Leading Global Warming Skeptic changes mind after watching Al Gore Speak

[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.

[floydian slip]

Al Gore invented weather.

[albed]

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.

You just can't stop yourself can you?



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_At...rricane_season

in 2006, a rapidly-forming El Niño event, combined with the pervasive presence of the Saharan Air Layer over the tropical Atlantic and a steady presence of a robust secondary high related to the Azores high centered around Bermuda, contributed to a slow season and all tropical cyclone activity ceasing after October 2.

[Drakonix]

it has never been a matter of science.

That is very true. But the problem is that global warming (or lack thereof) is a scientific issue. The “proof” for global warming is being touted as scientifically proven fact when it is not.

I don't think we should knowingly do things that have strongly negative environmental impact.

Similarly, I do not think junk science disinformation should be allowed to set public policies, especially when the result is to stifle development and injure the economy. For example, environmental concerns are the main reason the U.S. can’t produce enough domestic oil and this in turn results on dependance upon foreign oil. Dependance on foreign oil (from the middle east) helps fund the jihad terrorism against us.

In 2005, fifteen hurricanes formed and a number of them made landfall, some causing horrendous damage. We listened to the global warming activists tell us in 2005 that more of the same was to come with severe hurricanes becoming more frequent and more powerful.

The real world experience did not verify the "doom-and-gloom" preaching. The 2006 hurricane season yielded only six hurricanes, NONE of which made landfall in the U.S..

Another indicator global warming activists tout is diminishing volume of polar ice. Some of the information in this area is contradictory. There is apparently scientific evidence that the antarctic ice is actually growing, not diminishing.

http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO.../V9/N45/C2.jsp

Or, how about The Weather Channel (TWC) "climate expert" Dr. Heidi Cullen, who wants the American Meteorological Society to de-certify any broadcast meteorologist who fails to beat the "catastrophic global warming is caused by human activity" drum.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...a-88824bb8e528

Junk science is not real science. Scepticism and making a scientific theory stand up to it is a normal, healthy and necessary part of the scientific process. It is supposed to prevent junk science from being adopted as scientifically supported fact.

The lack of tolerance for alternate viewpoints that is being expressed could probably be described as scientific evidence that they are not being scientific.

As such, the theory itself comes under serious question as to its validity.

[Mazer]

Originally Posted by albed

You just can't stop yourself can you?

Let me rephrase (or backpedal, whichever the case may be): After such a violent hurricane season in 2005 nobody at the time could have predicted that the 2006 season would be so tame.

[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

[vernarial]

I don't really understand why so many people are skeptical of global warming or climate change. It's really very simple. Here are some facts.
1) Our climate is always changing. It just happens very slowly.
2)Global warming and cooling are always happening. The earth has gone through periods of warming and cooling throughout it's history.
3)Carbon dioxide is a "greenhouse" gas and humans are pumping tons of the stuff into the air daily.

I just don't understand whats so debatable. Maybe how much humans actually contibute to global warming. We certainly do contribute to the changing of our climate. It's a matter of how much impact we want to have. I personally would like to leave the world less polluted for my children and grandchildren. I don't want to leave a mess for them to clean up. I don't want to leave the next generations a fucked up world because I couldn't make a few simple changes to my personal lifestyle.

[Mazer]

You're right on all three points, Vernarial. But consider this: water vapor, the most potent greenhouse gas, is also the one greenhouse gas over which we humans have almost no control. For that reason the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change considers it prudent to completely ignore the effects of water vapor on climate change. That's not just unscientific, it's plain stupid. But this is typical of environmentalism; it is unthinking, unquestioning, and paranoid. I am not skeptical of climate change, I'm skeptical of the doomsday predictions these people preach from their academic cathedrals.

Skepticism is healthy, it keeps us from jumping to conclusions and, if sufficiently widespread, it prevents mobs from forming, mobs like the "consensus" among scientists that has transubstantiated global warming from a scientific field of research into a religious dogma. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the desire to make the environment more livable and more comfortable, but people shouldn't make the mistake of building belief structures around that desire, especially ones that claim to be scientific.

Though you may consider yourself an environmentalist, Vern, you're not like most of them from what I can tell. You're more of an environmental steward like me. Unlike you, though, I don't see any use in overstating the problem. This sense of urgency we're subject to isn't due to continuing increases in emissions but to our own short life spans. Because none of us will live long enough to affect substantial, positive change in the environment in our lifetimes, we all feel the need to cause drastic changes before we bequeath the earth to our children. This is the natural response to our own sense of mortality, but it's also the worst possible way to approach the problem. The best solution is not a one time fix, it's a perpetual process, one which future generations can continue after we're gone. And in order for us to discover that solution we must trust that future generations will be able to decide on their own what's best for them. The current environmentalist movement doesn't see things this way, unfortunately.

[Ramona_A_Stone]

Originally Posted by vernarial

We certainly do contribute to the changing of our climate. It's a matter of how much impact we want to have. I personally would like to leave the world less polluted for my children and grandchildren. I don't want to leave a mess for them to clean up. I don't want to leave the next generations a fucked up world because I couldn't make a few simple changes to my personal lifestyle.

Anyone who utters a syllable of argument against this point of view and is still able to refer to themselves as a "conservative" with a straight face is either a fool, a liar, or both.

[floydian slip]

Originally Posted by albed

Al Gore - Energy Pig



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

in fucking deed!

and those pics drak posted are hillaryarious. lol

[Drakonix]

You folks in the U.K. better start preparing yourselves for the big "Global Warming Tax Pingo"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1770