Global Boiling

[Lavalamp]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jun 24 2008, 05:17 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Another interesting tidbit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars

The atmosphere on Mars consists of 95% carbon dioxide, 3% nitrogen, 1.6% argon, and contains traces of oxygen and water.

(Yet it's a lot colder than Earth, Mercury, or Venus)</div>
Distance from the Sun (where Earths distance from the Sun is 1 AU)

Mercury 0.39 AU
Venus 0.72 AU
Earth 1 AU
Mars 1.52 AU

One thing to note is that Mars does not have a strong atmosphere, so the C02 does have a greenhouse effect, but not nearly as much as a planet that has a denser atmosphere composed primarily of C02 like Venus does.

Mars Pressure at surface 0.8 KPa.
Earth Pressure at surface 101.3 KPa (100 times more than Mars)
Venus Pressure at surface 9.1 MPa (100 times more than Earths)

Anyway, Mars doesn`t get nearly as cold as Mercury does despite being roughly 4 times further away from the Sun. Mercury reaches -180 degrees celcius, while Mars reaches -80 degrees celcius. The C02 traps some of the heat in as a greenhouse gas. Otherwise Mars would reach colder temperatures than Mercury would at such a great distance.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jun 24 2008, 05:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>^^^ There are millions of volcanoes of various sizes on Venus. That'll warm things up quite a bit smile.gif</div>
Oh and regarding the volcanoes on Venus. Why would you even bring this up?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Even though there are over 1,600 major volcanoes on Venus, none is known to be erupting at present and most are probably long extinct.^[2]</div>

The temperature of Venus despite being further away from the Sun than Mercury and staying warmer is due to the C02 not extinct Volcanoes that have no impact on the temperature today. Anyway a Volcano would not explain the difference that we see in temperature between Mercury and Venus even if they were active everyday.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chutney @ Jul 9 2008, 11:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>That's one of my favourite clips of his. I feel strongly about limiting how much we damage the environment, but the man is f'n right. No matter how hard people try to spin it as a selfless act, this environmental awareness and concern is motivated purely out of self-interest. None of us want to be stuck in a polluted environment or have to deal with the Earth's reaction to us.</div>
Agreed

Or for some people it's about making a name for themselves like Al Gore. But yea, for sure people are selfish when they are thinking about this stuff. I had a professor who said that he worked for Esso and Esso was drilling for Oil in I think Peru and Esso said this will be expensive because we have to remove the waste and clean the stuff, because it would affect the drinking water and the environment, but the Peruvians didnt care about it, because the river flows into Equador. (another country who they dislike lol)

 

[Denny Crane]

First, this gets back to your misuse of CO2 and water vapor as contributing causes to greenhouse effect. The more a % of the atmosphere that's CO2 has literally nothing to do with planet temperature. Thanks for clearing that up!

Second, do you see the key words "known to be" and "probably" in your second quote?

I find this to be funny:

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/ve...greenhouse.html

"The greenhouse effect by itself could not account for the conditions that we find on Venus. "

And

http://www.astronomynotes.com/solarsys/s9.htm

"On Venus, the super-abundance of CO2 in its atmosphere is responsible for the huge greenhouse effect."

Maybe I'm confused, or maybe there's the perfect example of Al Gore's consensus among scientists.

How about this article from National Geographic?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...rs-warming.html

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says
Kate Ravilious
for National Geographic News
February 28, 2007

Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet's recent climate changes have a natural—and not a human-induced—cause, according to one scientist's controversial theory.

Earth is currently experiencing rapid warming, which the vast majority of climate scientists says is due to humans pumping huge amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. (Get an overview: "Global Warming Fast Facts".)

Mars, too, appears to be enjoying more mild and balmy temperatures.

In 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row.

Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of space research at St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun.

"The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars," he said.
(more at the link)</div>

Wait, there is more at the link worth reading:

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Abdussamatov remains contrarian, however, suggesting that the sun holds something quite different in store.

