Leading Global Warming Skeptic changes mind after watching Al Gore Speak

[Mazer]

There's no better proof that global warming is no longer a matter of science than what you just said, RDixon.

[multi]

climate change will be only a part of the major earth changes that will happen before the end of this century ,we could be in for a shift in the earth's axis and a whole bunch more fun stuff

global warming is so 90's these days
it's become sort of a stale debate imo
too much energy being put into
cutting emissions that might only help a little..
too little too late

but preparing for world wide events that are becoming more and more of certainty every day
could go a long way

[Mazer]

Originally Posted by multi

we could be in for a shift in the earth's axis and a whole bunch more fun stuff

A radical shift in the earth's axis is unlikely, but a reversal in its magnetic polarity could be underway. Some people think it will happen within the next 5 years. Of course since nobody really knows why we even have a magnetic field, and why it varies in strength, flips polarity, and migrates geographically, it's next to impossible to predict what will actually happen.

http://www.slweekly.com/editorial/20...2007-01-11.cfm

[albed]

You're almost as bad claiming nobody knows something when they do as you are claiming you know something when you don't. When are you going to stop your pretentious proclamations and adopt a standard of ethics?

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

Dynamo theory describes the process through which motion of a conductive body in the presence of a magnetic field acts to regenerate that magnetic field. This theory is used to explain the presence of anomalously long-lived magnetic fields in astrophysical bodies.

In the case of the Earth, the magnetic field is believed to be caused by the convection of molten iron, within the outer liquid core, along with a Coriolis effect caused by the overall planetary rotation that tends to organize currents in rolls aligned along the north-south polar axis.

I recently watch a lecture on mass extinction events with a sidenote that a low angular cometary impact could spin the crust/mantle in relation to the core and shear off the convection currents that produce the magnetic field resulting in a period of low field strength and geologic evidence indicate just that scenario once occurred.

[RDixon]

Theory: Unproven. Could be true, but also may not be.



Everything you think you know is wrong.

[Mazer]

Originally Posted by albed

You're almost as bad claiming nobody knows something when they do as you are claiming you know something when you don't. When are you going to stop your pretentious proclamations and adopt a standard of ethics?

So what you're saying is that someone knows exactly what's going on and that future changes in the earth's magnetic field are readily predictable? You'd be the first to make that claim.

[albed]

Well I guess nobody knows why the weather changes then.

[Mazer]

We call these systems chaotic because they cannot be predicted with certainty beyond a short time span and because they are acted upon by variables that we are not aware of. Nobody knows why we had such a violent hurricane season two years ago followed by such a tame season last year. It's impossible to predict whether a storm forming off the cost of Africa will eventually destroy New Orleans, let alone what a whole hurricane season will be like. I think it's safe to say we really don't understand the weather. In all likelihood we will understand it eventually, but today the best we can do is hire glorified bookies to quote statistical probabilities.

[albed]

Your point(s) -

Originally Posted by Mazer

nobody really knows why we even have a magnetic field, and why it varies in strength, flips polarity, and migrates geographically,

Originally Posted by Mazer

Nobody knows why we had such a violent hurricane season two years ago followed by such a tame season last year.

Originally Posted by Mazer

After such a violent hurricane season in 2005 nobody at the time could have predicted that the 2006 season would be so tame.

What was proven -

You're not only ignorant but unethical.

[floydian slip]

So will you pay the EU tax!? Yes you will, weather you like it or not.

“Shut down your economy, America, or we’ll shut it down for you.” He says the EU should impose a ‘carbon tax’ on American goods.

English translation of Kyoto: “Treaty for wealth transfer from wealthier nations to poorer nations, or in the case that isn’t feasible, simply destruction of the wealthier nations’ wealth.”

Oh, and my preferred remedy? In keeping with the Sgt. Jim Malone method of law enforcement*, slap tariffs so high on Audis and BMWs and anything else produced in the EU - Siemens and Bosch electronics, fancy chocolates, French wine, that they choke on the overstock. Let’s see if China and Africa can take the U.S.’s place as consumers of the high end goods the Euros need to produce and sell in order to keep their welfare states afloat.

http://coldfury.com/index.php/?p=7816

[daddydirt]

President of Czech Republic Calls Man-Made Global Warming a 'Myth' - Questions Gore's Sanity

Mon Feb 12 2007 09:10:09 ET

Czech president Vaclav Klaus has criticized the UN panel on global warming, claiming that it was a political authority without any scientific basis.

