My column today urges all Americans to see Al Gore’s film, “An Inconvenient Truth,” which offers overwhelming and conclusive scientific evidence that we’re in a world of hurt unless we take action — and soon — on global warming.
This issue underscores the point that it really does matter who we elect president. The contrast with President Bush is sad and striking. Bush hasn’t even grasped some basic facts about climate change.
Gore emerges in “Truth” as informed, passionate and inspiring — the kind of leader we deserve on this great moral challenge.
Posted by Randy Scholfield
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- CapnAmerica on Too many exemptions
- Phantom on Open thread 11/23
- Blaidd_Drwg69 on Too many exemptions
- Heckler on Open thread 11/23
- Phantom on Open thread 11/23
- Phantom on Open thread 11/23
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 11/23
- Phantom on Open thread 11/23
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 11/23
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 11/23
209 Comments
I’ve been trying to download it.. Been hard, not many people interested in it…
Millions of people across the nation have already seen this movie, and it is already the 5th largest-grossing documentary of all time. I was surprised at just how well-documented were the scientific conclusions revealed during the movie. This movie was not a political attack at all. It is NOT anything like Farenheit 911.Everyone should see this movie regardless what is your party affiliation.
My Yahoo site says the movie’s U.S. box office take has been a little over $15 million so far. It is doing a lot better than I thought it would. Randy says in his column linked above (which is worth reading) that the Premiere Palace will only have the movie in town until 07-20. Time is running out and I will have to see it early next week.
Like you so have to see this movie dude! Fo shisel!
That really wraps up Randy’s statement. It might as well have been made by a 15-year-old who just doesn’t think they are cool unless they have seen the latest movie.
I agree. Even better in my opinion is the Discover Channel movie to be aired this weekend (saw it last night)
My agreement is with Scholfield; not the idiocy of PL.
Yup, I read Randy’s column this morning. Randy’s piece, excellent. John Young’s article, well done. Jonathon Gurwitz, idiotic–but I guess they threw him in there for “balance.”
Where’s the balance when they run Cal Thomas, I’d like to know.
Randy’s exactly right–you’re not going to hear this anywhere else. Even if you disagree, you owe it to the FUTURE OF THE WORLD no less to know what you disagree with.
You also get to spend 90 minutes with our president-in-exile, the one who doesn’t sound like a moron.
Proud, have you seen the movie?
Actually, you CAN see it someplace else now – the Discovery Channel documentary this weekend.
Or, you can do what I did and read the scientific literature.
Actually, Ben, I hope they give both sides of the argument, with scientists familiar with the earth as an entity, and all its mirade nooks and crannies.Gore’s movie gave one side of the argument. kinda like only allowing the prosecution to have lawyers. There is little doubt man has had some influence on global warming. I would like to see proof of exactly how much effect he has had. Hopefully, the Discovery Channel documentary this weekend will answer that question.
If he wants All Americans to see Gore’s movie, then play it on broadcast television our give away free DVD’s. If it’s that important, then it should be made into the public domain and free.
I guess that is wishfull thinking. Gore needs to line with pockets with millions of dollars, so he can keep on going to his European Vacations and afford his fleet of Gulf Stream Jets.
JM – they did.
JW,Nuthin’ wrong with making some bucks, even if you are a Democrat. Besides private jets (admittedly not Gulfstreams) keep this town alive.
I agree with you Dennis. :)
Good column this morning Randy!
“Proud”? I’ll join XXX. Have you seen the movie? Are you perhaps afraid to see it? You might want to think about that.
Joe?
It costs money to make a movie you know. Gore did not make this movie by himself! The people who helped make the movie are entitled to get paid aren’t they? I’m sure every single one of them is proud to have been part of it but they still have to eat!
YOU have no way to know what the future distribution of this movie is. I think it would be nice if you witheld charges like you posted until time tells. Further, if you can prove that Gore owns “a fleet of gulfstream jets” then do so. If not then don’t post it.I wonder why such a limited run for this movie? I intend to see it early next week.
I offer this challenge to those on the right: SEE THIS MOVIE!! Have the intellectual curiousity and open mind and concern for the planet that bush clearly does NOT have. Gore cannot bring the movie to your house at your convenience. He DID offer to do so for YOUR president. But the gutless blunder is too chickenshit to accept. Therefore it falls to you as his “second”. See the movie or post as to it no more. I call that only fair.
Ben (or anyone) When is broadcast of this Discovery channel program?
Sunday evening – not sure what time
Google it JR. “al gore gulfstream jet” Numorus Links.
Man! You’re all defensive with Al Gore. “Prove it or Don’t post it”
Look! I hope AL Gore and the people that made this film make boatloads of cash. I hope they make massive profit.
But don’t ask me to see it for the sake of spending my hard earn money. If you want EVERYBODY to see it, then make it available on PBS. All those documentaries on PBS don’t go to movie theaters and ask for $10 a ticket? They still cost money to produce.
It’s all marketing and every clever marketing. I know you can make millions off the greenies and the liberal Democrats, I’m trying to see if I can too. It’s a great market to tap into.
http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/globalwarming/globalwarming.html?clik=netmain_feat1
XXX,
No I haven’t seen the movie. I’m really strange in that I don’t turn to the theater for information. Even documentaries. In this day and age if it’s not M. Moore then it’s some nut telling us how no planes crashed into the Pentagon.
I stand by my original (if poorly worded) statement. Randy’s blog entry is like listening to some teenager who thinks some movie is the most important event going on.
JR,
No, I don’t fear movies. Only impulse driven simpleton’s do.
O good, Ben just told me they did. Now I don’t have to watch.
Randy does seem to be a documentary fan. I remember him plugging the “March of Penguins” – which was good, but was what good television should be, in my opinion.
PM has got a point. Television news is entertainment and movie documentaries are considered unbiased sources of fact.
Things seem backward.
Michael Moore was unbiased?
Joe,Some people see Michael Moore that way. The same people who see Fox News as biased. I am sure you are not in that goup.
I am a hybrid, I think Moore is biased and Fox News is, too.
I think Moore is biased, but Fox News, only the commentators are biased. Not the actual news reporting.
CNN Headline news just recently got Glenn Beck, a known staunch conservative. And Fox News still has the ultimate conservative Hannity side with a moderate Democrat Colmes.
It just depends on what you think. But actual news reporting on Fox News is not biased, but the exact same stuff everybody else does.
By the way. More fodder for our ultimate doom.
“First Half of 2006 Is Warmest on Record”http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/07/14/D8IRSULOB.html
50000 wildfires – what fun! And the Great Experiment continues …
Preconcieved conclusions seem to be the norm here today, with the exception of DD. Michael Moore IS a one sided shill; Fox news IS one sided; Gore’s movie IS one sided.
But the preconception is what gets me: I read this and that, and both agreed with my position, therefore, they are correct. I read the other, and he did not agree with my position, therefore, he is incorrect, biased and a phony.
I read ALL sides, blantant one-sided material excluded, whenever I can find appropriate material, and base my judgement on what I read. What I stay away from are people like Michael Moore, for the simple reason I know his view is going to be biased.
I watched news about Moore’s Movie about 9/11, and cracked up every time I heard the audiance stood up and cheered at the end. I was waiting for some Moore junky to launch into a speil about how he was gonna go out and kick him some ‘publikin butt. I don’t consider that a documentry, I consider it a Moore-mentry, with the only purpose of spreading Moore garbage and making him money.
I saw a documentry about some college that hired him for a whatever. They fought tooth and nail with a biased, moronic town, who did anything they could to stop Moore from speaking.
The bottom line was Moore did speak, and told them . . . basically nothing. His main objective, it seemed to me, was to get the audiance rilled up and get as much applause as he could. Virtual nonsense. And for that he got something like $40,000.
I would have to put Gore’s movie in the same class ; designed to get the response he hoped for, but politically useless because of its one sidedness. If he included different arguments, and did so in an intellectually stimulating way, then I might agree with his premise. But that is not what he was shooting for.
The great experiment may be continuing, but whose watching the watchers?
You saw the movie then J M?
Ooops I was not clear.
You saw both movies then J M? Fahrenheit 911 and An Inconvenient Truth?
Gore’s movie is one-sided because the scientific community is in agreement that human beings are contributing to a faster than normal climate warming. Saying it is one-sided, therefore, is not a valid criticism. But this movie is NOT one-sided in the sense that it is a political statement like F 911, which clearly was a political statement. I saw both movies, by the way.
Documentaries aren’t necessarily made to show both sides of an issue. At least I’ve never seen one that was. It’s like a middle school science experiment. You have a hypothesis, and then you go on to prove your theory. That’s what documentary does.
Don’t believe me? Check out the list of Oscar nominees and winners since 1943, and then tell me there was never a bias in a documentary.
http://awardsdatabase.oscars.org/ampas_awards/DisplayMain.jsp?curTime=1152924023802
All profits from the movie and book are being given to this organization, http://www.allianceforclimateprotection.org/ which will be showing ads soon. Mr. Gore isn’t keeping any proftis, and any travel he makes in getting this message out is offset. He is walking the walk, and this is an important movie that must be seen regardless of your political party. We owe nothing less to our children.
Joe, J M, Proud?
I give youkelly, RD, and ESPECIALLY Jan!Nice catch Jan! You even scooped Randy who SHOULD have noted what you did.
Game, set, match.
I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt. And I thank them for doing that, but I check out the site.
Looks like only 5% of tickets sales are going to the cause. Not all of the profits.
http://www.allianceforclimateprotection.org/PR_5-10.php
Try again!
Michael Moore is biased — I agree with him on most things, however. (There are some exceptions that I won’t elaborate on here).
Fox News is biased. I watched them in June while on vacation and they repeatedly said “Democrats were in trouble” – when polling data was clearly saying just the opposite. They were having fits of bliss over the capture of the “terrorists” in Florida (a bunch of wanna-bes); were estatic about the finding of WMD in Iraq (that hadn’t worked since 1991), etc., etc. It was pathetic. So, their bias bothers me more.
I am going to see Gore’s movie. He may be biased, but I share his premises about man’s effect on global warming. If I get the chance I will tell you what I thought about it.
