If I’m not mistaken, this has also happened to Al Gore in the last couple of years. He gave a gw speech in the middle of a really bad snow storm. Delish 
Update: This was also posted at Drudge:
SAVE IT FOR A SUNNY DAY: Maryville Univ. in St. Louis area cancelling screening of Al Gore’s ‘Inconvenient Truth’ because of a snowstorm…
Heh.
True Irony: House Global Warming hearing canceled due to ice storm
http://drudgereport.com/flash8.htm
HOUSE HEARING ON ‘WARMING OF THE PLANET’ CANCELED AFTER ICE STORM HEARING NOTICE Tue Feb 13 2007 19:31:25 ET
The Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality hearing scheduled for Wednesday, February 14, 2007, …
Trackback by Leaning Straight Up — 2/14/2007 @ 2/14/2007 - 12:01 am
[...] Others: Sister Toldjah on cancelling of "An Inconvenient Truth." Tim Blair, The Jawa Report, Leaning Straight Up. [...]
Pingback by Pirate’s Cove » >>Powered By Pure Neocon Evil! » Blog Archive » Today’s Global Warming Humor: Climate Change Hearing Cancelled Due To Snow — 2/14/2007 @ 2/14/2007 - 7:44 am
[...] Sister Toldjah reminds us of Al Gore’s bad day. [...]
Pingback by Candy Slice of Life » Article » Ice Storm cancels Global Warming meeting! — 2/14/2007 @ 2/14/2007 - 8:57 am
This just proves that God does have a sense of humor, and that Gore has no sense.
Comment by Bachbone @ 2/13/2007 - 9:48 pm
Maybe Mother Nature doesn’t like it when mere mortal politicians try and take credit for what she’s doing herself? How dare those puny mortals think they are causing the planet to warm, what arrogance! I’ll show them!
Comment by Severian @ 2/13/2007 - 9:49 pm
They scurried home so fast they missed the irony.
Comment by JammieWearingFool @ 2/13/2007 - 10:08 pm
Belief in man-made Global Waremening means never having to say sorry for whatever the weather is…
Comment by geezer @ 2/13/2007 - 10:27 pm
A snowstorm in February. An obvious use of the Patriot Act to silence opposition to the Vast Right-Wing Halliburton Conspiracy.
IMPEACH BUSH NOW!!!
Comment by Mwalimu Daudi @ 2/13/2007 - 10:41 pm
Ahhhh the inconvient truth of the darn weather.
Too bad for you Al. - Lorica
Comment by Lorica @ 2/13/2007 - 11:29 pm
What if Algore has the right scenario, but the wrong solar system?
Comment by Tom TB @ 2/14/2007 - 5:45 am
Now that’s funny!
Comment by Chuck @ 2/14/2007 - 8:49 am
That’s the problem with the global warming models, they don’t have the right al-gore-ithm!
Comment by Severian @ 2/14/2007 - 10:16 am
I wonder why someone wanting to show concern for the well being of the planet is gven so much ridicule. It seems rational to be concerned with your environment. Honestly, I really have tried to block out all the chatter, so I can’t speak to the specifics of the diatribe. I don’t see the need for debate on this. At the end of the day, I hear workers talk about what they did at work and I hear corporations contradicting them. I know which bunch is concerned with selling me something, anything to generate profits. I also know which bunch punches a clock and spends his effort studying and testing and researching. That’s all I’m sayin’……
Comment by T Ray @ 2/14/2007 - 10:22 am
So if global warming heats up the ice cap, and an iceberg the size of Maryland breaks off and floats into the mid-Atlantic shipping channels, sinking a ship or two, you’d yell, “Look! An iceberg in the middle of the Atlantic! That’s proof there’s no global warming!”
Your ignorance is glaring.
Comment by MattM @ 2/14/2007 - 10:48 am
“someone wanting to show concern for the well being of the planet is gven so much ridicule.” T Ray, if I was an anti-smoking advocate, and you never saw me without a lit cigarette, would you believe in my cause?
Comment by Tom TB @ 2/14/2007 - 10:51 am
That is one of the most idiotic things I’ve heard. Considering the source, I shouldn’t be surprised.
So, where are all the hurricanes Matty? You know, all those big, bad hurricanes we were supposed to get this year. Oops. Looks like your models were wrong.
The above quote sounds an awful lot like the alarmism we’re hearing today. Too bad it’s from Newsweek in 1975, talking about global COOLING. Thank goodness we didn’t have the knee-jerk reactions we’re seeing now.
Sheep like Matty who are blind to the fact their being used are a threat to this world. They keep drinking the kool-aid and spouting the talking points without engaging their brains.
Who are the ignorant ones again Matty?
Comment by Todd @ 2/14/2007 - 11:02 am
And therein lies the problem. I DO see the need for debate on this, because what these alarmists are doing is not only unethical and immoral, it’s dangerous.
Being environmentally responsible is one thing. Destroying our economy over something we can’t prove is quite another.
Comment by Todd @ 2/14/2007 - 11:04 am
So, years and tears of data v. one day/week/month of data and you’re going to take the latter as your evidence? As well, reams of scientific research v. a few skeptics and you are going to take the latter as support for your doubts? This is science, not religion. No matter how much you want to believe in something false, there is too much hard data supporting the opposite of your wishes. Yes, earth will be fine and will recycle us as she has done several hundred million years of life but do you or do you not care about our children and grandchildren and what their future may bring?
Comment by bugaboo @ 2/14/2007 - 11:12 am
MattM to quote you for yourself on icebergs floating sinking ships…
Your ignorance is glaring.
Want to show me a ship that has been sunk because of this recently?
Your ignorance is also glaring because a warming which is cyclic and has happened throughout history happened recently, and is now REFREEZING the same areas.
Your ignorance is glaring in that when one cap is melting the other cap was gaining ice.
Your ignorance is glaring when one side wishes to shutdown debate by calling for nazi like trials, jailing and taking away the credentials of anyone who disagrees with global warming and how it is being POLITICIZED.
