House “Planet Warming” hearing cancelled – due to snowstorm

Posted by: ST on February 13, 2007 at 9:19 pm

LOL!

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.

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Trackbacks

143 Responses to “House “Planet Warming” hearing cancelled – due to snowstorm”

Comments

  1. Bachbone says:

    This just proves that God does have a sense of humor, and that Gore has no sense.

  2. Severian says:

    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!:d

  3. They scurried home so fast they missed the irony.

  4. geezer says:

    Belief in man-made Global Waremening means never having to say sorry for whatever the weather is…

  5. Mwalimu Daudi says:

    A snowstorm in February. An obvious use of the Patriot Act to silence opposition to the Vast Right-Wing Halliburton Conspiracy.

    IMPEACH BUSH NOW!!!

  6. Lorica says:

    Ahhhh the inconvient truth of the darn weather. :) Too bad for you Al. – Lorica

  7. Tom TB says:

    What if Algore has the right scenario, but the wrong solar system?

  8. Chuck says:

    Now that’s funny!:d

  9. Severian says:

    That’s the problem with the global warming models, they don’t have the right al-gore-ithm!:d

  10. T Ray says:

    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’……

  11. MattM says:

    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.

  12. Tom TB says:

    “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?

  13. Todd says:

    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.

    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.

    “There are ominous signs that the earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production—with serious political implications for just about every nation on earth. The drop in food production could begin quite soon… The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologist are hard-pressed to keep up with it.”

    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?

  14. Todd says:

    I don’t see the need for debate on this.

    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.

  15. bugaboo says:

    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?

  16. sanity says:

    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.

  17. Severian says:

    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.

  18. JSacharuk says:

    ‘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. :)

  19. sanity says:

    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.

  20. sanity says:

    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.

  21. Duke says:

    Severian wrote,

    “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.”

    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.

  22. Masochist says:

    ” 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?

  23. bugaboo says:

    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?

  24. Masochist says:

    “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”.

  25. Severian says:

    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.

  26. Severian says:

    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.

  27. Severian says:

    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. 8-|

  28. Masochist says:

    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.

  29. Bob says:

    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.

  30. sanity says:

    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.

    This figure captures very well, the “little ice age”, the Medieval Warm Period, and other known variations of late BCE and early CE times. The drivers of this model are Milankovitch calculations (average for the entire Hemisphere) and the observed volcanic record described above. Carbon dioxide is treated as a very minor dependent variable.

    More on the discussion here.

    And more here:

    The allegation that the AEI was paying people to counter the report is totally false, it’s a lie propagated by the British paper that reported it. The AEI is willing to pay for a debate and analysis, not for a debunking. The AEI is demanding a retraction, and the politicians, all Dems of course, who jumped on this now look like the fools they are. Just more of the typical lies the AGW zealots are willing to sling around in their frantic effort to stifle debate and discussion.

    Note that lost in all the hoopla and the “we’re all gonna die if we don’t stifle the West’s economies” is the fact that despite the bleating of the AGW zealots about the IPCC report, which is not the scientific report but a political summary, the report downgrades both the confidence level and the magnitude of the problem. Not that you’d know that from the hysteria coming out of the press and politicians. And this report still does not include the latest data on ocean cooling, which undercuts their arguments even further.

    Link

    More HERE.

    And Here.

    An experiment that hints we are wrong on climate change

    Nigel Calder, former editor of New Scientist, says the orthodoxy must be challenged

    When politicians and journalists declare that the science of global warming is settled, they show a regrettable ignorance about how science works. We were treated to another dose of it recently when the experts of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued the Summary for Policymakers that puts the political spin on an unfinished scientific dossier on climate change due for publication in a few months’ time. They declared that most of the rise in temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to man-made greenhouse gases.

    The small print explains “very likely” as meaning that the experts who made the judgment felt 90% sure about it. Older readers may recall a press conference at Harwell in 1958 when Sir John Cockcroft, Britain’s top nuclear physicist, said he was 90% certain that his lads had achieved controlled nuclear fusion. It turned out that he was wrong. More positively, a 10% uncertainty in any theory is a wide open breach for any latterday Galileo or Einstein to storm through with a better idea. That is how science really works.

    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 be beheaded…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.

  31. Todd says:

    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.

    Oh really? So, you think a $400-500 billion dollar hit to our economy each year for this “crisi” is nothing, huh?

    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.

    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.

  32. Todd says:

    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.

    With grace and dignity?!?!

    What’s truly sad is that you actually believe that rubbish.

  33. Severian says:

    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.

  34. MattM says:

    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.

  35. Severian says:

    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.

    =)) You’ve just got to be kidding, grace and dignity, in what distorted universe is Gore’s constant whining and recounts and elimination of military votes considered grace and dignity? That is hands down the silliest and most ideologically blinkered statement I’ve read in a long long time! ROFL!

  36. Bob says:

    “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:

    . . . I know that many of my supporters are disappointed. I am too. But our disappointment must be overcome by our love of country.

    And I say to our fellow members of the world community, let no one see this contest as a sign of American weakness. The strength of American democracy is shown most clearly through the difficulties it can overcome. Some have expressed concern that the unusual nature of this election might hamper the next president in the conduct of his office. I do not believe it need be so.

    President-elect Bush inherits a nation whose citizens will be ready to assist him in the conduct of his large responsibilities. I personally will be at his disposal, and I call on all Americans — I particularly urge all who stood with us to unite behind our next president. This is America. Just as we fight hard when the stakes are high, we close ranks and come together when the contest is done . . .

    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?

  37. MattM says:

    “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.”

  38. angryflower says:

    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.

  39. sanity says:

    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?

  40. bugaboo says:

    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.

  41. sanity says:

    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.

  42. ervington says:

    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?

  43. Severian says:

    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.

  44. MattM says:

    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.

  45. sanity says:

    he strikes me as ….. man-made. No pun intended.

    Thought about this, and a better word for him would be…Hollywood-made.

  46. Tom TB says:

    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!

  47. Baklava says:

    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… ;)

  48. sanity says:

    Canadian Climatologist: Global Warming ‘Fear Card’ Being Used in U.S. Like ‘Race Card’

    As soon as people start saying something’s settled, it’s usually that they don’t want to talk about it anymore. They don’t want anybody to dig any deeper. It’s very, very far from settled. In fact, that’s the real problem. We haven’t been able to get all of the facts on the table. The IPCC is a purely political setup.

    Funny how that is…

    As I tell audiences, the minute somebody starts saying “Oh, the children are going to die and the grandchildren are going to have no future” they have now played the emotional and fear card. Just like in the U.S., it’s almost like the race card. It’s not to say that it isn’t valid in some cases. But the minute you play that card, you are now taking the issues and the debates out of the rational and logical and reasonable and sensible and calm into the emotional and hysterical.

    I never thought about the possible link between how tis is being prtraited and how people tend to play the race card…interesting comparison.

    The other thing that you are seeing going on is that they have switched from talking about global warming to talking about climate change. The reason for that is since 1998 the global temperature has gone down — only marginally, but it has gone down. In the meantime, of course, CO2 has increased in the atmosphere and human production has increased. So you’ve got what Huxley called the great bane of science — “a lovely hypothesis destroyed by an ugly fact.” So by switching to climate change, it allows them to point at any weather event — whether it’s warming, cooling, hotter, dryer, wetter, windier, whatever — and say it is due to humans. Of course, it’s absolutely rubbish.

    ….

