You just need to look at the conduct of Al Gore himself to realize global warming theory is bunkum. When he was Vice President, he did nothing for genuine environmental problems, such as the dissemination of DU, nanotechnology and GMOs. And throughout the years he has flogged the “carbon polluters,” he and his family have been aiding and profiting from an oil company on a grand scale. Gore’s political influence has enabled the Occidental Petroleum Company, which former CEO, Armand Hammer said had Gore’s father in his back pocket, to acquire the oil-drilling rights over 47,000 acres of the Elk Hills reserve in California. Not only did the 1997 sale represent the largest quantity of public land to be turned over to a private corporation in US history, but it also spelt doom for the Kitanemuk people’s traditional lands and encroached upon an area environmentalists said was home to three rare animal species, [6]. On the very same day as the sale, in an audacious display of hypocrisy, one which should serve as a warning to us all, Gore gave a speech on the “terrifying prospect” of global warming, a problem that he ascribed to the unchecked use of fossil fuels, such as oil! Refer: Al Gore: The Other Oil Candidate, (29/8/2000), by B. Mesler at <a class="user" href="http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=468.">http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=468.</a>
Speaking of reading with your brain off ...The range refers to current and historical measurements, not the models. just like it says right there at <a class="user" href="http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/22/215837/90">http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/22/215837 ...</a> which you allegedly read.Guess what? temperature varies seasonably year to year and since vapour is affected by temperature, the water vapour varies accordingly, and hence it's contribution - just like it says which you allegedly read.And while CO2 saturation is a function of temperature it is not as sensitive as water vapour, so while it is fair to say their response is similar, it is not equivalent."Why do I even try to read these things?" Maybe if you tried again you might actually learn something instead of desperately hunting for something that you then falsely claim is wrong.
wtf, full quote:"Not a single climate model or climate textbook fails to discuss the role water vapor plays in the greenhouse effect. It is the strongest greenhouse gas, contributing 36% to 66% to the overall effect for vapor alone, 66% to 85% when you include clouds. It is however, not considered a climate "forcing," because the amount of H2O in the air basically varies as a function of temperature. Oh, I wasn't talking about "Models, they're talking about models. so wtf are you trying to say. Those numbers in that paragraph, in that context, directly refer to the effect of water vapor on temperature in the models. I think your english skills are lacking.Then you start just pulling stuff out of your ass."not as sensitive as water vapor", show proof for that claim. Noone really knows that because you cannot accurately model clouds.
Yes, according to Alex Jones, David Icke, the documentary titled "The Global Warming Swindle" among other alternative news sources say that the IPCC report that initiated all of this man-made global warming fear-mongering was extremely biased and any scientist who did not go along with what they wanted it to conclude was edited out of the report. Allegedly, many of the so-called specialists who wrote the report had questionable credentials too. Apparently, if these sites are true, then the temperature of all the planets in our solar system are getting hotter because our sun is getting hotter and man-made global carbon dioxide emissions are virtually insignificant in the greenhouse effect since they only make up a very small percentage of the greenhouse gases. I believe that this global warming fear-mongering by Neo-cons throughout the world governments is likely just being used as an excuse to tax people more and take away more civil liberties so they can get richer and more powerful while the common people get poorer and have less power.I do however think we should respect the environment, and follow the reduce, reuse recycle principles but really it is the largest corporations that if changed would have the greatest impact, let's stop suppressing alternative fuel vehicles that run on water and air for one thing, let's go after fast-food giants and force them to provide reusable containers for sit-in customers, etc.. there are many ways we could reduce the waste we make on large scales and even cut back or eliminate carbon dioxide emissions if the corporations were forced to be responsible. I doubt a tax on gasoline is really going to change anything other than making the poor and the middle class poorer.