Comment by sanity @ 2/14/2007 - 11:21 am
Wrong, there is a lot of data that refutes the mantra of it’s all CO2 from humans, and there is ample evidence of deliberate misrepresentation, and outright lies, in the pro-AGW crowds debates. We’ve been all over this ad nauseum. It’s the AGW crowd, the pro-global warming people, who are treating this like a religion. The simple fact is that the more we learn about the climate the lower the influence of man-made CO2 on it, and the wheels are about to come off the AGW bus. The inconvenient facts are that the world is not responding according to the models, and there is exciting science that’s being ignored that refutes the majority of the CO2 alarmists. Hence, the mad dash to decertify and ostracize those who disagree, they know their arguments are on shaky ground and want an inquisition to silence their critics.
Take some time and actually read what’s out there instead of blathering about consensus and other tripe and you will find that the CO2 argument is specious and weak and getting weaker.
Comment by Severian @ 2/14/2007 - 11:25 am
‘Global Warming’ is a misnomer, though globally, the temperature has increased. The proper term is ‘global climate change’, and you can throw whatever adjectives you want in there. It’s largely agreed that humans have caused it, whatever you want to call it, and it won’t uniformly make everywhere warmer. Climate patterns will change, ocean currents will shift, and some places (coastal Europe, for instance) may find themselves buried under snow.
Still, there’s a lot of irony to a ‘global warming’ talk or movie screening being snowed out. Nobody can deny that.
Comment by JSacharuk @ 2/14/2007 - 11:26 am
So, years and tears of data v. one day/week/month of data and you’re going to take the latter as your evidence?
There is no years and years o data, this climatology is is a science in its infancy, and they are wroking mainly on omputer models and predicts. Their prediction is that gw is “very likely” manmade. in other words, we can’t be 100% positive, but we think so.
Tell me, if a doctor todl you its “very likely” you have cancer, or AIDS, but wasn’t 100% sure….would you keep looking at the data? Get a second opinion? Make sure you are 100% positive that you do have it?
If a doctor told you its “very likely” but wasn’t 100% sure you have gangrene in your leg and you will have to have it cut off, would you have it cut off right away before knowing 100% or would you get a 2nd opinion? Would you make sure it was 100% first? Would you entertain all ideas before removing your limb?
As well, reams of scientific research v. a few skeptics and you are going to take the latter as support for your doubts?
More and more skeptics are coming out against this, even former IPCC people, now that others are speaking to against this, they are seeing their speaking out will not have their credentials removed, or put on trial for speaking what they know of it.
If it was 100% certainity you would not have any dissenting opinions.
This is science, not religion.
Wrong again, this has become the lefts mantra, it’s religon as you would. Your right that is should be science, but it has been so politiced it is hard to tell the truth from the fiction. You have people talking and spreading alarm and fear for a 1 degree shift, wanting to make changes that will be negligble …what was it, .001 difference it would make? Other reports I read is that we would have too cease all carbon based transports for us to make any kind of dicernable effect.
Again, I believe we may contribute to gw, but not as much as eveyone is making it out to be. This has been cyclic through history, and solar (sun) activity, the planets positioning affect a good portion of the warming and cooling of the planet.
No matter how much you want to believe in something false, there is too much hard data supporting the opposite of your wishes.
And there is evidence supporting otherwise also, something hat should be included in the debate, but most such as yourself believe the debate is over, “most” scientist, “very likely”, believe man is “possibly” the cause of global warming……..but if “very likely” is good enough for you…then go ahead and cut off that limb, without finding out for certain.
Comment by sanity @ 2/14/2007 - 11:43 am
I have to wonder also, are these the same climatoligist that claimed 2006 was going to be one of the worse season of hurricanes?
And the hurricane season went out with a whimper and not some tremendous increase like they predicted.
If they can’t even get what is happening within 6 months right, can they be 100% certain on what is happening in the future?
One thing I heard that strikes me as more truth than not on global warming predictions for the far future. Prediciting weather and doom and gloom it will produce in 2080 has once consequence, the people making the predictions won’t be alive to answer if they are wrong. So it is easy to say what is going to happen in the future if you don’t have to be around to be called on it.
Comment by sanity @ 2/14/2007 - 11:48 am
Severian wrote,
You are right, there is no data out that predicts all the CO2 in the atmosphere is from humans, that is silly. But I do not know of any data that refutes that the climate is warming precipitously over the last 150 years- more than can be explained by current geophysical models without throwing in human contributions. Do you? Please provide a link.
Incidentally, one the first symptoms predicted by global warming would be increased snow fall in the short term.
Comment by Duke @ 2/14/2007 - 11:51 am
” Too bad it’s from Newsweek in 1975, talking about global COOLING”
Ahhh, the old global cooling canard. How convenient it is to rewrite history in your own mind. Newsweek and Time put out one article each on the subject, and it’s treated as if it were a broad international scientific consensus at that time. It wasn’t.
From NEWSWEEK (recently):
“predictions of global cooling never approached the kind of widespread scientific consensus that supports the greenhouse effect today. And for good reason: the tools scientists have at their disposal now—vastly more data, incomparably faster computers and infinitely more sophisticated mathematical models—render any forecasts from 1975 as inoperative as the predictions being made around the same time about the inevitable triumph of communism.”
“Destroying our economy over something we can’t prove is quite another.”
Now THAT’s a chicken little argument if I’ve ever heard one. Reducing energy use will streamline, not “destroy” our economy. We have economic and national security motivations to do so, regardless of global warming.
“if I was an anti-smoking advocate, and you never saw me without a lit cigarette, would you believe in my cause”
WTF does that have to do with Gore? Is this a reference to his using fossil fuels to get around? Is it in knowing disregard of the fact that he purchases carbon credits to offset his activities (as do I)? Or is it the self-righteous braying of a petulant child who, incapable of dealing with Gore’s message, hurtles defamations of character and honor? Methinks its the latter.
Next up:
The midieval warming period (that was only in Europe and therefore not a global phenomenon, therefore not relevant).
AND
The international conspiracy against conservative profit! (that just makes so much sense, because people who oppose profit are SOOOO powerful)
Finally, an aside to those conservatives who don’t deny evolution, but do deny man-made global warming (I know you are out there):
Have you noticed the unscientific nature of opposition to evolution among those sharing your worldview? Doesn’t it concern you that these same sorts of arguments are made (and believed) regularly by the same people in regards to global warming?
