Gore being laughed at over global warming claims...

[Cannikin]

Rush and now another local wannabe....I've listened to programs about weather extremes for years, but I need to A-B-C it for them...

Can someone link me to an easy explaination for the ignorant folks?

I'm at work and I cant look it up right now! Thank you!

[pmbryant]

1. Here is a great resource on global warming issues... (edited to add...)

The Union of Concerned Scientists...

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/global_warming/index.cfm

EDIT : Also note the Global Warming FAQ and Fact vs Fiction on Climate Change

From the latter:

Fiction: Just look at X: it's the coldest day/month/year on record ... or: Region X has cooled by Y°F over the past two years! There is no global warming!

Fact: Statements like the one above are deliberate attempts by climate contrarians to confuse and mislead the public. It's an attempt to disprove the reality of global warming with a cold weather anomaly. This is not only scientific bogus, comparing apples and oranges, but outright dishonesty. Weather is the state of the atmosphere at a given time and place, defined by variables such as temperature, moisture, wind, and barometric pressure. It is highly variable from day to day. By contrast, climate describes long-term weather patterns, with average temperatures and precipitation totals as well as typical occurrences of climatic extremes (such as normal dry periods or tropical storms) being used to characterize the climate for a particular region. This distinction is very important. Averages are always made up of numbers differing from the mean. Global warming is about the average going up. Over time this will make extreme colds become less likely.

--Peter

[G_j]

39. These Articles Should Help:

**Revealed: how global warming will cause extinction of a million species
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_medical/story.jsp?story=479080
---------------------
**Global Warming is Here Now, Say U.N. Delegates http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/121403G.shtml
--------------
**Global Warming Kills 150,000 People a Year, Warns UN
http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/121303G.shtml
--------------
**The Four Degrees (7.2 degrees Fahrenheit): How Europe's Hottest Summer Shows Global Warming is Transforming Our
World
http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/story.jsp?story=471135
--------------
**Earth Warming at Faster Pace, Say Top Science Group's Leaders
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1218-01.htm
----------------
**Climate Change Laid to Humans
Report Warns There's 'No Doubt' Industry is Primary Cause
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1204-04.htm
----------------
**Melting Ice 'Will Swamp Capitals'
http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/120903H.shtml
----------------
**Inuit begin rights case over global warming
www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/12/15/1071336885565.html
-----------------
**Global warming imperils ski slopes
Resorts need to move uphill as snow line continues retreat.
http://www.news-leader.com/today/1203-Globalwarm-232039.html
-----------------
www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0109-02.htm
**'US Climate Policy Bigger Threat to World than Terrorism'
-----------------
**Climate Change Portal:
www.climateark.org/news/

[Fish-Slapping_Dance]

2. I don't know

I'm listening to the "wannabe" right now, too.

But it will be a hard sell to Eddie Punchclock and Mary Housecoat, particularly in New England, that they should fear global warming when they are having 25-year record cold temps.

It will be an even harder sell to try to convince them that global warming is causing this deep freeze.

I think it was a mistake for President Gore to deliver the speech at this time. To the average man in the frozen street, they'll just look at him, roll their eyes and laugh.

:scared:

[Cannikin]

4. I guess they grossly overestimated the intelligence of talk hosts....

[buycitgo]

8. nice REDSKIN sign

why don't you ask the soon to be former inhabitants of NAURU how amusing they think global warming is

that's the STUPIDEST possible retort to global warming there is.

see the above explanation of your fallacious, foolhardy "explanation"

jesus

[Cannikin]

19. Notice its always the new folks? Hmmmmm

[Selwynn]

56. How to win friends and influence people, by buycitgo... :)

[Lisa]

3. it's the instability ...

Prof. Ming-ko Woo, the guy who taught me climatology at McMaster University, has been studying climatic instability for some 20 years now. He was one of the first people to predict that an increase in average temperatures wouldn't necessarily mean fewer cold spells. It's theoretically possible to have more extreme weather due to global warming ... both cold snaps and heat waves could increase in frequency -- and if there happen to be more hot days, that would translate into higher average temps. You could be getting more cold spells too, but you couldn't tell just from the average.

Averages are basically a "lie of convenience" ... they don't really tell you much about variability in climate (or weather). Dr. Woo always told us to watch out for the extremes, because those are the things that do the most damage anyway.

[Sophree]

30. Yes, it does cause more extremes

Extreme cold as well as extreme hot. Remind them that this summer was the hottest summer on record (Especially in Europe- people died.)