"The solar irradiance began to drop in the 1990s, and a minimum will be reached by approximately 2040," Abdussamatov said. "It will cause a steep cooling of the climate on Earth in 15 to 20 years."</div>

And there are tens of thousands of articles on the Internet like this one:

http://technorati.com/posts/A45mEz2X%2FYu%...n6purc67Vy5A%3D

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Earth Slated to Continue Cooling

The earth hasn't warmed any in the last decade, a trend that is likely to continue: When the United Nations World Meteorological Organization recently reported that global temperatures had not risen since 1998, the explanation given by WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud was that the cool spell was the effect of the Pacific Ocean's La Nina current, "part of what we call 'variability.' " Well, oops, the Earth will do it again. According to a report by German researchers published in Thursday's issue of the journal Nature, shifting Atlantic ocean currents will cool parts of North America and Europe over the next decade as well.</div>

But here's a really important issue in the mix, perhaps the most important of all (back to the article about Abdussamatov):

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Abdussamatov's work, however, has not been well received by other climate scientists.
(My note: danger, danger, Will Robinson! Stepping on toes of the scientific community with the truth isn't good for your funding!)

"His views are completely at odds with the mainstream scientific opinion," said Colin Wilson, a planetary physicist at England's Oxford University.

"And they contradict the extensive evidence presented in the most recent IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] report."
(My note: the IPCC report has little to do with science and everything to do with geopolitics; the results aren't scientific results, they are whatever the panel voted on)

Amato Evan, a climate scientist at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, added that "the idea just isn't supported by the theory or by the observations."</div>

Wait a second, "The solar irradiance began to drop in the 1990s, and a minimum will be reached by approximately 2040," Abdussamatov said. "It will cause a steep cooling of the climate on Earth in 15 to 20 years."

And

"the idea just isn't supported by the theory or by the observations."

makes Amato Evan look like a fool, no?

 

[Chutney]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>"His views are completely at odds with the mainstream scientific opinion," said Colin Wilson, a planetary physicist at England's Oxford University.</div>
That's a pretty idiotic response to it. I remember disagreeing with you about the opinions of these academics/scientists, but the more I've read the more I've been annoyed with them. I still don't know enough about the issue of climate change, but I do know enough to be annoyed with how politics have infected everything about the debate (on both sides).

 

[Lavalamp]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 10 2008, 03:16 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>First, this gets back to your misuse of CO2 and water vapor as contributing causes to greenhouse effect. The more a % of the atmosphere that's CO2 has literally nothing to do with planet temperature. Thanks for clearing that up!</div>
Well, we got a genius here, I think we need to stop the arguement here lol, because I think you dont think C02 is a greenhouse gas.

Obviously other things can impact temperatures on Earth. There is more than one greenhouse gas, if there is no water vapour in the atmosphere that would have a big impact, if there is a lot more ice to reflect light, and I dont know exactly the earths conditions 400 000 years ago, 300 000 years ago, 200 000 years ago, etc. However Scientists know that Carbon Dioxide will help keep the Suns energy within the atmosphere.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane)</div><div class='quotemain'>Second, do you see the key words "known to be" and "probably" in your second quote?</div>
Well the funny thing is you bring up Volcanoes to somehow disprove the greenhouse effect Carbon Dioxide has on Venus. Then just because we can't be 100% sure if there aren't some latent Volcanoes on Venus, even if there were you are getting into symantics to ignore the fact that Venus is affected by the greenhouse effect of C02. Nvm, you are smarter than that, you probably just dont read the posts.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 10 2008, 03:16 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I find this to be funny:

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/ve...greenhouse.html

"The greenhouse effect by itself could not account for the conditions that we find on Venus. "

And

http://www.astronomynotes.com/solarsys/s9.htm

"On Venus, the super-abundance of CO2 in its atmosphere is responsible for the huge greenhouse effect."