Comment by Masochist @ 2/14/2007 - 11:57 am
The evidence is actually running the reverse. Just two to three years ago the consensus was that humans contributed only about 10% to the overall temperature increases with the rest due to cosmological/climatic changes. Now, we are at the reverse as the models have been refined with new data and new, more accurate collection methods of old data.
Yes, there have been climatic changes throughout the 4.5 bn year history of our planet but few as rapid, and long-lasting, as the increase that we have seen from the beginning of the industrial age.
It is not 100% but I will trust the brains at the universities and neutral think tanks over those at Exxon-sponsored organizations.
And, even if we are contributing very little to what we know is a warming trend that could prove catastrophic, or very disruptive at best, to life as we know it, you don’t think we should try to do something about it?
Sanity, You say JUST one degree. It could, perhaps, be as much as 2. On a global scale that is quite consequential.
Now, couple that (whether mostly man-made or not) with our injection of ozone-depleting chemicals into the atmosphere and you have a potentially magnifying effect. Two degree increases with additional radiation (over the Antarctic especially) and you’re talking even more hazards.
If we can do something to help, don’t you think we should? Don’t you think it makes sense to develop technologies not just to cope with the changes but perhaps mitigate them as well?
Comment by bugaboo @ 2/14/2007 - 11:57 am
“There is no years and years o data”
I spit up my coffee when I read that. sanity’s satirical take on a codgery old man who hates these “new fangled internets” on the “mis-information super highway” really had me laughing.
As far as I know, we’ve had weather satelites in orbit for decades.
As far as I know, decades qualifies as years and years.
As far as I know, those satelites have been recording data.
But I must be some kind of idiot, because sanity says there’s “no years and years o data”.
Comment by Masochist @ 2/14/2007 - 12:04 pm
Oh cripes, we got another round of clueless global warming luddites here, just damned certain of the facts even though they don’t know them. Here’s a hint, go back in the archives here and read the copius links that show there are plenty of things other than CO2 that cause warming, and have a much greater effect. Also that show that CO2 is logarithmic in it’s effect, doubling CO2 concentrations will not double it’s effect, it will only result in a marginal increase in effect as it is already at a high enough concentration to be near saturation. Solar effects, particularly Svensmark’s recent work on cosmic rays, solar magnetic fields, and cloud formation, is huge, and can easily account for over 2/3rds of the observed warming to date, which is far from catastrophic, it’s just under 1 deg C in the last 150 years.
Comment by Severian @ 2/14/2007 - 12:07 pm
Note also that the alleged warming is not even certain, satellite measurements of the troposphere show it’s not warming at the rate predicted, it’s hardly warmed at all, most of the “observed” warming comes from surface measurements that are contaminated by urban heat island effects and other man made impacts like deforestation, etc. that have a huge effect on local ground level temperatures. And the Southern hemisphere and Antarctica are stubbornly moving the opposite direction in temperatures from what these models predict, another oops. So you have a polluted data set to start with driving models based on wishful thinking postulating positive feedback loops on CO2 concentrations that have never in the history of the planet been observed to be true. Yeah, that’s the ticket, let’s destroy our economies and create worldwide problems on the basis of that kind of analysis. Great idea.
Comment by Severian @ 2/14/2007 - 12:12 pm
The evidence is actually running the reverse. Just two to three years ago the consensus was that humans contributed only about 10% to the overall temperature increases with the rest due to cosmological/climatic changes. Now, we are at the reverse as the models have been refined with new data and new, more accurate collection methods of old data.
Gee, that must be why the IPCC lowered both the magnitude of the predicted effects by over a third, AND reduced their confidence levels, and ignored recent data about ocean cooling and solar effects, in order to generate their recent report. As well as completely dropping any reference at all to Mann’s discredited hockey stick, they did an Orwellian MiniTruth job on it, just pretend it never existed. Yeah, that’s solid data.
Comment by Severian @ 2/14/2007 - 12:15 pm
Severian, you referenced a single scientist who’s work you claim can account for 2/3 of global warming without CO2.
Why do you choose to beleive that scientist over all the others? could it be because his conclusions support your worldview?
nah, that would be crazy
Only an ideologue would do something like that….I mean, only on the far-right-wing or far-left-wing reaches of the internet could we find someone so ideologically blind. Oh wait, this is Sister Toldjah, a POLITICAL blog, specializing on the far-right-wing, where ideologues reign supreme.
Comment by Masochist @ 2/14/2007 - 12:15 pm
I think it shows the intellectual dishonesty of the global warming skeptic crowd that an isolated incident of a snow storm somewhere would be taken as evidence to support their side. And I, too, have to wonder at the constant ridicule of Gore. Reading blogs like this one, you’d think that Gore was PublicEnemy #1, or a figure to be hated as much as Osama bin Laden. It’s really true: much more space is devoted to castigating gore here than bin Laden himself. This is a man who was once our vice president, who was nearly our president, and who relinquished his claim in the 2000 election with grace and dignity. He’s a statesman who has devoted his life since he retired from office to pursuing causes in the public interest that he believes in. You may not agree with his politics, but I think he deserves a lot more respect than he’s shown around here. The constant belittlement not only completely misses the point in terms of science or politics, but it’s childish and mean-spirited as well.
Comment by Bob @ 2/14/2007 - 12:17 pm
Here are some reading points to help debate also Duke:
Here
Hmmm by the way, did you know that global temperature has gone DOWN since 1998?
More here.
More on the discussion here.
And more here:
Link
More HERE.
And Here.
More Here.
And Here.
And as a side note, I have only barely noticed a change in temperatures and weather patterns here in Michigan. Normally first snow storm comes 2 weeks in January, this time it was in Februaury.
But I have seen it have a freak snow storm in the middle of JUNE once, but that was like 10 - 12 years ago.
There are many sides of the debate, and to close it down only shows desperation of those of the ‘cultist’ view of global warming that their’s is the only
god, err, I mean the only right answer and anyone who doesn’t believe or speaks against it should bebeheaded…errr put on trial, or credentials taken away, or maybe jailed.That isn’t debate, or discussion of ideas, it is intimidation by those who would stifle ideas and thought.