    Yeah, the world has been warming since 1680 and the cause is changes in the sun. But in their computer models they hardly talk about the sun at all and in the IPCC summary for policy-makers they don’t talk about the sun at all. And of course, if they put the sun into their formula in their computer models, it swamps out the human portion of CO2, so they can’t possibly do that.

    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

  49. sanity says:

    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?

  50. Todd says:

    Our economies could be destroyed if we don’t act, i.e., if the global warming models play out.

    IF these models play out, which assumes A LOT of things.

    Sheesh…

  51. Todd says:

    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?

    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.

  52. Dave says:

    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.

  53. trrll says:

    As if global warming meant that there would be no more snowstorms, ever.

    Duh.

  54. Reluctant Republican says:

    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.

  55. Severian says:

    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.

  56. Severian says:

    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.

  57. MattM says:

    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.

  58. MattM says:

    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.

  59. MattM says:

    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?

  60. Reluctant Republican says:

    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.

  61. Baklava says:

    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.

  62. Ryan says:

    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.

  63. Baklava says:

    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]

  64. Severian says:

    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? 8-|

  65. Baklava says:

    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.

  66. Baklava says:

    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.

  67. Severian says:

    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…:-w

  68. Severian says:

    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.

  69. Sheesh – 70+ posts in this thread so far, but only 5 Valentine’s greetings have been posted in my Valentine’s day thread? :((

    ;)

  70. Baklava says:

    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.

  71. Baklava says:

    ST, 6 if you count my greeting in the previous open thread…. :x

  72. Bob says:

    “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.

  73. Reluctant Republican says:

    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?

  74. Baklava says:

    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.

  75. MattM says:

    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?

  76. PCD says:

    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.

  77. PCD says:

    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.

  78. Severian says:

    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!;)

  79. Bob says:

    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.”

    Love Canal
    On 30 November 1999 Gore described to a New Hampshire high school his reaction in the late 1970s to a letter from a student in Toone, Tennessee, complaining about her family’s poisoned well: “I called for a congressional investigation and a hearing. I looked around the country for other sites like that. I found a little place in upstate New York called Love Canal. Had the first hearing on that issue, and Toone, Tennessee — that was the one that you didn’t hear of. But that was the one that started it all.” While the Associated Press story that covered the speech printed the final quotation correctly, both the Washington Post and The Washington Times claimed that Gore had actually said: “I was the one that started it all”.

    The Post ran a correction a few days later, but the Times never did, and continued to run editorials denouncing Gore’s “boasting” of having been “the whistle blower for discovering Love Canal.” The Republican National Committee and several conservative commentators at the time furthered the claim that Gore was attempting to take credit for discovering the toxic waste problem at Love Canal. However, Gore’s supporters have argued that the context of the speech should make it clear that what had initially sparked his interest in toxic waste issues was the Toone, Tennessee situation. The quotation has been repeated with “, and Toone, Tennessee — that was the one that you didn’t hear of. But” replaced by an ellipsis (…), which subtly alters its meaning. In October 1978, Gore did hold congressional hearings on Love Canal — however it was two months after President Jimmy Carter declared it a disaster area and the federal government offered to buy the homes. After the hearings, Gore said, “We passed a major national law to clean up hazardous dump sites. And we had new efforts to stop the practices that ended up poisoning water around the country. We’ve still got work to do. But we made a huge difference. And it all happened because one high school student got involved.”

    Love Story
    Gore was quoted in the New York Times December 14, 1997 edition as saying “[Erich] Segal had told some reporters in Tennessee that [Love Story] was based on him and Tipper.” The Tennessean newspaper article indeed quoted Segal as saying that Love Story was based on both the Gores. Gore’s quotation is therefore accurate since Gore was referring to what the Tennessean had erroneously reported. Although Segal said that the newspaper had misquoted him, and that his novel was not based on Gore’s relationship with Tipper, Segal himself noted that the male lead in Love Story, Oliver Barrett IV, was in fact based on Al Gore, as well as his college roommate, actor Tommy Lee Jones.

  80. PCD says:

    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.

  81. Baklava says:

    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.

  82. Bob says:

    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?

  83. sanity says:

    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.

  84. Masochist says:

    “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. ”

    I love how severian knows everything! He always knows the Right Answer(c) for any given situation, even while acknowledging the rediculous complexity of the problem domain.

    Sev, did you take up Exxon’s offer of $10,000 to refute the latest IPCC report? If not, why not? You obviously know all the answers and claim to have relied on hard data for all your assumptions! It should be the easiest 10K you’ve ever made!

  85. Masochist says:

    “Al Gore DID say on a late night talk show that he was the subject of Love Story.”

    then there’s a video somewhere and we can put this to rest. When you find a link to the video, please post it…I promise to forward it to all my liberal friends.

  86. Bob says:

    PCD, you can see in the Wikipedia entry that the author of “Love Story,” Erich Segal, acknowledged himself that Gore (and his college roommate, Tommy Lee Jones) was the inspiration for his Love Story protagonist. The mistake that originated from the Tennessean newspaper was that Love Story was specifically about Gore’s relationship with his wife Tipper. But Gore would be factually correct to say that Love Story was about him, at least to the extent that the character was based on him. Is that so complicated?

  87. Severian says:

    Oh, and for all those whining about how unfair it is to note the delicious irony of a global warming hearing being called due to snow, I don’t recall hearing you disavow or complain this past summer, when every high temp day was greeted with headlines of Record High in 1000 Years! and such despite the fact that it wasn’t, that as recently as the 1930’s temps were as high or higher in much of the country. You ,know, the 1930’s, before most of the CO2 increases had occurred. So don’ come around whining about us on this issue, to do so is pure hypocrisy.

  88. Severian says:

    I love how severian knows everything! He always knows the Right Answer(c) for any given situation, even while acknowledging the rediculous complexity of the problem domain.

    Sheese, when you’re proven wrong you don’t take it very well do you? If you don’t want to be so easily debunked, try coming up with some fact that isn’t so mind numbingly obviously wrong and obvious propaganda. Which means, don’t come back with over 90% of what Gore whines about in his stultifyingly dishonest and boring movie. 8-|

  89. Severian says:

    Sev, did you take up Exxon’s offer of $10,000 to refute the latest IPCC report? If not, why not? You obviously know all the answers and claim to have relied on hard data for all your assumptions! It should be the easiest 10K you’ve ever made!

    That you repeat this totally discredited lie, propagated by a leftist UK newspaper, and taken as the gospel truth by idiot Democrat politicians, with a straight face tells me everything I need to know about you. The money is to analyze it, reputing the report is not a criteria for the honorarium, and it’s common practice for think tanks, left, right, and center, to pay such fees for external analysis of issues they are interested in. Nice use of the red herring about who pays for it too, considering that Exxon accounts for only about 1% of the donations the AEI receives. But thanks for repeating the usual leftist lies, Goebbels would be proud, as would Orwell.

  90. Masochist says:

    “Oh, and for all those whining about how unfair it is to note the delicious irony of a global warming hearing being called due to snow, I don’t recall hearing you disavow or complain this past summer, when every high temp day was greeted with headlines of Record High in 1000 Years!”

    Actually, at the time it did bother me, and I did complain, because simple-minded conservatives would take that same non-argument and turn it around the next time there was a cold day. So no, actually.

    As for the rest of your rant, I can only assume you were speaking to GW believers in general and not to me, as I’ve made no factual assertions regarding global warming that you’ve refuted.

    I do love how you completely sidestepped the obvious opportunity to make $10,000. you must be rich or something.