While average global temperatures do fluctuate naturally, the average global temp. has never been this high.

Also, the frequency and intensity of the El Nino cycle.- El Nino used to occur every 10-15 years, now it's more like every 5-7. An extremely massive El Nino used to occur only once every 100 years. Before the 1997-98 El Nino, scientists were predicting a mild one because the previous one had been a massive one. 97-98 turned out to be even BIGGER, costing billions of $ and thousands of lives. Lives of poor people, mostly, in Asia and South America.

http://geography.about.com/cs/elninolanina/

Morons who ignore evidence of global warming are suffering from "Ostrich Syndrome."

[Baclava]

5. BAWK - I don't believe it either...

Statistically, a cold spell, even a record cold spell, isn't "proof" that global warming is a lie. But, what I really love, is the contention that the cold spell is actually caused by global warming. Pretty counter-inutitive. Of course, it's the same statistically flawed argument, only in reverse. One event, a snapshot if you will, isn't indicative of a trend in either direction.
Statistics prove that GW is a FRAUD. A theory of a rising mean (temps) over the past 100+ years would be discredited by record LOW temps after 100+ years of steady, alleged warming.

Think of a chart of the "warming" temp over time. There is a variance that surrounds the parameters of that temp chart - ie warm and cold years zig and zag a little bit. As the chart shows warming over the longer term, there should be no more record lows after 50 years or so of steady "warming." Indeed, we should be having record highs almost all the time and no record lows if the theory had an ounce of truth to it, which it doesn't. The FRAUD is the deliberate misinterpretation of the effects of PAVEMENT on the SURFACE GROUND TEMPERATURE series (i.e. data from cities with very little pavement 100 years ago), reported in the media as "temperatures" not surface ground temps measured primarily in cities and completely lacking for areas of the Earth covered by WATER ... i.e. 2/3rds of the planet.

ALL the other temp readings (satellites, weather balloons, ice cores, tree rings, and ocean temps) show no statistically significant warming, and indeed some show cooling. This is a very obvious fraud to anyone with a clue about statistics. Some folks need to do some time for this FRAUD. This is a lot worse than screaming "fire" in a crowded theater...

[hatrack]

6. Any data/studies/sources/scientific articles to back this up?

I'll wait breathlessly for you to post!

[Baclava]

9. Breathe...

http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/press/pr0310.html

Also, there's the little matter of the nearly 18,000 signatures from scientists worldwide on a petition called The Oregon Petition which says that there is no evidence for man-made global warming theory nor for any impact from mankind's activities on climate.

...as H.L. Mencken said "the fundamental aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed, and hence clamorous to be led to safety, by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary" ... the desire to save the world usually fronts a desire to rule it.

[pmbryant]

12. Sorry, but that study is severely flawed

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa004&articleID=000829C7-70D9-1EF7-A6B8809EC588EEDF

Hot Words

A claim of nonhuman-induced global warming sparks debate
By David Appell

In a contretemps indicative of the political struggle over global climate change, a recent study suggested that humans may not be warming the earth. Greenhouse skeptics, pro-industry groups and political conservatives have seized on the results, proclaiming that the science of climate change is inconclusive and that agreements such as the Kyoto Protocol, which set limits on the output of industrial heat-trapping gases, are unnecessary. But mainstream climatologists, as represented by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), are perturbed that the report has received so much attention; they say the study's conclusions are scientifically dubious and colored by politics.

Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics reviewed more than 200 studies that examined climate "proxy" records--data from such phenomena as the growth of tree rings or coral, which are sensitive to climatic conditions. They concluded in the January Climate Research that "across the world, many records reveal that the 20th century is probably not the warmest nor a uniquely extreme climate period of the last millennium." They said that two extreme climate periods--the Medieval Warming Period between 800 and 1300 and the Little Ice Age of 1300 to 1900--occurred worldwide, at a time before industrial emissions of greenhouse gases became abundant. (A longer version subsequently appeared in the May Energy and Environment.)

(snip)

The most significant criticism is that Soon and Baliunas do not present their data quantitatively--instead they merely categorize the work of others primarily into one of two sets: either supporting or not supporting their particular definitions of a Medieval Warming Period or Little Ice Age. "I was stating outright that I'm not able to give too many quantitative details, especially in terms of aggregating all the results," Soon says.