Maybe I'm confused, or maybe there's the perfect example of Al Gore's consensus among scientists.</div>
Interestingly enough the first article that you quote from also says:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>The sobering warning for us is obvious: we have to be extremely concerned about processes such as burning of fossil fuels in large volumes that might (we don't know for sure because the scientific questions are complex) have the potential to trigger a runaway greenhouse effect and produce on the Earth atmospheric conditions such as those found on Venus. </div>
Reading through the first article they clearly believe that Carbon Dioxide is a greenhouse gas and its effect has greatly effected Venus. So there is no disagreement there.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 10 2008, 03:16 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>How about this article from National Geographic?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...rs-warming.html

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says
Kate Ravilious
for National Geographic News
February 28, 2007

Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet's recent climate changes have a natural�"and not a human-induced�"cause, according to one scientist's controversial theory.

Earth is currently experiencing rapid warming, which the vast majority of climate scientists says is due to humans pumping huge amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. (Get an overview: "Global Warming Fast Facts".)

Mars, too, appears to be enjoying more mild and balmy temperatures.

In 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row.

Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of space research at St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun.

"The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars," he said.
(more at the link)</div>

Wait, there is more at the link worth reading:

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Abdussamatov remains contrarian, however, suggesting that the sun holds something quite different in store.

"The solar irradiance began to drop in the 1990s, and a minimum will be reached by approximately 2040," Abdussamatov said. "It will cause a steep cooling of the climate on Earth in 15 to 20 years."</div>

And there are tens of thousands of articles on the Internet like this one:

http://technorati.com/posts/A45mEz2X%2FYu%...n6purc67Vy5A%3D

</div>
Well first off this is a controversial theory. And over the last 100 years the Earths temp is up 0.5 degrees celcius. (from anarctica ice samples it would take 500 years to make a change like that)

The funny thing is you completely ignored the part of my post which points out that Mars does not reach the lows that Mercury does despite being much further away. Care to explain that...

 

[Denny Crane]

I do think CO2 is a greenhouse gas, it's not hard to prove. Take a jar and pump it full of CO2 and seal it, and put it in the sun; it'll get hotter than a jar filled with regular air. What that doesn't prove is that increasing the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere by .000003 is going to raise temperatures in any measurable way.

Regarding Mars and Mercury, I almost edited my previous post to explain it. The answer is that planetary temperature systems are complex processes.

Mercury has no atmosphere to speak of, like our moon. You'd expect the surface temperature to be whatever the sun's heat is at its distance and nothing more. It has a molten core, but I do not believe there is any active vulcanism there in the past 4B years to contribute to the warming of the planet. All it is is the sun, and like an astronaut on a space walk, one side is very hot, and one is very cold.

Mars has a thin atmosphere and is obviously much further away. It does appear to have active vulcanism, which will warm the planet, and the winds that make the fairly famous sandstorms there redistribute heat from the sunlit side to the dark side - something that Mercury has no similar process.

Venus has winds that are 1000 MPH or more that redistribute heat to the dark side of the planet as well as sufficient atmospheric pressure to raise the temperature significantly, world-wide.

So the answer to your question is a complicated one. Earth is closer to the Sun AND has a much higher atmospheric pressure than Mars; it's warmer.

As for volcanism on Venus, you threw wikipedia at me, and it's misleading or flat-out wrong.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/...80404114325.htm

Search For Active Volcanoes On Venus In High Gear

ScienceDaily (Apr. 8, 2008) — ESA’s Venus Express has measured a highly variable quantity of the volcanic gas sulphur dioxide in the atmosphere of Venus. Scientists must now decide whether this is evidence for active volcanoes on Venus, or linked to a hitherto unknown mechanism affecting the upper atmosphere.

The search for volcanoes is a long-running thread in the exploration of Venus. “Volcanoes are a key part of a climate system,” says Fred Taylor, a Venus Express Interdisciplinary Scientist from Oxford University. That’s because they release gases such as sulphur dioxide into the planet’s atmosphere.

