Al Gore hearing in front of senate to battle global warming...snowed out?

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
A

AgentDrazenPetrovic

Anyone But the Lakers
Joined
Sep 16, 2008
Messages
7,779
Likes
34
Points
48
haha.

http://drudgereport.com/flashghi.htm

GORE HEARING ON WARMING MAY BE PUT ON ICE
Mon Jan 26 2009 17:59:26 ET

Al Gore is scheduled before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Wednesday morning to once again testify on the 'urgent need' to combat global warming.

But Mother Nature seems ready to freeze the proceedings.

A 'Winter Storm Watch' has been posted for the nation's capitol and there is a potential for significant snow... sleet... or ice accumulations.

"I can't imagine the Democrats would want to showcase Mr. Gore and his new findings on global warming as a winter storm rages outside," a Republican lawmaker emailed the DRUDGE REPORT. "And if the ice really piles up, it will not be safe to travel."

A spokesman for Sen. John Kerry, who chairs the committee, was not immediately available to comment on contingency plans.

Global warming advocates have suggested this year's wild winter spells are proof of climate change.

Developing...
Click to expand...
 
Blizzards seem to hit these global warming meetings like tornadoes hit trailer parks.
 
Nothing says "ignorant douchebag" like someone who thinks a cold snap somehow debunks the science of human-influenced climate change.

-Pop
 
If it, indeed, did exist. Love it...first it was called Global warming..now that it doesn't really have global warming, we call it climate change, something that happens pretty naturally to begin with in cycles.
 
AgentDrazenPetrovic said:
If it, indeed, did exist. Love it...first it was called Global warming..now that it doesn't really have global warming, we call it climate change, something that happens pretty naturally to begin with in cycles.
Click to expand...

Do some research. It's not difficult. Use the Google on the Internet Machine.

Hundreds of scientists, both independent and those commissioned by governments of industrialized nations, have concluded that human behaviors have increased the amount of heat-trapping gases in the atmposhere. The facts of science show that this has an impact on things like the polar ice caps, the levels of the oceans, and the overall weather patterns throughout the world.

I'm not sure what the debate is here. People need to stop politicizing this issue. This is not a democratic policy agenda. It's scientific fact. And it's smart policy and good judgment to start thinking about reducing our carbon footprint.

-Pop
 
SodaPopinski said:
Do some research. It's not difficult. Use the Google on the Internet Machine.

Hundreds of scientists, both independent and those commissioned by governments of industrialized nations, have concluded that human behaviors have increased the amount of heat-trapping gases in the atmposhere. The facts of science show that this has an impact on things like the polar ice caps, the levels of the oceans, and the overall weather patterns throughout the world.

I'm not sure what the debate is here. People need to stop politicizing this issue. This is not a democratic policy agenda. It's scientific fact. And it's smart policy and good judgment to start thinking about reducing our carbon footprint.

-Pop
Click to expand...

its not scientific fact when any dissenting opinion is not taken seriously.
 
SodaPopinski said:
Do some research. It's not difficult. Use the Google on the Internet Machine.

Hundreds of scientists, both independent and those commissioned by governments of industrialized nations, have concluded that human behaviors have increased the amount of heat-trapping gases in the atmposhere. The facts of science show that this has an impact on things like the polar ice caps, the levels of the oceans, and the overall weather patterns throughout the world.

I'm not sure what the debate is here. People need to stop politicizing this issue. This is not a democratic policy agenda. It's scientific fact. And it's smart policy and good judgment to start thinking about reducing our carbon footprint.

-Pop
Click to expand...

Hundreds of scientists say man made global warming is absurd.
 
Denny Crane said:
Hundreds of scientists say man made global warming is absurd.
Click to expand...

Of course, the vast majority of those aren't climate scientists, but whatever. I'm sure a retired zoologist knows just as much about the weather as someone actually in the field.

barfo
 
barfo said:
Of course, the vast majority of those aren't climate scientists, but whatever. I'm sure a retired zoologist knows just as much about the weather as someone actually in the field.

barfo
Click to expand...

Actually, the bulk of them are climate scientists.
 
Al Gore flies around the globe in private jets fueled by carbon energy because of his global warming alarmism. Plus, he is invested in the carbon credit scam.

Only idiots believe this stuff at this point IMO.
 
barfo said:
Link?

barfo
Click to expand...