Not so fast Joe.
From Joe’s link of Jans link:
.”AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH,” produced by Participant Productions which had previously pledged to contribute their profits to the Alliance was acquired by Paramount Classics at the 2006 Sundance Film Festival.
Looks like Participant Productions had the best of intentions and Paramount Classics had other ideas!
Paramount DID make a minimum commitment of $500,000to the organization from the as yet unknown profits of a movie that they had seen but had not released yet.
Try again Joe.
Al “I invented the climate” Gore voted against the Kyoto treaty.
He’s nothing more than a lying sack of horse poop.
RD,”Documentaries aren’t necessarily made to show both sides of an issue.”
I disagree. Documentaries, by the very name, are meant to document events, be they political, historical, musical or any other genre. By showing only one side of an argument, and attempting to call it a documentary, is failing to adhere to what a documentary should be.
How can one document something, showing only one side, when there may be multiple sides available? That is not documenting, in my opinion, that is biased reporting.
I have not seen Fahrenheit 911 and have no intention of seeing it for the simple reason I think Moore is a waste of time. As I said, he wants nothing more than to incite and make a buck doing so.
I will probably see Gore’s movie some time, but I have no plans to go out of my way to do so. I will even go with an open mind, or attempt to anyway. But I do have a “preconception” that it will be biased to show only what he wants people to see. If I am proved wrong, I’ll be the first to admit it. JR knows I’m capable of that.
SIGH
JR! Nice Democrat cherry picking there.
Lets just post the very 1st paragraph. Since that has the most meaning.
NOTE THE 5% IN THE FIRST PARAGRAPH!
From the link:
HOLLYWOOD, CA (May 10, 2006)- Paramount’s Classics has committed 5% of their domestic theatrical gross for their film, “AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH,” with a minimum guarantee of $500,000 to be donated to a new bipartisan climate effort, Alliance for Climate Protection. The deal was announced today by Former Vice President Al Gore, Jeff Skoll, CEO, Participant Productions and John Lesher, President of the specialty division. This unprecedented donation runs the entire length of the film’s domestic release.
Try again!
I DO know that J M. You are among the few of the long timers on this forum whose views have changed in any significant way. I’ve acknowledged that before and I do so again.
I should acknowledge here that when J M posted about the audience for Fahrenheit 911, he depicted me almost uncomfortably accurately. I AM that fist pumping, Republican hating, give me even more reasons to hate george bush viewer he portrayed.
That said, where was the counter movie to Fahrenheit 911? Where was the movie that showed bush as a brilliant leader on the job?
I DID watch a cable movie that showed bush as a brilliant and thoughtful leader. It was laughable. It depicted bush flying into New York with a soundtrack of “Glory Hallelujah” It showed staffers advising bush not to climb the rubble pile and a starry eyed Kathryn Hughes saying with rapt love “the people want to hear their president!” So I DO view the “other side”. I TRY to respect it. So far it aint respectable. Don’t tell me that the money is not there to make such a movie….cause it is. The problem my perception is that “there is no there there” And so JM, you might want to check out Fahrenheit 911. It is too late for it to make a difference. But not to late to consider why Moore tried.
In defense of Michael Moore, I would remind that he made his first film “Roger and Me” with his very last dime. It made him rich. Does that make the film less relevant? It addressed the very real problems of corporate greed and outsourcing.
Does power corrupt and has Moore become a peddler of what sells to a particular crowd? Well I await his next film “Sicko” about the problems with health care in America. He is basing it mostly on the stories he is sent from folks with no health care. We will see.
If there was a movie that showed human caused global warming as some sort of lie or anti-American plot I would go see it. But there is no such movie. We have the right and the oil companies and talk radio to shill that view. I DO pay attention to those forums. I don’t find them credible. Putting it in a more revealing forum might reveal that “there is no there there” at least that’s my take.
But at the heart of this debate is the greater good.
If we listen to Gore. If we address human caused global warming proactively what is lost? Our depedence on foreign oil? Our embrace of technology now a century and more old instead of investing in newer cleaner technologies? The cost in blood and treasure of maintaining that status quo?
Can ANYONE defend that?
YOU try again Joe!
I pasteposted the SECOND paragraph of your link. YOU know, the one that explained why the original intent of Gore/Participant productions to donate ALL proceeds from the movie to the Alliance for Climate Protection was changed to the 5% or 500 million dollars that Paramount committed to AFTER it aquired Participant in the FIRST paragraph which YOU cite?
Joe? You lost this one. Quit digging yourself deeper.
Try Again!
Uncherry picked word for word your second paragraph. [ ] <– will be used to indicate emphasis.
“”AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH,” produced by Participant Productions [which had previously pledged to contribute their profits to the Alliance was acquired by Paramount Classics at the 2006 Sundance Film Festival.] It is a riveting documentary that weaves the science of global warming with former Vice President Al Gore’s personal history and longtime commitment to communicating the need to reverse the effects of global climate change. The film opens in New York and Los Angeles on May 24 and will expand to every major market across the country.”
This means that Participant Productions no longer has the rights to the film and WHICH HAD PREVIEOUSLY means that they would, but it never happend.
Since Paramount Classics owns the rights to the film and all box office reciepts. This will revert back to the first paragraph.
HOLLYWOOD, CA (May 10, 2006)- Paramount’s Classics has committed 5% of their domestic theatrical gross for their film, “AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH,” with a minimum guarantee of $500,000
It is now just 5% of gross. Again! I congradulate them for doing it. Alliance for Climate Protection seems to be a good cause. But no where does it say that Al Gore is giving up all his profit, nor Paramount Classics would either.
Nice try again.
Go again please!
So what does Randy recommend we do besides watchthe movie?
Cmon, have some balls Randy!
Are you walking to work? Do you have your a/c turned off?
Sigh…….
Joe you just do not know when to quit do you?
The intention of Participant productions……and by association Al Gore was to donate ALL proceeds from the film to the Alliance for Climate Protection. ( cited 2nd paragraph your link) Participant Productions was acuqired by Paramount Classic BEFORE the movie was widely released. That puts Paramount in the drivers seat as to distribution of the profits from the movie.
Now you COULD argue that Participant and by association Gore “sold out” OR you could stop and think about how this importatant movie could be seen by the widest audience possible. You know, like getting a major producer to distribute it?
Paricipant (and Gore?) got Paramount to commit to 5% or 500,000 dollars MINIMUM contribution to the Alliance for Climate Protection based on the films receits. It should be noted that as the movie has now earned at least 15 million dollars the contribution to the Alliance would stand now at $750,000.
Try again Joe.
SIGH
citing yours again.
“The intention of Participant productions……and by association Al Gore [[[WAS]]] to donate ALL proceeds from the film to the Alliance for Climate Protection.
Key word in the english langauge. WAS! That means they didn’t.It was their intention, but that is not what took place. That means that profits are still being racked in by a corporation for this film.
Try again!
You are never going to win, but I welcome your re-hash and spin. I’ll just swing back with the facts.
Any other source you care to try to find that shows that Al Gore and the people that own the film donated all of their profits? I welcome it.
I have cited the original intent of Gore and the production company that made the film.
I have cited that they did what they could to get the film it’s widest possible audience.
In doing so, I have exposed that the intent of Gore was to get the movie seen as widely as possible, fund a cause to address the problems addresssed in the movie, and NOT to “line his own pockets” as YOU Joe posted that he was attempting to do.
YOU owe an apology to Gore and his intent Joe.
I’ll not hold my breath waiting for it.
It is a rare Republican that will ever see the ‘Truth’, Gore’s or anyone elses.
. A Man for All Seasons2. Chariots of Fire3. Therese4. King of Kings5. The Ten Commandments6. Johnny Belinda7. Quo Vadis?8. Carnal Knowledge9. Ten10. Tender Mercies11. Three Godfathers12. The Bicycle Thief13. My Left Foot14. Stand and Deliver15. Lean on Me16. Meet Me in St. Louis17. Little Women18. Since You Went Away19. Penny Serenade20. How Green Was My Valley21. Fort Apache22. She Wore a Yellow Ribbon23. Rio Grande24. The Quiet Man25. The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp26. A Canterbury Tale27. I Know Where I’m Going28. Dumbo29. Mr. Deeds Goes to Town30. You Can’t Take It with You31. Mr. Smith Goes to Washington32. Meet John Doe33. It’s a Wonderful Life34. My Darling Clementine35. Sergeant York36. Yankee Doodle Dandy37. Red Dawn38. The Hanoi Hilton39. Rambo: First Blood Part II40. The Deer Hunter41. Heartbreak Ridge42. Wake Island43. Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo44. That Hamilton Woman45. King’s Row46. Knute Rockne All American47. The Inner Circle48. Ninotchka49. Marie Antoinette50. A Tale of Two Cities51. Viva Villa52. There Was a Crooked Man53. The Next Voice You Hear54. Going My Way55. The Song of Bernadette56. Lilies of the Field57. High Noon58. The Fountainhead59. A Tree Grows in Brooklyn60. The Yearling61. I Remember Mama62. Father of the Bride63. Father’s Little Dividend64. Sounder65. Baby Boom66. Judge Priest67. State Fair68. Shane69. Drums Along the Mohawk70. Ruggles of Red Gap71. To Kill a Priest72. Man of Marble73. One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich74. Animal Farm75. Eleni76. Dr. Zhivago77. Invasion of the Body Snatchers78. Ghostbusters79. Too Hot to Handle80. White Nights81. Forbidden Planet
*Most, but not all, of NR’s Best Conservative Movies are available.just for grins here’s a list of conservative movies notice any repeated themes. If Al Gore would make global warming into a plot by muslim extremist groups and american defense contractors with there positive outlook and can do attitude who we all know started from humble beginings with the grace of god solved everything than it would be a hit.
—–
I just read a fasciniting article in July’s Scientific American (Yes Ben, I do read) which basically states people are biased toward what they already believe to be true, and when they read or hear something that reinforces that believe, the brain rewards them.