    But then you said:
    ” and such despite the fact that it wasn’t, that as recently as the 1930’s temps were as high or higher in much of the country. You ,know, the 1930’s, before most of the CO2 increases had occurred. So don’ come around whining about us on this issue, to do so is pure hypocrisy.”

    If we were discussing “national climate change” or something, then your comment would be relevant….instead it sheds a light on either your misconceptions of the science, or your willingness to distort. Just like references to the “medieval warming period”, it is meaningless in this debate. Why? because national temeratures in the 30’s and the midieval warming period were not GLOBAL, they were LOCAL phenomena (midieval warming period was local to europe), and therefore cannot be used as counters to arguments about GLOBAL climate change.

    I think I know why you won’t be getting a $10,000 check from Exxon anytime soon.

  91. Bob says:

    Severian, the U.S. National Climatic Data Center said that 2006 was the hottest year on record (i.e. in the last 112 years). So people making such claims have the facts on their side. No such facts apply to the recent snow storms. They were just snow storms. Big deal.

  92. Dana says:

    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.

    From realclimate.org:

    The Heartland Institute’s propagation of the notion that the Kilimanjaro glacier retreat has been proved to be due to deforestation is even more egregious. They quote “an article published in Nature” by Betsy Mason (“African ice under wraps,” Nature, 24 November, 2003) which contains the statement “Although it’s tempting to blame the ice loss on global warming, researchers think that deforestation of the mountain’s foothills is the more likely culprit.” Elsewhere, Heartland refers to this as a “study.” The “study” is in reality no scientific study at all, but a news piece devoted almost entirely to Euan Nesbit’s proposal to save the Kilimanjaro glacier by wrapping it in a giant tarp. The article never says who the “experts” are, nor does it quote any scientific studies supporting the claim. The Mason news article is what Crichton quotes as “peer reviewed research” proving that it is deforestation, not global warming, which is causing the Kilimanjaro glaciers to retreat. (George Monbiot’s article in The Guardian documents a similar case of systematic misrepresentation of glacier data by skeptics.)

    link here.

  93. Settembrini says:

    The “deforestation is causing Kilimanjaro to melt, not GW” meme, repeated so ably by renowned “physicist” Severian, originated when right-wing think tanks misquoted Douglas Hardy, a UMass climatologist who, after asserting that GW was playing a role, also mentioned the potential, but unproven, impacts of deforestation.

  94. Severian says:

    Ah jeez, not the realclimate apostles again. There’s more than one article:

    FACT: Dry Air the Kilimanjaro Culprit
    International Journal of Climatology, 24, 329-339, doi: 10.1002/joc.1008, March 15, 2004 LINK

    “A drastic drop in atmospheric moisture at the end of the 19th century and the ensuing drier climatic conditions are likely forcing glacier retreat on Kilimanjaro.”

    FACT: Temperature Not the Driving Force
    Journal of Geophysical Research – Atmospheres, 109, D16104, doi:10.1029/2003JD004338, August 25, 2004 LINK

    “It has been speculated that general global warming is directly driving the retreat of Kilimanjaro’s glaciers. However, detailed analyses of glacier retreat in the global tropics uniformly reveal that changes in climate variables related to air humidity prevail in controlling the modern retreat. …

    “In the context of modern glacier retreat on Kilimanjaro, a particular sensitivity of the summit horizontal glacier surfaces to precipitation variability (magnitude and timing) can be confirmed by this study. This fits well into the present knowledge of modern glacier retreat on Kilimanjaro and in East Africa in general, initiated by a drastic reduction in precipitation at the end of the nineteenth century.”

    FACT: Temperatures Remain Consistent
    Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 84, S48, June 2003 LINK

    “Kilimanjaro’s glaciers are extremely sensitive to precipitation variability, as on an annual basis, the summit climate is thermally homogeneous, with a mean annual temperature of -7.1 degrees Celsius.”

    FACT: Deforestation Causing Dry Climate
    Nature, November 24, 2003 LINK

    “Although it’s tempting to blame the ice loss on global warming, researchers think that deforestation of the mountain’s foothills is the more likely culprit. Without the forests’ humidity, previously moisture-laden winds blew dry. No longer replenished with water, the ice is evaporating in the strong equatorial sunshine.”

  95. Severian says:

    Any other RealClimate lies you need debunked?

  96. Baklava says:

    The thread is off track.

    Yes – there has been a measured increase of .7 degrees to 1 degree celcius over a 100 year period.

    The question is how much of it attributed to man’s CO2 output

    and

    what solutions do we implement toward the presented problem – if we can even affect the climate.

    There is considerable doubt as to the reason for the rise in temperature whether leftist alarmists want to accept the science or not or name call those scientists “deniers”.

    There is also reasonable people on the conservative side who are saying – hey wait a minute – leftists solutions that hurt people should not be implemented. Count me as one of those people. Tell me who has been hurt by the .7 degree change?

    During the past 100 years life expectancy has gone from 45 for men and 49 for women (in 1906 to 75 for men and 79 for women (in 2006). There is more vegetation and forest in North America. Seems to me the .7 degree change does NOT warrant crisis mongering and hurting people with leftist policies. Creating poverty and having the federal government spend more than it already does on climate change when it already spends more than any other country is just ridiculous.

  97. Bob says:

    Although a preponderance of scientific evidence unquestionably supports the theory of man-made global warming, I think we do need to be careful in jumping to conclusions about every individual case. It seems like the studies that Severian links to offering alternate hypotheses for the recession of the Kilimanjaro glacier may have merit. It may not settle the argument specifically about Kilimanjaro, but, at least in this case, it seems that there are still legitimate questions. Of course, this doesn’t mean either that the remaining evidence supporting man-made global warming is anything less than overwhelming, or that Severian himself is anything less than insufferable. :d

    This blurb from The Pew Center on Global Climate Change presents a nice synopsis about glaciers and global warming, specifically responding to issues raised in a novel by Michael Crichton (“State of Fear”) that purports to debunk the theory of man-made global warming:

    Glaciers – Are they retreating? Crichton’s characters also attack the prevailing wisdom that glaciers worldwide are in retreat via three arguments: a) we don’t have data for all of the world’s glaciers, b) we have long-term data for even fewer, and c) some glaciers are advancing. All of the above are true. Scientists are not able to monitor all glaciers throughout the world, and the advance of glaciers in Norway, for example, is well documented and appears to be due to increases in regional precipitation (i.e., snowfall). Nevertheless, as documented by the IPCC and the recent Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, a consistent pattern of glacier retreat has been documented at low- mid- and high-latitudes in North and South America, Europe, Africa, Asia, and Australia. Of the numerous glaciers that are currently being monitored about 90% are decreasing in size. [for more on this, see World Glacier Monitoring Service at http://www.geo.unizh.ch/wgms/ ] Crichton’s characters also challenge the assumption that the snows of Mt. Kilimanjaro are wasting away due to global warming. The literature does suggest that the decline of Mt. Kilimanjaro’s snows started over a century ago when the climate of the Mt. Kilimanjaro region became abruptly more arid. Dryer air around the mountain resulted in less snowfall, which was necessary to maintain the mountain’s ice fields. As such, Mt. Kilimanjaro may not be the best poster child for the effects of human-induced global warming.

    I present this information in the interests of a fair and open debate (do you still hate me, Baklava?)

  98. Settembrini says:

    You “debunk” the realclimate article, which criticized the reference to a news article as a “study,” by citing the very same news article. Do you suggest covering Kilimanjaro with a giant tarp as well?

    As for your peer-reviewed articles, none suggest that global warming is not playing a role in the retreat. They merely posit that deforestation, and resulting lack of moisture, is a “likely forcing.” This does not equal “only forcing.” Of course, a scientist like yourself understands the concepts of forcing.

