Al Gore's "Global Enriching" Inconvenient Truth, or how to tell

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Sep 6 2007, 03:01 AM) [snapback]507820[/snapback]</div>

Careful F8L, more than two bullet points and you are going to lose him.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Sep 6 2007, 10:48 AM) [snapback]507996[/snapback]</div>

Until I get into cosmobiology and they allow us to dissect aliens like Ann Coulter, I am stuck with frogs. I'll be sure to use a Bullfrog Lithobates catesbeianus since they are invasive species that disrupt ecosystems and are not condusive to life. Kinda like Ann.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(EricGo @ Sep 7 2007, 10:27 PM) [snapback]508951[/snapback]</div>

No worries Eric,

Kow is either:

A: Not going to read it and continue to ask the same questions over and over again. Like the water vapor questions.

B: Read it but pretend not to so that he can ask the same questions over and over again.

C: Make a funny joke and draw our attention elsewhere so we don't notice A or B and then he will ask the same questions over and over again.

 

I wonder just how many people truly know how CO2 traps heat. I also wonder how many actually know how CO2 is generated into the atmosphere, and by what percentages. I wonder how many people really think humans are the cause and solution to GW.

First of all, from tests taken of temperatures on other planets in our SS, including Pluto, they are seeing the same rise in temps. Second, the radiation from the sun is high frequency, CO2 doesn't absorb high frequency radiation. Third, ice melts faster in water than air, the oceans are warming, and not from solar radiation, but from internal from the earth itself. What we are seeing is a natural cycle of the earth, we can't prevent it, what can do is learn to live with the changes.

Finally, if we were pumping so much CO2 into the air to affect temperatures as stated, we would all be dead by now.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Sep 3 2007, 02:40 PM) [snapback]506378[/snapback]</div>

Oh how the Lib's love to horrified us and then soothe us with our own money! <_<

I just laugh when some on this site claim there is no liberal/left bias on the part of the Main Stream Media (MSM) if not then why haven’t they reported on this hypocrisy? :angry:

http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_...res_inconv.html

http://www.alternet.org/environment/49025

http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/environ...obalwarming.htm

Wildkow

p.s. My solution for "AGW"? Well its simple, cheap and practically foolproof, take Hillary for a walk once a day, that'll put a chill on "AGW"! :lol: Goooooo Chillary! Win the 08 primaries! :lol:
[/b][/quote]
Great Post Kow!!!! Very informative....

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TonyPSchaefer @ Sep 4 2007, 12:08 AM) [snapback]506612[/snapback]</div>

Wait I thought the internet was also AG's creation??? :mellow:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ACD @ Sep 11 2007, 10:11 AM) [snapback]510591[/snapback]</div>

----->

 

Time for my periodic reminder:

There is more than one reason to reduce our burning of fossil fuels!
Far more paramaount than global warming is that we are exporting our money to Islamic countries that hate us. "Here Mr. Arab, is a rope to hang the US with, go ahead and take it!, and firm up your grip on my balls while you're at it!"

Why do the denialists care if the AGW folks use it as a reason for change?!
Why do AGW proponents care so much that everyone joins the AGW bandwagon?
WHY oh WHY do you folks on both sides waste your time bickering about AGW at all when we all agree we are funding terrorism with our gas purchases!
Just let it go and discuss how to get out of the mess!

</Rant>

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Darwood @ Sep 11 2007, 12:55 PM) [snapback]510685[/snapback]</div>

Apples and oranges!!!!

To say we are responsible for GW which is false, and to say what you stated, really are two different things. What you said I agree with 100%, you get no argument from me. Now if the argument was to say we are polluting the air, water and soil from the fossil fuels, which we are, and combine with what you say, you have an even stronger argument that I will also support 100%.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ACD @ Sep 11 2007, 01:13 PM) [snapback]510699[/snapback]</div>

The scientific consensus is that we are contributing significantly to GW. Let me see, scientific consensus Vs some guy in Prius discussion forum. Life is full of tough choices.

 

"Why should we waste research money, time and effort studying a fraud (AGW) when we could be applying that talent to cleaner energy sources? AGW is just a scare tactic something many people here have criticized Bush of using for the War On Terror."

For the most part, I agree with you!
BUT. "AGW is just a scare tactic" needs to be reworded to "AGW is a scare tactic". You cannot write it off as a complete hoax. The data (while still getting analyzed) tends to disagree with you.

I agree that we should not "waste research money, time and effort studying" and instead "be applying that talent to cleaner energy sources". But the denial of AGW is WHAT FUNDS IT! You deny it, they go do more studies to show you wrong, nothing is accomplished, and our situation gets worse. How else do we politically push the change to "cleaner energy sources"? We tried energy security (70's up till today) and it appeals to a few. We try economic security and it appeals to a few more. AGW appeals to even more people. Who cares what each individual's reasoning is, as long as we collectively decide to really push and solve our energy problems? How about God hates pollution? Could that work? There are so many reasons, I don't understand why a belief or disbelief in AGW should make ANY difference, or why the two sides spend so much time, money, and emotion on just one angle of our energy crises, thereby ignoring the other angles that lead to the same conclusion.