Specifically, they define a "climatic anomaly" as a period of 50 or more years of wetness or dryness or sustained warmth (or, for the Little Ice Age, coolness). The problem is that under this broad definition a wet or dry spell would indicate a climatic anomaly even if the temperature remained perfectly constant. Soon and Baliunas are "mindful" that the Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice Age should be defined by temperature, but "we emphasize that great bias would result if those thermal anomalies were to be dissociated" from other climatic conditions. (Asked to define "wetness" and "dryness," Soon and Baliunas say only that they "referred to the standard usage in English.")

Moreover, their results were nonsynchronous: "Their analysis doesn't consider whether the warm/cold periods occurred at the same time," says Peter Stott, a climate scientist at the U.K.'s Hadley Center for Climate Prediction and Research in Bracknell. For example, if a proxy record indicated that a drier condition existed in one part of the world from 800 to 850, it would be counted as equal evidence for a Medieval Warming Period as a different proxy record that showed wetter conditions in another part of the world from 1250 to 1300. Regional conditions do not necessarily mirror the global average, Stott notes: "Iceland and Greenland had their warmest periods in the 1930s, whereas the warmest for the globe was the 1990s."

(snip)

[Baclava]

13. The Ruskies don't believe it either...

http://washingtontimes.com/commentary/20031007-095710-8878r.htm

[pmbryant]

17. Russian politicans and S. Fred Singer

Some Russian politicans use the phrase "scientifically flawed" and that is supposed to mean anything about the real scientific debate.

I wouldn't trust politicians in the U.S. to speak on scientific matters, and I'm pretty sure I should feel the same way about politicians in Russia. ;-)

And I love this hyperbolic quote from S. Fred Singer, the author of the Washington Times article you cite and a famous anti-global-warming activist (emphasis added):

There has never been a more anti-human proposition than that government should regulate all energy production and consumption in the name of some distant, vague fear of a climate disaster from the use of fossil fuels.

:eyes:

--Peter

[Baclava]

18. Here's my point...

The planet earth is about 5 billion years old.

It has had some type of atmosphere and related "global warmth" almost from inception. If its early life was similar to Venus, as predicted, the early temperatures may have been in the range of 1,200° C or greater and the atmospheric pressure in the range of 500 bars or greater. By age 1.6 Ga (billion years ago), studies indicate the temperature had declined to 850° C with atmospheric pressure at 446 bars: with the mass of CO2 perhaps exceeding 164 bars or causing about 30% of that early barometric pressure. The current atmospheric pressure of CO2 is only .0005 bars of the total 1 bar for the mass from all current atmospheric gases.

Yes, there has been climate change, as there has been at all times over the past 5 billion years of the existence of Planet Earth.

Climate or weather has never been stable during the entire history of the earth. It is foolhardy to presume it will become or can be made stable in the future. It is substantially less violent now than it was earlier, during the major early changes in the climate of our planet when the initial atmospheric temperatures reached perhaps 1,200°F or more and the barometric pressures were in the range of 500 bars or 7,500 psia instead of the current 14.65 psia.

Many major climate changes resulted in overall global cooling over a long period of time which took place during the first 3 billion years before there was any appreciable life on the planet.

The amount of CO2 sequestered in the ocean is more than 50 times the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Known CO2 in carbonate rocks would represent more than 64 bars of the early atmospheric pressures. The oceans absorb and hold the greatest volume of CO2 when the water is coldest. As the oceans warm up, for any reason, CO2 is released into the atmosphere.

Of course there has been a discernible anthropogenic effect on the climate. There are now 6 billion of us on earth.

During human history, we have constructed, built, manufactured, suburbanized, and industrialized with major transportation, communication, ranching, farming, cleared forests, paved, burned and polluted. We just don’t know how much has changed as a result of human efforts and the amount of the related changes: either hotter or colder or what effect this will have or can have on future climate.

More work and data are needed before there is an opportunity to arrive at realistic projections and possible solutions if it is scientifically decided the climate is subject to any type of human control.

[Cannikin]

24. I guess all those countries hopping on the GW wagon are just nuts!

[pmbryant]

26. Short-sighted

More work and data are needed before there is an opportunity to arrive at realistic projections and possible solutions if it is scientifically decided the climate is subject to any type of human control.

Well, the early history of Earth is irrelevant, but I can agree with the main thrust of this post as summarized above.

But it has already been scientifically decided that the climate is "subject to human control". I would say influence rather than control, though.

The basic physics of this situation are not disputed:

(1) CO2 and other greenhouse gases trap heat in the atmosphere.

(2) The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has been dramatically increasing over recent decades due to human-caused emissions, and this process is accelerating.

(3) The resultant alteration of the energy balance in our planet's atmosphere will have results that we are completely unable to predict and could easily be economically devastating to wide portions of the planet.