Comment by sanity @ 2/14/2007 - 12:22 pm
Oh really? So, you think a $400-500 billion dollar hit to our economy each year for this “crisi” is nothing, huh?
And see how EASY it is for Newsweek to now come and say, Oops. What about the MOUNTAINS of data they spoke of? The language sounds AWFULLY familiar. How CONVENIENT it is to just shrug your shoulders after making such dire predictions. So, tell me, why should we believe them now?
Get your head out of the sand.
Comment by Todd @ 2/14/2007 - 12:31 pm
Yeah, I guess the debate is over…
Comment by Todd @ 2/14/2007 - 12:32 pm
With grace and dignity?!?!
What’s truly sad is that you actually believe that rubbish.
Comment by Todd @ 2/14/2007 - 12:35 pm
Why do you choose to beleive that scientist over all the others? could it be because his conclusions support your worldview?
No, it’s because I actually am a physicist, I’ve done atmospheric work (effects of atmospheric turbulence on the propagation of lasers and IR spectrophotometry), and I’ve done solar work in undergraduate school. It’s because I know a fair amount about CO2’s effect on atmospheric transmission in the IR bandwidths, and because I actually read and form opinions on many of the papers published, and the CO2 as the prime cause of warming isn’t credible, particularly when temperatures lead CO2 concentrations, not the opposite. And it’s because that several of the pro CO2 crowd have admitted that they feel it’s OK to lie and distort and ignore the uncertainties in order to convince people.
I’ve gone over all of this with people more educated than the average GW troll I see online, and formed my opinions based on the data I’ve seen and the science I know, and being told that it’s a consensus, particularly when it’s not, is not terribly compelling.
Comment by Severian @ 2/14/2007 - 12:38 pm
The shortsightness and bungling of your facts are laughable.
Remember the Ozone hole? Back in the 70’s, people debated whether it was man-made or natural. Guess what we found? While the hole’s size did fluctuate year-to-year, the hole was on average growing bigger due to human causes. And what happened when we outlawed CFCs? The hole is still there, and its size still fluctuates year-to-year, on average, it’s not getting bigger.
Exactly the same for global warming.
Yes, the sun (as well as other natural occurences) do cause fluctuation on the earth’s climate independent from man’s effect. But on average the earth is growing warmer due to man’s effect. And when we stop /reduce our Co2 and other emmissions, the earth, on average, will stop getting warmer.
Feel free to try and cloud the issue with your ignorance just like you cloud every other issue, Sister.
Comment by MattM @ 2/14/2007 - 12:40 pm
This is a man who was once our vice president, who was nearly our president, and who relinquished his claim in the 2000 election with grace and dignity.
Comment by Severian @ 2/14/2007 - 12:40 pm
“With grace and dignity?!?! What’s truly sad is that you actually believe that rubbish.”
–Todd
Gore fought hard in the aftermath of the 2000 election to settle the disputes over Florida ballots. Certainly Bush’s team fought hard as well. What’s the problem with that? But it showed a lot of class that Gore sucked it up and conceded as graciously as possible so the country could move on after what must have been a bitter and painful defeat. Here’s an excerpt from his concession speech:
What did Gore ever do to you to deserve such scorn, Todd? Whether or not you agree with his politics or with his advocacy of global warming issues, why the constant belittlement?
Comment by Bob @ 2/14/2007 - 12:50 pm
“The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) officially unveiled its long-waited report on global climate change. The report was produced by some 600 authors from 40 countries and representatives from 113 governments reviewed and signed off on the report the course of this week.
The scientists said global warming was “very likely” — with a greater than 90 percent level of confidence — caused by human activity, specifically man’s burning of fossil fuels. The report makes it clear that most of the currently observed global warming is not natural.”
Comment by MattM @ 2/14/2007 - 12:52 pm
Yep, there’s no problem at all! Global warming is such a myth, we should never have a snow storm ever if it was true!
Yep, no problem at all, everything is just peachy.
Comment by angryflower @ 2/14/2007 - 12:56 pm
Something interesting to read: Here
Might be helpful to read here, and read a few of the links provided: Here.
Mr. Gore is slated to receive the Nobel Peace Prize and has been nominated for an Oscar.
The Nobel Peace Prize is not what it was or shold be anymore after some of the people that received it and are slated to receive it.
He is up for an Oscar hmm? I mark that up about the same as the Dixi chicks winning a Grammy. It’s not like it was political or anything was it…but that is actually something that was on another thread so won’t continue it here.
There are real problems this world is facing, including radical Islamic terrorism and the most heated debate riht now? It’s “very likely”, it might be, it’s a possibility, that global warming is man made…we just aren’t 100 percent sure.
Ok, time to cut off that limb now right?
Comment by sanity @ 2/14/2007 - 1:08 pm
Sanity, Yes, of course, the cultist’s view. I do not propose to shut down debate but I do certainly propose that we act to mitigate what is potentially a difficult future especially in light of the evidence we have to date to support the non-skeptic’s side.
Severian, Our economies could be destroyed if we don’t act, i.e., if the global warming models play out. Agriculture? Disrupted especially with unpredictable climate models. Tourism? Disrupted as we lose beaches and coastlines (and that should also make things fun for the banking and insurance industries). Global economy? Disrupted, as low-lying countries are swamped, Europe is in deep freeze (if ocean circulation slows down), equatorial regions are desertified and dessicated, tropical diseases have more ground for their continuance, and refugees flood what’s left.
You can yap on and on about C20 but you’re forgetting methane which, while with a shorter lifespan hanging out in the atmosphere, has much more heat retention capability than C20 and with the lost of permafrost and the release of enormous quantities of methane…
The sooner we act, the less disruptive the changes need to be. Get that through your head. And, if it turns out that the climate change proponents are wrong, we will have spent money on some nice R&D that may help us in the future in any event, e.g., when we exhaust our supply of carbon-based fuels, or help us as we stretch out into space, or provide opportunities for cleaner living that don’t mean serious disruptions.
Comment by bugaboo @ 2/14/2007 - 1:15 pm
Whether or not you agree with his politics or with his advocacy of global warming issues, why the constant belittlement?
