Gore at it again

[ScottSA]

From the article: "It's true that the atmosphere on Mars is only about .6 percent as dense as that on Earth, but it's also true that its relative concentration of carbon dioxide is about 2400 times as great as that of Earth, which appears to make up for the thinness of the Martian atmosphere about 14 times over."

The density on Mars is 0.6% that of Earth. Temperature is directly related to atmospheric density. It's bloody cold on Mars for that reason. The argument above contains a false premise.

Smokers, too, are in denial that their habit will kill them. Why? To protect their need to smoke. What motivates the deniers of global warming?

I'm afraid you've become confused. Gore was making the claim that CO2 is the cause of Venus' hot atmosphere. If CO2 were the cause, Mars would be as hot as Venus.

[Sulaco]

A few years ago, a similar post could have started "What if Bush is right?"

Both the Bush Administration and the GW environmentalists have used a similar approach to gain support - create mass hysteria by talking about danger and destruction and the need to act immediately or else. With this hysteria action is necessary, there is no time for debate. There is only one solution; the one that is currently on the table.

Gore is right that the earth is warming, but he is wrong to generate hysteria. Kyoto is a poor solution in any event.

One small difference...

Following Bush's plan involved killing lots and lots of innocent people and involved a high risk outcome and a policy that lacked any consensus of support from intelligence services.

Following Gore's plan doesn't involve killing anyone and doesn't involve any actual risks and comes with a wide consensus of scientific opinion.

But I can see why they seem identical and thus, uncredible.

Except that is incorrect. Same claims could have been made about banning DDTs. Since no bombs will be involved now will die. And yet what Gore is calling for will have undeniable consequences for the world's economic systems. These consequences are liekly to be engative and drastic. Have you reviewed all the possible consequences of the GW alarmists' plans?

[Xman]

From the article: "It's true that the atmosphere on Mars is only about .6 percent as dense as that on Earth, but it's also true that its relative concentration of carbon dioxide is about 2400 times as great as that of Earth, which appears to make up for the thinness of the Martian atmosphere about 14 times over."

The density on Mars is 0.6% that of Earth. Temperature is directly related to atmospheric density. It's bloody cold on Mars for that reason. The argument above contains a false premise.

Smokers, too, are in denial that their habit will kill them. Why? To protect their need to smoke. What motivates the deniers of global warming?

I'm afraid you've become confused. Gore was making the claim that CO2 is the cause of Venus' hot atmosphere. If CO2 were the cause, Mars would be as hot as Venus.

Huh?? Did you read what I typed? Remove the filter and read it again.

[Xman]

A few years ago, a similar post could have started "What if Bush is right?"

Both the Bush Administration and the GW environmentalists have used a similar approach to gain support - create mass hysteria by talking about danger and destruction and the need to act immediately or else. With this hysteria action is necessary, there is no time for debate. There is only one solution; the one that is currently on the table.

Gore is right that the earth is warming, but he is wrong to generate hysteria. Kyoto is a poor solution in any event.

One small difference...

Following Bush's plan involved killing lots and lots of innocent people and involved a high risk outcome and a policy that lacked any consensus of support from intelligence services.

Following Gore's plan doesn't involve killing anyone and doesn't involve any actual risks and comes with a wide consensus of scientific opinion.

But I can see why they seem identical and thus, uncredible.

Except that is incorrect. Same claims could have been made about banning DDTs. Since no bombs will be involved now will die. And yet what Gore is calling for will have undeniable consequences for the world's economic systems. These consequences are liekly to be engative and drastic. Have you reviewed all the possible consequences of the GW alarmists' plans?

Even if today we stopped ALL burning of fossil fuels on Earth, it would take a century to stop the changes now coming. We're doomed. Stick that in your economic theories.

Edited July 10, 2007 by Xman

[Sulaco]

A few years ago, a similar post could have started "What if Bush is right?"

Both the Bush Administration and the GW environmentalists have used a similar approach to gain support - create mass hysteria by talking about danger and destruction and the need to act immediately or else. With this hysteria action is necessary, there is no time for debate. There is only one solution; the one that is currently on the table.

Gore is right that the earth is warming, but he is wrong to generate hysteria. Kyoto is a poor solution in any event.

One small difference...

Following Bush's plan involved killing lots and lots of innocent people and involved a high risk outcome and a policy that lacked any consensus of support from intelligence services.

Following Gore's plan doesn't involve killing anyone and doesn't involve any actual risks and comes with a wide consensus of scientific opinion.

But I can see why they seem identical and thus, uncredible.

Except that is incorrect. Same claims could have been made about banning DDTs. Since no bombs will be involved now will die. And yet what Gore is calling for will have undeniable consequences for the world's economic systems. These consequences are liekly to be engative and drastic. Have you reviewed all the possible consequences of the GW alarmists' plans?