On Earth, sulphur compounds do not stay in the atmosphere for long. Instead, they react with the surface of the planet. The same is thought to be true at Venus, although the reactions are much slower, with a time scale of 20 million years.

Some scientists have argued that the large proportion of sulphur dioxide found by previous space missions at Venus is the ‘smoking gun’ of recent volcanic eruptions. However, others maintain that the eruptions could have happened around 10 million years ago and that the sulphur dioxide remains in the atmosphere because it takes such a long time to react with the surface rocks.

New observations from Venus Express showing rapid variations of sulphur dioxide in the upper atmosphere have revived this debate.

The SPICAV (Spectroscopy for Investigation of Characteristics of the Atmosphere of Venus) instrument analyses the way starlight or sunlight is absorbed by Venus’s atmosphere. The absorbed light tells scientists the identity of the atoms and molecules found in the planet’s atmosphere. This technique works only in the more tenuous upper atmosphere, above the clouds at an altitude of 70–90 km. In the space of a few days, the quantity of sulphur dioxide in the upper atmosphere dropped by two-thirds.

Jean-Loup Bertaux, Service d’Aeronomie du CNRS, Verrières-le-Buisson, is the Principal Investigator for SPICAV. “I am very sceptical about the volcanic hypothesis,” he says. “However, I must admit that we don’t understand yet why there is so much SO2 at high altitudes, where it should be destroyed rapidly by solar light, and why it is varying so wildly.”

 

[Lavalamp]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 10 2008, 04:27 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I do think CO2 is a greenhouse gas, it's not hard to prove. Take a jar and pump it full of CO2 and seal it, and put it in the sun; it'll get hotter than a jar filled with regular air. What that doesn't prove is that increasing the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere by .000003 is going to raise temperatures in any measurable way.</div>

Ok, gotcha. The only difference between us, is I think it will have an effect, but it probably will only affect us little during our lifetime. I would go with the lower estimates thrown out there by scientists like the temp increasing by 1 degree celsuis over the next hundred years, which should be fine.

However I could see it being a big problem two hundred years from now with Earth's population most likely getting bigger, as well as developing countries getting more developed and using more energy.

 

[Denny Crane]

Heh...

I think we're likely to see warming no matter what we do. It's tilting at windmills to try and fight it, since it's a natural process.

There are things that man is doing that is not helping things, but those are on the order of paving more and more land (asphalt is 95% efficient at absorbing heat!) or massively cutting down the rain forests, or dumping chemicals like CFCs in the air (where there is an unnatural chemical reaction unleashed on components of the atmosphere).

 

[Lavalamp]

Well I agree that burning down to clear cut forests also is like a double dose. Because not only does it create CO2, but those same trees would remove CO2 from the atmosphere.

Could they pave roads white, or would that make it to difficult to drive on, due to reflected light.

I know CFCs mess up Ozone, but I dont know the impact it would have on global temperature. I now more UV radiation gets through to the ground though, because I forget if Ozone reflects UV radiation or absorbs it, but somehow it stops it.

 

[Denny Crane]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Lavalamp @ Jul 10 2008, 02:22 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Well I agree that burning down to clear cut forests also is like a double dose. Because not only does it create CO2, but those same trees would remove CO2 from the atmosphere.

Could they pave roads white, or would that make it to difficult to drive on, due to reflected light.

I know CFCs mess up Ozone, but I dont know the impact it would have on global temperature. I now more UV radiation gets through to the ground though, because I forget if Ozone reflects UV radiation or absorbs it, but somehow it stops it.</div>

It's too bad they can't figure out how to make solar panels out of asphalt. As I said, it's 95% efficient, while solar panels are like 15% efficient (and a waste of time, money, and effort).