The man strike me as false in many ways, not just his assertions, but his reasoning and why he is doing this and speaking out about that.
He also had many a problem with false assertions and claims before he “relinquished his claim in the 2000 election with grace and dignity.”
Ungh hard to say that with a straight face.
There was no grave and dignity in his concession, if he could have he would have kept going and going, dragging out every little chad, trying to make determinations of what a voter really wanted to vote on. It is only because of the courts putting a stop to it that it came to the conclusion it did….but even if as you say he “relinquished his claim in the 2000 election with grace and dignity,” his supporters did not, claiming that President Bush was not legit, that e was placed there by the courts, that he is not “their” president..ect.
If he had grace and dignity it was not shared by his supporters then.
As for myself, and my own personal opinion of him, he seems false to me. He seems to have made himself what he is to garner attention to himself. There are many that are hardcore planet loving types who care about the enviroment, but I don’t see them up for nobel peace prizes or getting the same recognition as he is…why is that? He isn’t the first.
Like I said, he strikes me as ….. man-made. No pun intended.
Comment by sanity @ 2/14/2007 - 1:17 pm
So while it was snowing feet of snow in the north, just a few hundred miles south in Little Rock, AR, not that southern of a city, it was 62F.
How many “It’s snowing so there’s no global warming!” posts do I have to endure. Global warming means the extremes will be more extreme. If a snowstorm is all it takes to convince you people global warming doesn’t exist, where were you during the record highs and record drought in the Plains this summer?
Comment by ervington @ 2/14/2007 - 1:17 pm
The scientists said global warming was “very likely” — with a greater than 90 percent level of confidence — caused by human activity, specifically man’s burning of fossil fuels. The report makes it clear that most of the currently observed global warming is not natural.”
And what part of the fact that they reduced both the confidence level AND the magnitude of the claimed effect do you not understand? And quoting the IPCC’s politicized summary is not compelling evidence to anyone who thinks for themselves and isn’t a victim of groupthink.
Comment by Severian @ 2/14/2007 - 1:18 pm
If 600 doctors from 40 countries told you they were 90% sure you had cancer and you should start chemo or you might die, what would you do?
Would you debate more about it? Would you wait until they could tell you they were 100% sure you had cancer? Would you risk your own life?
Somehow I doubt it.
Comment by MattM @ 2/14/2007 - 1:19 pm
he strikes me as ….. man-made. No pun intended.
Thought about this, and a better word for him would be…Hollywood-made.
Comment by sanity @ 2/14/2007 - 1:19 pm
Masochist, I am the farthest thing from a petulant child, and I think my smoking analogy is spot-on. If your god Algore is correct that burning fossil fuels will end life on this planet as we know it, and he continues to do it publicly and frequently, then A: He doesn’t believe his position, and B: He is an elitist that somehow has a Right that we mere mortals don’t, or is it C: He doesn’t care!
Comment by Tom TB @ 2/14/2007 - 1:31 pm
If the 600 doctors from a UN organization from 40 countries told me they were 90% sure I had cancer, I would not DISMISS the second opinions out there that were contradictory and call them “deniers”…
That is not respect that is name calling and dismissing.
While I’m being FUNNY by adding the UN in the equation, WE HERE HAVE NOT discounted the work by the IPCC, we have added the facts into the pot of facts unlike leftists socialists who want to have leftists solutions implemented right away concerning this problem that is being analyzed and studied.
So… MattM… what are the solutions that you wouldn’t wait for right away to solve the problems of man made global warming? Keep the linked charts in mind…
Comment by Baklava @ 2/14/2007 - 1:33 pm
Funny how that is…
I never thought about the possible link between how tis is being prtraited and how people tend to play the race card…interesting comparison.
Read the rest of it HERE.
How can you have any accurae basis for projection if you are not using all variables?
If you do not take into account what the sun contributes or how it affects cloud formation, melting, and changes in the atmosphere…your reports or conclusions are less than garbage.
Some of the things I would be interested in is:
How do they measure CO2?
How do they measure output from humans / animals / cow flatulence..ect?
How do they measure the fluctuatiosn of the sun, sun bursts, radiation, and gamma rays on the atmosphere?
How do they measure volcanic contributions above and below the sea?
How do they measure global positioning of the planet in conjuction with its orbit around the sun and how that contributes?
How do they measure car emmissions? Do they have an accurate count of how many cars per country are used? How long they are used per day, and how much per each individual car or group of car models put out?
And lastly, do they include all this in their computer models and calculations? By what this Climatologist is stating, it doesn’t sound like it.
http://newsbusters.org/node/10828
Comment by sanity @ 2/14/2007 - 1:38 pm
Keep the linked charts in mind…
But Bak, if we were to do that and look at the chart, look who the biggest CONTRBUTOR AND OFFEDER seems to be….
And that worst offender, were they not left off the strignant guides of the kyoto treaty?
Comment by sanity @ 2/14/2007 - 1:45 pm
IF these models play out, which assumes A LOT of things.
Sheesh…
Comment by Todd @ 2/14/2007 - 1:48 pm
Constant belittlement?! I made a single comment. What are you smoking?
Gore didn’t bow out with grace and dignity. He fought, and lost. Throw in his disgraceful act of denying military personnel their right to vote and I can use MANY terms to describe him. Grace and dignity are NOT two of them.
Comment by Todd @ 2/14/2007 - 1:50 pm
Al Gore: “The snows of Kilimanjaro are melting.”
Skeptic: “Yeah, but it snowed in Pennsylvania in February. Everything’s ok.”
I’d like to ask you skeptics if you’ve seen the movie. In the past, when I’ve argued with others, I actually took the time to research the other point.
Comment by Dave @ 2/14/2007 - 2:00 pm
As if global warming meant that there would be no more snowstorms, ever.
Duh.
Comment by trrll @ 2/14/2007 - 2:06 pm
Go ahead, tell the folks suffering from drought in the southwestern U.S. that one snowstorm somewhere else is proof that it should be raining.
Global climate change is happening, and to a certain degree due to our own fowling of the environmental nest. The level to which these things are happening is in dispute, not the cause/effect itself.