Given #3 and the 'completely unable to predict' part, which you appear to agree with, the prudent course is to slow the amount of CO2 and other greenhouse gases that we are pouring into the atmosphere. This will give us more time to develop reasonable predictive models, more time to plan for the dramatic climatic changes that are likely to occur, and reduce the severity of the changes as well.

Not doing so is the ultimate in short-sightedness. The consequences of not acting as soon as possible, and to the maximum extent practical, are likely to be catastrophic down the road.

Of course, by then we'll all be old or dead, so what do we care?

--Peter

[iam]

45. Utterly Rational.

It is simply irresposible to ignore meaningful evidence.

[are_we_united_yet]

Deleted

edited duplicate post deleted by me

[are_we_united_yet]

33. Uhhhhh

"More work and data are needed before there is an opportunity to arrive at realistic projections and possible solutions if it is scientifically decided the climate is subject to any type of human control."

CRAP I say.

[dpibel]

36. Wow! You really know your stuff!

Where'd you learn all that stuff about bars 'n ancient temps n' stuff? You must really know what you're talking about.

And, just to let you know you're on the right track, you'll be pleased to know that this guy in Dallas, whose words you can read at http://www.vision.net.au/~daly/cooling.htm
thinks exactly the same way you do!! He thinks it so exactly, in fact, that he uses the exact same words you do to express his ideas.

Now that's what I call a coincidence!!

Other than that, however, I consider you a completely authentic and authoritative voice, and intend any minute now to let the scales fall from my eyes and see the truth, especially the part about where we should burn more oil.

[Selwynn]

57. Ouch.

[Cannikin]

21. I'll hand it to you, if BushCo can find away to scare people, they will.

So until Ashcroft raises the GW alert we're Ok and can go about our business.

[hatrack]

25. Ah, I was wondering when the "Oregon Petition" would show up

Signed by such scientific luminaries as the Spice Girls.

Oh, and by the way, exactly what does a petition, however impressive its signatories, have to do with peer-reviewed science?

Sorry, try a little harder next time!

[Baclava]

29. You win...

Maybe after we spend half a trillion or so, we'll find out that it's warmer on Mars.

Will we raise taxes for the Mars flight? Naaa--we'll just continue to spend money that we don't have and pass the debt along to our kids.

[mrdmk]

42. Guess What

We do know it is warmer on Mars and colder.

[Memekiller]

48. A debunking of the Oregon Petition

Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine

Background

None needed.

Statement/Action

"This is the website that completely knocks the wind out of the enviro's sails. See over 17,000 scientists declare that global warming is a lie with no scientific basis whatsoever."

Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine

Reasonable Inference

Seventeen thousand scientists signed the petition.

Contradictory Statement/Action

"Scientific American took a random sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition—one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers--a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community."

"Skepticism about Skeptics", Scientific American, Oct. 2001

Comments

This petition is also the main evidence give by the National Center for Public Policy Research against a consensus on Global Warming.


You can also look at PR Watch

[Lydia Leftcoast]

55. Oh, you mean the Oregon petition

started by the "institute" that is just one guy and his two kids living on a ranch in the freeper country of southern Oregon?

:crazy:

[Lisa]

7. I thought the latest studies did allow for the urban heat island effect

-- what you described, re: pavement (and other urban characteristics) affecting temperature, due to albedo and other radiative properties.

I seem to recall the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) scientific reports having discussed that in the 1990s.

[pmbryant]

10. This argument is completely without merit

Statistics prove that GW is a FRAUD. A theory of a rising mean (temps) over the past 100+ years would be discredited by record LOW temps after 100+ years of steady, alleged warming.

Perhaps this argument would mean something if

(1) we had complete temperature records for more than 100 years or so, and

(2) the significant possibility that global warming/climate change can affect weather extremes, both hot and cold, and

(3) the fact that local weather patterns are very different from global averages, and are affected by huge numbers of variables.

--Peter

[Ripley]

11. You are incorrect on at least one count.

Look at NOAA and NASA scientists on this:


"The temperature of the world's oceans has increased dramatically over the past four decades, according to a major study that adds new credibility to projections of increased global warming.

For years, many experts have suspected that heat stored in the sea may have kept the planet's atmosphere from heating up as much as greenhouse-warming scenarios predict. But there has been no convincing evidence because detailed, long-term records of ocean temperatures--especially at extreme depths--were unavailable.