A test was done during the 2004 presidential elections using 30 men, half strong republicans, the other half strong democrats. Both were tasked with assesing statements by both Bush and Kerry in which both candidates cleary contradicted themselves. The result was the republicans were as critical of Kerry as the democrats were of Buish, yet both groups let their own candidate off the hook.
Neuroimaging results showed no activity in the reasoning part of the brain, but showed much activity in the ventral striatum, which is related to reward and pleasure.
The conclusion clearly shows a predisposition towards one beliefs to the exclusion of reasoning facts. Which makes an earlier statement I wrote, “But the preconception is what gets me: I read this and that, and both agreed with my position, therefore, they are correct. I read the other, and he did not agree with my position, therefore, he is incorrect, biased and a phony.” more true than I realized.
It would seem that skepticism is a more valued way of thinking than what has been expressed by Ben, JR, Joe and many others. I especially would think Ben would be more prone to the skeptics way of thinking since he professes to be a scientist, and science has skepticism as its basis. Hence the double blind tests on all scientific theories.
I seriously doubt this info will have any effect whatsoever on anybodys way of thinking since many are locked in to their beliefs. But it does reinforce my way of thinking, which has been skepticle at all times. Well, except my opinion of Moore: He translates into a 100% useless a**hole in my book, and if my brain tells me I feel better for thinking so, hey, who am I to argue.
I appolgize to Gore and was wrong in speculating his intent.
And one last thing. I’m a real man with principals. No! I do not subcribe to the left. That doesn’t make me dump or a hater of people on the left.
Unlike how you hate.
I applogize on Gore in that “Other Thread”. Because I’m a real man and I will applogize. Unlike you. Don’t worry! I’ll never hold my breath for you.
You want to push the mountain on me? Look at yourself bro! I’m no hater!
JM – I WAS skeptical when I first heard about the warming issue several decades ago. However, the overwhelming evidence that I have seen over these decades has thoroughly convinced me. I guess it is similar to the smoking/health issue which took a long time to take hold.
Whenever I encounter an issue I take a skeptical position. I then examine the evidence and draw conclusions based thereupon. So, with nuclear power I am a supporter – that is where the evidence drives me. With trash I advocate waste-to-energy for a significant fraction – that is where the evidence drives me. In both of these I am at odds with the ‘politically correct’ so-called leftist positions. I don’t really care about politically correct.
I don’t think Kansas has an incineration plant. I could be wrong, but I don’t think we have one.
That means we probably have one . . .
By the way, LRB, you said that Gore “voted against the Kyoto Protocals” a couple of time now . . .
What does the Vice President get to vote on, other than to break ties in the Senate?
Do you have a link for that?
Actually the vote was 99 to 0 against Kyoto. One Senator wasn’t present or it would be unanimous.
Hmmmm… How did Liberal Democrats vote against it? Maybe because they saw some serious flaws in it. They all voted against it, not because of the enviromental protocals, but because it singularly handicaps the USA and lets the other nations, especially huge pollutors like China and India to be exempt.
It was basically an anti-USA, anti-capitalist agenda.
Even the liberal Democrats saw through that crap!
Sorry I’m late.
I would like to acknowledge that Joe was wrong and admitted it. I call that good on him. It does remind us not TOO stridently to defend a position without researching it better.
I for instance know almost nothing about Kyoto and so will not post to it until I know more.
Again, Good on you Joe!
Be,I, too, am for nuclear energy and trash to energy, and for much the same reasons. But I am still not a firm believer in mans’ being the culprit in global warming preciscly for the very reason I have read so many varied reasons for global warming by so many scientists, that I think a consensus is, in my opinion, not quite there yet. Too little is fully understood about carbon cycle, solar influence, and the earth’s actions as a weather generator for me to draw a final conclusion. I remain a skeptic, and until I read enough to tilt my opinion either way, I will remain one. And do so with appoligizes to no one.
I think its a combination of both. But I believe more natural forces than greenhouse man produce gases are the cause of global climate change.
I can’t say what the percentage split is, but there is plenty of evidence to show that the earth is on a forward progressing warming cycle of it’s usual precession of ice age/ warm age cycles.
Joe is still batting 1000 . . . wrong, of course.
From The National Resources Defense Council website:
Q. Did the U.S. Senate vote against ratifying the Kyoto Protocol?
A. No. The protocol has never been submitted to the senate for ratification. The Bush administration has referred to a vote on the non-binding Byrd-Hagel resolution, which registered views on some aspects of protocol negotiations. The vote on the Byrd-Hagel resolution took place prior to the conclusion of the Kyoto agreement, and before any of the flexibility mechanisms were established. The resolution was written so broadly that even strong supporters of the Kyoto Protocol, such as senators Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.) and John Kerry (D-Mass.) voted for it. In doing so, Sen. Kerry said: “It is clear that one of the chief sponsors of this resolution, Senator Byrd . . . agrees … that the prospect of human-induced global warming as an accepted thesis with adverse consequences for all is here, and it is real…. Senator Lieberman, Senator Chafee and I would have worded some things differently… [but] I have come to the conclusion that these words are not a treaty killer.”
http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/akyotoqa.asp
If I was wrong as consistently as Joe is on this blog, I would be too embarrassed to keep posting.
You’d think that once in while one of his facts would be right by SHEER ACCIDENT!
JM……obviously the “reports” you read is the spin by the energy company supported RWing. You definitely need to read the book entitled “The Republican War on Science” by Chris Mooney. Incidentally, this book does support many of Gore’s assertions about global climate change due to increased levels of carbon dioxide levels in our atmosphere that just happen to correspond with increased world industrialization.
Joe – actually, we have passed what should have been the Milankovitch peak in the ice/warm cycle.
While agree that reducing pollution as much as possible, minimizing waste and recycling are all great practices that we must do, I honestly do not think that we can stop or slow down the so called “global warming trend”.
We don’t need smog and brown clouds. But to suggest that it’s all our fault and we must do something to stop global warming is misleading.
It would be better if we just suggest that we stop global pollution, not global warming.
They ARE sorta the same Joe.
There is nothing to be lost from addressing the very real possibility of human caused global warming proactively. And I have to go for now.
Again! Pinko! I’m right and your posted shows it. The Senate voted for provisions that must be in place if it were ever to ratify the treaty on Kyoto. Those were not in place, so they, in a sense, rejected Kyoto.
I even explained the reason why that all Senators agreed to this. It has everything to do with China and India.
So I wasn’t wrong? Who are you anyways? What are your other handles?
Here is the truth!
Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia wrote Resolution S. 98 that opposed ratification of Kyoto if it did not comply with certain concerns, the primary one being the exemption of developing nations like China and India from its requirements. The resolution was passed on July 25, 1997. The text of the Kyoto Protocol was ready for signature at the United Nations headquarters on March 16, 1998. The Protocol has not yet been ratified by Russia, whose signature is needed before it can become effective and binding on all signers.
As recently as October 30, 2003, Senator Byrd stated, “The Kyoto Protocol, in its current form, does not comply with the requirements of Senate Resolution 98.” He continued: “S. Res. 98 directed that any such treaty must include new scheduled commitments for the developing world in addition to any such requirements for industrialized nations but requirements would be binding and mandatory and lead to real reductions in the emissions of greenhouse gases over time. This is clearly different than the minimal, vague, and voluntary commitments that we are currently pursuing.”
This was a reference to the Bush Administration. Byrd also emphasized that “developing nations, especially the largest emitters, need to be a part of any binding global climate change treaty.”
President Clinton and Al Gore were unsuccessful in getting the signers of Kyoto to include the developing nations. Knowing that the Kyoto Protocol would not be passed without the inclusion of developing countries in some way, Clinton did not even send the Protocol to the U.S. Senate for ratification.
Thanks for admitting that Gore never voted against the Kyoto Protocol because it never even came up for a vote and he couldn’t have voted against it anyway since he was not even a voting member of Congress (since he was Vice President).
The opposition of the Democrats against the Kyoto Protocols was that it didn’t go far enough.
So it’s totally disingenuous to say that they “opposed” the Kyoto Protocols and voted against it when they wanted it to include more nations than just the industrialized ones . . .
JM – are you also skeptical about the claims that smoking can harm your health? After all, there IS controversy there.
You’re right Pinko!
Gore and Scholfield are both wrong. Richard S Lindzen, professor at MIT’s Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, and a member of the National Academy of Sciences 11 member committe on climate change, says that there is no agreement on global warming. “—the full report (made) clear that there is no consensus, unanimous or otherwise, about long term climate trends and what causes them.”Lindzen recently told the National Press Club in Washington D.C., “Do you believe in global warming? That is a religious question. So is the second part: are you a skeptic or a believer?”"—if whatever you are told is alleged to be supported by ‘all scientists’, you don’t have to understand anymore. You simply go back to treating it as a matter of religious belief.”Lindzen’s speach was titled, “Climate Alarmism: The Misuse of ‘Science.”Global warming hucksters have yet to prove that the Earth really is warming, but that alone is not enough. Even if the Earth is warming, we have gone through warming and cooling trends since Creation or the Big Bang, take your pick.Sun Spots would be the most likely cause of any warming, if it is happening.Carbon Dioxide is a minute portion of all “greenhouse gases,” water vapor is far more concentrated in the atmnosphere.However, you can’t beat up on industry by worrying about water vapor, and you can’t really control water vapor.Trees and plant life do put out water vapor, of course, but big bad mean industry and humans produce CO-2.I want Al Gore to win the primary, so that we can have a chance to absolutely put this junk science to rest.Global warming is a massive hoax!Paul F. RosellWichita
Ben,I’m not going to get into an apples/oranges thing with you. Stay focused. Save smoking for a smoking thread:-)
Heh, nice cut and paste job from rushlimbaugh.com, Paul.
It’s true that this guy is from MIT’s Earth Science Department and he did give that speech a couple of years ago for a group that calls itself free trade.
But not only did he talk about the alarmism on climate change, he also had this to say:
“Claims to the contrary generally assume Kyoto is only the beginning of an ever more restrictive regime. However this is hardly ever mentioned,” he added.