If only the gw skeptics had as much interest in proving their “economic disaster” model as they did in disproving the relatively well developed climate change mathematics. Here’s my opinion (and I recognize it for what it is… only my opinion): Fighting climate change is going to make some businesses richer, and some poorer. You can tell the ones worried about getting poorer, they’re the ones funding many if not most of the scientists in disagreement with Al Gore.
Comment by Reluctant Republican @ 2/14/2007 - 2:11 pm
Al Gore: “The snows of Kilimanjaro are melting.”
Yeah, but they are going away not because of global warming but due to a localized effect due to reductions in local precipitation due to deforestation that has occurred during the past few decades. Claiming that they are going away because of global warming is one of the detestable, and easily provable, lies Gore uses to try and sell the unsellable.
Try something else, this one has already been proven to be BS.
Comment by Severian @ 2/14/2007 - 2:25 pm
The level to which these things are happening is in dispute, not the cause/effect itself.
Not only the magnitude of the effect is in question, but the cause is as well. Get it straight. CO2 is a very poor choice of a cause, particularly man-made CO2, but it serves an anti-capitalist and anti-industrial agenda much better than solar or natural CO2.
Comment by Severian @ 2/14/2007 - 2:27 pm
Bakalva that chart is misleading and you know it. It shows the biggest percent increases per country. By your logic, if the US puts out a billion tons of Co2 every day for 30 years, but India goes from 1 ton to 2 tons, then India is the problem.
Nice try though.
Comment by MattM @ 2/14/2007 - 2:29 pm
Severian, how is manufacturing more solar and wind power in the US anti-capitalist and anti-industry?
How is Toyota opening a new plant in the US to build enough Priuses to meet demand anti-capitalist and anti-industry?
How is repealing tax breaks to the oil industry (which has record profits) and giving tax breaks to the renewable energy industry anti-capitalist and anti-industry?
Please explain.
Comment by MattM @ 2/14/2007 - 2:34 pm
How is having General Electric produce more Compact Fluorescent Lights (which have a higher profit margin) instead of regular incandescent bulbs (which have a very low profit margin) anti-capitalist and anti-industry?
Comment by MattM @ 2/14/2007 - 2:42 pm
Get it straight. CO2 is a very poor choice of a cause, particularly man-made CO2…
You get it straight. Carbon dioxide is carbon dioxide, regardless of source. It absorbs infrared radiation, and that is not in dispute.
Comment by Reluctant Republican @ 2/14/2007 - 2:48 pm
MattM wrote, “Nice try though.”
EVERYTHING we do causes CO2 output. All of our commerce. The tiling job I did in my master bathroom last weekend where I ‘drove’ to the store to by tile and ‘drove’ to another store to by ‘backerboard’ and the companies who had to produce the materials and ship the materials created CO2 output.
OUR prosperity is what is the problem Matt. We create more CO2 by existing each day than anyone in a third world nation who simply CONSUMES WHAT THEY EAT during that same 3 day weekend as I.
The problem for you is our prosperity, NOT what progress we are making in efficiencies and environmental improvements. We do more to help the environment with our prosperity than any other nation and YOU ignored my question about what solutions you would implement. I count that as a failure on your part during the communication. Please don’t fail us Matt. Tell us what you’d implement for solutions - THIS QUESTION is open to all leftists not just MattM.
Comment by Baklava @ 2/14/2007 - 2:50 pm
How is having General Electric produce more Compact Fluorescent Lights (which have a higher profit margin) instead of regular incandescent bulbs (which have a very low profit margin) anti-capitalist and anti-industry?
Forced production of a product is anti-capitalist, period, regardless of said product.
Comment by Ryan @ 2/14/2007 - 3:01 pm
MattM asked, “Severian, how is manufacturing more solar and wind power in the US anti-capitalist and anti-industry?”
If it costs 3 times more for the energy1, then I would say it is not something the free market would adopt unles forced to pay for it and that is socialism and anti-industry.
There are certainly alternatives to fossil fuels like wind and nuclear that cost as much or less than fossil fuels but enviros are against nuclear and it would take 1 million 2 MegaWatt windmills (covering an area larger than CA) to replace the energy needed to power just our cars not to mention our homes and manufacturing and service industry needs. Yet a 100 Kilowatt generator is JUST being developed in a lab in Colorado.
1 Cost charts are on the last page - notice solar costs 3 times more for energy than fossil fuels[back]
Comment by Baklava @ 2/14/2007 - 3:01 pm
You get it straight. Carbon dioxide is carbon dioxide, regardless of source. It absorbs infrared radiation, and that is not in dispute.
Oh, so would you care to give us a dissertation on the logarithmic effect of increasing CO2 on absorbtion? Care to give us some numbers? Do you even know where CO2 lies on the list of “greenhouse” gases? What is the number one most important greenhouse gas, the second, etc.?
The problem domain is miles more complex than you think, or perhaps than you can think. If you were taught in modern government schools it’s not surprising the concept of a logarithm is alien to you unfortunately.
And “regardless of source?” That’s the rub isn’t it? If CO2 is the problem they say it is, and mankind is not producing the bulk of it, that’s not a very anthropogenic problem now is it?
Comment by Severian @ 2/14/2007 - 3:08 pm
MattM asks a strawman question, “How is having General Electric produce more Compact Fluorescent Lights (which have a higher profit margin) instead of regular incandescent bulbs (which have a very low profit margin) anti-capitalist and anti-industry?”
You yourself admit there is more profit for GE to produce and sell CFL’s. NOBODY here said they are against GE making CFL’s thus your strawman question.
The point is that CA is considering a bill to mandate CFL’s but incandescents and halogens and other specialty bulbs have their purpose (number 1) and number 2 CFL’s are only 5% of the market share of bulbs sold. To change the supply and demand question so radically would cause prices to go up - the poor would have to fork over the $2 currently or the $10 possibly per bulb or live in the dark or maybe the government can create a program for the poor to have light.
Essentially - there is a place for ENCOURAGING the purchase of CFL’s through PR and that can be done for FREE if the drive-by legacy press stops ATTACKING Bush when he has spent more than any other country on climate change issues. The press could educate the American consumer better on what folks like you and I know that CFL’s use 25% of the energy for the same amount of light and last 5 times longer than incandescents.