Even if today we stopped ALL burning of fossil fuels on Earth, it would take a century to stop the changes now coming. We're doomed. Stick that in your economic theories.

And so then - why change anything. I ask this seriously. What you are saying is that if our civilization collapsed compeltely today the world would still warm. Given that isn't it more important at this point to continue expanding wealth in order to have resources to battle consequences that are coming no matter what.

Another way to look at what you say is that what humans do has very little effect on climate. A claim that is made by us "insane denialist". Whether the world is warming is irrelevant to deciding whether we cut emissions if cutting emissions will do nothing to stop "The Warming".

[White Doors]

Shit!

We're doomed? DOOMED???

[noahbody]

Following Gore's plan doesn't involve killing anyone and doesn't involve any actual risks and comes with a wide consensus of scientific opinion.

There is consensus that the earth is warming and that man contributes to some degree. But that's about as far as the consensus goes. Saying his plan doesn't involve killing anyone or actual risks is foolish. Canada is a country of natural resources. Take them out of the equation and the economy and services it supports collapse. Without oil, our health care system would be reduced to that of a thrid world nation. Canada's best solution involves the development of technology that would keep our industry and country productive. Throwing the baby out with the bath water willy nilly is idiotic.

"Scientific opinion" is an oxymoron.

[Xman]

Another way to look at what you say is that what humans do has very little effect on climate. A claim that is made by us "insane denialist". Whether the world is warming is irrelevant to deciding whether we cut emissions if cutting emissions will do nothing to stop "The Warming".

Heh?? Global warming due to humans. Too late because of greedy bastards of thirty years ago. Humankind is so arrogant.

[Xman]

And so then - why change anything. I ask this seriously. What you are saying is that if our civilization collapsed compeltely today the world would still warm. Given that isn't it more important at this point to continue expanding wealth in order to have resources to battle consequences that are coming no matter what.

Your wealth will do nothing to help you from what's coming, child.

[Mad_Michael]

There is consensus that the earth is warming and that man contributes to some degree. But that's about as far as the consensus goes. Saying his plan doesn't involve killing anyone or actual risks is foolish. Canada is a country of natural resources. Take them out of the equation and the economy and services it supports collapse. Without oil, our health care system would be reduced to that of a thrid world nation. Canada's best solution involves the development of technology that would keep our industry and country productive. Throwing the baby out with the bath water willy nilly is idiotic.

Right. So you equate large scale killing of people with the potential to shave a point or two of GDP as equal dangers of comparable impact. Okie dokie!

"Scientific opinion" is an oxymoron.

Actually it is very accurate and highly applicable in terms of the epistemology of science.

Only non-scientists and fanatical partisans deal in absolute truths and certainty.

Edited July 10, 2007 by Mad_Michael

[noahbody]

There is consensus that the earth is warming and that man contributes to some degree. But that's about as far as the consensus goes. Saying his plan doesn't involve killing anyone or actual risks is foolish. Canada is a country of natural resources. Take them out of the equation and the economy and services it supports collapse. Without oil, our health care system would be reduced to that of a thrid world nation. Canada's best solution involves the development of technology that would keep our industry and country productive. Throwing the baby out with the bath water willy nilly is idiotic.

Right. So you equate large scale killing of people with the potential to shave a point or two of GDP as equal dangers of comparable impact. Okie dokie!

"Scientific opinion" is an oxymoron.

Actually it is very accurate and highly applicable in terms of the epistemology of science.

Only non-scientists and fanatical partisans deal in absolute truths and certainty.

[noahbody]

There is consensus that the earth is warming and that man contributes to some degree. But that's about as far as the consensus goes. Saying his plan doesn't involve killing anyone or actual risks is foolish. Canada is a country of natural resources. Take them out of the equation and the economy and services it supports collapse. Without oil, our health care system would be reduced to that of a thrid world nation. Canada's best solution involves the development of technology that would keep our industry and country productive. Throwing the baby out with the bath water willy nilly is idiotic.

Right. So you equate large scale killing of people with the potential to shave a point or two of GDP as equal dangers of comparable impact. Okie dokie!

"Scientific opinion" is an oxymoron.

Actually it is very accurate and highly applicable in terms of the epistemology of science.

Only non-scientists and fanatical partisans deal in absolute truths and certainty.

Point taken. So which would best describe Gore, the non-scientist or fanatical partisan?

And do you agree the "consensus of scientific opinion" should be continually debated? Or should we agree the earth is flat and move on?

[ScottSA]

And so then - why change anything. I ask this seriously. What you are saying is that if our civilization collapsed compeltely today the world would still warm. Given that isn't it more important at this point to continue expanding wealth in order to have resources to battle consequences that are coming no matter what.

