As if President Bush’s standing with his own party wasn’t shaky enough, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger of California and another Republican governor, Jodi Rell of Connecticut, this week accused the federal government of “inaction and denial” on climate change, blaming the Environmental Protection Agency for blocking states from approving higher emission standards for automobiles.
“It’s bad enough that the federal government has yet to take the threat of global warming seriously,” the governors wrote in the Washington Post, “but it borders on malfeasance for it to block the efforts of states such as California and Connecticut that are trying to protect the public’s health and welfare.”
The same day, Schwarzenegger met with another Republican governor, Jon Huntsman of Utah, who signed on to a coalition of Western states working toward greenhouse gas reduction.
The governator’s message to the Bush administration is clear: Lead, or get out of the way.
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
- donndublin on Open thread 11/24
- donndublin on Open thread 11/24
- donndublin on Open thread 11/24
- DavidB on Open thread 11/24
- parkay on Open thread 11/24
- donndublin on Open thread 11/24
- parkay on Open thread 11/24
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/24
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/24
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/24
64 Comments
“I’ll be baakk”
Since bushco has come to power, the epa has become a joke. But the point is: whether or not man has something to do with global warming, is, in my opinion, not the point. We need to reduce our addiction to oil, and find alternative energy sources to reduce, or even eliminate, that addiction.
Bushco doesn’t want that to happen because of his ties to big oil. So, if the people of those, or any, states want to reduce the addiction, they will have to do so themselves. My suggestion to bushco is either lead (ain’t going to happen), or get out of the way.
Three Republican governors who think climate change is real?!! Don’t they the Kansas Pubicans know the truth, that’s it’s all just a liberal media conspiracy?
I know, they must not be true Republicans. In their place are whining lefties who recycle and read Upton Sinclair and Al Gore. Alberto Gonzales, HE’S a true Republican–kiss Bush’s ass, deny, deny, deny, make sure you are in position to violate all ethical statutes of your department so Bush can do any idiotic thing he wants.
I’ll bet those “Republican” governors are against torture and illegal government surveillance, too…
Three Republican governors who think climate change is real?!! Don’t they the Kansas Pubicans know the truth, that’s it’s all just a liberal media conspiracy?
I know, they must not be true Republicans. In their place are whining lefties who recycle and read Upton Sinclair and Al Gore. Alberto Gonzales, HE’S a true Republican–kiss Bush’s ass, deny, deny, deny, make sure you are in position to violate all ethical statutes of your department so Bush can do any idiotic thing he wants.
I’ll bet those “Republican” governors are against torture and illegal government surveillance, too…
Enter Cosmos in three… two….
Good posts, JM & Del.
Funny how the Republicans are starting to get concerned about something that they claimed DOESN’T EXIST.
Al Gore’s book is appropriately named–”The End of Reason.”
Al was very good on Larry King last night.
I have always agreed that the Climate is changing. Just not by man-made causes.
Finding alternative energy is key in solving this crisis, as long as finding less dependence on fossil fuels.
If we are going to do it, do it the American way, not the way the socio-paths from the U.N. wants us to do it.
Finding alternative energy sources is more than just a global warming issue to me, it should be our number one priority to get off the dependence of Middle East oil. That right there would help the US from any terrorists attacks because we wont’ need their oil.
So why after billions of dollars spent in a useless war are we still just as dependent on their Middle East oil as we were before the war? That is the billion dollar question that only Bushco can answer (but they never will because Emperor George does not answer any questions).
Listen to Republican all steamed off at the UN.
As if the UN has ANY influence on American energy policy.
There’s only one reason why gas is 3 dollars a gallon, DOUBLE what it was when Clinton was in office:
George W. Bush, former oil company exec
Dick Cheney, former CEO of Halliburton (oil equipment)
Condi Rice, ten years on Board of Directors of Chevron
Rumsfeld, 15 million dollars invested in oil interests
Christie Todd Whitman, 125,000 dollars invested in oil interests
Former Interior Sec’ry Gale Norton, now general counsel for exploration with Shell Oil
Stephen Griles, Undersec’ry of the Interior, former oil industry lobbyist.
Secr’y of the Army Thomas White, former exec at ENRON
Five former Enron executives work in the Bush administration. Enron contributed $736,800 directly to George W. Bush. Enron donated $888,265 to the Republican National Committee.