The point here with us conservatives is - why must it alwasys come down to a leftist solution or we can attack the conservative as NOT CARING.
It’s a tired old pattern by leftists.
Comment by Baklava @ 2/14/2007 - 3:10 pm
MattM asks another strawman question, “How is Toyota opening a new plant in the US to build enough Priuses to meet demand anti-capitalist and anti-industry?”
Who here said that they are against people buying and Toyota making Priuses. If you insist on making strawman arguments the conversation is not advanced.
We should be trying to hear one another’s perspective. Or you can imply accusations that aren’t true with your questions… incessantly.
Comment by Baklava @ 2/14/2007 - 3:12 pm
To add to the above, I just love it when people who are completely scientifically ignorant decide to lecture about what is and is not important in atmospheric physics based upon reading media summaries and stories based on flawed IPCC reports. People who can usually barely add 2 and 2 and get 4 suddenly act like experts in climatology and atmospheric physics and try and lecture and talk down to everyone. Delusions of adequacy again and again…
Comment by Severian @ 2/14/2007 - 3:13 pm
Who here said that they are against people buying and Toyota making Priuses.
Yeah, they’re so important and popular that’s why Toyota has rebates and incentives on them now. And it’s a red herring argument, people want to buy what they want to buy, usually without any regard to whether or not it’s a good idea or if it actually accomplishes anything. I’m a lot more concerned about the potential toxicity of the batteries and electronics in a hybrid if not disposed of correctly than I am of CO2 induced global warming.
Comment by Severian @ 2/14/2007 - 3:16 pm
Sheesh - 70+ posts in this thread so far, but only 5 Valentine’s greetings have been posted in my Valentine’s day thread?
Comment by Sister Toldjah @ 2/14/2007 - 3:17 pm
This time MattM asks a question with a false premise, “How is repealing tax breaks to the oil industry (which has record profits) and giving tax breaks to the renewable energy industry anti-capitalist and anti-industry?”
As you can see by THESE CHARTS, oil companies pay MORE in taxes than they actually make in profits.
And - HillaryEnergy coming to a marketplace near you were profits are seized to an even greater extent than the charts indicate will virtually guarantee that energy will be more costly - hurting more poor people - causing more harm to our economy and taking any incentive there is for investors to invest in the energy sector thus causing a decline in R&D and a decline in the ability ofr oil companies to maintain equipment they have or pay the people they employee or taking any incentive there is to meet the demand for energy with a supply of energy. HillaryEnergy is the WORST idea ever and more Americans need to be educated quickly as to the leftist solutions causing more harm to poor people (unemployment and higher prices).
Additionally I need to make CLEAR that your premise in your question is factually UNTRUE.
Comment by Baklava @ 2/14/2007 - 3:19 pm
ST, 6 if you count my greeting in the previous open thread….
Comment by Baklava @ 2/14/2007 - 3:20 pm
“The man strike me as false in many ways, not just his assertions, but his reasoning and why he is doing this and speaking out about that.
He also had many a problem with false assertions and claims before he ‘relinquished his claim in the 2000 election with grace and dignity.’”
–sanity
Ad Hominem (from Webster’s Dictionary): 1. Appealing to a person’s feelings or prejudices rather than his intellect; 2. marked by an attack on an opponent’s character rather than by an answer to his contentions.
The primary method used by the Republican Party in its political campaigns in recent years has been ad hominem attacks against its opponents. Al Gore was portrayed as a phony who made things up, and many false assertions were invented to try to create this image. All of the famous lies that Gore supposedly told, about Love Canal, inventing the internet, and so forth, were the result of deliberately mis-quoting and mis-characterizing things he said. The claims about his supposed lies are lies themselves. The same thing was done in the Swift Boat attacks against John Kerry. It ties in with a meta-narrative used by conservatives that only they are true and genuine, and their political enemies are phonies and elitists. I’m surprised that so many people refuse to see how their feelings are being manipulated.
In any case, repeating these lies has become like a sacrament among conservatives. It’s a way to bond, stir up righteous anger and mobilize against one’s political “enemies.” The fact that these beliefs are mostly fictitious doesn’t seem to matter.
Comment by Bob @ 2/14/2007 - 3:23 pm
The problem domain is miles more complex than you think, or perhaps than you can think. If you were taught in modern government schools it’s not surprising the concept of a logarithm is alien to you unfortunately.
Well, what you don’t know about me could fill several encyclopedias, but that’s all rather beside the point.
In your diatribe, you’re still talking about magnitude, not cause/effect. I revert to my original comments on the matter. There is evidence that CO2 concentration (BTW, I believe it’s second behind water vapor as far as greenhouse gasses go) has increased about 40% since the industrial revolution began, to the highest levels in perhaps 20 million years.
I am fully aware of the complexity of the climate models. Can you say the same about the complexity of the economic ones?
Comment by Reluctant Republican @ 2/14/2007 - 3:23 pm
Sev - I’m also concerned about the CO2 output of manufacturing the 1,000 or so parts that are above and beyond the normal car parts.
If you just make an efficient car like a Honda Civic HX it has about 1,000 less parts than a hybrid car which has the same amount of internal combustion and transmission parts along with the inverters, batteries, electronics, wiring, regenerative brakes components, etc. The added weight of those components really do not add up to that much gas mileage savings though a hybrid does save gas. Take for instance a Saturn Vue or Honda Civic and then compare to the hybrid versions. The 3,000 in added cost or more and added CO2 to the atmosphere in making those parts should pause anybody from plunking down the extra cash. The savings in gas dollars would not be reached (if using the EPA numbers) for over a decade of Saturn Vue Hyrbid usage or Honda Civic Hyrbid usage. The CO2 savings would be many years also if you account for the amount of added CO2 to make the vehicle.
This all said….. nobody here including myself is against the consumer buying a prius and Toyota making it.
Comment by Baklava @ 2/14/2007 - 3:26 pm
By claiming they’re strawman arguments, you clearly don’t understand what a strawman argument is.
Baklava, you want my answer on what I would do? I gave it to you.
If everyone switched out just 5 bulbs to CFLs, it would be the equivalent of taking 8 million cars off the road, and would reduce our nation’s reliance on energy.