“The Kyoto Protocol, which Russia recently ratified, aims to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases to 1990 levels by the year 2010. But Lindzen claims global warming proponents ultimately want to see a 60 to 80 percent reduction in greenhouse gasses from the 1990 levels. Such reductions would be economically disastrous, he said.
“If you are hearing Kyoto will cost billions and trillions,” then a further reduction will ultimately result in “a shutdown” of the economy, Lindzen said.”
*****
Oh, so he’s an expert in macro-economics too, eh?
The guy strikes me as a bit of a crackpot–how does he know what targets on greenhouse gasses will ultimately be set?
I think the logicians call that the “straw man.” He doesn’t argue against what environmentalists want–he argues about what they SECRETLY want.
Ah, okay, he can READ THEIR MINDS.
Great, ought to find Osama while he’s at it.
Also, how does he have any idea what will happen by reducing greenhouse gasses. I think it’s quite likely we could develop wind and solar power (or even nuclear) that could then be used for a hydrogen, ethanol, and bio-diesel economy.
He doesn’t even consider it. He just spouts off how it will “destroy the economy.”
Where did he get the degree in economics?
*****
Okay, in every scientific debate you can find a few wack-os. There are Ph.D’s who argue that astronauts couldn’t have walked on the moon, too.
The fact is that scientists predicted that rising CO2 would lead to hotter temperatures, and that’s exactly what has happened.
We could wait until Miami, New York, and San Francisco are under water, but I suspect even then they’ll be Republicans claiming that it’s not OUR fault, the sun is just getting hotter or something . . .
You are a little late Paul.
We discussed “Dr.” Lindzen last week on a similar thread.
Here is the summation of what you missed.
Lindzen is a paid flack for the energy industries. His position on this matter is documented as well paid for. He is NOT credible.
I grow tired of asking this.
Please name for me ONE just ONE downside to addressing global warming as a human caused or aggravated threat and addressing it proactively.
Do NOT cite for me the negative fiscal impact on oil and fossil energy companies. I put the environmental health of the planet vastly above their bottom line. I cannot imagine anyone that does not.
By the way.
The program on global warming that Ben has mentioned is called “Global Warming: what you need to know” It airs Sunday night from 8 to 10 on the Discovery Channel.
It may be too late to suggest this. But the Editors might consider a thread similar to the one they had for the State of the Union……one that would allow viewers/posters of the Discovery Channel program to post running commentary during the program. Just an idea.
JM – my point about the smoking “controversy” is that the current so-called climate “controversy” is the same.
Lindzen said that their was no clear consensus, nobody else, none of the other 10 members of the NAS study, refutes Lindzen on this point. All of the quotes I have posted here were VERY recent quotes, all of them came AFTER the first showing of Gore’s stupid movie.Name one real scientist, anywhere, that can state categorically, with “No wiggle room” (as a CNN reporter falsely claimed) that global warming is happening and is caused by humans.While you are at it, explain to me why Mars is warming, and how many SUV’s we should allow on Mars, in order to correct that problem? You liberals make my case, you want government programs, and you search for reasons to promote them. You question the motives of Lindzen. I, however, question the motives of liberals who are always pushing for various government controls.Defending oil companies, who employ thousands of people and pay millions of dollars in tax revenue, and provide retirement funds for millions of Americans, is not evil.Lindzen is right.At the very least, Lindzen WAS a member of the NAS committee, Al Gore was not.Lindzen proves, by his voice alone, that this matter is far from settled.Again, none of the other 10 members of the NAS study has attacked Lindzen’s logic at all.The attacks come from the political left, not from true scientists.
Sighhhhhhhhh
Same old same old. Mars yada sunspots yadablah.
I asked a question upthread. Why not try answering it? Everything you post so far I have already seen. It does not answer my question.
Paul?
“Gores stupid movie”
Have you seen it?
No, I have not seen Gore’s stupid movie. I would not go see a Pro KKK movie or a pro Al-queda movie either. Why support enemies of the United States with my money? I do consider Al Gore a political opportunist, however his “Earth First” wacko crowd of followers is radically anti American.The reviews of Gore’s movie are everywhere. The facts are the facts. I have read Gore’s “Earth in the Balance” book, which is likewise full of errors. I found that at a garage sale.Special effects and audio visuals can sway weak minds, I suppose, Goebbels taught us that.Gore’s followers are idiots and I don’t wish to be another lemming going over the cliff.
Paul?
“NO I have not seen Gores stupid movie.”
My what an open minded and informed person you are!
The rest of your post is a spittle laced, partisan, ditto head rant.
And you STILL did not answer my question.
I would like to spare you some intellectual effort and attempts at understanding. I know these must be difficult for you.
I predict a rough road for you here Paul.
I think you are going to feel surrounded by “stupid” “wacko” “radically anti American” “enemies of the United States”! I guess you can count me as the first? Your posts already demonstrate a great deal of anger. I worry for your blood pressure!
As one of those “stupid wacko radical anti-Americans” I recommend that you watch the Discovery show. In addition, I wish for Paul that which Ann Coulter wishes for the New York Times reporters.
Radical enviro-nuts, won’t let even the most impoverished countries use DDT, and therefore millions die of malaria that would not have to.Radical enviro-nuts told us Alar was dangerous to use on apples. Europe still uses Alar with no side effects, but the radicals have now made US apples more expensive.Radical enviro-nuts won’t allow use of Freon gas, even though many third world countries now cant afford to refridgerate food, drugs or hospitals anymore.Radical environmentalists are the people full of hate and anger. They blow people up, like the Unibomber, who had Al Gore’s book in his shack.Radical environmentalists put “spikes” in trees, which cause death and injury to foresters.Sorry, but Gore’s followers have shown a disrespect for human life, and seem to choose some weird “Earth God” over human existance, every time they get the chance.Look folks, you tar the oil industry, or all industry for that matter, with a broad brush.How can you protest when I do the same to you???If Lindzen can be disregarded because he agrees, at times, with the oil companies, why can’t Gore be disregarded for agreeing with the unibomber?Logic folks, try a little logic.If you want to stick to the facts of this case, fine.However, personal attacks seem to be what many of you are most comfortable with.I do not trust the average environmentalist to have my country’s best interest at heart, or human kind as a whole for that matter.So I don’t buy the “global warming” hype.
And Paul, I sure as HELL don’t trust you to do ANY sort of science.
“personal attacks seem to be what many of you are most comfortable with.”
Do you mean things like “radically anti American, idiots, Goebbels, Radical enviro-nuts”
I see you just love to dish it out but then whine like the spoiled baby you are whenever you receive it in return.
You know, Paul F. Rosell reminds me of one of those old time John Birchers.
And look what a google search turns up?
“Did you see the recent CBS crime drama “Cold Case” — it was based on the old “Red Scare” “Black List” theme. A man is murdered durning the McCarthy era because someone is worried he will reveal sources to the Committee on Un-American Activities. No, this was not a news piece, but it comes out of CBS with all the bias of any of their so called news pieces. The case of Julius and Ethel Rosenburg was brought up repeatedly, though somewhat vaguely. At no time did anyone bother to inform the public that these “martyrs” provided WMD (NUCLEAR) technology to the Communist USSR. CBS has never really thought that Communism was a bad thing, and CBS has always hated anyone who stood firmly opposed to Communism. McCarthy went to far, in some instances the cure might be shown to be worse than the disease. However, there WAS a Communist “disease” in America, there still is. It amazes me that Hitler sympathizers are seen as so much worse than Stalinist sympathizers. Hitler and Stalin were equally evil. The MSM, the liberal elite, don’t get this point.”
Paul F. Rosell
Hey Ben;Of all people on this thread, you are the one I expected to come up with a name.Come on Ben, name one other member of the 11 member NAS climate group that disagrees with Lindzen’s public comments about that group’s findings???Come on Ben.I have faith in you!Lindzen says that there is no consensus on global warming.Name another member of the NAS study group that disagrees with Lindzen on that point!
That nest of Commie Pinkos . . . you know, CBS!
Some people need an enemy so badly, don’t they.
Paul – I have posted innumerable links to sites with the details of that science and those scientists. However, after enduring all your name-calling hate-spew you quite simply are not worth it.
You are a typical science-hating rightie-wacko radical idiot fascist.
However Paul, I will repeat my suggestion that you watch the Discovery piece – they have a number of scientists on it.
Good catch Sarah! And welcome to the forum? I don’t THINK I’ve seen you before.
Well Paul how about it?
Is that little bit Sarah found from you?
BenI accept your admission of defeat.No other member of the 11 member NAS climate study group claims that any consensus was reached, on actual warming or the cause of any warming.Thank You
Paul?
You expect answers to questions?Kinda presumptive of ya since I’ve got 2 out there for you that you won’t answer!
Let me put them to you again.
If there are drawbacks to addressing global warming as human caused and proactively addressing that can you list them?
Is the piece Sarah found signed by a Paul F Rosell yours?
No admission Paul. Go to Hell and take your spittle with you.
Yes, Sarah, I wrote every word, I am proud of every word, and every word is true.What, exactly, do you disagree with?Stalin murdered more people than Hitler, and Stalin helped start WW2 with the Moletov/Ribentrop treaty. Stalin agreed to divide Poland with Hitler. Hitler broke the deal, of course, but the deal itself started the war!By the way, you show your liberalism and your ignorance when you call me a “John Bircher” — those people are nuts and most modern conservatives, Limbaugh, Hannity etc, all say so.And, by the way, I do believe CBS is anti American. How else could Dan Rather get away with his garbage and lies for so long?
Mars might be warming, if Mars is warming, it cant be from human cause.If sun spots are warming Mars, doesnt it follow that sun spots could warm Earth?
Watch the Discovery Channel show. Listen to what my fellow scientists say. Not what a political hack like Rosell says.
Watch the Discovery Channel show. Listen to what my fellow scientists say. Not what a political hack like Rosell says.
Rush? Hannity?
I kinda sensed that was coming!
Paul you did not answer my other question. It kinda doesn’t much matter anymore since I think you are……..well I think you are a kook Paul. Based on that post Sarah found I think you are an arm waving, wide eyed, foaming at the mouth kook.