    A larger point: GW does not have uniform effects across the globe. The tropics are less affected than the poles. Assuming deforestation plays a role, even a primary role, are you going to come up with alternate explanations for the glaciers retreating all across the globe?

  99. Dana says:

    Three of your four references come from Douglas R. Hardy’s work on tropical glaciers (the fourth from usenet is just a rehash of the “BETSY MASON” news article that was debunked in my original post).

    From Dr. Hardy regarding his work:

    “We have a mere 2.5 years of actual field measurements from Kilimanjaro glaciers, unlike many other regions, so our understanding of their relationship with climate and the volcano is just beginning to develop”, Dr. Douglas R. Hardy, a geologist at the University of Massachusetts and an author of the paper, wrote by e-mail. “Using these preliminary findings to refute or even question global warming borders on the absurd.” In short, Kilimanjaro may be a photogenic spokesmountain “no matter what the climatic agenda” but it is far from ideal as a laboratory for detecting human-driven warming. The debate over it obscures the nearly universal agreement among glacier and climate experts that glaciers are retreating all over the world, probably as a result of the greenhouse-gas buildup. “These climate skeptics are making generalizations not only to the rest of the tropics but the rest of the world” Dr. Hardy said. “And, in fact, global warming may be part of the whole picture on Kilimanjaro, too.”

    link here

  100. Reluctant Republican says:

    And CO2 is not 2nd, methane is.

    1998 Concentrations by Volume:

    Carbon Dioxide 365 ppm

    Methane 1,745 ppb

    Plus, CO2 has three times the radiative forcing of methane. What makes methane more “important” than CO2?

    Also, do you actually believe that development of new and cleaner technologies makes us less agile in coping with future climate change issues? Wow!

    Anyway, …whatever, dude. I just love it when people go all squishy nonlinear “chaos theory” on GW models, then turn around and expect people to take as gospel some notion that any paradigm shift towards a more responsible environmental policy is some sort of economic suicide.

  101. Lorica says:

    Didn’t the Movie “A Civil Action”, which came out in 1998, start with a letter to a lawyer?? Hmmmm seems awfully familiar.

    But what I just found out about the whole Love Canal incident is that the company that created the problem Hooker Chem, is a subsidary of….. Occidental Oil, and who owns that kids?? Yes the Gore family including the crowned prince Alfie.

    In 1942, a subsidiary of Occidental, Hooker Chemical and Plastics Corporation, started disposing of chemical waste in the Love Canal region, although other companies and the US military had used it as a chemical disposal site since the 1920s. In 1947, Hooker Chemicals became the owner and sole user of the land

    Which if I remember correctly Al’s Dad originally bought the company. Yep, yep, yep!!! OMG Al’s dad even represented these guys in their coal interests. Hells Bells, he is half way responsible for our present global climate problems.

    Much of Oxy’s coal and phosphate production was from Tennessee, the state Gore represented in the Senate, and Gore owned shares of stock in the company. The shares were controlled by his son, former Vice President Albert Gore, Jr., for which he received much criticism from environmentalists.

    So why hasn’t Sir Al given up his shares to say Green Peace who could then force Occidental Oil to produce oil and coal in a more enviromentally sound way?? Seems to me Al is being abit two faced about this whole issue. After all isn’t he presently living off of the profits of Global Warming?? How can you trust a guy like that??

    Just my little way of throwing a monkey wrench into this whole conversation. As far as Al Gore goes, guilt is a great motivator, and it seems to me that he is reacting to that motivator. Now I gotta get back to stack my tobacco, Al is coming for a speech tomorrow, about how he is gonna help us poor tobacco farmers. – Lorica

  102. Bob says:

    This story about Gore and Occidental Petroleum seems to have originated in an article by Peter Schweizer in USA Today. A member of Gore’s team responded to the charges in the following statement:

    The assertion by author Peter Schweizer that the Gores were swimming in Occidental stock is also off base. At Mr. Gore’s request, all of his father’s stock in Occidental (Oxy) Petroleum was sold almost six years ago as the estate was closed. So, although Mr. Gore has and will continue to call on his fellow Americans to do their part to combat global warming, he isn’t asking of them what he isn’t willing to do himself.

    –Kalee Kreider

    There was also a correction to the original article published later in USA Today:

    In a column that appeared Aug. 10 on the Forum Page, writer Peter Schweizer inaccurately stated that former vice president Al Gore receives royalties from a zinc mine on his property in Tennessee despite his environmental advocacy. He no longer does, as the mine was closed in 2003.

    Once again, these are ad hominem attacks against Gore, made by people who are hypocrites themselves, who would do anything to try to avoid the merits of Gore’s position on global warming.

  103. Dave says:

    You skeptics never answered my original question…Have you seen the movie?

  104. Baklava says:

    Bob wrote, “Once again, these are ad hominem attacks against Gore Bush, made by people who are hypocrites themselves, who would do anything to try to avoid the merits of Gore’s position on global warming.

    Gosh Bob – I hope to see the long awaited change in your false accusations against Bush then….

    What was Michael Jackson’s song about – looking in the mirror and making that change?? Because the only person you can control is your own self. No more consuming for you but food product so you can be just like 3rd worlders. No car use, computer use, home heating or cooling or even using a home, give it up and maybe we’ll follow your example !!!

  105. Baklava says:

    ooops. I meant to strike out the 2nd Gore and insert Bush also.

    Hypocrates indeed !

    Sold your car yet?? Were you a consumer in any fashion this last month? Year? Are you using the computer right now?? :d

  106. Lorica says:

    Once again, these are ad hominem attacks against Gore, made by people who are hypocrites themselves, who would do anything to try to avoid the merits of Gore’s position on global warming.

    Ohhh for God’s Sake Bob. They made Millions of dollars of profit off of occidental oil. Hell they were reponsible for Love Canal it wasn’t as happenstance as Al would like you to think, which you swallowed hook, line and sinker. You are just to decieved to realize you are being taken by the very people who screwed you to begin with. Wake up Bob. Damn, I am certain that people defended Stalin all the way to the grave too, but they were wrong. This is the very problem I have with the majority of arguments on this thread, they defend every “theory” that comes down the pike. IT IS “VERY LIKELY” THAT GLOBAL WARMING IS BEING CAUSED BY HUMANS!!! Just how the hell do you measure VERY LIKELY??? Can we use the metric system?? In the world of “Science” what does VERY LIKELY mean?? It means we have run out of ideas, and we don’t really care to look any further.

    I have asked this before on these asinine threads and I am going to ask you again. DO WE take up China’s 1 child policy to stop Global Warming?? What exactly are you going to do to stop the human race from living on planet Earth?? Let me know when you figure that one out. – Lorica

  107. Baklava says:

    Lorica, That is the point that is lost. While some political commentators may not be up on the sale of the company’s stake the fact remains that for decades Gore Sr. and Gore himself benefited from oil commerce.

    To truly be clean his family should give up the amount of money earned from the business right? For as many times as we hear attacks on the Bush family and his Texan oil friends the drive-by legacy media FAILS to represent Gore’s wealth in the same way. And let’s not get into Edward’s wealth or Kerry’s wealth (Kerry’s was significantly more than Bush’s – evil white rich man class warfare rhetoric is the left’s specialty to drive policy decisions based on emotions – yet leftist solutions hurt more people especially the poor.