*****
A fish rots from the head down.
We are dependent on oil because gov’t policy INSURES that we stay dependent on oil–they profit by it and they benefit from it.
That’s why Oil-men GW and Cheney killed the hybrid and electric car funding and insisted on H2 fuel cell technology that isn’t feasible for many decades . . .
That’s why one of their oil industry officials rewrote the EPA’s Global Warming Study.
That’s why Cheney wrote the SECRET US energy policy behind closed doors and won’t disclose what OIL INDUSTRY insiders helped him write it.
That’s why the push for alternative energy has been nothing but lip-service with oil prices and profits going to historical highs.
That’s why Bush reduces licensing fees and cuts taxes for Big Oil.
It’s very simple–Bush wants high oil prices and high oil demand, and he’s got it.
There is definately an end to reason, logic, and any ability to intelligently discuss issues of the day for sure.
The more REASON we call for when looking at the facts supporting the Global warming hysteria, the more hysterical the calls of doom and destruction get.
Every discussion here leads to saying we are going to die if we don’t act now!
Yep, I agree, there is definately an end to reason.
Why are you so certain that mankind is not contributing to global warming nathan? Is it your portfolio that is preventing you from even contemplating that global warming might be real?
Cat,
I would be willing to concede that man is contributing to global warming for the sake of argument:
However, what that level is, and the drastic measures people are calling for in response to it are things which I do not agree with.
There are more factors in the discussion than:
Global Warming is happening => Man is Causing it => We must act now or we will destory ourselves.
Which is what the argument is for far too many of those on the side for the call to action.
Overpopulation.
Republican,
“I have always agreed that the Climate is changing. Just not by man-made causes.”
Republican screams his GW “opinion” herehttp://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/05/open_thread_21.html#comment-70415436
Basically his “opinion” is,1) “THE CONTRIBUTIONS BY MAN ARE TINY INSIGNIFICANT”2) The human-added GHG’s become “THOROUGHLY MIXED” with natural gases, and “THEY ARE NO LONGER DISTINGUISHABLE AND CANNOT BE MEASURED WITH ANY DEGREE OF ACCURACY”.
Science says that human-added GHG’s are significant, and are causing significant radiative forcing.
But Republican insists that he’s correct, and the scientists are wrong — because he took science classes decades ago.And because he hates the U.N..
Nathan,
Just curious… have you read any of the reports athttp://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html ?
The Summary for Policymakers, and FAQ are fairly short, lots of graphs.
Or read the main chapters for details.
Do you understand “positive feedbacks”?And the “tipping point” for climate, where natural positive feedbacks increase the rate of warming?
South Africa is setting cold weather RECORDS:
http://www.capetimes.co.za/index.php?fArticleId=3844594
Everything is proof FOR global warming.
Didn’t you know that?
Just curious,
For the naysayers, what evidence would be necessary to convince that man is affecting climate?
Paul F. ROSELL,
“South Africa is setting cold weather RECORDS:”
Does ROSELL still not understand the difference between “weather” and “climate”?
What’s the 1 year average temperature in that region? The 5, 10, and 30 year averages?
Is there a warming trend there?
The Earth is warming, especially in the Northern Hemisphere. Maps and graphs,http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/
NATHAN, what are these drastic measures that are being proposed? That cars get better, not worse, gas mileage than they did in 1980?
THAT we set achievable goals to transition, over many years, to multiple energy sources?
THAT via cap-and-trade systems, governments reward clean emitters rather than penalize offenders?http://www.ucsusa.org/publications/catalyst/page.jsp?itemID=27226959
THAT we limit use of incandescent bulbs in favor of longer-lasting, lower-energy, more consumer-friendly bulbs are available? A recent report by the International Energy Agency concludes that a global switch to efficient lighting systems would trim the world’s electricity bill by nearly one-tenth. The carbon dioxide emissions saved by such a switch would dwarf cuts so far achieved by adopting wind and solar power. According to Paul Waide, a senior policy analyst with the IEA and one of the report’s authors, “19% of global electricity generation is taken for lighting — that’s more than is produced by hydro or nuclear stations, and about the same that’s produced from natural gas.”
WHAT’S SO drastic about changing the kind of light bulbs you use? Did you complain this much when regular gasoline went away in the mid-1980’s?
GOOD QUESTION, BRIAN!