But hey go ahead and answer my first question.
The problem is simple: unintended consequences, or “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it.”Environmentalists want us to believe that even a little snail darter effects the entire ecosystem, that a change in one area will impact another area.I am trying to explain to you that the same is true in economics. If you want more of something subsidize it, if you want less, tax or regulate it.Any government control on a free economy will have negative results.Is the “cure” worse than the disease?You haven’t even gotten to that point yet, because the burden of proof is on YOU to prove anything is wrong and then to prove that anything can be done about it.In a free society, those who advocate change have the burden of proof, not me.You have not met that burden, not by a long shot.And again, my Rosenburg post from the past was right on the money, that you disagree says more about you than me. Sroll upward please.
If there IS another credible side to this arguement, I understand it is represented in the Discovery Channel show Sunday the 16th on the Discovery channel from 8 to 10 PM.
Hey Paul!
NAS, and many others agree with the IPCChttp://www.nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdfhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
Do some research, and stop wasting time re Mars, sun spots, etchttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
Or else continue your ignorance, and learn the truth as it irreversibly happens in the future.
Yeah I kinda figured I’d get something like that from ya Paul. I got much the same from another poster the other day.
“Unintended consequences” “if it aint broke” yada yada
Paul? My sense here is to call ya a nut and advise you to beware of squirrels but you’ve given me a chance to make a point. I’ll be back to do that.
Paul – what Rightie website are you cut/pasting from? Even you can’t come up with this much bullshit on your own.
Paul?
I haven’t seen Gores movie yet either.
I understand he suggests making the US the world leader in the invention,production and export of alternative energy technology. In other words, this is not just a doom and gloom movie. Gore looks at how we can make this problem into something positive. That would not be a bad thing would it? Aren’t you curious?
You are correct JR – Gore looks to the US to be the technological leader of the world. What a concept!
But, the Discovery movie actually does a better job and goes deeper into the issue.
Mostly his stuff is Rushisms Ben. The sunspots and Mars stuff is right outta Rush’s spew.
Continuing now Paul.
Paul? Fossil fuels are not sustainable. We have little left. If there is a way through alternatives to make the United States into an energy master rather than an oil dependent slave, don’t you think they should be vigorously explored?? Don’t you want America to be able to tell the Middle East to take their oil and stick it? Don’t you want India and China coming to US for their growing energy needs?
Paul gets everything he needs to know or think from Rush. I wonder if he gets his drugs from him too?
Yeah I think so Ben. Rush also tells him and the other ditto heads that the Earth is continually making oil! Now while this is true, only and IDIOT could think the Earth is replenishing the supply in anything approaching the growing demand.
Paul?
Let’s say it IS sunspots. Hey that may play a part. Ben? Isn’t it true that the natural processes of the Earth generate greenhouse gases and that if there is external warming that natural generation will increase? Now if that is so Paul, should we not be working to reduce human generated greenhouse gases to mitigate the rising natural emissions?
Obviously there are natural processes that make CO2 – and also that sequester CO2. They had been in balance. Now they are not – due to anthropogenic sources. Then add the positive feedback loops – dead plants do not photosynthesize, drying soild lose their soil carbon to CO2, etc. The experiment is definitely going to be interesting to watch unfold.
Well, where do I start?I think the United States is already leading, without Al Gore’s help. (Just like Al Gore “invented” the internet, lol)I fully support Ethanol, and I think the new 85% Ethanol vehicles are great, but haven’t bought one yet.I think wind power is great, but it is usually the greenies that protest “wind farms.”Now to fossil fuel supplies: You don’t know how long supplies will last, nobody does. However, reserves always increase over time. There is no economic incentive to discover more crude than we can use in the near future, so large areas of the Earth have remained untapped.Getting off of Mid East oil for security reasons makes great sense.That is why we need BOTH alternative energy and more domestic production of oil.For the record, I think Rush Limbaugh is a great guy, however, I only catch him once or twice a week, I am too busy to listen all the time.My views are widely held, most of my views are in the majority.All of my views are well within the mainstream of political thought.I was writing polical commentary before Rush Limbaugh ever aired in Kansas.I would prefer to keep these posts “on topic” but those of you who don’t posess any talent for debate keep getting personal.
Paul – Gore never claimed to have “invented” the internet. More drug-addled dittihead bullshit.
The interview took place on March 9, 1999 during CNN’s “Late Edition” show. Specifically, what Gore said was “I took the initiative in creating the Internet.”
Good point Ben. If I could post links I would go find one about that.
Gore was part of a congressional committee. The internet already existed. It had for a long time. Gore led this committees exploration into making the internet accessible to the general public. Remember all those Clinton “information superhighway” speeches? I think the actual Gore quote was “I took the initiative in creating the internet.” And as we know the internet, this is basically true! So you might want to thank Al Gore for our ability to have this forum Paul. Hmmmmmmm Maybe he has other good ideas?
Ah, yes, same ol’ Shallow Paul. You haven’t changed in 20 years, dude.
That personal enough, Mr. “Letter to the editor writer” (actual quote from campaign literature)?
Ahhh you were correct by half Paul.
Here is a movie full of ideas. It is from a man who helped revolutionize the world once before when he helped give us the internet.
We hear that “Dems have no ideas” “They are the party of NO” etc. etc.
I think this thread and the response of the right to Gores movie prove that the Dems DO have ideas. It is simply that the right does not want to listen.Republicans are the party of do nothing. Republicans are the party of energy slavery to the mideast. Republicans are the party of stagnation. Republicans are the party that will keep debating global warming until the water reaches their lower lip. And then they will still be debating. Hell they will probably take credit for all the great new beach property!
Oh by the way (yawn),http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/200009/msg00052.html
PAUL,
Why did you put quotes around a word Gore did not say? Have you been fooled by media, and/or the R party since 1999? Or are you deliberately spreading falsehoods?
Coverage of it, also farm chores, ‘Love Story’ and other bogus attacks,’INVENTING INVENTED THE INTERNET! No one said Boo about Gore’s remark. Then,the RNC spin-points arrived:’http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh120302.shtml
Last paragraph here is both a hoot, and very scary…http://www.aip.org/history/climate/solar.htm
Ben,
I’ve only skimmed this, but seems reasonable. Seems like Lindzen (and similar ilk) is way wrong on it.http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/04/water-vapour-feedback-or-forcing
Again, I want Gore to win the Primary.Gore is a dork, he will be easy to beat in the general.And Gore did pad his resume, he took far more credit than he deserved for the internet. Gore’s actual quote was pompous as hell.This is a losing issue and you guys ought to let it drop.Once the people start laughing at you, its all over.
{Laughing hysterically}
Only person getting laughed at here is you Paul.
Rage?
On another thread, Paul is telling me that I should be afraid!
Rest assured I am not.
My take is the guy is a nut. He looks cuckoo for cocoa puffs to me.
You seem to know this clown. Got a link or some info?
He just became target 1.
Thanks cosmos … that site is a good one.
Paul – you still working for the government?
Oh, Paul was a Repub loudmouth at WSU in(he 80’s. Ran for the Leg, lost, eventually became Sedgwick County chair for a while (I think). Pretty sure he’s part of the Gietzen-wacko faction (feel free to correct me, Paul).
Sorry, Paul, I wasn’t impressed when you defended Reagan’s criminal activity by claiming (incorrectly) that the Constitution gave foreign policy powers to the President, and I’m not impressed now.
Paul was involved with the local GOP back in 94 when I ran against Les Donovan for legislature. They decided to run the story that I was running on the gay rights agenda because I was a closet gay. Never mind that (a) I had never raised any sort of gay rights issues in my campaign and (b) I have now been married to the same female woman for 35 years. I guess “thou shalt not bear false witness” doesn’t apply to them.
Yep, ol’ Paul comes from a LONG history of name-calling!
Nope, I was never County chair, and Ben, I never called you gay. Your wife is a saint, or a masochist, I will say that much.Again, you people seem rather Nazi/Stalinist to me.You attack the messenger and never use facts or logic or stay on point.Again, since you insist on being personal, I am just an average guy with a better than average talent for writing.No ego problem here, I just enjoy upsetting pompous liberals, I am good at it. Hey, everyone needs a hobby, you know?Those who call me crazy never have a single issue on which they can say I am out on a limb.What liberals hate is that they are in the minority, and that conservatives can usaually win any argument that is held out in the open.Again, I did not mean to brag today. I was only defending myself.However, my thoughts are my own, my words are my own, and I take offense to anyone claiming I, or those like me, can’t think on our own.Oh well, you folks called an MIT professor a kook, only because he disagrees with Saint AlGORE, so I guess I am in very good company, even with my lowly BA from WSU.
Nobody on the Supreme Court said that Bush committed a crime, by the way.The court told Bush not to proceed with trials without congressional authorization.Once again folks, get your facts straight.I am still in good company, 4 members of the Supreme Court agree with me that Bush did not need Congressional approval.
Paul – I never said you were chair; nor that you PERSONALLY made those false claims. Just that you were involved with them. Sort of broad-brush I know – just like your enviro-wacko BS.
As for Lindzen, his conflict-of-interest has been shown. Now how about you showing the conflict of interest of this MIT alum – ME. Why do I push the global climate change issue?
I’ll give you a hint – I have three good reasons for it.
Oh Oh, pick me Ben, pick me!
Could it be your Three Pain In The Ass Grand Children who will inherent this world that your/my generation is fucking up.
AKA – the Three Amigos! They are super bright – which proves that intelligence skips a generation!
Hehe! You two obviously know each other.
Well, Paul, fair question, on topic, no ad hom. What is Ben’s conflict of interest?
Yes rage – even though I am a “closet gay” according to the Sedgwick County GOP, I have a kid – and my three grandkids.
Ahh I see. I thougtI smelled the odor of flack.
“A better than average talent for writing”? SO your holding back, right? Cause I aint seen it so far. Sheesh no wonder you couldn’t get a journalism job. You got a degree? Fella there are at least 10 bloggers on this forum that can write circles around you. On a good day, I’m one of ‘em. And I don’t have a degree in anthing but the University of Life…..honorary.