    All of this is off track but goes to show you how much trouble people can get into when they don’t debate the policy or solution or the ideas for moving forward but get into attacking personalities – as if leftists ‘care’ more than conservatives on any issue. They delude themselves into thinking they do and may care more than a sliver of conservatives but as any large group of people you have many who care who are conservatives and many who care who are leftists.

    Where it boils down to is the conservative ideas for moving forward are BETTER and bring the entire nation including the poor UP not down.

  108. Lorica says:

    Absolutely Bak. Al Sr. was a vice president and was on the board for Occidental Oil. They must of made millions from the evil stock options when they sold that stock. In the last year Oxy was selling for 47.00 to 48.00 per share. If Al Sr. just bought a thousand shares in the 1970s after he left Congress, I bet that was worth a pretty penny 35 years later. But Al who helped make Oxy the 7th largest oil corporation in America with the sale of the Naval oil yards, his hands are as pure as the driven snow. Pun Intended.

    I have asked this several dozen times and have yet to get an answer from ANY of the lefties who post here. How can you take these people seriously?? Gore, makes a fortune in the oil business, Branson is worth billions and what helps him keep his fortune?? Virgin Airlines. If there is man made global warming, jet flight is the thing most responsible for it. – Lorica

  109. Bob says:

    So apparently as the cherished litany of old phony charges against Gore are debunked, they’re immediately replaced by more and more outlandish new ones. Even though the family sold the oil company shares when Al Gore’s father died, now Gore is supposed to liquidate his assets as an act of atonement to people who would never ask such moral purity from themselves or the politicians they support. It seems to me that Gore has made a good faith effort to bring his practices into line with his beliefs. He’s donated the profits from his movie to anti-pollution causes. What more is he supposed to do? What Republican politicians do you demand such moral purity from? For example, is it moral to fabricate false charges against a person because you disagree with their politics? Is it moral to knowingly propagate those false charges as a way of gaining political advantage? Is it moral to hold your political enemies to standards that you or the politicians you support could never live up to? Conservative politics in this country has become addicted to hypocrisy. You guys have nothing on Al Gore. Why don’t you reconsider the honesty of what you’re doing?

  110. Masochist says:

    “No more consuming for you but food product so you can be just like 3rd worlders. No car use, computer use, home heating or cooling or even using a home, give it up and maybe we’ll follow your example !!!”

    OR, you could purchase carbon credits at a very reasonable price to offset your carbon footprint.

    I do find it funny to see right-wingers blaming an environmental disaster on al gore because of his father’s stock holdings…I thought that sort of criticism was the territory of left wing nuts. I guess when it comes to hating someone (hillary, gore, gays….y’know, all the people jesus hates) they’re willing to change their rhetoric.

    Since we are bringing up the business dealings of politicians’ parents, I can’t help but mention Prescott Bush’s profits resulting from business dealings with the Nazis. (gee, that sounds a lot worse, doesn’t it?)

  111. Baklava says:

    When you sell Bob – that means you now own the MONEY.

    What’s false about that Bob… did he give all of the fortunes away???

    There is NOTHING wrong with him having OWNED a portion of an oil company NOR having sold it.

    What’s funny is how the left has to DEAL with the hatred of oil tycoons and then get surprised because they didn’t learn from the drive-by legacy media that their Gore was an oil man also.

    The ONLY people who have issues with oil (a LEGAL product) seems to be leftists…

    We talk about the money made because it’s funny to see you guys squirm after hoisting so much VITRIOL our way about personalities who are Big Texan Oil men.

    IT’S STUPID and I’M GLAD you see it that way also. Now please demonstrate that you understand how attacking on these lines are stupid. And share with your liberal friends how stupid this attacking stuff is…. Maybe you can get through to them because we can’t. It’s one attack after another !

    Shouldn’t we be debating ideas and not personalities???

    I try to bring it back to the ideas in every post. Because in EVERY large group of people whether it be the Catholic church, General Motors, Democrats, Republicans, Californians, Nebraskans, you will find corrupt or mean people and good and nice people.

    Move away from the darkness !! The only person you can control is your own words. Get back to the ideas. I call your ideas leftist but let that be no reflection on how bright you may or may not be.

  112. PCD says:

    Bob, over at Right Voices there is a series of posts on the unreliability of Wikipedia, especially when it comes to politics.

    I notice you ran from your stand on Kerry. Too much oa va paper trail proving him a traitor an a liar.

    Too bad we don’t try traitors anymore. Kerry, Fonda, and Ted Kennedy would look great on the nightly news doing the perp walk in shackles.

  113. Lorica says:

    So apparently as the cherished litany of old phony charges against Gore are debunked, they’re immediately replaced by more and more outlandish new ones. Even though the family sold the oil company shares when Al Gore’s father died,

    =)) This is just too funny. Bob, this isn’t about critism of Al Gore, these posts are about you. I don’t give a squat about Al, Jr. Or Sr. You talk about “old phoney charges”, but then, in the next sentence, you validate what I was saying. Bob you are smarter than that. I understand that many companies dumped toxic chemicals during the years the Gores were involved with Oxy. My problem with it is Al Jr. saying that he just happened along Love Canal one day in 1979. Are you kidding me?? I was born at night, but it wasn’t last night.

    Why can’t you answer my question Bob?? Why can’t you ever answer my questions Bob?? I mean if your answer about how you put so much trust in the likes of Gore and Branson is because of Republican Morality, well I am sorry but that has to be one of the stupidest things I have ever read. (Well until I read the poster below yours that is.) I don’t put that much trust in Republicans. They had a chance to do the right thing and what did they do?? They wasted in on such wastful asinine ideas, I really began to think they were Democrats. But here is the difference between you and me, I understand that my party has idiots in it, and I disagree with them a great deal of the time. You on the other hand swallow whatever BS flows from the mouth of whatever idiot Dem that is out there. Just like Al just happening to get a letter from someone about a toxic waste dump. Now Change Al Gore for John Travolta and you have the beginning of “A Civil Action”. But you don’t see that. How Amazing. There are no charges here but Al has lied about this sort of stuff, why not now?? Do you ask yourself that question? If you do, you certainly don’t show it. Good Luck in this life Bob. But I would be a little less trusting of people who have or had a stake in whatever the problem of the moment is.

    Masochist, where does one start?? Let’s see your carbon credit receipts. Hello??? Again, try to use some critical thinking, what was the main point of my posts??? They were show the irony of what you all were saying and what the reality of the situation was. I know that some lefties, you apparently, believe the word irony means mostly made of iron, as in the bar had alot of iron in it so it was irony, but in this case I use the other definition. I don’t believe Jesus hates anyone, infact I do believe he forgave even those who murdered him. But I do believe he will be shedding tears of pain and suffering when people who rejected him. So I don’t know what you are getting at outside of more seriously stupid logic. As far as Bush’s dad, please provide a link, I would be interested to read this. But let’s face it even JFK’s dad was a gangster, so this is just more tit for tat garbage, which seems to be a pretty stupid argument also. Anyway you also seem to be in need of serious luck to get ahead in this world. So I wish you a great deal of luck, and hope that your life turns out better. – Lorica

  114. Bob says:

    Lorica, sometimes it’s hard to keep straight what’s being demanded of me at any moment, given the flurry of charges, counter-charges, and who you think I’m for and who you think I’m against. I don’t believe I’ve ever mentioned the name of Branson anywhere. Why do you assume that I’m taking his side? Where did I say that I put trust in Gore because of “Republican Morality?” I never used that term. I have no idea what “A Civil Action” is. Is it a movie? How the heck should I know?