It’s like when I ask borrow and spend Republicans how low taxes should be.
No answer.
The only thing they know how to say is “lower than now.”
With Global Warming, you ask what evidence would be enough.
No answer.
The only thing they can say is “you need more evidence.”
CapnAmerica.
Ten percent.
But then I’m not a borrow and spend Republican either.
So, Heckler, how do you plan to pay off the debt that is expected to rise to $11 Trillion before the budget is ever balanced?
Voodoo economics?
Cosmos
YOU CANT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS!
Weather vs Climate? Don’t make me laugh! When is the last time you heard someone claiming that hot weather was just WEATHER and not Climate?
To the rest of the board, if it is HOT outside, that is CLIMATE CHANGE, according to liberal!
IF it is COLD outside, that is just WEATHER!
You really are hilarious.
The average weather, usually taken over a 30 year time period, for a particular region and time period. Climate is not the same as weather, but rather, it is the average pattern of weather for a particular region. Weather describes the short-term state of the atmosphere. Climatic elements include precipitation, temperature, humidity, sunshine, wind velocity, phenomena such as fog, frost, and hail-storms, and other measures of the weather.
weather.ncbuy.com/glossary.html
Well, South Africa’s weather is hitting all time LOWS, those lows WILL impact the average CLIMATE figures.
My point, exactly!
Reminds me of the guy who had the trees cut down, around his cabin, so he could see the forest!
1 or two days, even 1 or 2 months will have little effect on the 30 year average. I think your knowledge of meteorology and statistics is a little shy of the 101 level in economics that you’ve mastered.
30 years = 10,950 days.
3 months = 90 days
10,860 days at 7790 days at 0
avg: 76.3
Paul F. ROSELL,
“To the rest of the board, if it is HOT outside, that is CLIMATE CHANGE, according to liberal!”
No, that’s ROSELL’s denialist definition.
Like Brian posted, “climate” is the long-term average, usually 30 years.
Even for a 1 year average, a few days of record cold can be offset by a few days of record hot.Or offset by a longer period of slightly warmer than average.
It’s okay Paul, Cosmos has been attempting to define Climate his whole time here.
According to paleo climatologists it can be thousands of years. Modern Climatologist look at centuries before change is noticed or has an effect.
The GW Alarmists have trimmed Climate down to 100 years and even 30 years so they can get everyone to panic.
What a bunch of maroons.
Republican, you don’t seem to understand this at all. But let us not judge so that we are not judged.
One does not measure the “average” temperature for 300 million years and then start looking at 30 year slices at the end. 300 million years of data are collected in maybe a couple of year increments and then the 30 moving average is computed for 300 million years. The result is fluctuations in the global mean temperature from year to year. The changes being seen now are beyond anything that has been seen in the preceding 300 million years.
Funny, the IPCC is using 30 year cycles now. Perhaps you should email them and show them the error of their ways Brian.
And their is little precision to be had when examining past climates. They can guess at it and make their best estimates. There is even a problem with core samples giving bad data because of snow and melt cycles. One can get a mixture of decades that would give false results.
You mean Brian that the tropical forests that existed in North America were milder in Climate than they are today? Someone needs to contact the dinosaurs about that.
Republican,
Isn’t that what we’ve been saying??? 30 year cycles?? And isn’t it always the case that there is experimental uncertainty. What do you do in the face of it, bury your head in the sand?
There was a guy around the turn of the century who noticed that the mid Atlantic ocean floor was ribbed with “stripes” in the magnetic field preserved in the rocks…you know when the earth’s poles reversed. he hypothesized based on this scanty information that plate tectonics was occurring. He was laughed out of his career. Guess what? He was right.
BFAH, the GW can test their theories quite nicely if they wish.
Build a GeoDome with Natural flora. Fauna contributions can be duplicated with “canned” gases. After the GeoDome is stablized in all parameters, artificially introduce man-made green house gases in the precise percentages they occur as measure today.
Then…see what happens.
It’s been done already….
see for example the high school level experiment at
http://www.espere.net/Unitedkingdom/water/uk_watexpgreenhouse.htm
In the experiment transport of heat we saw that the transfer of energy in the air via normal heat conductivity is not as easy as e.g. in water. The energy of light is transported in the air as electromagnetical radiation. Only a small fraction of this energy spectrum (visible light) can be experienced by our eyes. Other parts are invisible and damage e.g. our skin (as ultraviolet light) or we can feel it as warm radiation (infrared radiation). The temperature in the atmosphere is considerably governed by the capability of the air molecules to absorb this radiation.