Your wealth will do nothing to help you from what's coming, child.

What in God's name are you talking about? Do you seriously believe this nonsense about impending catastrophe? Goof grief. I truly think hysteria has gripped the minds of some people.

According to Swedish paleogeophysicist Nils-Axel Mörner, who’s been studying and writing about sea levels for four decades, the scientists working for the IPCC have falsified data and destroyed evidence to incorrectly prove their point.

http://newsbusters.org/node/13698

[Xman]

Why would 99% of scientists falsify evidence? Better question: Who is paying this guy? Follow the money. NewsBusters: Exposing and Combating Liberal Media Bias is your source? Not legitimate. This denial of yours is pathetic.

Edited July 10, 2007 by Xman

[ScottSA]

Why would 99% of scientists falsify evidence? Better question: Who is paying this guy? Follow the money. NewsBusters: Exposing and Combating Liberal Media Bias is your source? Not legitimate. This denial of yours is pathetic.

You are just making up figures. 99%? Give me a break. Why the ad hominem? Why are you so concerned that more and more people are exposing this panic-driven farce? Follow the money? The money lies on the side of promoting this foolish hysteria.

[Xman]

Why would 99% of scientists falsify evidence? Better question: Who is paying this guy? Follow the money. NewsBusters: Exposing and Combating Liberal Media Bias is your source? Not legitimate. This denial of yours is pathetic.

You are just making up figures. 99%? Give me a break. Why the ad hominem? Why are you so concerned that more and more people are exposing this panic-driven farce? Follow the money? The money lies on the side of promoting this foolish hysteria.

Now. Now. Calm down. Give me one credible source. ONE. What is the problem you have with clean technologies? You like smog? What's yer issue, dude? Is this about being a member of the ultra-conservative religion where you have strong emotional links to your belief and feel anxious, even threatened, by other ideas, like science? Facts tend to get in the way of belief. Please, enter deprogramming, man. This is like an episode of the Twilight Zone. Answer me this: Do your parents FEEL the way you do?

Edited July 10, 2007 by Xman

[noahbody]

[

Now. Now. Calm down. Give me one credible source.

"But–and I cannot stress this enough–we are not in a position to confidently attribute past climate change to CO2 or to forecast what the climate will be in the future.”

Richard Lindzen, MIT meteorology professor and member of the National Academy of Sciences, contributer to Chapter 4 of the “IPCC Second Assessment”, “Climate Change 1995″.

[ScottSA]

[

Now. Now. Calm down. Give me one credible source.

"But–and I cannot stress this enough–we are not in a position to confidently attribute past climate change to CO2 or to forecast what the climate will be in the future.”

Richard Lindzen, MIT meteorology professor and member of the National Academy of Sciences, contributer to Chapter 4 of the “IPCC Second Assessment”, “Climate Change 1995″.

He's not interested in hearing facts. He sees things as either being in favor of curb stomping mother earth or shutting down all forms of energy except solar and wind, in the idiotic belief that it will somehow pick up more than a fraction of a fraction of the slack.

Oh, and he'll probably dig up some hack website alleging that Lindzen is a lackey of "big oil".

[Keepitsimple]

Sometimes it seems that ALL conservatives believe one thing and ALL liberals believe the exact opposite, no matter what the subject.

I'm a conservative and, having looked at the facts of climate change, can't fathom why anyone would consider it a partisan issue. Most people on the right have accepted the science. There are a few wingnuts out there from both sides of the political spectrum who believe in conspiracy theories and reject it as a socialist plot. They're mostly confined to anonymous posters on the internet though (and invariably they have about a Grade 3 level of grammar and spelling). No one with any credibility denies that climate change is happening.

Cute ad hominem. I can almost guarantee I've got more education than you, not bad spelling, and grammar that doesn't often send people shrieking from the room in auditory pain. "Rejecting" GW is hardly part of a "conspiracy theory," although apparently not being able to distinguish between Kyoto, global warming, and man-made global warming theories is not a mark of stirling intellect on your part. Let me educate you on the beliefs of the "wingnuts:"

Kyoto: socialist plot

Global warming: possible

Manmade Global warming: highly questionable, no consensus, no real science, dependent upon multi variant hypothesis in which even the first level of data is corrupted or unusable and the last level is untestable hypothetical modelling.

You forgot one other "wingnut" belief...

Climate Change: continually

[sunsettommy]

More like having to deal with the myth of "concensus," as if it has anything to do with scientific enquiry even if it were true.

Not only is there consensus on global warming, there's consensus on how to spell "consensus." You can try and debate both all you want, but in both cases you wind up looking stupid.