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport

[FONT=times new roman,times] Brief highlights of the report featuring over 400 international scientists:
Israel: Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem has authored almost 70 peer-reviewed studies and won several awards. "First, temperature changes, as well as rates of temperature changes (both increase and decrease) of magnitudes similar to that reported by IPCC to have occurred since the Industrial revolution (about 0.8C in 150 years or even 0.4C in the last 35 years) have occurred in Earth's climatic history. There's nothing special about the recent rise!"
Russia: Russian scientist Dr. Oleg Sorochtin of the Institute of Oceanology at the Russian Academy of Sciences has authored more than 300 studies, nine books, and a 2006 paper titled "The Evolution and the Prediction of Global Climate Changes on Earth." "Even if the concentration of ‘greenhouse gases' double man would not perceive the temperature impact," Sorochtin wrote. (Note: Name also sometimes translated to spell Sorokhtin)
Spain: Anton Uriarte, a professor of Physical Geography at the University of the Basque Country in Spain and author of a book on the paleoclimate, rejected man-made climate fears in 2007. "There's no need to be worried. It's very interesting to study [climate change], but there's no need to be worried," Uriate wrote.
Netherlands: Atmospheric scientist Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, a scientific pioneer in the development of numerical weather prediction and former director of research at The Netherlands' Royal National Meteorological Institute, and an internationally recognized expert in atmospheric boundary layer processes, "I find the Doomsday picture Al Gore is painting - a six-meter sea level rise, fifteen times the IPCC number - entirely without merit," Tennekes wrote. "I protest vigorously the idea that the climate reacts like a home heating system to a changed setting of the thermostat: just turn the dial, and the desired temperature will soon be reached."
Brazil: Chief Meteorologist Eugenio Hackbart of the MetSul Meteorologia Weather Center in Sao Leopoldo - Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil declared himself a skeptic. "The media is promoting an unprecedented hyping related to global warming. The media and many scientists are ignoring very important facts that point to a natural variation in the climate system as the cause of the recent global warming," Hackbart wrote on May 30, 2007.
France: Climatologist Dr. Marcel Leroux, former professor at Université Jean Moulin and director of the Laboratory of Climatology, Risks, and Environment in Lyon, is a climate skeptic. Leroux wrote a 2005 book titled Global Warming - Myth or Reality? - The Erring Ways of Climatology. "Day after day, the same mantra - that ‘the Earth is warming up' - is churned out in all its forms. As ‘the ice melts' and ‘sea level rises,' the Apocalypse looms ever nearer! Without realizing it, or perhaps without wishing to, the average citizen in bamboozled, lobotomized, lulled into mindless ac*ceptance. ... Non-believers in the greenhouse scenario are in the position of those long ago who doubted the existence of God ... fortunately for them, the Inquisition is no longer with us!"
Norway: Geologist/Geochemist Dr. Tom V. Segalstad, a professor and head of the Geological Museum at the University of Oslo and formerly an expert reviewer with the UN IPCC: "It is a search for a mythical CO2 sink to explain an immeasurable CO2 lifetime to fit a hypothetical CO2 computer model that purports to show that an impossible amount of fossil fuel burning is heating the atmosphere. It is all a fiction."
Finland: Dr. Boris Winterhalter, retired Senior Marine Researcher of the Geological Survey of Finland and former professor of marine geology at University of Helsinki, criticized the media for what he considered its alarming climate coverage. "The effect of solar winds on cosmic radiation has just recently been established and, furthermore, there seems to be a good correlation between cloudiness and variations in the intensity of cosmic radiation. Here we have a mechanism which is a far better explanation to variations in global climate than the attempts by IPCC to blame it all on anthropogenic input of greenhouse gases," Winterhalter said.
Germany: Paleoclimate expert Augusto Mangini of the University of Heidelberg in Germany, criticized the UN IPCC summary. "I consider the part of the IPCC report, which I can really judge as an expert, i.e. the reconstruction of the paleoclimate, wrong," Mangini noted in an April 5, 2007 article. He added: "The earth will not die."
Canada: IPCC 2007 Expert Reviewer Madhav Khandekar, a Ph.D meteorologist, a scientist with the Natural Resources Stewardship Project who has over 45 years experience in climatology, meteorology and oceanography, and who has published nearly 100 papers, reports, book reviews and a book on Ocean Wave Analysis and Modeling: "To my dismay, IPCC authors ignored all my comments and suggestions for major changes in the FOD (First Order Draft) and sent me the SOD (Second Order Draft) with essentially the same text as the FOD. None of the authors of the chapter bothered to directly communicate with me (or with other expert reviewers with whom I communicate on a regular basis) on many issues that were raised in my review. This is not an acceptable scientific review process."