A lot of the highways here in Vegas are concrete or some other similar material. But in general, paving over the landscape does make the ground absorb more heat...

CFCs are scary. Trying to explain it in layman's terms... The chemical reaction is something like a chain reaction; when the CFC combines with the ozone molecules, there's a leftover free radical CFC to combine again. So just a little CFC destroys a LOT of ozone layer.

The ozone hole was a big thing a few years back. Ozone filters the UV and heat from the sun, so more of it reaches the ground where the hole is. Guess where the hole was? (It's gotten way smaller over time). It was over the poles.... so there's another reason the ice caps melt that has nothing to do with CO2.

Regarding the stuff you got from wikipedia last night, about % of contribution to greenhouse effect. For starters, we want a greenhouse effect, or the earth would cold like mars. Then there's the issue of the Earth being a really big place with a huge variety of weather and atmospheric conditions depending where you are. The range of numbers they give are because there's 4% water vapor in the air (or less) in some places - like here in Vegas where it's really hot or at the poles - while there's 99% (or 100% where it rains) in others. Taking some midrange value doesn't begin to make sense of what the numbers really mean.

They do try to model the climate, but that is an absurd proposition. Not only are the variables really just a best guess, there's no way you can consider everything. It's absurd because the systems are as complex and infinite in their variables as there are molecules or atoms involved. The true test of modeling software is that you should be able to reproduce actual values measured in the past, and the models that claim global warming do not do that or even close.

 

[Denny Crane]

Here's a stunner.

http://www.dailytech.com/Myth+of+Consensus...rticle12403.htm

Blog: Science Myth of Consensus Explodes: APS Opens Global Warming Debate

"Considerable presence" of skeptics

The American Physical Society, an organization representing nearly 50,000 physicists, has reversed its stance on climate change and is now proclaiming that many of its members disbelieve in human-induced global warming. The APS is also sponsoring public debate on the validity of global warming science. The leadership of the society had previously called the evidence for global warming "incontrovertible."

In a posting to the APS forum, editor Jeffrey Marque explains,"There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution."

The APS is opening its debate with the publication of a paper by Lord Monckton of Brenchley, which concludes that climate sensitivity -- the rate of temperature change a given amount of greenhouse gas will cause -- has been grossly overstated by IPCC modeling. A low sensitivity implies additional atmospheric CO2 will have little effect on global climate.

Larry Gould, Professor of Physics at the University of Hartford and Chairman of the New England Section of the APS, called Monckton's paper an "expose of the IPCC that details numerous exaggerations and "extensive errors"

In an email to DailyTech, Monckton says, "I was dismayed to discover that the IPCC's 2001 and 2007 reports did not devote chapters to the central 'climate sensitivity' question, and did not explain in proper, systematic detail the methods by which they evaluated it. When I began to investigate, it seemed that the IPCC was deliberately concealing and obscuring its method."

According to Monckton, there is substantial support for his results, "in the peer-reviewed literature, most articles on climate sensitivity conclude, as I have done, that climate sensitivity must be harmlessly low."

Monckton, who was the science advisor to Britain's Thatcher administration, says natural variability is the cause of most of the Earth's recent warming. "In the past 70 years the Sun was more active than at almost any other time in the past 11,400 years ... Mars, Jupiter, Neptune’s largest moon, and Pluto warmed at the same time as Earth."

 

[Denny Crane]

For peer review:

http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm

 

[The Return of the Raider]

Denny, you have way too much time on your hands. Get a job.

 

[Thoth]

Al Gore recently said we have 10 years before oblivion. He obviously thinks the Mayas were off by 6 yrs. ROFL.

How often does he who stalks manbearpig listen to Headed for Destruction by Jackyl?

 

[The Return of the Raider]

Wasn't the world supposed to end on Y2K?