Congrats though. You just became head of the class for the right….. on this forum at least.
But from your style so far, you are less writer and more ranter. See I know cause that’s me too. And I’m better than anyone on the right at that here, Hell, I’m writing this one on commercials . And I am FAR from the best.
Yes as I posted earlier I think your road here will be hard. You are blood in the water.
And Paul – you never answered MY question – you still on the government’s teat?
“… I am just an average guy with a better than average talent for writing.”
How nice. (And that is said sincerely.) So what have you published? Any books?
(Rage, is that what you’re waiting for? *grin*)
I would think that a serious journalist would avoid the kind of slanderous name-calling that Paul likes so much!
I do find it fascinating how terms like like “Stalinist” are so easily thrown out by these types, but don’t dare say anything uncomplimentary about them!
http://www.workingforchange.com/comic.cfm?itemid=20032
But, back to the subject, I’d sure like to know why you’re shilling for the environmentalist wacko conspiracy, Ben! I look forward to Paul’s explanation.
Great cartoon rage – definitely shows Paul at his bast!
Rage, I’ve dealt with conservatives in political chat rooms that sounded exactly like that cartoon. It gets to the point where the only thing you can do is laugh.
Kinda like now… ;)
Just a note… Paul hasnt posted in an hour… u think hes run away?
Nah – he was over at the lawsuit thread – complaining about name-calling again! (Of course, AFTER he initiated his comments with a healthy dose of journalistic name-calling!)
Tony,
I think we just weren’t impressed enough by his verbage (rhymes with garbage, ya know). Okay, actually it’s verbiage, but you get my drift.
Drudge, Rush, and Paul. wow
BenLet me answer your question with a question. Back when I was in school, Newsweek told us to prepair for the “comming ice age” — what were your views then?Ben, your bias is towards more and bigger government, “global warming” is your method to achieve your goals.Now, you have NOT discounted Lindzen at all Ben.First you folks on the left say that support for your cause is unanimous among “scientists” then you blackball (as in ‘blacklist”??) anyone from the scientific community that calls your bluff.In other words, the opinions of scientists who agree with you are unnanimous!!No Ben, I am not on the govt payroll.
Starting to get the idea Paul? And that is just 5 of us.
Hey now I KNOW why you dispute global warming! Little wonder you hate Al Gore, his movie, and ANY threat to the fossil fuels industries.
Pauls own words from another thread:
“nobody wanted someone like me when I graduated 24 years ago.So, I sold natural gas royalties and other investments and insurance instead.”
Well hey Paul you are just about as objective on the global warming issue as that other paid flack Lindzen the “scientist” you earlier cited!
Did anyone here use the word “unanimous” when discussing scientific views on global warming? Other than Paul, that is.
I didn’t think so.
Paul – I only vaguely remember Newsweek about a ‘coming ice age’ so don’t really have much to say about it. The general view is that in several thousand years we should be heading down that side of Milankovitch; however the massive baseline shift will probably change that considerably. I do not use Newsweek as a source of scientific information as apparently you do. Since I AM a scientist I tend to read the ‘regular’ literature rather than the popular press for such information. That is also where I have published my own peer-reviewed work.
No, I do not favor “more and bigger government”; your claim that is why I push global climate change is pure bunk.
Lindzen is paid hundreds of thousnads of dollars by the fossil fuel industry. That is a clear conflict of interest. I do not work for the government. I do not work for the nuclear industry (which I favor as an alternative). I do not work for the wind energy industry (another alternative). I do not work for a hybrid car company.
When was that Newsweek article anyway?
Paul, Newsweek isn’t a peer-reviewed journal; it isn’t even a science magazine. This is standard attack on science: if anyone ever said anything wrong they’re credibility–even if their methodology is ethical and sound– is forever tarnished. But that’s not how science works: even the most certain conclusions can be scuttled by new evidence. But that’s not the same thing as half-baked potshots from the peanut gallery.
The nature of the attack is frustrating: YOU are not engaging the issues; you’re just trying to shoot the messenger.
Where is your new evidence? I’m no more of a climate scientist than you, but I know how to read, and am familiar with the current consensus in the climate community. Pretending the Richard Lindzen or some Danish cloud scientists or some vague hypothesis about the effect of Mars somehow overturns the consensus won’t make it true. That’s why they have peer-reviewed journals–the evidence has to pass muster with their fellow scientists.
Ben, whatever the article, I would guess it’s a reference to a 1979 article by Steven Schneider (if I got the name right) which he has long since disawowed.
Here’s a rarity, the chairman of Duke Energy calling for the reduction in carbon emissions.http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13830213/site/newsweek/
Ya know? I got a friend and fellow poster kfg. She was telling about “prolls”. That is “p”aid t”rolls” for the right that infiltrate and work blogs.
Well Paul you are clearly a fossil fuels industry flack. And there are suggestions of your involvement with the Republican party………you know, the party of do no harm to the fossil fuels industries. And your arrival time here is somewhat opportune.
Are you a proll Paul?
A funny story about the “internet” way back when Gore helped get the funding for development (the so-called “I invented the internet” oft-repeated GOP lie). We had what was called the ARPANet back then, being developed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency or something like that. It was not particularly stable – I brought it down something like three times one night. We got a phone call from Stanford asking what the Hell we were doing down at UCLA!
The Net has come a long way since those days …
It would be interesting to know what sort of time frame he was talking about. One problem with the popular media is that a scientist might say something like “we think the sun will burn out and go Nova … ” and the media doesn’t notice the rest of the sentence ” … in a few BILLION years”
I remember all too well what happened with “cold fusion” when the popular media got all over it and blew preliminary results way out of proportion. While it sure would have been nice if it had worked there were those of us who remained skeptical (I was one of them) and we were proved right. And, by the way, the scientists in Utah involved in it were my friends and remained so even after their work was found to have been flawed.
By the way Paul – when did you leave your job with Big Government?
Paul says:
“No Ben I am not on the government payroll.”
Well Paul whose payroll ARE you on? Some fossil fuel consortium like flack Lindzen? The GO party of letting the fossil fuel industries dictate the energy policies of the United States? Shall we call you Paul or proll?
My three reasons – a pair of 4-year-olds and a 2-year-old. THEY will reap that which we sow. I hope that when they curse those who despoiled the earth they save a special curse for the Rosells of this world and forgive me and others for not doing enough. At least some of us tried.
Hell, im blaming my parents generation of what is happening today. I dont want my kids blaming me for not doing anything to try to fix things.
That’s my reason for blasting these right wing, there is n e thing wrong with client, republicans…
To read your posts, you Democrats would take away the right to vote and the right to have opinions from every person who ever worked for the energy industry.Lindzen has NOT been discredited, and the NAS study group of 11 scientists do not disagree with Lindzen that there is no consensus.There are 10 other scientists that served with Lindzen, if they all say there is no consensus, even if a few do agree with you, Ben, then there is no consensus.
Paul – there IS consensus. There is a difference between consensus and unanimity. This is precisely like the tobacco “controversy” when tobacco people swore to Congress that “there is no evidence that cigarettes are bad for you or addictive”
Paul?
“take away the right to vote and the right to have opinions from anyone who ever worked in the energy industry”
???
Well no Paul. But it would be nice not to have the energy industry dictating energy POLICY for the United States of America behind closed doors with UNDISCLOSED transcripts!
Are you a “proll” Paul?
Read the conclusion here Paul:
http://www.nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf
“ConclusionWe urge all nations, in the line with the UNFCCC4principles, to take prompt action to reduce the causes ofclimate change, adapt to its impacts and ensure that theissue is included in all relevant national and internationalstrategies. As national science academies, we commit toworking with governments to help develop and implementthe national and international response to the challenge ofclimate change.”
Sounds a heck of a lot like consensus to me Paul – that from the National Acadamy.
By the way, you complain about ‘dissing’ an MIT goy but then you do the same.
Paul, you’re one funny dude…
PAUL: “And Gore did pad his resume, he took far more credit than he deserved for the internet.”—We’re ALL waiting for you to explain why you DISAGREE with Newt, Vinton Cerf, et al.And you realize that Gore’s saying he only took the initiative (leadership) while serving in Congress, he’s giving “credit” to all of the others in Congress who cosponsored, and/or voted for his bills.
PAUL: “Oh well, you folks called an MIT professor a kook, only because he disagrees with Saint AlGORE,…”—Only?? Actually, if you check the links I gave earlier, almost all scientists (and anyone with common sense) disagree with Lindzen.
PAUL: “Back when I was in school, Newsweek told us to prepair for the “comming ice age” “—So you believe that Newsweek is a peer-reviewed science journal? As http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/the-global-cooling-myth/ points out, the NAS basically recommended more research, not action.
After 3 decades of very intense climate research, the best you’ve got is a 1975 Newsweek column? Proll?
The “conclusions” were Not written by the MAS climate group, they were apparently hijacked. That is Lindzen’s complaint with the entire process.Lindzen was a member of the group, Lindzen says there was no consensus, no member of the group has signed his or her name to anything refuting Lindzen on this point.Now quoting Lindzen, “within the confines of professional courtesy, the NAS panel essentially concluded that the IPCC’s Summary for Policymakers does not provide suitable guidance for the U.S. government.”Here Lindzen says that the NAS panel dissed the UN Climate Change panel, and nobdoy on the NAS panel has refuted Lindzen on this point either.
and don’t forget, Paul called an MIT graduate a kook right here on this thread.
That’s cosmos Paul. He’s good and he’s not much newer here than you. He’s better than you.
Paul are you a proll?
Paul,
Where is your proof on this “hijacking”.
FROM THE NAS:
“We urge all nations, in the line with the UNFCCC4principles, to take prompt action to reduce the causes ofclimate change, adapt to its impacts and ensure that theissue is included in all relevant national and internationalstrategies. As national science academies, we commit toworking with governments to help develop and implementthe national and international response to the challenge ofclimate change.