US autos emit more Co2 than all but three entire countries’s emmissions. By increasing fuel economy to 40 mpg, by more than 10 million metric tons a year.
By investing in research for solar and wind power, the cost will come down. Encouraging companies (through tax breaks) to mass more renewable energy will bring the price down and reduce emmissions.
Ok, now that I’ve shown you can make a real change in the amount of Co2 we produce using today’s technology without harming industry, who else wants to try and reason why we shouldn’t do this?
Comment by MattM @ 2/14/2007 - 3:56 pm
Bob, It is Love Story, not Love Canal, but that is but one thing you have dead bang wrong. Al Gore did make up things and still does. The problem with the left is that he, like lying John “The Traitor” Kerry, got exposed and debunked.
The Swifties were telling the truth, and that is what galls you the most Bob.
Comment by PCD @ 2/14/2007 - 4:09 pm
MattM,
It is called Freedom of Choice. Lefties like you don’t believe in it, just command and control government. The same type of government that threatens to prosecute out of existance any company that dares sell kits to enable non-FFV cars to burn E85.
Personally I’d like to buy the components to convert my Ford 3.8L V6 to run on E85. The Orwellian EPA has the auto makers so scared that they won’t tell the owners of their non-FFV vehicles what components they need to convett their older vehicles to E85.
Comment by PCD @ 2/14/2007 - 4:13 pm
Well, what you don’t know about me could fill several encyclopedias, but that’s all rather beside the point.
Well, you’ve gone completely sideways, as expected. You throw out a couple of semi-technical concepts, and dodge the entire issue. And CO2 is not 2nd, methane is. The topic of discussion was the nonlinear effect of increasing CO2 concentrations on atmospheric absorbtion, and by association the relationship with the small part of CO2 that is actually produced by humans. The point is that the effects of increased CO2 concentrations, even if they have as large an effect on temperature as claimed, something that is definitely not remotely proven, are much less than claimed, and as humans are by no means the only or major cause of CO2 emissions, then our part in this worse case is much much smaller than claimed, and the effects of drastic reductions inconsequential. So, we need to devastate the world economy and reduce our ability to adapt to any climate change that does happen, and climate is never constant it always changes, in order to maybe reduce the effect by a tiny tiny amount. When there is ample evidence of the uncertainty in the theory and of alternate sources of warming that the AGW models don’t adequately address if they address them at all? Sounds smart to me!
Comment by Severian @ 2/14/2007 - 4:26 pm
PCD, is it asking too much for people to do a simple Google search before replying? There were fake stories about both Love Canal and Love Story, as you can read in the Wikipedia entries below. And since you claim that Gore “did make up things and still does,” then please give examples. Also please explain, regardless of whether or not you like Kerry, why you call him a “traitor.”
Comment by Bob @ 2/14/2007 - 4:29 pm
Bob,
Wikipedia ia not a credible source for anything. Partissans have edited the contents so heinously that politicians and their aides have been barred form editing it, but that doesn’t bar hyperpartisan, such as yourself, ffom doing the dirty propaganda work for them.
Al Gore DID say on a late night talk show that he was the subject of Love Story.
As for Kerry, A traitor give aid and comfort to the enemy in time of war. Not only did Kerry lie to Congress giving his false Winter Soldier testimony, Kerry met with the North Vietnamese in Paris, while Kerry was still in the Naval Reserves during the war in Vietnam, and then advocated for the North Vietnamese.
Comment by PCD @ 2/14/2007 - 4:37 pm
MattM said, “Ok, now that I’ve shown you can make a real change in the amount of Co2 we produce using today’s technology without harming industry, who else wants to try and reason why we shouldn’t do this?”
You did none of the sort. You gave conclusional answers but did not state how we get to the end result.
For instance - who is going to make everyone remove 5 perfectly working bulbs and buy $10 worth of CFL’s (which took CO2 to produce and ship) and took energy to go to the store and purchase and all of the servers which enable the transaction are using energy. Maybe everyone will do it without question but what I usually see from lefties are forced by government solutions like the one coming here in CA where CFL’s are mandated.
Another for instance: You talked about autos having 40 MPG average. How will that come to fruition??? There are about 10 ways to get that done. 1) Consumers of American can choose to forgo horsepower and luxury for economy and lower emissions - how is that for a free market solution 2) Governments can step in and mandate an AFE of 40 MPG with mixed results one of them being lighter cars and the other being less powerful cars
And how do you mandate such a high AFE when it’s hard enough for a Toyota Corolla to acheive 40 MPG. Families and prosperous people everywhere will not stand for small and less powerful. They would opt to keep and improve their existing more polluting older cars… I’m thinking. Acting like a switch out of ALL cars to an average of 40 MPG cars overnight is utopian thinking and not based on realism. We have made very good improvements in efficiency and emissions with auto engines in the last 20 years but CONSUMERS have chosen for a doubling of horsepower during the same 20 years….
Matt also wrote, “By investing in research for solar and wind power, the cost will come down.”
This country has invested more in these technologies by far than every other country. The investments ARE happening. You can’t very well speed up R&D faster than the amount of talented people able to do the research can do it unless you grow the pool of talent with more college graduates in the area.
My contention is that we are making significant progress AND we are not the ones people should be shaking their finger at AND the crisis mentality is not reason for leftist solutions which would make more people suffer especially the poor.
Comment by Baklava @ 2/14/2007 - 4:46 pm
Oookay, PCD. Now I’d have to ask you for proof that Wikipedia is unreliable. The only factual study I know of showed that Wikipedia was about as reliable as the Encyclopedia Britannica in a survey of science articles in the two sources. What about your own reliability? You present no facts, no examples, no nuttin’. I guess you’d rather stick to your ad hominems — heck, I suppose it’s so much easier when facts don’t matter, eh?
Comment by Bob @ 2/14/2007 - 4:55 pm
Matt also wrote, “By investing in research for solar and wind power, the cost will come down.”
Your mission if you choose to accept it is to convince “Not in my backyard” Kennedy to allow Windmills there.
Comment by sanity @ 2/14/2007 - 4:56 pm
“Al Gore: “The snows of Kilimanjaro are melting.”
<