 

[The Return of the Raider]

I've been reading about the possible collision/merger of the Milky Way and Andromeda galaxies. I also watched a program on TV about that. Worst case scenario, all life on earth is destroyed in a few billion years. I'm really glad I don't have to ever worry about that. They have said that they have been measuring a reduction in distance between the two galaxies. I guess if it ever happened, we have a lot of time to prepare for it. I wonder how advanced our space travel and exploration will be by then...


http://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/5...es_Collide.html

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=when-m...ome&ref=rss

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>If Homo sapiens can stick it out on Earth for another two billion years, our descendants may witness quite a show in the night sky. Researchers estimate that the Milky Way will collide with its nearest neighbor, the Andromeda galaxy, at around that time—well before the sun collapses into a white dwarf, perhaps destroying the Earth in the process.</div>

 

[Denny Crane]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Return of the Raider @ Jul 18 2008, 04:15 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Denny, you have way too much time on your hands. Get a job.</div>

I haven't started my drip drip drip threads about how teachers are committing statutory rape with their students at a horrifying pace.

Public schools, that is, not the catholic church. Tell me why you think it doesn't get any press?

 

[huevonkiller]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 17 2008, 07:48 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>For peer review:

http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm</div>

Wow, bravo man.

 

[Denny Crane]

Al Gore asked all the people to ride bicycles or walk to his most recent speech/venue. Meanwhile, he showed up with a fleet of cars and SUVs, which left the motors and air conditioners running so they'd be nice and cool when Gore and his entourage was ready to leave. Surely they headed to his private jet for a ride home.

Arnold is pretty famous for flying in his private from LA to Sacramento to work as governor.

 

[Thoth]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Return of the Raider @ Jul 18 2008, 05:53 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Wasn't the world supposed to end on Y2K?</div>
It would've been algore's fault... he invented the internet, right?

 

[Denny Crane]

<embed type='application/x-shockwave-flash' src='http://foxnews1.a.mms.mavenapps.net...e/fncLargePlayer/client/embedded/embedded.swf' id='mediumFlashEmbedded' pluginspage='http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer' bgcolor='#000000' allowScriptAccess='always' allowFullScreen='true' quality='high' name='undefined' play='false' scale='noscale' menu='false' salign='LT' scriptAccess='always' wmode='false' height='275' width='305' flashvars='playerId=videolandingpage&referralObject=2435807&referralPlaylistId=playlist' />

 

[Thoth]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 19 2008, 08:58 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Al Gore asked all the people to ride bicycles or walk to his most recent speech/venue. Meanwhile, he showed up with a fleet of cars and SUVs, which left the motors and air conditioners running so they'd be nice and cool when Gore and his entourage was ready to leave. Surely they headed to his private jet for a ride home.</div>

I've heard other instances of this happening. Its hypocritical at best. Appearantly, Al and Tipper have astronomical bills heating the home in Tennessee by going green.

Gore is up in the night when he says powering our homes is giving money to those who hate us. It was my understanding that electricity is produced from coal right here in the US.

It seems to me that Al, the Dems, and the other greenies only want to try certain alternatives. As John Layfield & Tracy Byrnes on Fox Business have said and will say again, "we need to try everything."

Though, I've never heard Hydrogen is never mentioned.

http://www.lib.msu.edu/harris23/environment/hydrogen.htm

 

[Denny Crane]

Hydrogen == Kaboom in an auto accident.

 

[Real]

I find it funny that this guy won all these awards, served as VP in what is now regarded one of the most popular administrations in history, supposedly invented the internet, and is now presumably going to save the world...

But he couldn't beat George W. Bush, the same man his liberal cronies call dumb, a war criminal and a complete failure. They prop this guy up like he's the second coming.

 

[huevonkiller]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real @ Jul 20 2008, 05:36 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I find it funny that this guy won all these awards, served as VP in what is now regarded one of the most popular administrations in history, supposedly invented the internet, and is now presumably going to save the world...

