Gore hits home with green message

Rick wrote:

<quoted text>
You use insulting language which I will not use. But you are using outdated and incorrect information.
http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm...

"So do your own research if you are not too lazy to do so? "
I believe my comment to be on par in sarcasm with your above quote.

theworldasweknow it

Cliff wrote:

<quoted text>
"So do your own research if you are not too lazy to do so? "
I believe my comment to be on par in sarcasm with your above quote.

poor baby was just giving you back what you dish out

Cliff

Allegre’s central claims are that Kilamanjaro’s snow loss could be caused more by tectonic plate shift than warming, and that there’s this cottage industry of doomsayers poised to make sick bank off your fears of warming. But twice in the article, he’s forced to offer the caveat that climate change is real and _might_ be man-made, though he doesn’t feel as though we can say for certain.

Bob Carter is a geologist and not even a climate Scientist.

I will take the time to read the article and do a couple of searches to see where there funding comes from but I am not impressed on my first pass. I do hope they are right and I am wrong however.

theworldasweknow it

Well at least he is able to consider different viewpoints which the ecofundamenalists cant. To base their science and our future on computer modelling has often proved to be wrong. The earth and the solar system and the universe has natural cycles - just because we are so smart now to decide it doesnt only makes us look foolish. History also shows that the warm periods of the earth are the golden ages - it is the cold periods we have to fear. So we are now wasting a golden age while a cold one advances - I think that is the main danger.

Cliff

theworldasweknowit wrote:

<quoted text>
poor baby was just giving you back what you dish out

I don't mind the sarcasm back at me but he was claiming name calling on my part and I thought it warranted to remind him that he cast the first stone.

I am ready for another.

Cliff

theworldasweknowit wrote:

Well at least he is able to consider different viewpoints which the ecofundamenalists cant. To base their science and our future on computer modelling has often proved to be wrong. The earth and the solar system and the universe has natural cycles - just because we are so smart now to decide it doesnt only makes us look foolish. History also shows that the warm periods of the earth are the golden ages - it is the cold periods we have to fear. So we are now wasting a golden age while a cold one advances - I think that is the main danger.

Mr. D'Aleo from your second link appears to be funded primarily by large oil companies and corporations. The Royal Society in the UK received communications signed by him arguing against their criticisms of research by him and his colleagues. They blamed the society for being critical because of funding from big oil including Exxon. I have not done enough research yet to know but the possibility of bias is greater when you are being funded by those who have a financial stake in the situation for example tobacco companies and their research on cancer links to tobacco etc.

theworldasweknow it

Cliff wrote:

<quoted text>
Mr. D'Aleo from your second link appears to be funded primarily by large oil companies and corporations. The Royal Society in the UK received communications signed by him arguing against their criticisms of research by him and his colleagues. They blamed the society for being critical because of funding from big oil including Exxon. I have not done enough research yet to know but the possibility of bias is greater when you are being funded by those who have a financial stake in the situation for example tobacco companies and their research on cancer links to tobacco etc.

Regardless of who funds him I still think the claims most of these guys make are very pertinent. To accept the ecofundamentalists view because it is simplistic I do not think shows the reality of the situation. As many others have scientifically noted temperatures in cities are artificially inflated because cities are heat sinks and the same time city temps go up country temps typically are stable or go down. In the last couple of years we have ht record lows. It also needs to be noted that records are limited in that we only have them for a relatively short period of time.

Joie de vivre

Cliff wrote:

<quoted text>
Lets' see should I believe some guy from Newark or the majority of the worlds scientists as well as 650,000 years worth of solid evidence that contradicts you opinion?......I think I will go with the facts.

You are my hero! I just want to throw my head up against the wall reading some of the posts. They remind me of my boyfriend's father (that I and my boyfriend argue with all the time) who doesn't believe in global warming. WHY? Because he's a republican. Oiy, we're all gonna die if we let republicans run our country.

I believe those who think global warming isn't true think one of these options:
-Global warming would take more of my money, therefore I'm going to ignore it. That way, I'm rich and the rest of these suckers are poor AND will die sooner because of global warming!
OR
-Global warming can't be true, it just CAN'T be. That would mean...aw crap, I'm gonna die soon. Nah, can't be true.

Okay...so that was me going on a rant, but you get the idea. Is either a money deal or a disbelief because people don't want to take responsibility for their actions or just don't want to face the truth.

Joie de vivre

Rick wrote:

The farce of global warming is all about international control with the U.S. footing the bill to let others tell us how to govern our own affairs.

Our own affairs are what's going to kill us sooner. It's quite selfish of you not to want to ensure a better place to live for your grandchildren and other generations to come.

theworldasweknow it

Joie de vivre wrote:

<quoted text>
You are my hero! I just want to throw my head up against the wall reading some of the posts. They remind me of my boyfriend's father (that I and my boyfriend argue with all the time) who doesn't believe in global warming. WHY? Because he's a republican. Oiy, we're all gonna die if we let republicans run our country.
I believe those who think global warming isn't true think one of these options:
-Global warming would take more of my money, therefore I'm going to ignore it. That way, I'm rich and the rest of these suckers are poor AND will die sooner because of global warming!
OR
-Global warming can't be true, it just CAN'T be. That would mean...aw crap, I'm gonna die soon. Nah, can't be true.
Okay...so that was me going on a rant, but you get the idea. Is either a money deal or a disbelief because people don't want to take responsibility for their actions or just don't want to face the truth.

yeah simply because you want to put others down you want us to agree with you. Sorry but the rest of us base our opinions on science - if you cant back up yours then they really arnt worth much. Maybe your boyfreinds father had a pretty good brain and you were too dumb to realise it.

theworldasweknow it

Joie de vivre wrote:

<quoted text>
Our own affairs are what's going to kill us sooner. It's quite selfish of you not to want to ensure a better place to live for your grandchildren and other generations to come.

You are making far too many assumptions. I adore my kids and want the best world for them thats why im careful to research what I beleive not be a lemming like you following the rest over a cliff. What will kill you is your arrogance and your ignorance.

Joie de vivre

theworldasweknowit wrote:

<quoted text>
You are making far too many assumptions. I adore my kids and want the best world for them thats why im careful to research what I beleive not be a lemming like you following the rest over a cliff. What will kill you is your arrogance and your ignorance.

Who's making assumptions now? My ignorance of what? Not going with what people want to believe?

I'm sorry that I don't agree that global warming isn't happening and that humans aren't the cause of it. I HAVE done my research very carefully, and there many more legitimate scientific writings stating that global warming is happening...I personally would like to see a legitimate SCIENTIFIC research that says likewise. Perhaps you should follow up on your readings.

What lies have been fed to you?

BLUNT MOCKER

Joie de vivre wrote:

<quoted text>
Who's making assumptions now? My ignorance of what? Not going with what people want to believe?
I'm sorry that I don't agree that global warming isn't happening and that humans aren't the cause of it. I HAVE done my research very carefully, and there many more legitimate scientific writings stating that global warming is happening...I personally would like to see a legitimate SCIENTIFIC research that says likewise. Perhaps you should follow up on your readings.
What lies have been fed to you?

I DONT WANT YOU ECOLOONIES TO RUIN THE WORLD FOR MY DESCENDENTS. You are like a lot of sheep panicking, and trying to blame humans for a lot of natural phenomena. IF you are so aginst technology and the western industrial world, stop using the net for a start. you are wasting electricity and using up natural resources and drowning millions of bangla deshis.

Joie de vivre

BLUNT MOCKER wrote:

<quoted text>
I DONT WANT YOU ECOLOONIES TO RUIN THE WORLD FOR MY DESCENDENTS. You are like a lot of sheep panicking, and trying to blame humans for a lot of natural phenomena. IF you are so aginst technology and the western industrial world, stop using the net for a start. you are wasting electricity and using up natural resources and drowning millions of bangla deshis.

Ecoloonies? A natural phenomena that has sky-rocketed ahead of any global warming recorded in history is considered a natural phenomena. You cannot deny that humans effect the climate and the atmosphere. It's a proven fact.

As for wasting electricity. I'm already paying for it here at college, an exorbitant amount too. Electricity isn't the main cause of CO2 emissions either. It's cars and coal burning. Nuclear energy is considered one of the most efficient ways in energy. Global warming is most commonly caused by CO2 emissions whether natural or human based (coal burning, gas burning, etc etc). The U.S. alone accounts for 30% of these emissions into the atmosphere. As for conserving energy, I do as much as possible here. Unfortunately, college forces you to use the internet and the computer because all assignments are done online and posted online. If there were alternative options (which are very limited at the moment because government doesn't believe it's worth funding) I certainly would support it. In fact, I work with groups to gain these alternative options, but it's a matter of having them before I can actually use them.

Cliff

theworldasweknowit wrote:

<quoted text>
Regardless of who funds him I still think the claims most of these guys make are very pertinent. To accept the ecofundamentalists view because it is simplistic I do not think shows the reality of the situation. As many others have scientifically noted temperatures in cities are artificially inflated because cities are heat sinks and the same time city temps go up country temps typically are stable or go down. In the last couple of years we have ht record lows. It also needs to be noted that records are limited in that we only have them for a relatively short period of time.

There is nothing simple about it unless all you read is the conclusion and general acceptance that the evidence to date points in that direction. Abrief look behind some of the research will show you that there is little if any simplicity involved at all.

Most of the dissent you will find is based on a different interpretation of the same data. Unfortunately for your argument the people who did the lions share research have determined that the evidence indicates that global warming is real and those with a financial agenda who hire consultants to reinterpret the data as false. Personally I am going with the folks who have done the most work and research not to mention the lions share of oeer reviewed and published studies.

theworldasweknow it

Joie de vivre wrote:

<quoted text>
Ecoloonies? A natural phenomena that has sky-rocketed ahead of any global warming recorded in history is considered a natural phenomena. You cannot deny that humans effect the climate and the atmosphere. It's a proven fact.
As for wasting electricity. I'm already paying for it here at college, an exorbitant amount too. Electricity isn't the main cause of CO2 emissions either. It's cars and coal burning. Nuclear energy is considered one of the most efficient ways in energy. Global warming is most commonly caused by CO2 emissions whether natural or human based (coal burning, gas burning, etc etc). The U.S. alone accounts for 30% of these emissions into the atmosphere. As for conserving energy, I do as much as possible here. Unfortunately, college forces you to use the internet and the computer because all assignments are done online and posted online. If there were alternative options (which are very limited at the moment because government doesn't believe it's worth funding) I certainly would support it. In fact, I work with groups to gain these alternative options, but it's a matter of having them before I can actually use them.

firstly the world was warmer 1000 years ago during the medieval warm period

secondly current records are inflated by cities being heat sinks

thirdly plants contribute a huge maount of greenhouse gases

fourthly the whole solar system is heating

it appears your attitudes are based more on peer group pressure than any real desire to understand the truth

Cliff

theworldasweknowit wrote:

<quoted text>
firstly the world was warmer 1000 years ago during the medieval warm period
secondly current records are inflated by cities being heat sinks
thirdly plants contribute a huge maount of greenhouse gases
fourthly the whole solar system is heating
it appears your attitudes are based more on peer group pressure than any real desire to understand the truth

I have no problem with your dissent but the fact that you claim the majority of scientists share your opinion or that you make unsubstantiated claims based on who knows what as your back up has not substantiated them is a bit irritating. A real desire to understand means reading the information which many of us our doing to develop our opinion. I do not believe peer pressure has anything to do with it. The concept that you have know interest in who funds research is also suspect because the first rule is always follow the money. Business gets what it pays for.

Joie de vivre

theworldasweknowit wrote:

<quoted text>
firstly the world was warmer 1000 years ago during the medieval warm period
secondly current records are inflated by cities being heat sinks
thirdly plants contribute a huge maount of greenhouse gases
fourthly the whole solar system is heating
it appears your attitudes are based more on peer group pressure than any real desire to understand the truth

Peer pressure? If it's peer pressure to argue against what everyone believes, then you're gosh darn right! But I thought peer pressure was to follow everyone else. Seems like everyone here and those around me don't want to accept that actions must be taken to reduce CO2 emissions and global warming.

So first, you admit that cities are "heat sinks." Doesn't that mean that human beings are the cause for warming?

Second, if you could show me a scientific chart or research that states that the medieval warming period experienced higher temperatures on globe OVERALL, please reference this. I would like to read it.

theworldasweknow it

Joie de vivre wrote:

<quoted text>
Peer pressure? If it's peer pressure to argue against what everyone believes, then you're gosh darn right! But I thought peer pressure was to follow everyone else. Seems like everyone here and those around me don't want to accept that actions must be taken to reduce CO2 emissions and global warming.
So first, you admit that cities are "heat sinks." Doesn't that mean that human beings are the cause for warming?
Second, if you could show me a scientific chart or research that states that the medieval warming period experienced higher temperatures on globe OVERALL, please reference this. I would like to read it.

heat sink means that with the vast areas of concrete from construction and roads is they absorb the sun and therefore make the area warmer. As most of our records are in cities then this artificially inflates the temperature which means the world isnt warming but the cities are warmer from the impact of heat sinks. When country temperatures are taken (as in non city) it is found that the temperature is either stable or falling.

http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php...
http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/13830/

Joie de vivre