Now that evidence has arrived. In the first effort of its kind, scientists from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration spent years painstakingly piecing together millions of sea-water temperature records made by hundreds of independent observers around the world over the past 50 years but never compiled into a single database."

http://www.climateark.org/articles/2000/1st/octerise.htm

[HereSince1628]

14. Well that posting is simply not supported by the science

If you want to read what the international consensus is you might consider pubs available through http://www.ipcc.ch

Its true that commonly used weather records are largely biased toward recent recordings mostly from populated, land areas. But there ARE other indicators of long term climate.

Ice cores, as well as lake and ocean sediments all track climatic conditions far back in time. And these show current warming. They also show some periods in which temperatures were WARMER than now. So it isn't yet as warm as it can get.

True there are variations in weather, and pumping heat into the atmosphere is going to make the weather more volatile. The consequence isn't uniform heating.

[Baclava]

16. Garbage in, Garbage Out."

The trouble is some people who use computers and provide mathematical simulation models don’t realize when inadequate amounts of accurate data are provided, producing a result that is either erroneous or the answers are "non-unique" – meaning there are other possible answers using the same data or information. That is the case with the numerous Global Climate Models that are present in the world today.

Mathematical manipulation by computers does not guarantee scientific accuracy. It has been presumed by most politicians and journalists and environmentalists, that CO2 is causing and will continue to cause Global Warming and something can and should be done about it. Their studies are generally encouraged, authorized, conducted and paid for as studies to prove the concept of "Global Warming", not with an objective of determining the actual scientific reasons for "Global Climate Change."

That is a normal practice of politically controlled scientific work that starts out with a specific objective and then attempts to determine the proof. In my opinion, the current resultant studies will not provide the necessary scientific answers to questions concerning climate change and our energy requirements and the survival of the world population.

A general consensus is not a realistic scientific objective.

[Selwynn]

60. Do you do anything other than plagiarize others?

"Mathematical manipulation by computers does not guarantee scientific accuracy. It has been presumed by most politicians and journalists and environmentalists, that CO2 is causing and will continue to cause Global Warming and something can and should be done about it. Their studies are generally encouraged, authorized, conducted and paid for as studies to prove the concept of "Global Warming", not with an objective of determining the actual scientific reasons for "Global Climate Change."

That is a normal practice of politically controlled scientific work that starts out with a specific objective and then attempts to determine the proof. In my opinion, the current resultant studies will not provide the necessary scientific answers to questions concerning climate change and our energy requirements and the survival of the world population. A general consensus is not a realistic scientific objective."

Yeah... I read that too. Word for word from http://www.vision.net.au/~daly/cooling.htm. This now the second time you've been called out on passing another source off as your own words, and its the same BAD source no less.

So, in the spirit of Matt Damon from Good Will Hunting I have to ask, is that... that what you do here? Do you just show up and forums and plagiarize other people's work without understanding it in order to tear down real discussion?

Do you like apples? Do ya? Well I got hard evidence. How do you like them apples? :)

[Baclava]

27. How about geologic evidence?

The planet earth is still coming out of a 90,000 year glacial period and warming during the recent 10,000 to 15,000 years is a natural result. Without such change in warming, we would still be in an ice age.

In Miocene times, about 15 million years ago, the evidence indicates the climate was about 10°F warmer than it is today. The CO2 concentration was significantly less than it is today, counter to most current GCM studies and IPCC assumptions. As a result, Miocene warmth must have resulted from mechanisms other than any excess CO2 in the atmosphere.

After Miocene, during the Pleistocene Age, the evidence indicates CO2 increased and was accompanied by global cooling. The East Antarctic Ice Sheet began to expand during this geologic time, also counter to most current published IPCC assumptions. Incidentally, it appears the East Antarctic Ice Sheet was present when the average of the earth’s temperature was 10°F warmer than it is today. There must have been some other controlling factors that have not been accounted for in today’s U.N. climate studies and computer models.

During the Cretaceous and Jurassic geologic periods (about 100 million years ago), CO2 levels were as much as 5 times greater than the current levels. The earth was warm and the dinosaurs flourished on the rich vegetation. The source of fossil fuels were produced in an abundance from vegetation growth during those geologic periods. Large volumes of limestone, reefs and carbonate rocks were also produced and deposited during that time, which sequestered vast amounts of CO2 that are still in storage.

This present interglacial period (Holocene) is now about 11,000 years old and this recent temperature record nearly matches the determined temperatures from the Pleistocene interglacial (warming) period almost 100,000 years ago. An Ice Age began developing right after that time. We are near the end of the Holocene and another period of cooling is expected to begin if the repetitive geologic history and climate record during the past 2 million years means anything.