Its not only anti-capitalists, its all socialists who want Anthropogenic (man-made) CO2 to be the cause of Global Warming. (aside: have you noticed they all say "climate change" now as opposed to "global warming"??? Its so they don't have to back pedal when the temperature goes down, like it did this year). In Canada, our former minister of environment was quoted as saying "Global Warming and the Kyoto protocol provide the best opportunity for the transfer of wealth to the third world in our lifetimes". Carbon transfers are a joke, a scam. People who talk about global warming and saving the planet these days ABSOLUTELY have a personal attachment/agenda to uphold. I agree with the statement that we shouldn't be polluting. We all know its bad, and we knew it was bad before this Global Warming BS came around. Western society as a whole is cleaning up its act, producing less polluting cars (ones that run on gasoline, your "green" electric cars aren't so green, even if you do manage to get your power from wind or solar), doing less harm, but you can't expect people to forego their ways of life when the science behind it is shoddy.
<a class="user" href="http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_warming/index.html">http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_warming ...</a>Climate change has been extensively researched and the overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree that the observed modern day global warming is unprecedented and is very likely caused by humans. Although there is little serious debate between climate experts, many in the general public still think that these scientists are unsure about climate change and the role that humans have played in modern day global warming. This Website summarizes some of the key research that has led scientists to their overwhelming consensus while also addressing some of the unfounded claims by climate change skeptics and denialists.
catspawJun 29, 2008
You just need to look at the conduct of Al Gore himself to realize global warming theory is bunkum. When he was Vice President, he did nothing for genuine environmental problems, such as the dissemination of DU, nanotechnology and GMOs. And throughout the years he has flogged the “carbon polluters,” he and his family have been aiding and profiting from an oil company on a grand scale. Gore’s political influence has enabled the Occidental Petroleum Company, which former CEO, Armand Hammer said had Gore’s father in his back pocket, to acquire the oil-drilling rights over 47,000 acres of the Elk Hills reserve in California. Not only did the 1997 sale represent the largest quantity of public land to be turned over to a private corporation in US history, but it also spelt doom for the Kitanemuk people’s traditional lands and encroached upon an area environmentalists said was home to three rare animal species, [6]. On the very same day as the sale, in an audacious display of hypocrisy, one which should serve as a warning to us all, Gore gave a speech on the “terrifying prospect” of global warming, a problem that he ascribed to the unchecked use of fossil fuels, such as oil! Refer: Al Gore: The Other Oil Candidate, (29/8/2000), by B. Mesler at <a class="user" href="http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=468.">http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=468.</a>
greenfyreJun 29, 2008
Exactly, remember how the British forgot all about the Nazis as rationing and shortages dominated their day to day lives.
greenfyreJun 29, 2008
Speaking of reading with your brain off ...The range refers to current and historical measurements, not the models. just like it says right there at <a class="user" href="http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/22/215837/90">http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/22/215837 ...</a> which you allegedly read.Guess what? temperature varies seasonably year to year and since vapour is affected by temperature, the water vapour varies accordingly, and hence it's contribution - just like it says which you allegedly read.And while CO2 saturation is a function of temperature it is not as sensitive as water vapour, so while it is fair to say their response is similar, it is not equivalent."Why do I even try to read these things?" Maybe if you tried again you might actually learn something instead of desperately hunting for something that you then falsely claim is wrong.
bigmanoncampusJun 29, 2008
wtf, full quote:"Not a single climate model or climate textbook fails to discuss the role water vapor plays in the greenhouse effect. It is the strongest greenhouse gas, contributing 36% to 66% to the overall effect for vapor alone, 66% to 85% when you include clouds. It is however, not considered a climate "forcing," because the amount of H2O in the air basically varies as a function of temperature. Oh, I wasn't talking about "Models, they're talking about models. so wtf are you trying to say. Those numbers in that paragraph, in that context, directly refer to the effect of water vapor on temperature in the models. I think your english skills are lacking.Then you start just pulling stuff out of your ass."not as sensitive as water vapor", show proof for that claim. Noone really knows that because you cannot accurately model clouds.