Czech Republic: Czech-born U.S. climatologist Dr. George Kukla, a research scientist with the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University, expressed climate skepticism in 2007. "The only thing to worry about is the damage that can be done by worrying. Why are some scientists worried? Perhaps because they feel that to stop worrying may mean to stop being paid," Kukla told Gelf Magazine on April 24, 2007.
India: One of India's leading geologists, B.P. Radhakrishna, President of the Geological Society of India, expressed climate skepticism in 2007. "We appear to be overplaying this global warming issue as global warming is nothing new. It has happened in the past, not once but several times, giving rise to glacial-interglacial cycles."
USA: Climatologist Robert Durrenberger, past president of the American Association of State Climatologists, and one of the climatologists who gathered at Woods Hole to review the National Climate Program Plan in July, 1979: "Al Gore brought me back to the battle and prompted me to do renewed research in the field of climatology. And because of all the misinformation that Gore and his army have been spreading about climate change I have decided that ‘real' climatologists should try to help the public understand the nature of the problem."
Italy: Internationally renowned scientist Dr. Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists and a retired Professor of Advanced Physics at the University of Bologna in Italy, who has published over 800 scientific papers: "Significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming."
New Zealand: IPCC reviewer and climate researcher and scientist Dr. Vincent Gray, an expert reviewer on every single draft of the IPCC reports going back to 1990 and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of "Climate Change 2001: "The [IPCC] ‘Summary for Policymakers' might get a few readers, but the main purpose of the report is to provide a spurious scientific backup for the absurd claims of the worldwide environmentalist lobby that it has been established scientifically that increases in carbon dioxide are harmful to the climate. It just does not matter that this ain't so."
South Africa: Dr. Kelvin Kemm, formerly a scientist at South Africa's Atomic Energy Corporation who holds degrees in nuclear physics and mathematics: "The global-warming mania continues with more and more hype and less and less thinking. With religious zeal, people look for issues or events to blame on global warming."
Poland: Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, professor emeritus of the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Warsaw and a former chairman of the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) and currently a representative of the Republic of Poland in UNSCEAR: "We thus find ourselves in the situation that the entire theory of man-made global warming-with its repercussions in science, and its important consequences for politics and the global economy-is based on ice core studies that provided a false picture of the atmospheric CO2 levels."
Australia: Prize-wining Geologist Dr. Ian Plimer, a professor of Earth and Environmental Sciences at the University of Adelaide in Australia: "There is new work emerging even in the last few weeks that shows we can have a very close correlation between the temperatures of the Earth and supernova and solar radiation."
Britain: Dr. Richard Courtney, a UN IPCC expert reviewer and a UK-based climate and atmospheric science consultant: "To date, no convincing evidence for AGW (anthropogenic global warming) has been discovered. And recent global climate behavior is not consistent with AGW model predictions."
China: Chinese Scientists Say CO2 Impact on Warming May Be ‘Excessively Exaggerated' - Scientists Lin Zhen-Shan's and Sun Xian's 2007 study published in the peer-reviewed journal Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics: "Although the CO2 greenhouse effect on global climate change is unsuspicious, it could have been excessively exaggerated." Their study asserted that "it is high time to reconsider the trend of global climate change."
Denmark: Space physicist Dr. Eigil Friis-Christensen is the director of the Danish National Space Centre, a member of the space research advisory committee of the Swedish National Space Board, a member of a NASA working group, and a member of the European Space Agency who has authored or co-authored around 100 peer-reviewed papers and chairs the Institute of Space Physics: "The sun is the source of the energy that causes the motion of the atmosphere and thereby controls weather and climate. Any change in the energy from the sun received at the Earth's surface will therefore affect climate."
Sweden: Geologist Dr. Wibjorn Karlen, professor emeritus of the Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology at Stockholm University, critiqued the Associated Press for hyping promoting climate fears in 2007. "Another of these hysterical views of our climate. Newspapers should think about the damage they are doing to many persons, particularly young kids, by spreading the exaggerated views of a human impact on climate."
USA: Dr. David Wojick is a UN IPCC expert reviewer, who earned his PhD in Philosophy of Science and co-founded the Department of Engineering and Public Policy at Carnegie-Mellon University: "In point of fact, the hypothesis that solar variability and not human activity is warming the oceans goes a long way to explain the puzzling idea that the Earth's surface may be warming while the atmosphere is not. The GHG (greenhouse gas) hypothesis does not do this." Wojick added: "The public is not well served by this constant drumbeat of false alarms fed by computer models manipulated by advocates."
[/FONT]
 