There are so many factors which we don't just understand....

The sun and its electromagnetic output.
Changes in ocean currents.
Changes in the salinity of the ocean.
Changes in atmospheric circulation, water vapor and jet streams (all apparently unpredictable by current GCM’s for realistic estimates of potential future climate conditions).

[dpibel]

37. Dooood! You're, like, spooking me out!!

Here again, as in your posts #16 and 18, your great mind is running so exactly in the same channels as Fred L. Oliver that you choose the exact same words to display your deep knowledge as he does. You should check out his website at http://www.vision.net.au/~daly/cooling.htm, because I'm pretty sure you've never seen it. Man! It's like you were brothers, or soul mates, or something. Or a guy who knows how to do unattributed cut and paste stuff.

Next thing we know, you'll be saying "Al Gore’s book 'Earth in the Balance' could just as well be named 'The Road to World Socialism.'"

I mean, why not? Fred says it.

[Chovexani]

38. ROFL!

Once again, good catch. Funny how he's ignoring you though. :)

[Cannikin]

20. Let me guess, you think gays choose to be that way also?

[ldf]

32. i don't have any links to back me up

but it is my understanding that what you scoff at is actually what is happening.

you say:

"what I really love, is the contention that the cold spell is actually caused by global warming. Pretty counter-inutitive. Of course, it's the same statistically flawed argument, only in reverse."

yes, that is exactly what is happening.

the rise in global temperatures cause a massive melt of the ice caps. the colder water from the ice caps drop down to the bottom of the ocean, since colder water is heavier.

those cold water currents are the source of the massive air currents. when the water currents change, the weather patterns change, which results in unusual hot spells (see europe this last summer) and unusual cold spells (see what is happening right now in the east.

those changes in water currents (as a result of global WARMING) are what bring on the next ice age.

the right wing blowhards need to do a little research into the cause of climate change before they spew their garbage.

but hey, this is a chance to dump on al gore. accuracies and facts are irrelevant.

[Buffler]

50. I too think global warming

is a fraud and a lie. I do not believe it. Hell. I remember going to school in the late 70's and the doom and gloom predictions and teachings that we were headed for a new ice age.

A few links for people.

http://www.sepp.org/ <--- Headed by Dr. S. Fred Singer who Al Gore refuses to debate and cancelled an appearance on Larry King Live because Dr. Singer was also going to be on.

http://www.nationalcenter.org/Kyoto.html

http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA235.html

And if Al Gore is so concerned over global warming and they Kyoto Treaty why didn't he do a damn thing about it the entire time he was VP? The Kyoto Treaty went down to a crushing 95-0 defeat in the US Senate during the Clinton Admin.

[Q]

15. I don't pay much attention when crazy people...

...laugh at a serious debate.

[Karenina]

31. They won't be laughing

when their homes are flooded and they're hanging on to their toddlers for dear life to prevent them being swept away in the tide. :shrug:

[OneTwentyoNine]

22. Laugh all they want,it was 62 degrees in Wichita yesterday....

While we don't get tons of snow, Jan is our coldest month. Does 62 sound very cold to anyone for Jan 14th?

We haven't had a really cold,severe winter here in at least 10-12 years. Nah,Gore and the rest are full of shit,its no warmer than it used to be. Bullshit...


David

[Cannikin]

28. Precisely, I havent seen a snow that lasted more than a day here..

in Little Rock, AR. Its in the high 60's here today. It was barely above freezing just days ago. The weather here has been wild for several years. We no longer have an autumn or spring anymore..it just jumps between the two.

[Buffler]

52. Record lows

over and over again here in the Raleigh NC area this year so far.

[tinanator]

51. similar deal here

instead of a long overdue harsh freeze (12-14 years since the last) we had 70+ degree days last week. The summer basically never ended last year, and people AREN'T getting nervous? Gotta be some kinda deluded.

[camero]

23. They do this every winter.

But our winters are still getting warmer.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

59. I just moved back to Minneapolis six months ago

and I remember when we had a stretch of below-zero weather, up to a month long, every single year, and piles and piles of snow. I'm talking double digits below zero and snow at least to one's knees. Every single year.

So far, we've had one three-day stretch of single digits below zero and very little snow.

I was talking to some old-timers yesterday, and they find it spooky that there have been no "typical Minnesota winters" for about ten years.