It's come down to a taste great/less filling shout match which does nothing but delays solutions. Meanwhile actual changes needed are a political hot potato. No one actually wants to make any changes, it might hurt profit lines. Or this solution and that solution aren't PERFECT, so they are no good.

The longer we wait to change, the more painful/expensive the change will be. That's an economic argument you can't deny. The cost of producing the solutions (which requires the current oil economy to produce) will rise exponentialy as the cost of oil goes up.

 

Neocons' arguments against climate change seems to be: Liberals say there's climate change, so there obviously isn't.

Liberals also say the Earth revolves around the Sun. What's the neocon position on this?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alric @ Sep 11 2007, 01:40 PM) [snapback]510712[/snapback]</div>

Show me the "scientific consensus"! Show me proof! I can show you proof of what is really warming the globe.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ACD @ Sep 11 2007, 02:03 PM) [snapback]510723[/snapback]</div>

Well here you go, from NASA:

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Library/G...lWarmingUpdate/

"Over the last five years, 600 scientists from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change sifted through thousands of studies about global warming published in forums ranging from scientific journals to industry publications and distilled the world’s accumulated knowledge into this conclusion: “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal.â€"

"Far from being some future fear, global warming is happening now, and scientists have evidence that humans are to blame."

The reference section contains links and references to peer-reviewed journals.

Please make sure your sources are peer reviewed or come from peer reviewed journals. Think tanks, pundits and lonely guy contrarian pages are not sufficient.

 

And around and around and around we go.....again, and again, and again.
Tastes great!
Less filling!

"small wheel turns by fire and rod, big wheel turns by the grace of god".

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ACD @ Sep 11 2007, 12:03 PM) [snapback]510723[/snapback]</div>

This sort of assertion really cracks me up.

Let's look at an analagous situation (one I can speak to).

A group of pilots and mechanics are discussing the merits of the new Zoomfire Super 900 airliner. Many of the pilots in the discussion have flown the Zoomfire Super 900; all of them have flown its simulator; all of them intimately understand not just the Zoomfire but the science of aerodynamics, air traffic control, weather, etc. Most of the mechanics have worked on the Zoomfire; all of them have read most or all of the maintenance manuals; all of them have extensive experience working on aircraft of all types and intimately understand mechanical principles, physics, hydraulics, electrical systems, powerplant, etc. While there is disagreement among this group in some of the details of Zoomfire (is its elevator too heavy; is there a risk that actuating the reverse thrusters in a hurry might accidentally retract the spoilers; are the GE and Rolls Royce engines truly interchangeable, etc.) the general consensus is that the Zoomfire should really be named the Doomfire because, among other reasons, MOST pilots find its cockpit ergonomics terrible, the ratio of crashes and incidents involving Zoomfires is much higher than for other aircraft types, and the mechanics can cite instance after instance of poor maintenance because the damn things are too difficult to work on: inadequate inspection panels, awkward adjustment access, mountains of ADs to deal with, etc.

Meanwhile, a group of Priuschat members weigh in with their assessments of the Zoomfire Super 900. Some of them have ridden in a Zoomfire as passengers; some of their knowledge comes from articles in Popular Mechanics, Business Week, USA Today (for the few that read); but their preponderance of "knowledge" about the Zoomfire is what they've seen about it on TV, in 30 second soundbites. Yet this group believes it's qualified to make statements that it can "prove" or "disprove" the airworthiness of the Zoomfire. And that just cracks me up.

Mark Baird
Alameda CA

 

Here Actual scientific data with references as to the cause of global warming. BTW not all Nasa Scientists agree. See here Other scientist views
To think that humans are so powerful that we can change a planets climate is both naive and arrogant!
Are we also responsible for Mars?

In addition, studies are showing that our reduction in aerosols since the 1980's has shown to be directly related to our warming cycle, so maybe we are a bit responsible, looks like we need to bring back CFC's and hair spray. Global Sunscreen

Finally if you read into what these so-called experts say, they dont know why the earth is warming, they can only conclude that we are causing it! IOW They cant prove it! NASA see's things from what their satellites and atmosphere studies report, but there are other scientific studies that show how the earths oceans affect climate changes. When you consider how much of this planet is covered with water and how sea water can hold and release certain gases such as CO2 and Chlorine. 97% of the CO2 in the atmosphere is from nature. There are far more scientific studies that refute the causes of global warming being manmade, and showing true reasons for it.

The truth of the matter is, the earth is warming, not because of us, but because it is what happens in nature, science proves it, glaciers come and glaciers go.

There is plenty of research describing exactly how CO2 traps heat, where the heat comes from, how the seas trap and release gases, etc. CO2 can only absorb so much heat, adding more CO2 does not increase the amount of heat it can hold. Water vapor OTOH can hold 100times the amount of heat that CO2 can, and in addition the more water vapor in the air, the more heat it can hold. When the oceans warm up they release more CO2 and water vapor, and studies have shown that the oceans are heating from within, from the earth itself, not from the surface. It is a natural cycle, the oceans heat up, precipitation increases, snow fall increases, solar heat gets reflected back into space, temps drop, ice age begins, then everything warms up again and the cycle repeats. Then again if you believe the earth was created in 7 days, there is no hope for you.