But he couldn't beat George W. Bush, the same man his liberal cronies call dumb, a war criminal and a complete failure. They prop this guy up like he's the second coming.</div>

I don't like Al Gore, but I have no idea what you're talking about.

People thought Gore was a boring individual in 2000, he didn't have all this hype over a Global Warming movie, he won the popular vote, and Bush Jr was a more respectable figure at that time as well.

 

[Real]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ Jul 20 2008, 06:05 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real @ Jul 20 2008, 05:36 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I find it funny that this guy won all these awards, served as VP in what is now regarded one of the most popular administrations in history, supposedly invented the internet, and is now presumably going to save the world...

But he couldn't beat George W. Bush, the same man his liberal cronies call dumb, a war criminal and a complete failure. They prop this guy up like he's the second coming.</div>

I don't like Al Gore, but I have no idea what you're talking about.

People thought Gore was a boring individual in 2000, he didn't have all this hype over a Global Warming movie, he won the popular vote, and Bush Jr was a more respectable figure at that time as well.
</div>

No but he was part of a very popular administration (even after the scandal, Clinton left with a 65% approval rating), and was considered to be the superior intellectual to Bush.

It's just funny how they bash Bush as a stupid warmongering failure, and Al Gore, who lost to Bush is now regarded as the savior.

My point is if he's so great, why didn't he win? He didn't even win his home state in 2000.

 

[huevonkiller]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real @ Jul 20 2008, 06:25 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ Jul 20 2008, 06:05 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real @ Jul 20 2008, 05:36 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I find it funny that this guy won all these awards, served as VP in what is now regarded one of the most popular administrations in history, supposedly invented the internet, and is now presumably going to save the world...

But he couldn't beat George W. Bush, the same man his liberal cronies call dumb, a war criminal and a complete failure. They prop this guy up like he's the second coming.</div>

I don't like Al Gore, but I have no idea what you're talking about.

People thought Gore was a boring individual in 2000, he didn't have all this hype over a Global Warming movie, he won the popular vote, and Bush Jr was a more respectable figure at that time as well.
</div>

No but he was part of a very popular administration (even after the scandal, Clinton left with a 65% approval rating), and was considered to be the superior intellectual to Bush.

It's just funny how they bash Bush but they prop up the guy he beat.
</div>

Not really, Gore and Bush were seen quite differently in 2000.

 

[Real]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ Jul 20 2008, 06:25 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real @ Jul 20 2008, 06:25 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ Jul 20 2008, 06:05 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real @ Jul 20 2008, 05:36 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I find it funny that this guy won all these awards, served as VP in what is now regarded one of the most popular administrations in history, supposedly invented the internet, and is now presumably going to save the world...

But he couldn't beat George W. Bush, the same man his liberal cronies call dumb, a war criminal and a complete failure. They prop this guy up like he's the second coming.</div>

I don't like Al Gore, but I have no idea what you're talking about.

People thought Gore was a boring individual in 2000, he didn't have all this hype over a Global Warming movie, he won the popular vote, and Bush Jr was a more respectable figure at that time as well.
</div>

No but he was part of a very popular administration (even after the scandal, Clinton left with a 65% approval rating), and was considered to be the superior intellectual to Bush.

It's just funny how they bash Bush but they prop up the guy he beat.
</div>

Not really, Gore and Bush were seen quite differently in 2000.
</div>

But why didn't a popular, intelligent incumbent VP win against a big idiot who got his money, his Ivy league degrees, all of his accomplishments off his father's legacy in George Bush?

And why is this guy now supposedly going to save the fuckin' planet?

 

[huevonkiller]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real @ Jul 20 2008, 06:32 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ Jul 20 2008, 06:25 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real @ Jul 20 2008, 06:25 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ Jul 20 2008, 06:05 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real @ Jul 20 2008, 05:36 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I find it funny that this guy won all these awards, served as VP in what is now regarded one of the most popular administrations in history, supposedly invented the internet, and is now presumably going to save the world...