I left Oregon in August, in the midst of the hottest summer I remember there in my 18-year residence. Everyone noticed, because it was like France on a miniature scale--few people have home air conditioning. Now they're having unaccustomed cold and snow.

It looks as if Oregon is getting the more extreme weather predicted by the global warming theory.

[BackDoorMan]

34. Here's two great links at "Crisis Papers"

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1218-01.htm

Leaders of one of the nation's top scientific organizations issued a new warning this week that human activities -- most notably the greenhouse gas emissions from power plants and other industries -- are warming Earth's climate at a faster rate than ever.

Earth Warming at Faster Pace, Say Top Science Group's Leaders
Statement by American Geophysical Union's council warns temperature change is real and human-caused

The statement came from the 28-member council of the American Geophysical Union, whose 41,000 members include more than 10,000 experts on the planet's atmosphere and changing climate.

Although the vast majority of climate researchers are persuaded that the evidence, combined with computer models, show that global warming is real and dangerous, a few scientists still hold to the view that most of the changes are due more to natural cycles than human-induced causes.

Lead scientist of the organization that circulated the statement is Robert Dickinson, professor of atmospheric sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. Another significant signer was John Christy, director of the University of Alabama's Earth Systems Science Center, a more cautious supporter of the idea that humans are causing climate change.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1204-04.htm

[plaguepuppy]

35. It's not the heat, it's the instability

As Lisa mentioned above, what may be more important in the near future is not average temperatures as much as an increased overall instability of the whole global climate system. Looked at as a feedback controlled system with multiple interacting feedback loops the world climate is extremely non-linear. Pushing one input variable doesn't just push the whole system a corresponding amount, it can cause a complete change of state to a qualitatively different climate regimen.

In the present situation we seem to be leaving an era of relatively mild and stable global climate and entering a more chaotic realm where extreme weather events become more common, and abrupt changes in global weather patterns become more likely. One likely example of this sudden pattern change involves the impending shutdown of the Gulf Stream, likely to begin in the next few years.

The Gulf Stream carries large amounts of heat to England and northern Europe, and the driving force involves the sinking of denser ocean water at the northern end of the flow. Losing water vapor to the cold dry air this part of the current grows more concentrated and so denser until it sinks and returns south along the ocean floor. Recent warming trends have increased the runoff of meltwater from surrounding snowfields and glaciers, which dilutes the water reaching the "sink zone". At some point quite soon it appears that this dilution will be enough to prevent the water from sinking at all, which would shut off the entire current. Needless to say the results for the involved population would be catastrophic, particularly in terms of agriculture.

[bvar22]

40. Meanwhile, 1500 miles west of frigid New England....

...Minnesota is on the way to a record WARM winter. In St Paul, we are basking in balmy temperatures (15 - 35 degrees F) since Christmas. The St Paul Ice Palace may melt next week if the heat wave continues. No snow on the ground, and no significant snow predicted for the near future.

[SoCalDem]

41. It should be referred to as :Global Climate Change

Surely warming is the eventual result, but it's the wide variances all over the world, that causes the extremes that we are seeing .. The ultimate end will be "warming", but it cannot be viewed as a "seasonal" thing.. In any given year the weather will vary, and that is not the "global warming" that the real scientists speak of..

Of course the simpletons on the hate radio stations see snow in the winter and say.."Hey..everything's COLD..there's no global warming".. But they rarely mention the HUGE chunks of ice that are starting to float into the shipping lanes, nor to they address the tundra thawing, or the snows of kilamanjaro melting.. The explantion for those things would confound their little pea-brains.

There can be no doubt that mankind has had a hige effect on the world in the last 400 years.. Up until then,nature pretty much ruled, and man had to work within the boundaries.. Once our machines overpowered mother nature, all bets were off..

[mrdmk]

43. Thank You

Here is the big problem. The ocean levels are raising, there will land that will be a lake or an ocean (I live in California, maybe it is a scam that Nevada wants to become beach front property). The climate does change over time, but does that mean that man as a leading contributor to changes all over this earth will not step back and say this is real, lets do something before we drown.

http://www.nasa.gov/missions/earth/jason_1.html

As always we may react when a total disaster occurs. I have an idea, lets build an Ark! This will show that man can beat nature better than working with it.

By the way, this is our government in the link above saying the ocean levels are rising.

[spanone]

44. Most of the world knows that Gore is right on about global warming

[Memekiller]

46. Here's an article...

Read Global Warming is Good For You which seeks and fails to find a scientist who'll say humans aren't warming the world at least partially due to burning fossil fuels. It also shows the tactics GW deniers use to bamboozle the public.