An important fraction of the sunlight reaching the earth’s surface is absorbed, transformed into thermal energy and emitted again as infrared radiation. Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are these gases who efficiently absorb this infrared radiation emitted by the earth in order to keep the heat in the atmosphere like in a greenhouse.
In order to investigate this phenomenon we carry out the following experiment:
Experimental setup:
Glass vessels containing air (right) and CO2 (left)two lights of identical outputtwo pans with waterblack cardboardTemperature feeler (data registration by a computer)
A The lights in the experiments represent the sun, which emits light towards the earth.B A pan filled 1cm with water is needed in order to absorb the thermal energy emitted by the lights, which would disturb the experiment. Normal bulbs emit a major fraction of their energy as heat but only the radiation should pass and is required for the processes below.C1 The left hand side glass vessel is filled with pure carbon dioxide.C2 The right hand side vessel is filled with normal air containing only about 0,037% of carbon dioxide. Therefore the absorbing effect of CO2 is by far stronger in the left vessel and the capability to act as greenhouse gas can be estimated through this experimental setup.D Below the glass vessels (covered by the sign) is a layer of black cardboard, representing the dark surface of the earth. After switiching on the light, the temperature is measured in both bessels and plotted on the computer screen as a function of the time.
Conclusions:
Due to the infrared radiation absorbed by the pure carbon dioxide this gas is heated by far stronger than the air consisting mainly from nitrogen and oxygen. The fraction of carbon dioxide in the air is acting as an greenhouse gas.
Of course, far more sophisticated experiments have been done. You want the references????
I noticed the exclusion of Methane and Nitrous Oxide?
What is the purpose of this experiment if they don’t include the mixed gases available in ambient air?
Nathan,Whether or not you believe in man as one of the causes of global warming, is not a problem with me. That global warming is happening is a problem with me.
We, as a species, can POSSIBLY slow that by creating an atmosphere where the use of fossil fuels is reduced to its lowest level by alternative energy sources. That means less dependance on foreign oil. That is a very good thing for this country.
So even if you are wrong about mans’ influence on global warming, we, as Americans, win by using alternative energy. How in the world could that possibly be a bad thing?
For heaven’s sake..this is a high school level experiment.
Physical simulation of heat penetration into the ocean. Scientists at Scripps Institution ofOceanography, Lawrence Livermore National Lab, the UK’s Hadley Center, and NCARpublished a study showing six oceans (N. Atlantic, S. Atlantic, N. Indian, S. Indian, N.Pacific, S. Pacific) are warming simultaneously as a result of enhanced greenhouse warming(Barnett et al. Science 309:284-287). Natural temperature variations occur at different times,and often in direct opposite patterns, in different oceans. This type of change is calledinternal variability, and it results simply from transporting heat from one place to another, but it adds no new heat. A big challenge for assigning a cause to temperature changes isdistinguishing internal variability from external forcing, which adds new heat to the system.This study demonstrates that the six oceans that circle the globe, straddling the equator, havebeen warming simultaneously for at least the past 40 years, which requires external forcing.The data show that the oceans have been warming from the surface downward and that heatpenetration with depth varies from ocean to ocean, providing a fingerprint that drivers in amodel must match. Modeling of internal variability alone did not produce temperatureprofiles that matched this fingerprint, whereas combining internal variability with the effectsof greenhouse gases did. Using a different approach from the study by Meehl et al.(described above), scientists again found that observed patterns of climate change could only be mimicked by including anthropogenic greenhouse gases as a climate driver.
You could look this stuff up as well as I. I have to conclude therefore that you don’t really have an open mind about or interest in the subject. Th mark of a mature person is one who can look at the facts in a disinterested manner and make a judgment regardless of personal feelings.
Republican,
“Funny, the IPCC is using 30 year cycles now.”
Republican, please tell everyone exactly what is “funny” about them using the “classical” period as defined by the WMO.
The IPCC was formed by the WMO — note the link at top of IPCC’s page.
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.htmlGlossary, in Annex”Climate in a narrow sense is usually defined as the average weather, or more rigorously, as the statistical description in terms of the mean and variability of relevant quantities over a period of time ranging from months to thousands or millions of years.