G8 nations have been responsible for much of the pastgreenhouse gas emissions. As parties to the UNFCCC, G8nations are committed to showing leadership in addressingclimate change and assisting developing nations to meetthe challenges of adaptation and mitigation.We call on world leaders, including those meeting at theGleneagles G8 Summit in July 2005, to:· Acknowledge that the threat of climate change is clearand increasing.”
So Paul – when did you get off the Big-Government teat?
I think i just heard that final nail in Paul’s coffin.
I grant you points suspected proll Paul. You got a little guts under withering fire.
This aint nothing.
Hey, Paul, quit reacting, and start surfing. Surely there’s somebody out there who’s at least claiming to back up what you say.
Do you need help?
As I hav said – watch the Discovery Channel movie tomorrow. It is better than the Gore one – goes deeper into the problem.
Of course, I am sure all those scientists on the show are pinko commie Stalinist idiot radical enviro-nut wacko anti-Americans just like I am.
As someone who’s watching this thread fairly closely (like with one eye squeezed shut), here’s some feedback to any and all Democrats involved. FWIW.
Can no Democrat here deliver a decent kill shot on Paul?
Jaysus barking Christ, you Democrats will prove to death, to the nth detail, that your point is the right side – that’s obviously no problem.
But a real kill shot on somebody who deserves one? Fehhhhh. That ain’t there.
FYI – for fence-sitters, a political website is like a good pornographic movie. The money shot is what everybody’s waiting for. Believe me, most American voters who sit “on the fence” watch for kill shots and style far more than they watch for substance.
Especially come election time.
Just saying.
Yall are like watching a bunch of fat folk trying to pop a big ‘ol balloon among any number of fat-assed asses.
Style counts; remember that come November.
$0.02
Was Roswell pulling our leg?http://www.ucsusa.org/ssi/climate_change/nas-report-climate-change-science.html
Good point flike – Paul is like a greasy pinata that just seems to slither away from the hits.
Was that good enough for you Flike?
“The NAS report confirms once again the broad scientific consensus that has emerged over the last decade — that human-caused climate change is underway and, if ignored, could have severe impacts on natural and managed ecosystems and human systems, such as health and water resources.”
Union of Concerned Scientists – I’m sure they are just some more “pinko commie Stalinist idiot radical enviro-nut wacko anti-Americans”
And JR obviously doesn’t count.
Please.
In fact, he subtracts more than he adds, imo.
$0.01
No, steve.
I rather like watching this proll twist in the wind.
Hey flike? Whatever your problem with me is I’ll accomodate ya. You can’t seem to figure out what side you are on anyway.
I’m sure you will, JR.
*sigh*
I have always, always hated people who were condescending, and I feel it’s only honorable to extend you the same courtesy.
That said you are, as you’ve written yourself *to date* on this website, very likely an idiot.
$0.02
flike, it’s like a cat playing with a mouse. Ever watched that? Even after the mouse is dead, the cat will continue to toss it in the air, just for the sheer fun. Believe me, the kill is over here. Paul just doesn’t realize he’s dead. He thinks he’s dizzy. :)
So what have you published, Paul? Can I pick it up at B&N?
Good to see that paul has a sympathy poster.
Your opinion of me is noted flike. I used to rather respect you, though you are rather elitist and aloof.
I’m rather disappointed that you choose to stab me in the back. I’ve never said a harsh word against you.
But hey fire away! I’m used to it.
Ben we don’t need no stinkin scientist to tell us what’s what, that’s why we have creationist.
Okay, flike, out with it. JR has his idiosyncracies (as do we all), but you need to be a bit more specific before going on the attack like that. Otherwise, it’s just another condescending ad hom (haven’t there been enough of those tonight?).
Yeah Rage, I’m at a loss too.
Flike talks about “kill shots”……..but when did Flike ever get into a fray?
Maybe he is trying to get me to be a better poster? I do that with folks on BOTH sides.Hey I’ll take a suggestion, no need to stick me in the back, I welcome a helpful kick in the ass.—–
If I have learned anything here, it is that some conservatives will work tirelessly to believe and spread untruths. They will work tirelessly to repeat these untruths.
Flike is correct, refuting these untruths is a good thing, but insufficient to change any conservative’s mind. Flike is saying that these people should have a “kill shot”. But, interestingly, I recall Flike being the most consistent voice in criticizing a liberal blogger who stepped over the line regarding Tiahrt’s son’s suicide. A liberal blogger who had a “take no prisoners” type aggressive style. The style Flike is calling for now.
Can’t have it both ways, Flike. I think this is an interesting subject you raise. My personal concern is that by engaging in street fighting with conservatives one is at risk for becoming one of them. Sort of like, we will violate individual rights in this country to counter fascism.
Is a professional wrestling styled rhetoric and attack the only way to get one’s point across? I would say if it is, it is too late for us as a country, any way.
I hoping the above is a false dichotomy and that there is a better way. Willing to listen to others’ views on this subject.
There has been a lot written about Richard S. Lindzen in this thread. I have done some research about his being a paid shill by the oil industry. The only account of this I could find was an article written by Ross Gelbspan, a reporter. He offers no proof, mind you, but in reading the article, I find he is extremmely biased towards man being the culprit in global warming.
I find that interesting in the fact that some major slings and arrows have been directed at Lindzen by Ben, JR and a few others here. Lindzen may be a paid shill for the oil industry, but, again, I have not been able to varify proof of this, so, again, I remain skepticle.
Lindzen is entitled to his opinion, and his credentials speak for themselves. Whether he is, or is not, a paid shill, as some of you like to think, is again a matter on conjecture, which makes all this name calling in this thread appear a little childish, IMHO. Hell, even if he is paid by the oil industry, does that make is arguments void? I know in your minds it does, but not all arguments are false simply because they are voiced by somebody we don’t agree with.
Makes Flike’s argument ring a bit more true. Nothing has been accomplished here, other than people feeding their own prejudices in order to get that endocrine “rush” from the feel good part of the brain. “Science”, somewhere along the thread, got thrown out with the bath water.
The “science” is really pretty simple, J.M.
The sun’s rays are short wave lengths which have the characteristic of punching through things. (That’s why new cordless phones use short wavelengths, 900 some megahertz. The old cordless phones used a longer wavelength, 45 MHz, and were subject to interference from walls and pipes etc.)
The radiation punches right through the atmosphere for the most part. But then a transformation in physics takes place. The short wave radiation hits land or water and it is stored as heat. The heat tries to radiate back out to cold space(hot to cold, 2nd law of thermodynamics) but heat waves are LONG waves, and some of it gets refracted back down to the surface, just like glass over a greenhouse causes it to stay warm even in the winter.
Thicker glass means more warmth is trapped. CO2 is the equivalent of “thicker” glass. It refracts more heat energy than O2, so one could predict that as CO2 increases, heat would also increase.
This is exactly what we’re seeing.
Sarah,I think you are misinterpreting my post. I neither agreed nor disagreed with Lindzen.
As for CO2, it is only one of the greenhouse gases present in the atmosphere. There are many others present. So pointing out CO2 as the main culprit is disengenuous, don’t you think? What effect do the others have? To what degree are they man-made? If not man-made, where do they come from? When taking into account all the gasses present in the atmosphere, what percentage, real, not imagined, do the man-made greenhouse ones have of global warming? Have all variables been taken into account? To what degree? Are the super-computer models showing man’s negative influence on global warming being subverted by prejudiced programmers? Does the data being fed to super-computers contain all the elements necessary to give accurate results? Is fuzzy logic being applied to the models (fuzzy logic more accurately describes weather patterns than doppler radar, if you watch the evening weather forecast)?
If evening weathermen can’t get it right concerning weather patterns less than 12 hours in the future, how do you expect to believe precise forcasts presented by global climate specialists?
It is my opinion enough is NOT known about global climate to know with distinct certainty that man is the culprit when it comes to global warming. That global warming is happening is a certainty, and we have to get started to lessen the impact as much as possible.
But it is also my belief that if global warming is NOT man made, than we are basically spinning our wheels, and we need to be seriously looking at massive human displacement in the not to distant future. The food chain is in for a major disruption if that happens, and global peace is a must if the human race is to survive in its current form.
So Sarah, if you want to look at CO2 as the culprit, and man as the cause, do so. I’ll be looking at a much larger picture.
It’s no wonder the other scientist didn’t call Lindzen out, the report agreed with the consensus that man is changing his natural environment, and not for the better.
J M Walker,
” “Science”, somewhere along the thread, got thrown out with the bath water.”
If you want the “science” on Lindzen, then read http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/04/lindzen-point-by-pointhttp://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/06/lindzen_in_wsj.php(and type ‘Lindzen’ in search box for more hits)
Other scientists, and the data, don’t support his water vapor theory. His op-eds are inaccurate. The “major slings and arrows” at Lindzen are coming from peer-reviewed scientists.
Weather forecasts are like predicting where a wave will move a grain of sand on a beach — climate predictions are like predicting tides. They use entirely different computer models.
You claim that “enough is NOT known about global climate…”. How much certainty do you require? Have you looked at IPCC? For example,’2-2 Anthropogenic radiative forcing of the climate system for 2000 relative to 1750′at http://www.ipcc.ch/present/graphics.htm
Ben,One other point, on the question of what “bias” you might have.Let me preface my answer by first reminding you that you discount the opinions and the research of everyone who has ties to the energy industry, calling that “bias” no matter what the resume of the person disputing Gore: case in point, Richard Lindzen of the NAS study group.Now to your question. In addition to the inherit bias of every liberal to expand government at the expense of the private sector, there is another bias of all researches: generating grants!No matter what the problem, no matter what the commission or charge given to any panel of “experts” you can count on that group to couch its findings in such a way to generate more funding, either government or private.Show me any group, tasked with researching a problem, that ever came back and said, “There is no problem and this subject requires no further study.”
Cosmos,Again, I have to point out I neither agreed nor disagreed with Lindzen. Is it at all possible you people can get that through your thick skulls? I simply stated his credintials are as good as many scientist who hold opposite points of view.