No is people like you who think consensus is a valid precept to a beliefe as fact.

Try the scientific method next time and leave out a long running political tool.

Yes there is a slight warming trend from over 100 years ago.

Yes there is an increase in atmospheric CO2.

However most of the "evidence" for a nearing tipping event are based on UNVERIFIED climate models.Gore and Hansen apparently have lost their way when it comes to the idea that any science research MUST be reproducable and verifiable.

Climate Models fails.

[sunsettommy]

Madonna, Live Earth concert mainliner, actually has a bigger carbon foortprint than Al Gore, which is already HUGE!

Climate change deniers also invariably ignore the point of such an event as Live Earth--that is, to promote awareness and encourage people to start making steps to change. Instead, they find the most vulnerable candidate for swiftboating they can find--in this case Madonna--because character assassination works best when the facts aren't in your favour. It's a pathetic mode of attack that is sadly killing the conservative movement in the U.S.

I hope to see a new, more positive conservativism rise out of Cheney and Rove's dead corpses in 2008.

But of course it was a cool idea for all those weathly jet travellors and the massive CO2 producing electrical apparatus needed to power the dumb concept of a live concert.

Do you realize the hypocristy in all this?

LOL

[sunsettommy]

From the article: "It's true that the atmosphere on Mars is only about .6 percent as dense as that on Earth, but it's also true that its relative concentration of carbon dioxide is about 2400 times as great as that of Earth, which appears to make up for the thinness of the Martian atmosphere about 14 times over."

The density on Mars is 0.6% that of Earth. Temperature is directly related to atmospheric density. It's bloody cold on Mars for that reason. The argument above contains a false premise.

Smokers, too, are in denial that their habit will kill them. Why? To protect their need to smoke. What motivates the deniers of global warming?

I am a long time skeptic and yet I long ago accepted that we have warming trend the last 100+ years.

People like you who say we deny warming are being dishonest.Hardly any skeptic I have come acroos actually say there NO warming at all.

It is the idea that the paltry amount of CO2 emissions by us are the main driver of warming.Is what we skeptics do not agree.

Next time stop your dishonest use of the phrase "deniers of global warming".It is a smear.

[sunsettommy]

A few years ago, a similar post could have started "What if Bush is right?"

Both the Bush Administration and the GW environmentalists have used a similar approach to gain support - create mass hysteria by talking about danger and destruction and the need to act immediately or else. With this hysteria action is necessary, there is no time for debate. There is only one solution; the one that is currently on the table.

Gore is right that the earth is warming, but he is wrong to generate hysteria. Kyoto is a poor solution in any event.

One small difference...

Following Bush's plan involved killing lots and lots of innocent people and involved a high risk outcome and a policy that lacked any consensus of support from intelligence services.

Following Gore's plan doesn't involve killing anyone and doesn't involve any actual risks and comes with a wide consensus of scientific opinion.

But I can see why they seem identical and thus, uncredible.

Except that is incorrect. Same claims could have been made about banning DDTs. Since no bombs will be involved now will die. And yet what Gore is calling for will have undeniable consequences for the world's economic systems. These consequences are liekly to be engative and drastic. Have you reviewed all the possible consequences of the GW alarmists' plans?

Even if today we stopped ALL burning of fossil fuels on Earth, it would take a century to stop the changes now coming. We're doomed. Stick that in your economic theories.

You a scarecrow?

CO2 has a short life time in the atmosphere.It is around 8 years.It cycles rapidly out of the atmosphere back into the ocean,biota and the earth.

This is elementary knowledge.

[sunsettommy]

There is consensus that the earth is warming and that man contributes to some degree. But that's about as far as the consensus goes. Saying his plan doesn't involve killing anyone or actual risks is foolish. Canada is a country of natural resources. Take them out of the equation and the economy and services it supports collapse. Without oil, our health care system would be reduced to that of a thrid world nation. Canada's best solution involves the development of technology that would keep our industry and country productive. Throwing the baby out with the bath water willy nilly is idiotic.

Right. So you equate large scale killing of people with the potential to shave a point or two of GDP as equal dangers of comparable impact. Okie dokie!

"Scientific opinion" is an oxymoron.

Actually it is very accurate and highly applicable in terms of the epistemology of science.

Only non-scientists and fanatical partisans deal in absolute truths and certainty.

How does "scientific opinion" be developed?

LOL

[sunsettommy]

Why would 99% of scientists falsify evidence? Better question: Who is paying this guy? Follow the money. NewsBusters: Exposing and Combating Liberal Media Bias is your source? Not legitimate. This denial of yours is pathetic.

Your ignorance of the scientist is sad.

He happens to be well grounded on the issue.

Try reading what he says instead of making smears against him.