wholenessJul 3, 2008
Yes, according to Alex Jones, David Icke, the documentary titled "The Global Warming Swindle" among other alternative news sources say that the IPCC report that initiated all of this man-made global warming fear-mongering was extremely biased and any scientist who did not go along with what they wanted it to conclude was edited out of the report. Allegedly, many of the so-called specialists who wrote the report had questionable credentials too. Apparently, if these sites are true, then the temperature of all the planets in our solar system are getting hotter because our sun is getting hotter and man-made global carbon dioxide emissions are virtually insignificant in the greenhouse effect since they only make up a very small percentage of the greenhouse gases. I believe that this global warming fear-mongering by Neo-cons throughout the world governments is likely just being used as an excuse to tax people more and take away more civil liberties so they can get richer and more powerful while the common people get poorer and have less power.I do however think we should respect the environment, and follow the reduce, reuse recycle principles but really it is the largest corporations that if changed would have the greatest impact, let's stop suppressing alternative fuel vehicles that run on water and air for one thing, let's go after fast-food giants and force them to provide reusable containers for sit-in customers, etc.. there are many ways we could reduce the waste we make on large scales and even cut back or eliminate carbon dioxide emissions if the corporations were forced to be responsible. I doubt a tax on gasoline is really going to change anything other than making the poor and the middle class poorer.
uberchaoslordJul 22, 2008
Its not only anti-capitalists, its all socialists who want Anthropogenic (man-made) CO2 to be the cause of Global Warming. (aside: have you noticed they all say "climate change" now as opposed to "global warming"??? Its so they don't have to back pedal when the temperature goes down, like it did this year). In Canada, our former minister of environment was quoted as saying "Global Warming and the Kyoto protocol provide the best opportunity for the transfer of wealth to the third world in our lifetimes". Carbon transfers are a joke, a scam. People who talk about global warming and saving the planet these days ABSOLUTELY have a personal attachment/agenda to uphold. I agree with the statement that we shouldn't be polluting. We all know its bad, and we knew it was bad before this Global Warming BS came around. Western society as a whole is cleaning up its act, producing less polluting cars (ones that run on gasoline, your "green" electric cars aren't so green, even if you do manage to get your power from wind or solar), doing less harm, but you can't expect people to forego their ways of life when the science behind it is shoddy.
greenfyreJul 25, 2008
My favourite part of the swindle is Ball identified to be in a Dept that never existed with a degree that his alma mater University never offered - classic Denier 'truthiness'.The "Swindle" was exposed as a fraud when it was released<a class="user" href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled-carl-wunsch-responds/">http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007 ...</a><a class="user" href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled/">http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007 ...</a><a class="user" href="http://www.desmogblog.com/monbiot-on-the-channel-4-swindle">http://www.desmogblog.com/monbiot-on-the-channel-4 ...</a><a class="user" href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/mar/13/science.media">http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/mar/1 ...</a><a class="user" href="http://www.desmogblog.com/abcs-australia-expert-swindle-debate-on-youtube">http://www.desmogblog.com/abcs-australia-expert-sw ...</a>176 page document peer-reviewed by leading scientists <a class="user" href="http://www.ofcomswindlecomplaint.net/FullComplaint/TOCp1.htm">http://www.ofcomswindlecomplaint.net/FullComplaint ...</a>
greenfyreJul 25, 2008
If the science is shoddy, show us what is wrong with it"How we know we're not wrong about climate change" <a class="user" href="http://www.ametsoc.org/atmospolicy/Presentations/Oreskes%20Presentation%20for%20Web.pdf">http://www.ametsoc.org/atmospolicy/Presentations/O ...</a>perhaps you can explain why you think the science<a class="user" href="http://climate.jpl.nasa.gov/evidence/">http://climate.jpl.nasa.gov/evidence/</a><a class="user" href="http://royalsociety.org/landing.asp?id=1278">http://royalsociety.org/landing.asp?id=1278</a><a class="user" href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/">http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007 ...</a><a class="user" href="http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm">http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm</a><a class="user" href="http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-syr.htm">http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-syr.htm</a><a class="user" href="http://www.ghgonline.org/pubarchive.htm">http://www.ghgonline.org/pubarchive.htm</a>
profmandiaJul 31, 2009
<a class="user" href="http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_warming/index.html">http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_warming ...</a>Climate change has been extensively researched and the overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree that the observed modern day global warming is unprecedented and is very likely caused by humans. Although there is little serious debate between climate experts, many in the general public still think that these scientists are unsure about climate change and the role that humans have played in modern day global warming. This Website summarizes some of the key research that has led scientists to their overwhelming consensus while also addressing some of the unfounded claims by climate change skeptics and denialists.