    In general, the problem I’m having here is how you seem to assume that Gore is dishonest and ridiculous, based on an old set of fabricated charges, which have all been thoroughly researched and proven to be false. Let’s reiterate: do you still stand by the old charges about Gore claiming to have invented the internet, how he supposedly lied about the character in “Love Story” being based on him, how he supposedly lied about holding the first hearings on Love Canal? Do you stand by those charges? Once those were debunked, then you try to move on to another set of unfair charges that were made by some dude at the Hoover Institute. Once it was shown that those charges were also factually incorrect and misleading, then you ratchet up the morality and ethics standards that Gore is supposed to be living up to, now throwing in some bizarre insinuation about how he is somehow morally responsible, and lying about, Love Canal. The theme seems to be that Gore simply has to be found guilty, and it doesn’t matter how many times the people making the charges against him have proven themselves to be the dishonest and ridiculous ones, Gore is still demanded to atone. It’s such BS.

    Far be it from me to appoint myself as Gore’s defender. I just can’t help noticing how it is anymore that any prominent individual who opposes the agenda of the right wing becomes the victim of a smear campaign. Whether it’s Bill or Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, Joe Wilson, John Kerry, Richare Clarke, Nancy Pelosi . . . you name them. The modus operandi is always the same: attack the person, make things up if you have to, keep repeating it no matter if it’s been shown to be false. At all costs, try to make it about the person, not about what they’re saying. It’s a stupid and dishonest way to conduct political discourse.

  115. PCD says:

    Bob,

    Try this:

    Al Gore’s 21 Lies
    Internet News Bureau – Posted: 10.06.00
    Just the lies in his piece of fiction movie.

    How many more can be add to this list from Al Gore’s movie An Inconvenient Truth?

  116. Masochist says:

    PCD,

    If it’s on the internets, it must be true!

    Seriously though, the Sierra Times? You linked to an editorial on the Sierra Times? Right after calling Wikipedia a playground for partisans?

    Your cognitive dissonance must be a stunning thing to experience.

    I’m sure if I linked to a page on the DailyKOS proving that GWB is an alien who actually drinks oil and iraqi blood for sustenance, you would accept it as factual, just as you expect us to take an editorial from the Sierra Times as fact. (but of course you wouldn’t…and I wouldn’t blame you)

    And that’s the most rediculous thing about all this…. you all have so much vitriol for gore, and point to his “lying” as the source of your vitriol. Of course, if you all hated GWB for his “lying” then there might be some credence to your allegations…but alas, you have no credibility when the common denominator among those you hate is not their honesty, but their political leanings.

    Hell, I don’t even ascribe malicious motives to Bush, yet you all ascribe them to gore, bill, hillary and others on a regular basis. It’s kinda how I can tell when people are serious political thinkers or just hateful hacks. And both sides, left and right, have their share of hacks.

  117. PCD says:

    Look in the mirror, Masochist, to see a hack.

    Wiki is changed by anyone who cares to register. Now and article is not so changable. You just are ducking the documentation. When the left wants to obfuscate…

  118. Bob says:

    PCD, the site you linked to contains the following statement at the top of the page:

    Note: We did not write this article. We can not verify the claims made in this article. We invite the reader to make his or her own investigation of Al Gore’s record of honesty in public office. We will be happy to print factual corrections that include some form of documentation.

    There are no footnotes to reference any of the sources for the charges on the list. The list contains all of the old charges that I mentioned had been proven false. The honesty of only two of the charges in their list contained corrections. For one such correction, the site’s publisher stated the following:

    Although we didn’t write this article, and in fact don’t know who the author is, we are responsible for factual reportage/publishing. We have been asked to remove the above Fiction/Fact set. Instead, we’ll provide you with a link to an article that vindicates Gore in regards to this claim.

    Did you get that? They don’t know who the author of this list is, they have no verification for the sources of the charges, but they’re presenting it anyway. Wow—what integrity!

    Other entries in the list are said to be lies, but upon inspection, they consist of the following kinds of things:

    FICTION: Gore claims an extensive knowledge of law as a result of his extensive study at law school.
    FACT: Al Gore dropped out of law school.

    FICTION: Gore claimed that his knowledge of God and spirituality came to complete fruition while “finishing” divinity school.
    FACT: Al Gore dropped out of divinity school.

    FICTION: Gore pretends to champion the rights of poor women to be tested regularly for breast cancer with the most modern technology.
    FACT: While giving a speech on the subject in September, Gore didn’t know what a mammogram was.

    FICTION: AL Gore promised Florida’s senior citizens that they would finally have low-cost drugs with no interference from government.
    FACT: Gore’s plan calls for the creation of a huge federal agency that would tell you which doctor you are allowed to see in order to get the “special rates”.

    So not finishing law school means that you couldn’t have learned a lot about law anyway? A minor issue about whether Gore said he finished divinity school is supposed to negate the fact that he did attend divinity school and may well have developed an appreciation for spirituality there? So not knowing what a mammogram is makes you a liar? Making campaign promises that don’t come to fruition makes Gore (and all other politicians, I suppose) a liar? But the main issue is: there are no verifiable sources for any of these charges. How do we know they weren’t all made up, distorted or exaggerated the way those for which we have independent verification were?

    How about if I put up a web page that says you’re a criminal, based on something that someone else (who I don’t even know) said? So what if I have no sources for the charges. Is it OK for me to leave those charges there as long as I pretend that, if you knew about my site, you could challenge the charges? Does that make it fair and honest? Basically, PCD, this is slander. I think it really shows who’s being dishonest here. Shame on you.

  119. G-Monster says:

    I do remember seeing a clip of Al Gore stating he invented the internet.

  120. G-Monster says:

    I think there were many people who invented the internet.

  121. sanity says:

    As for the movie, you can go HERE to see what otehrs have found to be incorrect, and it does include documentation and sources to help. I posted this earlier for others to read, but must have been bypassed.

    Again read more HERE

    Another decent read with questions HERE

    A good read, cautious note HERE

    And lastly, a video of Marlo Lewis jr response to Gore and a PDF file book on A Skeptic’s Guide to An Inconvenient Truth can be seen HERE

    You make yuour own decisions…I am just giving you the links to help you on your way.

    ta

  122. Bob says:

    No, that was PCD who said that, G Monster. Can you believe it—haw haw—PCD claimed to have invented the internet. I don’t have any evidence to prove it, but who cares, right? PCD is a phony because I say so! Let PCD prove he’s not a phony. It’s not my problem. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha . . . What a phony! Obviously I’m just being facetious, PCD, but can’t you see what I’m trying to say?

    Actully, Gore is not without a sense of humor about some of this stuff. He teased an audience once about the internet thing. He pretended to scold them, saying something like “Don’t forget—I gave you the internet, and I can always take it back!”

  123. Bob says:

    A case in point: it took me about 10 seconds through a Google search to find a web site that implies that Rudy Giuliani is morally responsible for brutal acts committed by the NYC police during his term as mayor. The site claims that Giuliani “used police state tactics to brutalize citizens” and then discusses two infamous cases (Amadou Diallo and Abner Louima) where an innocent suspect was either shot dead without cause or sexually brutalized by members of the NYPD. During the Louima incident, one cop supposedly said, “This is Giuliani-time.” Therefore, the site says that, “This statement confirms that police feel they were given a license to brutalize by those at the top.” They call Giuliani “evil” and say, “Don’t fall for Giuliani’s lies and stupidities. Tell Rudy Giuliani to go home to his police state.”

    Is this really the level that we want our political discourse to be conducted at? As a Democrat, I wouldn’t want any part of such malicious and unfair rhetoric.