As for knowing more about global weather conditions, if the weather reporter can’t predict, with uncertain accuracy, what the weather is going to do 12 hours from now, I have a problem believing “predictions” of man-caused” disastors 100 years down the road. If more is known about about the global climate than is known now, which, in my opinion, is not enough to sway my thinking, then I will be glad to either support or not support man’s causing global warming.
However, you seem to be cherry picking what I wrote. Does my skeptiscism of man as the culprit disclude me from making the statements I made at the end of my last post? If you believe that to be so, you need to be changing your name to something like, “biased”.
The fact that I fully support the fact that global warming is happening, but don’t, as yet, support man as the cause, seems to prickle the so-called scientific minds out there. To you all who think that way, I say, “blaaaahhhhh”.
The fact I support a massive infusion of money to make this country the world leader in new and renewable energy sources, but don’t support what you all seem to think I should, because of my skepticism, seems to make my input something less than what you want from me. To you I say, “quite exhaling, your polluting the atmosphere.”
J M Walker,
I simply offered you the “science” on Lindzen. You can ignore it if you want, and continue with your “neither agreed nor disagreed” stance. There’s 30 years of peer-reviewed research.
Again… weather forecasting is chaos, climate modeling is a set of conditions modified by forcings.Climate models accurately handled the changes caused by the volcano eruption in 1991.
I suggested you do some research at IPCC. How does that make me “biased”?
Walker: “To you I say, “quite exhaling, your polluting the atmosphere.”
You seem to prefer to believe CEI, instead of IPCC. That’s your (and the future’s) problem, not mine.
Paul – I am looking at the results tabulated by hundreds of scientists and see that the VAST majority agree on anthropogenic global warming. Very few are on the other side. This is very similar to the situation that existed with tobacco when the industry was testifying to Congress that there was no “consensus” about cigarettes and health.
Watch the Discovery program tonight. It is scientifically based and does NOT have Al Gore in it.
Cosmos:
You said:I simply offered you the “science” on Lindzen. You can ignore it if you want, and continue with your “neither agreed nor disagreed” stance. There’s 30 years of peer-reviewed research.”
(I realize that post was not directed at me.)
Linzen AND the NAS study panel said emphatically that “20 years is too short a period for estimating long term trends.” This is found in the full text of the NAS study.Frankly, 30 years of peer reviewed studies you mention supports MY case, not yours.roughly 30 years ago, more than one scientist was warning about the “comming ice age” as quoted in Newsweek magazine— this would seem to indicate a trough or low point in temperatures. If there was a natural, cyclical cooling taking place at that time, it would bias all readings over the last 30 years, since you started in a “trough” as far as temp readings are concerned.It is your base line that concerns me.I can make any decent investment look positively wonderful by the simple ploy of adjusting the investment date to the lowest price on some previous year.This is why, in my business, am required to provide several different hypothetical figures and dates.And to say, “past performance is no gurantee of future results.”At the time of the American Revolution, we were in the “little ice age.” Again, the baseline, the starting point, makes all the difference in the world.
God, you guys just don’t get it: All along I’ve said we need to get away from fossil fuels FOR WHATEVER REASON. If you one-sided biased people want to crunch that, kiss my rosy red cheecks. We are on the same side. Who gives a damn how each of us reached that conclusion. What I get is a bunch of namby pamby idiots who think anybody who doesn’t think like they do is also an idiot.
I will remain a skeptic as to who or what is causing global warming until I feel enough is known about the whole damn earth/climate process to make, what I consider, a fully informed decision. Right now, at this moment in time, I do not feel that criteria has been met. THAT IS MY OPINION!
I could honestly care less what your opinion is in this whole process. What I am concerned about is doing something about the problems facing the human race NOW. And one of those problems is fossil fuel: It needs to be eliminated from the energy business as much as possible. Its problems are many, just one of which is pollution. Do you want more of its problems, or is your only concern global warming?
You either get it or you don’t. If you do, there is no need to post a reply. If you don’t, don’t bother wasting my time with a reply. Sheees, your whole damn process enforces the post I did about the brain and rewards.
Paul,
AGAIN… Newsweek is NOT a science journalhttp://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/the-global-cooling-myth
“20 years is too short a period for estimating long term trends.”
Did you get that from Lindzen’s 2001 WSJ op-ed? CONTEXT is important. That was a “cautionary statement” referring ONLY to satellite data, which started in 1979. Corrected sat data DOES show warming.
Starting point?? How about 1000+ years — the ‘hockey’ stick, and others. The Medieval Warm Period was a tiny blip compared to todays warming.
Plus 650,000 years of CO2 and temperature from ice cores, and CO2 is higher now than ever.
If human-caused greenhouse gases are not causing the warming, what is? It’s not solar.
CosmosHow can you say that “its not solar?” You do not know this.The ice caps on Mars are shrinking aren’t they?The NAS study says that 20 years is not an adequate time frame, and the NAS study only came to agreement that average temps had increased by .5 degrees over the last 100 years. I would say that is within a margin of error you don’t wish to explore.We had a low point 25-30 years ago, a trough, which would bias the numbers for warming today.We had a trough, or low point, in 1776, which would also bias the numbers over the last 200 + years.Lindzen has been published several times in the last year.It amazes me that those of you who wish to discredit Lindzen never read his work, after all, he was on the NAS study group and none of you were.Also, how in the world can we possibly trust any temperature readings from more than 100 years ago???You say that Newsweek from 30 years ago is not reliable, though the article quoted more than one scientist.Which scientist are you quoting from in 1492? In 1776?It is very easy to see how you folks manipulate the data.You know what you want before you start your research, and that is not science.I am open to the idea that things are getting warmer, but you havent proven that point.Next, you must prove that Man caused it.You aren’t even close.And, it is not proven that an increase in CO2 alone would cause any warming, as we would need to know the percentage of water vapor in the air and other factors.The burden of proof has NOT been met.
Scientists are fully aware of the tiny, tiny shrinkage of the ice caps on Mars.
It has already been discussed upthread and destroyed as having relevance to our global warming.
If you want to talk other planets, why don’t you look at Venus. It’s atmosphere is so thick that the temperature at the surface will melt lead.
Granted, man had nothing to do with that, but it gives you an idea of what catastrophic global warming would look like if it reached a re-inforcing loop in which greenhouse gasses create more greehouse gasses.
That’s what’s happening right now in fact as frozen land thaws out . . .
Discovery Channel – NOW.
Spodosols, histosols, inceptisols are soils common in tundra areas; they are high in carbon content. When they thaw and warm their carbon load oxidizes, releasing CO2. Mollisols and Alfisols in humid midlatitude environments behave similarly as they become arid. Desert soils contain little carbon. Ironically, tropical soils also contain little carbon due to heavy leaching. In those environments large stores of carbon exist above ground in the forest mass. However, with drought comes death and fire – releasing CO2.
My, isn’t this experiment fun to watch!
Paul,
What you seem to have proven in this thread is that you:* don’t read replies to your posts* have zero ability to understand science.* are unable to do simple research.* prefer to gullibly believe obvious deceptions.
Cosmos,You think far to highly of your abilities, and your objectivity.I still say that Lindzen, who is a prof. at MIT, and was chosen by MIT for a climate study panel, is more qualified than you.Of course, Lindzen disagrees with you.Where does “science” state that Mr. Lindzen is “not qualified”?? That isn’t science, that is blatantly your own biased opinion.I do read all replies, some are not worth a response, I am not here to pad your ego, as you certainly aren’t here to pad mine. (Though you are very entertaining!)Also, I do plenty of my own “research” you just don’t like it.My claim on the Newsweek article about “The comming ice age” 30 years ago still stands. Newsweek made note of the fact that we were, then, in a cooling phase.You “experts” tear me apart since Newsweek is not a science journal. (You know, they didn’t go out and interview Oprah or the cast from Cheers, they did talk to real scientists.)You folks dis that, but then you want me to trust temperature readings from 100 years ago or even 50 years ago, when computer technology and instruments weren’t nearly as sensitive and record keeping was not as precise, and when we had no satelite monitering at all?Cosmos, if you are a scientist, you have prostituted yourself to the political left.I am not convinced that I am right, but you have the burden of proof, which you have not met. Of that, and that alone, I am convinced.
correction, Limfzen was chosen by NAS for a study panel, of course
lol Lindzen( I caught it first Sarah, lol)
Paul,
Thank you for proving my last post was accurate.
The ‘75 Newsweek was journalists talking about a possible coming ice age — NAS and others said much more research was needed. You’d know that if you’d read http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/the-global-cooling-myth/ I provided 2 days ago. It’s also explained at many other reliable sources.
The “burden of proof” is on YOU to prove that Lindzen is correct, and the huge # of equally (or higher) credentialed, peer-reviewed scientists at IPCC, NAS, NOAA, NASA, et al are ALL wrong. Good luck.
Did any catch Leno’s joke about Gore and the record high heat tempreatures we are expericing? It was so funny. Leno said that Gore was going around saying “I told you so! I told you so!”.
Got a laugh out of that one.
Thanks cosmos. I had pointed out that we should eventually be on the cooling side of a Milankovitch cycle – but that I am looking at tens of thousands of years out. I love the comment about George Will: “Will-ful ignorance” – when he deliberately converts tems of thousands of years to just years.
As scientists we often engage in “what if” scenarios. That does not mean we are predicting. We also often speculate about the very distant future (”the sun will burn out in several billion years”) – that does not make my joke about Kellogg (they will have to finish it under the lights) true.
For Paul:
Googling the terms global warming AND meta-analysis results in 2,240 hits:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=global+warming%2C+meta-analysis&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en
A meta-analyisis means literally an analysis of the analyses. Results from several studies sometimes numbering in the 100s are combined to get an larger and more complete understanding of what that the science is saying. In the above list of meta-analyses (from varying disciplines) there is a consensus that global warming is happening.
Plus, who the hell are you setting yourself us as arbiter of whether or not the case for global warming has been met? That is so pathetically narcissistic that it is quite laughable. Oh, but I forgot, you can read Newsweek magazine – in that case, never mind!
For Paul F. Rosell:In case you didn’t get it (which wouldn’t surprise me) the above, was an FU — what do you have? I am sure, not much.