The classical period for averaging these variables is 30 years, as defined by the World Meteorological Organization.”—Republican, please write an open letter to the WMO re the “error of their ways” of using the 30-year period. And post the letter on this thread later today.
“Th mark of a mature person is one who can look at the facts in a disinterested manner and make a judgment regardless of personal feelings.”
Posted by: BFAH | May 23, 2007 at 04:28 PM
“I have to conclude therefore that you don’t really have an open mind about or interest in the subject.”
May I conclude that your conclusion works equally with an assessment on the counter view?
Or is it you merely stream some text together and ignore the questions posed?
High School experiment? Hmm, well that’s your classification, chemical analysis and gas measurement can occur at any level of education.
The sophistication of the analysis and the composition of the experiment would depend on the education level and the experience of the investigator.
Since you have already drawn a conclusion about me, may I suggest that your scientific analysis occurs with the same rapidity and shallow focus of descriptive methods as your posts? :)
BFAH,
You can find Republican’s AGW “opinion” here,http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/05/open_thread_21.html#comment-70415436
No, I don’t think you can, Republican. I have cited, and offered to cite even further, records of experiments. You have offered nothing except opinion. Please find some articles in a peer reviewed scientific journal (not a mass market book)that show that man’d activities have nothing whatever to do with temperature rise and provide the references.
TY cosmos :-)
Republican,
um, it IS a high school experiment…go to the website.
Aside from that, what’s your point?
Meteorological – That would be Weather right Cosmos?
Or if I quoted a Meteorological organization, you might say he is a weatherman and not qualified.
Before you answer, I know what the organization is.
The 30 year period most likely coincides with certain natural cycles. It has nothing to do with AGW.
It can be argued that cycles classified as fractional events of a longer period may have more to do with what is occurring cyclically based on natural phenomena than it does determining what a long range Climate Change may be in order for it to be classified as a Climate Period.
Eras, decades, millennium – are terms that do have chronology as well as their own naturally occurring events that take place because of the nature of the events in those categorized time events.
It doesn’t mean that something,let’s say a NAO can solely be used to determine a long range prediction without considering all factors from all events that occur naturally.
This is analogous to comparing plate tectonic movement causing events over a few decades and compare them to an event one thousand years ago.
The situations are obviously different and the chaos of nature is not as predictable as we once thought.
So no, three decades cannot determine long range predictions especially when other significant events are excluded in that evaluation.
As I said before BFAH, you have already drawn a conclusion about me rather rapidly and we have just met.
This is not the Dairy Queen, so your order won’t be up in five minutes as you expect.
Patience is a virtue, one that is necessary for all Scientists.
Unless of course, one has an agenda. :)
Republican, the only conclusion I can draw is based on the facts. The fact is you seem unwilling to supply peer reviewed alternative explanations. I have read many of these alternative explanations…everything from “Mars is also experiencing global warming” to “God is punishing us”.
Supply the references, show that you’ve read the pros and cons and then summarize your reasons for coming to the concluion you do.
Otherwise, the discussion is pointless.
As I posted earlier, Republican, and as JMWalker echoed above, given the dire consequences of climate change, regardless of who or what is causing it, what’s the big deal about changing a lightbulb, or increasing cafe standards?
You mean references from paleo-climatology, Meteorology, anthropological dig sites that indicate climate occurrences, Geo Cyclines events in the rising of mountains and how it affects climate, Oceanography and all the studies on cyclic change, the study of solar flares, cosmic ray analysis, banded radiation measurements, etc. etc.
Why BFAH whatever do you mean I should supply these peer reviewed papers to you. I can well imagine they are available at any large library and University.
Perhaps you should look into the possibility of getting your own paid copies of the peer reviews without asking me to plagiarize someone’s personal work.
Besides, the costs would be prohibitive as many are not in the Public sector.
One can read all of these established, peer reviewed papers if they wish to do so.
Or they can depend on the IPCC to supply them with op-ed pieces of compiled works.
None of the compiled works I must say do not go into any great depth on methodology and sample methods.
You must be friendly with Cosmos as he keeps referring to these peer-reviewed reports, but fails to come up with any to post here.
Perhaps their is a limitation on his education or perhaps financial background that prohibits him from doing so?