  124. Lorica says:

    /Sigh I am sorry Bob but if you are not going to read what I write, why would I continue debating this issue. It is pretty obvious you don’t know or don’t really care about an opposing side to this discussion, you have your belief and if any one brings up inconsistancies in your beliefs, instead of properly answering the questions, you come up with some false vast right wing conspiracy and then feel you have done your duty defending what your beliefs. The only reason Al Jr. is an object in my posts is because he has placed himself in the forefront of this debate. You basically agree with the majority of what he says so he was convient to my argument. Ohhh by the way Al Jr. didn’t get rid of his Dad’s Oxy stock until 5 years after his dad died. Thought you needed to be corrected on that. And it was because he was under pressure from extreme enviromentalists groups. Not us right wingers. =))

    Anyway once again Bob you have not answered my question, and you have avoided the debate. This isn’t alot of fun for me if you really must know. But since we have abit of history, I just thought I would give you another try. I am sorry I wasted our time. I will never ever get these last 20 minutes back, so I am going to quit wasting my time. Good Day and I hope it is sunny. – Lorica

  125. Lorica says:

    Hey Masochist where is my link on the Nazi ties of the Bush family??? Hello Bueller?? – Lorica

  126. G-Monster says:

    Michael Moore and Al Gore can take statistics and half truths, and twist them to create a movie in favor of whatever point of view they wish to present and earn big bucks doing it. The internet provides a place for the myths of these movies to be debunked.

    I think there ought to be a law to protect people like Bob, that were taken in by such movies. Say if more than 20% of a movie represented by it’s producer as a truthful documentary is proved to be false, the consumer receives a full refund of the admission price.

    This refund would also apply to those that are too ignorant and fail to see the truth even after it has been presented to them, so long as they have a ticket stub. Maybe this will put a stop to those cashing in on bogus movies.

    And Bob, regarding rhetoric, I am glad you don’t want any part of it. But as an independent, I must say, the only reason I come to this right wing blog, is that I’m afraid of the left wing blogs.

  127. Bob says:

    Lorica, Albert Gore Sr. died on Dec. 5, 1998. Gore’s office said in Aug., 2006 (the quote I provided earlier in this thread) that his father’s shares of Oxy stock were sold “almost six years ago” which means that the shares were likely sold in 2000. The claim you make that Gore Sr.’s shares were not sold until five years after his death seems to be mathematically impossible. So unless you have some insider information that the rest of us are not privy to, you seem, once again, to be making a lame attempt to pass off a lie about Gore. Please don’t insult my intelligence like that. You’ve ruined your credibility, both through dishonesty and hypocrisy.

    If you’re worried about oil stock, why not obsess about what seems to have been a possible case of insider trading that George W. Bush, who is our current president, engaged in while he was an executive of Harkin Energy? You know, when he just happened to dump all of his stock immediately before an unfavorable financial report caused the share price to tank? While having a father who owned oil company stock is certainly no crime, insider trading actually is. This is why I note the hypocrisy of nit-picking Gore’s actions while completely ignoring the unethical (and quite possibly illegal) actions of the politicians you support.

    And beyond that, trying to debate global warming by making dishonest attacks against Al Gore is really lame. Like I said, don’t insult my intelligence.

  128. TheGamesBoysPlay says:

    I hope I can make a few clear statements and get out of the way.

    Put simply: our current method of producing almost all products is generally not extremely efficient. Inefficiency means certain elements or impurities are released and must be disposed of somewhere. To anyone who thinks that our prosperity as Americans is somehow good for the world is seriously shortsighted. Please look up any number of reports on environmental conditions in China, that country that makes all our stuff, and tell me about how we’re really helping out the global environment.

    Frankly, I can’t believe that no one here has mentioned the Tragedy of the Commons. Car exhaust HURTS people (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21159691-23290,00.html)
    and to continue to allow, even support, companies that HURT people is DISGUSTING and ANTI-HUMAN. Human induced global warming or no, we are losing environmental control due to corporate lobbyists. If anyone here, left or right, would prefer to inhale carbon monoxide and plenty of other dangerous chemicals please let me know, because I’m sure Exxon is looking for a cheerleader of your type.

  129. Baklava says:

    Bob, I’ll state it a second and last time.

    When you sell something you now OWN THE MONEY.

    TGBP wrote, “To anyone who thinks that our prosperity as Americans is somehow good for the world is seriously shortsighted.

    I have 20/20 vision. America does more good for the world than any other nation. We provide more food to hurting countries, more money, more medical supplies, more labor and relief effort, more security, etc. We even put forth more Research and Development into drugs, the environment, and just about anything you can name. Our prosperity enables our generosity.

    Because we are prosperous we consume more yes. You are consuming by being on the computer so stop. I consumed this last weekend and EVERYTHING I did put more CO2 in the air. I went to the store and got tile. The manufacturer of the tile produce CO2 to make the tile. I went to another store and got concrete backer board. Same thing for that manufacturer and retailer. The adhesive, grout and all the tiling tools required CO2. I drank beer as a luxury this last weekend. That make CO2. My house is 2000 square feet – and so everything any American does requires more CO2 than a 3rd worlder who only consumed the food they ate during the same 3 day weekend.

    Nobody here needs to feel guilty for improving their home, throwing ideas around on the computer, having a beer or having a standard of living that is far greater than 100 years ago. Our prosperity and the industrial age has brought us to where we are and now we have a big target on or backs by liberals who want to implement leftist ideas which would hurt this nation and our standard of living.

    It is NOW a crisis that the earth has warmed .7 degrees Celcius over the last 100 years when we as Americans have extended our life expectancy from 45 for men and 49 for woman (in 1906) to 75 for men and 79 for women (in 2006)? I don’t see it. I see vegetation needing CO2, liking the .7 degrees more and I see the fact that we have only increased CO2 output in the last 5 years by less than 2% while China has increased their output by 50% as China being the problem. Because on top of the CO2 China is also putting out more pollutants not just increasing CO2

  130. Lorica says:

    Your right Bob, I have been looking where I read that it was in 2003, but I confused it with the sale of the Zinc Mine which was run by Oxy, my mistake.

    As far as the rest of your comments about me, I keep telling you I am not attacking Al Jr. or Sr. They can buy whatever stock they want, I don’t really care. More power to them!!! Isn’t capitalism grand. All I am trying to do, is help you to realize that “Big Oil” made the Gore family very wealthy, and that you Bob should really wake up and look who you are agreeing with. My every post has been about you Bob, and folks just like you. Now I know you will go on with some “Ad hominem” attack on me about Bush and Cheney and blah blah blah, and help me to realize that I am in agreement with the devil himself. I don’t really care, you don’t read but half of what I write here anyway. I am not trying to insult your inteligence or anything like that. I just want you to see that some of the people you are in agreement with are not exactly as wonderful as some would think they are. If that is attacking the Gore family, I am alot more confused than I think. But it does show me that You, Bob, have a serious problem deceminating facts when they are presented to you. I am not your everyday conservative. I have told you before, I believe in global warming. Infact after 9/11 when there was no jet travel for those 3 days, the atmosphere above the America cooled. So I have already told you what law I would make. No more air travel for flights below 3 hours. I am all for expansion into bullet trains, and have been for years Bob. Why there is not electric magnetic lift monorail between Chicago and St. Loius is quite simply beyond me. Especially when these guys are running hundreds of flights per year between those two cities. I have written my congressional folks about it, I usually only get the congressional thank you note back. I am not trying to be dishonest with you Bob, I am not trying some lame attack, I am just trying to help the awareness of so many who would put folks on a pedestal. – Lorica

  131. TheGamesBoysPlay says:

    I definitely understand the ‘just be cause we are ahead we don’t need to feel guilty’ thing, but really, China is not the problem, the entire first world is USING China to fulfill their profit margins. I realize that there has been a great increase in the standard of living in China, but for the most part people are still in abject poverty, and I realize that we are providing jobs for those people in abject poverty, but really China is ruining it’s environment (and their pollution has now made its way to our soil on the west coast) in order to industrialize. More succinctly, it took the US about 100 years to industrialize, it has taken China about 20, and the repercussions shall be felt the world over for a very long time. All I ask is for people to realize that heading off fossil fuels benefits so many groups of people for so many different reasons. Want to stop the middle east from being so absurdly powerful and backwards? Stop buying their oil. Want to improve peoples health? stop burning coal and oil. Want to stop the destruction of the environment, stop buying fossil fuels. I just find it backwards that people are so insistent that things must stay the way they are, as if there isn’t the potential, with adequate funding, to really help benefit the world in so many ways. I’m not against making money, I’m against stagnation when there is no need for it.