[Snivi Yllom]

47. i have to laugh

it is ass freezing cold here in NYC and he does look a little silly haveing a global warming speech when the Hudson River is frozen over today.

ya still have to love the guy for the cause

[hatrack]

49. Agree - bad timing, but that can't be helped

Somewhere in the world, no matter when he gave this speech, would have been unusually hot or unusually cold.

CEI or Frontiers Of Freedom or JunkScience.com or some other flat-earth society and their lackeys would then have promptly jumped all over this point event as proof that Gore was just a crazy green radical out to destroy America, and that climate destabilization was just something the Commies cooked up.

[rman]

62. people laugh when i talk of thermal insulation while it's summer

they fall silent when i tell them there'll be another winter some time in the future.

[BeFree]

53. Air Pollution is the problem

Anyone who thinks, Man, by the vaporization of stable matter, like oil and coal, does not change the Earth's vaporous atmosphere must not be thinking much.

How much change our actions effect the atmosphere are a cause for concern. But the root problem is air pollution, and that is a problem we can, and must fix, if for no other reason than it's the air we breathe.

[hatrack]

54. Oh, by the way - this just in

EDIT

"Both methane and carbon dioxide are key greenhouse gases. They absorb long-wave radiation and trap heat in the Earth's lower atmosphere. The research team says this makes northern Russian a major player in future global warming scenarios.

"The study shows the potential role of Siberian peatlands as a major piece of the greenhouse gas puzzle, both in the past and the future," said Glen MacDonald, chair of geography department at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), and co-author of the study published today in the research journal Science.

EDIT

The new study suggests the West Siberian Lowland alone accounts for between 7 to 26 percent of global carbon reserves accumulated since the last Ice Age. Globally, peatlands contain an estimated 550 billion tons (541 billion metric tons) of stored carbon. If this carbon sink were released back into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide gas, the consequences could be dire. Signs in northern Russia indicate this process may be about to start.

Smith said: "Sea ice is melting so quickly that it's at the lowest extent ever seen before. Shrubs are sprouting up in what used to be tundra. The growing season has lengthened, and the tree line may even be moving north. Studies have shown that permafrost is degrading at its southern boundaries, and permafrost temperatures are rising further north. There's no question that the Arctic is really heating up." Similar concerns exist in other countries. At an international climate change conference in Milan, Italy, last month, the conservation group Wildlife Habitat Canada warned that climate change modeling studies forecast very severe effects on peatlands in the mid-belt of Canada. Peatlands cover 12 percent of the country."

EDIT

[Ripley]

58. Here is some specific info on Ross Ice Shelf Collapse.

"This is the largest single event in a series of retreats by ice shelves in the Peninsula over the last 30 years. The retreats are attributed to a strong climate warming in the region. The rate of warming is approximately 0.5 degrees Celsius per decade, and the trend has been present since at least the late 1940s. Overall in the Peninsula, extent of seven ice shelves has declined by a total of about 13,500 km2 since 1974. This value excludes areas that would be expected to calve under stable conditions."

"While the breakup of the ice shelves in the Peninsula has little consequence for sea level rise, the breakup of other shelves in the Antarctic could have a major effect on the rate of ice flow off the continent. Ice shelves act as a buttress, or braking system, for glaciers. Further, the shelves keep warmer marine air at a distance from the glaciers; therefore, they moderate the amount of melting that occurs on the glaciers' surfaces. Once their ice shelves are removed, the glaciers increase in speed due to meltwater percolation and/or a reduction of braking forces, and they may begin to dump more ice into the ocean than they gather as snow in their catchments. Glacier ice speed increases are already observed in Peninsula areas where ice shelves disintegrated in prior years."

http://nsidc.org/iceshelves/larsenb2002/

But then again, who would believe scientists that spend decades studying these phenomena, when an "expert" in the oil industry can "prove" to us from his desk at the Heritage Foundation that global warming is a myth?

:eyes:

[plaguepuppy]

61. Not just an oil industry "expert"

"Over the past four years, I have attempted to become an informed layman on the subject of "Potential World Climate Change" -- I am neither a meteorologist, climatologist, nor an astrophysicist. I am a practicing professional petroleum geologist and engineer."

Boy, "attempted to become an informed layman," that's a pretty high level of expertise! And from "Dallas, Texas, USA" of all places, where so many good things have come from in the last 40 years.

"I'm going back to Dallas Texas,
to see if anything could be worse than losing you."

Austin Lounge Lizards


http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/video%20archive/BillHicksElite.mp3