In an interview with "Hospodárské noviny", a Czech economics daily, Klaus answered a few questions:

Q: IPCC has released its report and you say that the global warming is a false myth. How did you get this idea, Mr President?•

A: It's not my idea. Global warming is a false myth and every serious person and scientist says so. It is not fair to refer to the U.N. panel. IPCC is not a scientific institution: it's a political body, a sort of non-government organization of green flavor. It's neither a forum of neutral scientists nor a balanced group of scientists. These people are politicized scientists who arrive there with a one-sided opinion and a one-sided assignment. Also, it's an undignified slapstick that people don't wait for the full report in May 2007 but instead respond, in such a serious way, to the summary for policymakers where all the "but's" are scratched, removed, and replaced by oversimplified theses.• This is clearly such an incredible failure of so many people, from journalists to politicians. If the European Commission is instantly going to buy such a trick, we have another very good reason to think that the countries themselves, not the Commission, should be deciding about similar issues.•

Q: How do you explain that there is no other comparably senior statesman in Europe who would advocate this viewpoint? No one else has such strong opinions...•

A: My opinions about this issue simply are strong. Other top-level politicians do not express their global warming doubts because a whip of political correctness strangles their voice.

• Q: But you're not a climate scientist. Do you have a sufficient knowledge and enough information?•

A: Environmentalism as a metaphysical ideology and as a worldview has absolutely nothing to do with natural sciences or with the climate. Sadly, it has nothing to do with social sciences either. Still, it is becoming fashionable and this fact scares me. The second part of the sentence should be: we also have lots of reports, studies, and books of climatologists whose conclusions are diametrally opposite.• Indeed, I never measure the thickness of ice in Antarctica. I really don't know how to do it and don't plan to learn it. However, as a scientifically oriented person, I know how to read science reports about these questions, for example about ice in Antarctica. I don't have to be a climate scientist myself to read them. And inside the papers I have read, the conclusions we may see in the media simply don't appear. But let me promise you something: this topic troubles me which is why I started to write an article about it last Christmas. The article expanded and became a book. In a couple of months, it will be published. One chapter out of seven will organize my opinions about the climate change.• Environmentalism and green ideology is something very different from climate science. Various findings and screams of scientists are abused by this ideology.•

Q: How do you explain that conservative media are skeptical while the left-wing media view the global warming as a done deal?•

A: It is not quite exactly divided to the left-wingers and right-wingers. Nevertheless it's obvious that environmentalism is a new incarnation of modern leftism.•

Q: If you look at all these things, even if you were right ...•

A: ...I am right...•

Q: Isn't there enough empirical evidence and facts we can see with our eyes that imply that Man is demolishing the planet and himself?•

A: It's such a nonsense that I have probably not heard a bigger nonsense yet.•

Q: Don't you believe that we're ruining our planet?•

A: I will pretend that I haven't heard you. Perhaps only Mr Al Gore may be saying something along these lines: a sane person can't. I don't see any ruining of the planet, I have never seen it, and I don't think that a reasonable and serious person could say such a thing. Look: you represent the economic media so I expect a certain economical erudition from you. My book will answer these questions. For example, we know that there exists a huge correlation between the care we give to the environment on one side and the wealth and technological prowess on the other side. It's clear that the poorer the society is, the more brutally it behaves with respect to Nature, and vice versa.• It's also true that there exist social systems that are damaging Nature - by eliminating private ownership and similar things - much more than the freer societies. These tendencies become important in the long run. They unambiguously imply that today, on February 8th, 2007, Nature is protected uncomparably more than on February 8th ten years ago or fifty years ago or one hundred years ago.• That's why I ask: how can you pronounce the sentence you said? Perhaps if you're unconscious? Or did you mean it as a provocation only? And maybe I am just too naive and I allowed you to provoke me to give you all these answers, am I not? It is more likely that you actually believe what you say.

English translation from Harvard Professor Lubos Motl

[albed]

Al Gore - Energy Pig

In his documentary, the former Vice President calls on Americans to conserve energy by reducing electricity consumption at home.

Since the release of An Inconvenient Truth, Gore’s energy consumption has increased from an average of 16,200 kWh per month in 2005, to 18,400 kWh per month in 2006.

Last August alone, Gore burned through 22,619 kWh—guzzling more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year.

Gore’s extravagant energy use does not stop at his electric bill. Natural gas bills for Gore’s mansion and guest house averaged $1,080 per month last year.

http://www.tennesseepolicy.org/main/...article_id=367

[RDixon]

Originally Posted by Mazer

There's no better proof that global warming is no longer a matter of science than what you just said, RDixon.

it has never been a matter of science.

[napho]

Dire consequences for Canada...NOT!!!!


Several documentaries that pertained to global warming and climate change were broadcast across Canada during the final week of June 2006. Recent discoveries concerning the geological and climate history of Canada have indicated that Southern Canada may have been a subtropical rainforest during an earlier time period while the average annual temperature of the Arctic may have been above the freezing point of water. If the global warming theory is valid, it will merely reintroduce to Canada the kind of climate that actually existed in its distant past. A future generation of Canadians may actually be able to adapt to living in that kind of climate and utilize the advantages that it may have to offer.



http://www.quebecoislibre.org/06/060702-2.htm