But he couldn't beat George W. Bush, the same man his liberal cronies call dumb, a war criminal and a complete failure. They prop this guy up like he's the second coming.</div>

I don't like Al Gore, but I have no idea what you're talking about.

People thought Gore was a boring individual in 2000, he didn't have all this hype over a Global Warming movie, he won the popular vote, and Bush Jr was a more respectable figure at that time as well.
</div>

No but he was part of a very popular administration (even after the scandal, Clinton left with a 65% approval rating), and was considered to be the superior intellectual to Bush.

It's just funny how they bash Bush but they prop up the guy he beat.
</div>

Not really, Gore and Bush were seen quite differently in 2000.
</div>

But why didn't a popular, intelligent incumbent VP win against a big idiot who got his money, his Ivy league degrees, all of his accomplishments off his father's legacy in George Bush?
</div>

Even within the popular administration people did not think Gore was a very interesting individual. I would frequently here about how "Wooden" he was, and how boring his speeches were in the Late 90's.

Bush was a likable person and not nearly the dope he is now. The Iraq War, whether you believe in it or not, is a huge reason why he is seen as a failure; it is seen as a superfluous war and handled poorly (true or not). Your comparison makes no sense because it ignores context.

Gore also had a very moving film (full of radical ideas, but interesting to the average person), people never saw this part of him before.

Many see him as a winner (even then) because the Electoral College is BS to various people. Finally, no matter what the Liberal media says, a large percentage of our nation will always vote Republican.

 

[Real]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ Jul 20 2008, 06:37 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real @ Jul 20 2008, 06:32 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ Jul 20 2008, 06:25 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real @ Jul 20 2008, 06:25 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ Jul 20 2008, 06:05 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real @ Jul 20 2008, 05:36 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I find it funny that this guy won all these awards, served as VP in what is now regarded one of the most popular administrations in history, supposedly invented the internet, and is now presumably going to save the world...

But he couldn't beat George W. Bush, the same man his liberal cronies call dumb, a war criminal and a complete failure. They prop this guy up like he's the second coming.</div>

I don't like Al Gore, but I have no idea what you're talking about.

People thought Gore was a boring individual in 2000, he didn't have all this hype over a Global Warming movie, he won the popular vote, and Bush Jr was a more respectable figure at that time as well.
</div>

No but he was part of a very popular administration (even after the scandal, Clinton left with a 65% approval rating), and was considered to be the superior intellectual to Bush.

It's just funny how they bash Bush but they prop up the guy he beat.
</div>

Not really, Gore and Bush were seen quite differently in 2000.
</div>

But why didn't a popular, intelligent incumbent VP win against a big idiot who got his money, his Ivy league degrees, all of his accomplishments off his father's legacy in George Bush?
</div>

Even within the popular administration people did not think Gore was a very interesting individual. I would frequently here about how "Wooden" he was, and how boring his speeches were in the Late 90's.

Bush was a likable person and not nearly the dope he is now. The Iraq War, whether you believe in it or not, is a huge reason why he is seen as a failure; it is seen as a superfluous war and handled poorly (true or not). Your comparison makes no sense because it ignores context.

Gore also had a very moving film (full of radical ideas, but interesting to the average person), people never saw this part of him before.

Many see him as a winner (even then) because the Electoral College is BS to various people. Finally, no matter what the Liberal media says, a large percentage of our nation will always vote Republican.
</div>

Fair points all. You're right, Bush's legacy will be defined by the Iraq war, and how it was handled for years until the surge.

My point is someone needs to bring this guy back down to earth. I don't see anyone doing that in the media or anywhere else.

 

[Denny Crane]

You guys hijacked my global warming thread into an Iraq thread

People in the future will compare the time spent in Iraq with how long we occupied Japan and Germany and even our own South, along with the ultimate result.

People don't remember this about FDR, but there were many battles early in the war where we got our asses kicked. Put that in the same perspective.