  132. Bob says:

    Baklava and Lorica, let me say that I have nothing against commerce and industry. I’m glad that we’re lucky enough to live in a prosperous country. I’ve never suggested that it was a good idea to take conservation measures that wiped out the economy. But it seems to me that there are a lot of things that could be done to improve our energy efficiency. It’s exactly along the lines of what you’ve already noted, Baklava, that cars now get much better fuel economy even while producing way more horsepower than they used to. I’m all for identifying such win-win solutions. Anybody who makes money by providing a more energy efficient mouse trap—more power to them.

    As for Al Gore, like I said, it’s not my place to defend him. But I suspect if you look at any wealthy family, whether it’s the Bushes, the Kennedys, the Gores or the Cheneys, you can almost certainly find some investments or past involvements in enterprises that might have been questionable. I have shares of a few different mutual funds. Do I know every single company that those funds are invested in? No, I honestly do not. Now you’ve got me worried that maybe I own a piece of Occidental Petroleum, or, God forbid, Exxon. I think it’s safe to say that we all try to live ethical lives and practice what we preach. But sometimes things slip through the cracks. I know for sure that I’m not perfect, and I won’t hold it against you guys, or Al Gore, if none of you are perfect either.

    Anyway, thanks for indulging me in this discussion. Have a good one!

  133. Todd says:

    Al Gore’s Lies

    Gore said that 15-year-old Kaylee Ellis, a student at Sarasota High School, in Sarasota, Florida, was forced to stand outside in the hall because her classroom was overcrowded. – LIE

    Gore stated that he accompanied Federal Emergency Management Agency Director James Lee Witt to Texas to assess the 1996 Parker County fires. – LIE

    Gore stated that 96% of students attend public school. – LIE

    In December 1999, Gore claimed: I helped to negotiate an agreement with the Internet service providers to put a parent protection page up and give parents the ability to click on all of the web sites that their children have visited lately (ABC’s Nightline, Dec. 16, 1999). In fact, Gore had nothing to do with this. An editorial in the Wall Street Journal observes: The [Internet] industry had been working for a year with bipartisan members of Congress on putting a link to on-line child-safety resources on the front page of Internet portals — with no participation from the Vice President (The Wall Street Journal, May 6, 1999). – LIE

    In September, Gore, boasting of his heritage of support for trade unions, claimed that the union song “Look For The Union Label” was sung to him as a lullaby when he was a child. In fact, the TV jingle came out in 1975 when Al Gore was 27 years old (Washington Times, Oct. 2-8, 2000). Gore’s staff tried to say that their man was actually referring to a 1901 union song, but Gore himself admitted that this was not the case and claimed that it was a joke! – LIE

    Gore claims his father was a champion of civil rights. In fact, the senior Gore voted against the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964. – LIE

    Gore claimed that he co-sponsored the McCain/Feingold Campaign Finance Reform bill. He said: I was a co-sponsor of it, and I feel that it’s very important to get the influence of special interest money out of our politics (The New York Times, Nov. 24, 1999). In fact, Gore not only did not, but could not have cosponsored McCain-Feingold. Russ Feingold was not elected until 1992. Al Gore quit the Senate in 1992 to become Vice President. Feingold and Gore never served together. – LIE

    In 1987, Gore told the Des Moines Register his work as an investigative reporter at the Nashville Tennesseean led to the jailing of a bunch of people. He later had to apologize for the lie (Columbia Journalism Review, Jan. 1993). – LIE

    Gore claimed that Bush’s Vice Presidential running mate Dick Cheney was one of the few to vote against Head Start . . . he even voted against the school lunch program· In fact, Cheney voted to increase Head Start Funding. It was Gore who opposed it. In 1981, Cheney voted for the Budget Reconciliation bill (CQ vote #104: HR 3982) that increased Head Start funding by 16 percent; from $820 million in 1981 to $950 million in 1982. Gore voted against this measure. – LIE

    These are some “inconvenient truths”, aren’t they.

  134. G-Monster says:

    Great Research Todd. I mean that sincerely. You have just pointed out what a liar Al Gore is. Bob, would you like to rebut? Or is the game over?

  135. Max says:

    The Liberals whine and moan about how Gore gets picked on when the man is a walking example of rank Liberal hypocrisy and Left Wing insanity.

    Yet these very same Liberals and their Leftist Media are unrelenting in their attack on the President and Vice President and anyone else who does not agree with them.

    Looks like the Left can dish it out, but they can’t take it.

    It’s time to give them a taste of their own medicine. The Left is dangerous and a bunch of kook Moonbats. The entire Global BS is nothing but the new religion of the Communist Left who want to micromanage everybody’s life.

    “Global Warming” is nothing but a pure Left Wing political agenda that would make Stalin, Marx, and Mao proud.

  136. Baklava says:

    TGBP wrote, “China is not the problem, the entire first world is USING China to fulfill their profit margins.

    Because people/countries pay China for goods and services doesn’t put the blame on us as you seem to wish to do.

    They are entirely responsible for earning the money responsibly. Only they can be responsible while earning. If they are NOT being responsible why would somebody say that is our fault?

    TGBP wrote for no reason, “I just find it backwards that people are so insistent that things must stay the way they are,

    I am not insistent and I don’t know anybody who is insistent that things must stay the same. WE are saying here TGBP that we must not implement leftist solutions due to the ‘crisis’. It isn’t a ‘crisis’. More people have died in one city named Milwalkee (sic) during this one last cold spell than died due to the .7 degree Celcius rise in temperature during the last 100 years. In fact OUR life expectancy has risen by 30 years during the same 100 year period. We have MORE vegetation and more forest than 100 years ago.

    Again, I’m not saying we do nothing. First leftists don’t recognize that this country has spent more on climate change than ANY OTHER country. And second I suggest that the solutions we implement are market oriented so that they hurt less people than leftist solutions would. Taxing more, removing oil ‘profits’ and caps on CO2 are all ideas that would make more poor people and hurt their ability to survive and live comfortably.

    Additionally, we are fairly efficient. We are 28% of the world’s economy but only emit 21% of the world’s CO2.

    We make improvements in our efficiency and emissions because of our prosperity. Just about everybody ‘cares’ and it would do you well to understand that people ‘care’ as opposed to thinking that people don’t.

  137. PCD says:

    Bob, Now that you’ve proven you are a liar, no one needs dealing with you, Edited. –ST

  138. Lorica says:

    Here is another good law for you. No company can do business in America or with America, unless it submits to American Enviromental Laws. Wonder what kind of up-roar that would make. – Lorica