the source of my statement which I put in quotes.
Post a New Response

(327360)	view threaded
Re: Weather Channel Founder Blasts Gore, Blames Him for Economic Woes
Posted by Dand124* on Sat Jun 14 21:45:35 2008, in response to Weather Channel Founder Blasts Gore, Blames Him for Economic Woes, posted by Mitch45 on Fri Jun 13 15:02:55 2008.* edf40wrjww2msgDetailOT:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d Founding a successful TV network does not make one an expert on either economics or climateology. And I’m skeptical about the global warming hysteria.
Post a New Response

(327376)	view threaded
Re: Weather Channel Founder Blasts Gore, Blames Him for Economic Woes
Posted by Olog-hai* on Sat Jun 14 22:11:22 2008, in response to Re: Weather Channel Founder Blasts Gore, Blames Him for Economic Woes, posted by Dand124 on Sat Jun 14 21:45:35 2008.* edf40wrjww2msgDetailOT:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d What does climat(e)ology have to do with the global warming scam?
Post a New Response

(327382)	view threaded
Re: Weather Channel Founder Blasts Gore, Blames Him for Economic Woes
Posted by SelkirkTMO* on Sat Jun 14 22:17:06 2008, in response to Re: Weather Channel Founder Blasts Gore, Blames Him for Economic Woes, posted by Olog-hai on Sat Jun 14 22:11:22 2008.* edf40wrjww2msgDetailOT:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d Climatology ... isn't that L. Ron Hubbard's brother, N. Ron's religion? :)
Post a New Response

(327388)	view threaded
Re: Weather Channel Founder Blasts Gore, Blames Him for Economic Woes
Posted by Fred G* on Sat Jun 14 22:41:07 2008, in response to Re: Weather Channel Founder Blasts Gore, Blames Him for Economic Woes, posted by Dand124 on Sat Jun 14 21:45:35 2008.* edf40wrjww2msgDetailOT:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d I'm skeptical, too but the non-believers are sounding like the tobacco companies used to. Not enough science, etc. your pal, Fred
Post a New Response

[ Return to the Message Index ]