Shouldn't humans reduce polution regardless of the so called human-influenced climate change?
 
¹²³ said:
Shouldn't humans reduce polution regardless of the so called human-influenced climate change?
Click to expand...

Sure, but not at ALL costs.

We've already seen that pushing ethanol helped trigger this recession/depression we're now in. Food prices went way up last year since the corn used to feed cattle and people was being turned into fuel. This is the kind of thing we want to avoid.
 
AgentDrazenPetrovic said:
If it, indeed, did exist. Love it...first it was called Global warming..now that it doesn't really have global warming, we call it climate change, something that happens pretty naturally to begin with in cycles.
Click to expand...

Dennis Miller had a nice bit about that subject when I saw him do standup years ago. He said, "You know what we called climate change when I was growing up? Weather."
 
¹²³ said:
Shouldn't humans reduce polution regardless of the so called human-influenced climate change?
Click to expand...

Not at the cost of destroying our economy. There are some sensible measures that should be taken, but many of the statutes being suggested have the subtext of creeping totalitarianism.

BTW, how anyone who believes in man-made global warming can be against nuclear energy is beyond me.
 
SodaPopinski said:
I'm not sure what the debate is here. People need to stop politicizing this issue. This is not a democratic policy agenda. It's scientific fact. And it's smart policy and good judgment to start thinking about reducing our carbon footprint.
Click to expand...

I agree. The Democrats really do need to stop making this issue a political one. Instead, they're using petty scare tactics to win seats.

You're also right that it's not a democratic policy agenda--it's become authoritarian. Not believing in man-made global warming now makes you the equivalent of someone who denys the Holocaust occurred. It's a neat debating tactic--framing the opposition as crazy--but there's simply too much contradicting research to call man-made global warming a "fact".
 
Last edited:
maxiep said:
I don't disagree that we've had an impact. I'm skeptical on how much and how drastic it has been.
Click to expand...

I think that's fair. A healthy dose of skepticism can be a pretty valuable thing when dealing with zealots from either side... The truth is that there are far more questions than answers so far. The good news is that we are learning more every day, though.
 
TripTango said:
I think that's fair. A healthy dose of skepticism can be a pretty valuable thing when dealing with zealots from either side... The truth is that there are far more questions than answers so far. The good news is that we are learning more every day, though.
Click to expand...

I also think it's prudent to scale back our contribution to global damage (not just CO2 emissions, but water pollution, forest clearing and waste creation). My issue is how much and I think some are using this issue to force us into a specific way of life I believe to be too drastic.
 
It's a shame that environmentalism in this country has been reduced to issues like global warming and are being championed by people like Al Gore. I mean, really, there's nothing wrong with Al Gore, people just love to hate him because he's sticking to his guns on an uncomfortable issue and he reminds you of that aspergers kid you knew in middle school.

But this whole discussion is moot until we, as a country, can get on the same page. We need to meet in the middle.

To the left: Florida isn't going to be underwater in 20 years if we continue at the same rate. Scaring people is the republican's thing, they're much better at it. No one is really buying this.

To the right: Environmentalism isn't run by communists trying to destroy America.

To everyone: pollution exists. Trees don't pollute more then cars. Can we just try to take care of the Earth a little more before we die and let our kids ruin everything? It's the least we can do.
 
Denny Crane said:
Sure, but not at ALL costs.

We've already seen that pushing ethanol helped trigger this recession/depression we're now in. Food prices went way up last year since the corn used to feed cattle and people was being turned into fuel. This is the kind of thing we want to avoid.
Click to expand...


I imagine in 500 years what is left of the human race will look at this period and wonder what the eff we were thinking. The US is sitting on massive stockpiles of coal, natural gas, and yes, even oil, and instead of utilizing it, we have chosen to burn our food as fuel. Let me say that again. We grow and subsidize food for the sole purpose of burning it.
 
PapaG said:
I imagine in 500 years what is left of the human race will look at this period and wonder what the eff we were thinking. The US is sitting on massive stockpiles of coal, natural gas, and yes, even oil, and instead of utilizing it, we have chosen to burn our food as fuel. Let me say that again. We grow and subsidize food for the sole purpose of burning it.
Click to expand...

There have been successful cases of ethanol use, just take a look at the ethanol in Brazil in comparison with the United States.

Brazil's sugar cane-based industry is more efficient than the U.S. corn-based industry. Sugar cane ethanol has an energy balance 7 times greater than ethanol produced from corn.[1] Brazilian distillers are able to produce ethanol for 22 cents per liter, compared with the 30 cents per liter for corn-based ethanol.[79] U.S. corn-derived ethanol costs 30% more because the corn starch must first be converted to sugar before being distilled into alcohol.[58] Despite this cost differential in production, the U.S. does not import more Brazilian ethanol because of U.S. trade barriers corresponding to a tariff of 54-cent per gallon – a levy designed to offset the 51-cent per gallon blender's federal tax credit that is applied to ethanol no matter its country of origin.[80]
Click to expand...

Look at the table in the link. Pretty interesting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top