What do you think BFAH?
Are you going to discredit all the basic Climate sciences I listed so you can score some U.N. points? :)
Yes, that’s what I mean…got the references??
I already have the copies…apparently you don’t. Shall I post some .pdf files for you? No trouble or cost at all.
Aside from that, can you at least list the references?
If not, then I guess you’re proof that some hot air is caused by the activities of at least one human.
Evidently BFAH, symbolic logic and logic as it applies to the philosophy of the sciences was not one of your strong suits in college.
Do you always jump to conclusions this quickly? I do hope you’re not running any scientific experiments, the results of haste could be catastrophic!
Surely BFAH post the PDF, that is, if you have the permissions of the authors to do so.
You do know that redistribution of published authored material is proprietary and the author can sue you for doing so without their permission.
But if you want to score some U.N. points and have no fear of me forwarded said documents to the author notifying of said deeds to be committed by you, then by all means do so. :)
Give me the benefit of the doubt. Post the references.
You asked BFAH and I answered. However did you pass Science classes with such low reading comprehension skills?
I’ll gladly pay the US copyright fees for distribution btw.
So, give me an email and I’ll send them along. Or, if you prefer not to give out your email, then we can get on a discussion board that allows file transfers. However you’d like. Of course, I’d also be willing to pay the copyright fees to get hold of your articles. Now, that’s fair isn’t it?
Ich bot analytischen Rat und Auswertung ein freier Service an, aber dennoch lehnen Sie ab. Warum verzögert im discusion?
Gut schätze ich dich Phasen und erlerne….mindestens du lebst. Kein Beweis? Typisch.
Relative contributions of greenhouse gas emissions to global warming – all 6 versions »DA Lashof, DR Ahuja – Nature, 1990
Model estimates of CO 2 emissions from soil in response to global warming – all 5 versions »DS Jenkinson, DE Adams, A Wild – Nature, 1991
Future global warming from atmospheric trace gases – all 5 versions »RE Dickinson, RJ Cicerone – Nature, 1986
National Academy of Sciences Committee on the Science of Climate Change, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions (National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 2001).
Climate change: Conflict of observational science, theory, and politics: Discussion.B. Lovell (2006)AAPG Bulletin 90, 405-407
Republican,
“The 30 year period most likely coincides with certain natural cycles. It has nothing to do with AGW.”
List the natural 30-year cycle(s) that cause the ENTIRE Earth to warm, or cool down.
Give the dates they caused changes on these graphs,http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005
The NAO, ENSO, and other oscillations only SHIFTS climate around to different regions. One area warms, another cools — the global average stays the same.
Global warming requires ADDITIONAL heat energy.
Solar has provided a small increase recently, but most of the warming is due to human-added GHG’s, and land-use changes.
Republican,
“Or they can depend on the IPCC to supply them with op-ed pieces of compiled works.”
I guess you cannot comprehend that the science in the SPM has been WEAKENED?Bureaucrats edited out parts about natural positive feedbacks, etc.
‘Political Corruption of the IPCC Report?Changes in the Final Text of the “Summary for Policy Makers” ‘http://www.meridian.org.uk/Resources/Global%20Dynamics/IPCC/index.htm
And are you UNABLE to look at the “References” at the end of the chapters athttp://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html
and then look up the authors, and their papers?
How sad, and clueless…
Also, where’s Republican’s list of peer-reviewed papers supporting his opinion about AGW?
And his open letter to the WMO?
LMAO, what a pair.
Have fun , off to a movie. I actually enjoy life Cosmos and BFAH.
An Inconvenient Truth?
as for your life, you can have it.
Another example re Schwarzenegger, in August 2006,
‘California and UK in climate pact’http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/5233466.stm“The UK and California are to work together on reducing greenhouse gases and promoting low carbon technologies.”
Republican wouldn’t watch Gore’s documentary, because it contains science done by the worlds best, peer-reviewed scientists.
But their research is compiled every few years by IPCC, and Republican HATES the U.N., so he seems to believe that all of their science is invalid.
Republican’s hero is Lindzen, who “publishes”(sic) op-eds in the WSJ — so I guess he’d watch the movie Lindzen is in,’THE GREAT CHANNEL FOUR SWINDLE’http://climatedenial.org/2007/03/09/the-great-channel-four-swindle
‘Swindled!’http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled/