An Inconvenient Truth
- Thread starter Very Veronica
- Start date
Thanks, Avery. Not just Neanderthal climatologists, but even upstart Cro Magnon experts would support this claim.Avery said:
I simply paraphrased Edward Lorenz, "The Essence of Chaos (chapter 3 - Our Chaotic Weather/The-Five-Million-Variable dynamical system."
The number of variables in current GCM's is now in the billions, but that still leaves a mesh size on average >1km, which is larger than important features such as clouds. According to Henk Tennekes, increasingly finer mesh sizes will ultimately bring the need to cope with realistic models of turbulence. Anyone who has studied turbulence realizes how challenging it is to model.
Fluid mechanics is not simple. Hardly controversial.
Last edited:
LOL...That's an excellent cartoon OT, Al Gore should have included it in his Powerpoint presentation so everyone could confirm he's not playing with a full deck.OTBn said:
Gosh, I'd like to respond in a nice, open, humble, kumbaya way like you do but my posts (unlike yours & the rest of the "Believe RIGHT or DIE" crowd) always come off as condescending and confrontational.Rod Steel said:
Even if there's much about you to condescend.
But I would like to hear you brilliant Creationist scientists tell me about how they cain't be no global warming 'cause it still snows in Whitehorse every year. It's amazing, but every post y'all make on this actually causes the sum total of knowledge on the Internet decline. It's quite a feat.
I see you're as good at math as you are at science. You might like to check out your compatriot Randy Whorewald's posts, but just for a laugh. Birds of a feather.Rod Steel said:
An oldy but a goody... not that I have to tell you, you've got it memorized:
Last edited:
Global Warming is crap science. It's main claim to fame is 100 years worth of bad fortune telling by supposed experts. As you'll read below, science currently predicts that the world in the warming mode, but it could change at any time.
In 1902, the Los Angeles Times reported that the great glaciers were undergoing "their final annihilation" due to rising temperatures. But by 1923, it was the ice that was doing the annihilating: "Scientist says Arctic ice will wipe out Canada," the Chicago Tribune declared on Page 1.
So it was curtains for the Canadians? Uh, not quite. In 1953, The New York Times announced that "nearly all the great ice sheets are in retreat." Yet no sooner did our neighbors to the north breathe a sigh of relief than it turned out they weren't off the hook after all: "The rapid advance of some glaciers," wrote Lowell Ponte in "The Cooling," his 1976 bestseller, "has threatened human settlements in Alaska, Iceland, Canada, China, and the Soviet Union." And now? "Arctic Ice Is Melting at Record Level, Scientists Say," the Times reported in 2002.
Over the years, the alarmists have veered from an obsession with lethal global cooling around the turn of the 20th century to lethal global warming a generation later, back to cooling in the 1970s and now to warming once again. You don't have to be a scientist to realize that all these competing narratives of doom can't be true. Or to wonder whether any of them are.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/12/24/climate_of_fear/
We've all seen the reports in the media that tell the horrors that await us if we fail to deal with causes of Global Warming. Floods, famine and violent weather to name a few. Here are just a few of the claims made in the last 40 years. Note the dates on the quotes.
This cooling has already killed hundreds of thousands of people. If it continues and no strong action is taken, it will cause world famine, world chaos and world war, and this could all come about before the year 2000.
—Lowell Ponte in “The Cooling”, 1976
If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder by the year 2000. … This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age.
—Kenneth E.F. Watt on air pollution and global cooling, Earth Day (1970)
The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s, the world will undergo famines. Hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. Population control is the only answer.
—Paul Ehrlich, in The Population Bomb (1968)
I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.
—Paul Ehrlich in (1969)
Ecology and environmental types have long expressed a desire to eliminate the growing human population.
I suspect that eradicating smallpox was wrong. It played an important part in balancing ecosystems.
—John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal
Human beings, as a species, have no more value than slugs.
—John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal
We advocate biodiversity for biodiversity’s sake. It may take our extinction to set things straight.
—David Foreman, Earth First!
Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental.
—Dave Forman, Founder of Earth First!
If radical environmentalists were to invent a disease to bring human populations back to sanity, it would probably be something like AIDS
—Earth First! Newsletter
Human happiness, and certainly human fecundity, is not as important as a wild and healthy planets…Some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along.
—David Graber, biologist, National Park Service
The collective needs of non-human species must take precedence over the needs and desires of humans.
—Dr. Reed F. Noss, The Wildlands Project
If I were reincarnated, I would wish to be returned to Earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.
—Prince Phillip, World Wildlife Fund
Ecologists and environmentalists also seem to hate capitalism and free enterprise.
Free Enterprise really means rich people get richer. They have the freedom to exploit and psychologically rape their fellow human beings in the process…. Capitalism is destroying the earth.
—Helen Caldicott, Union of Concerned Scientists
We must make this an insecure and inhospitable place for capitalists and their projects…. We must reclaim the roads and plowed land, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers and return to wilderness millions of tens of millions of acres of presently settled land.
—David Foreman, Earth First!
http://www.pushback.com/environment/EcoFreakQuotes.html
Scientists get articles and papers published by universities and scientific journals by having their work peer reviewed. As the following suggests, the peer review process is biased toward established theories. So if you write an article or paper that disagrees with what's commonly thought to be true, it's likely that no one will take your work seriously, even if it's correct.
Peer review is not at all suited, however, to adjudicate an intense competition for
scarce resources such as research funds or pages in prestigious journals. The
reason is obvious enough. The referee, who is always among the few genuine
experts in the field, has an obvious conflict of interest. It would take impossibly
high ethical standards for referees to fail to use their privileged anonymity to their
own advantage. Most scientists do hold themselves to high standards of integrity,
but as time goes on, more and more referees have their ethical standards eroded by
the unfair reviews they receive when they are authors. Thus the whole system is in
peril.
..........
4.3 Inadequate Recognition and Encouragement of Innovation
Examples abound of groundbreaking ideas that were rejected for publication or not
funded because of the inherent conservatism (or lack of imagination?) of reviewers; in
particular see McCutchen33 and Horrobin.34 Yalow summarized the gist of the problem
with the following memorable remark.
There are many problems with the peer review system. Perhaps the most
significant is that the truly imaginative are not being judged by their peers. They
have none!
Editors must be constantly on the lookout for highly innovative submissions, ensuring
that referees of the highest quality are engaged in evaluating such work; and ultimately
editors must make an informed judgment on the publishability of the work based on a
careful reading of the work itself as well as the referees’ reports on the work.
Apparently there are pathological symptoms that occur when a scientist is trying to pass something off that's not really science. Consider what you know about Global Warming and Climate Change as you read these.
Langmuir’s Symptoms of Pathological Science
1. The maximum effect that is observed is produced by a causative agent of barely
detectable intensity, and the magnitude of the effect is substantially independent of the
intensity of the cause.
2. The effect is of a magnitude that remains close to the limit of detectability or, many
measurements are necessary because of the very low statistical significance of the
results.
3. There are claims of great accuracy.
4. Fantastic theories contrary to experience are suggested.
5. Criticisms are met by ad hoc excuses thought up on the spur of the moment.
6. The ratio of supporters to critics rises up somewhere near 50% and then falls gradually
And finally this quote, which I think sums things up nicely.
"The whole aim of practical politics,is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."
H.L. Mencken in 1920
Now I want to know.
Do you still believe that Global Warming is happening?
In 1902, the Los Angeles Times reported that the great glaciers were undergoing "their final annihilation" due to rising temperatures. But by 1923, it was the ice that was doing the annihilating: "Scientist says Arctic ice will wipe out Canada," the Chicago Tribune declared on Page 1.
So it was curtains for the Canadians? Uh, not quite. In 1953, The New York Times announced that "nearly all the great ice sheets are in retreat." Yet no sooner did our neighbors to the north breathe a sigh of relief than it turned out they weren't off the hook after all: "The rapid advance of some glaciers," wrote Lowell Ponte in "The Cooling," his 1976 bestseller, "has threatened human settlements in Alaska, Iceland, Canada, China, and the Soviet Union." And now? "Arctic Ice Is Melting at Record Level, Scientists Say," the Times reported in 2002.
Over the years, the alarmists have veered from an obsession with lethal global cooling around the turn of the 20th century to lethal global warming a generation later, back to cooling in the 1970s and now to warming once again. You don't have to be a scientist to realize that all these competing narratives of doom can't be true. Or to wonder whether any of them are.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/12/24/climate_of_fear/
We've all seen the reports in the media that tell the horrors that await us if we fail to deal with causes of Global Warming. Floods, famine and violent weather to name a few. Here are just a few of the claims made in the last 40 years. Note the dates on the quotes.
This cooling has already killed hundreds of thousands of people. If it continues and no strong action is taken, it will cause world famine, world chaos and world war, and this could all come about before the year 2000.
—Lowell Ponte in “The Cooling”, 1976
If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder by the year 2000. … This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age.
—Kenneth E.F. Watt on air pollution and global cooling, Earth Day (1970)
The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s, the world will undergo famines. Hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. Population control is the only answer.
—Paul Ehrlich, in The Population Bomb (1968)
I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.
—Paul Ehrlich in (1969)
Ecology and environmental types have long expressed a desire to eliminate the growing human population.
I suspect that eradicating smallpox was wrong. It played an important part in balancing ecosystems.
—John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal
Human beings, as a species, have no more value than slugs.
—John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal
We advocate biodiversity for biodiversity’s sake. It may take our extinction to set things straight.
—David Foreman, Earth First!
Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental.
—Dave Forman, Founder of Earth First!
If radical environmentalists were to invent a disease to bring human populations back to sanity, it would probably be something like AIDS
—Earth First! Newsletter
Human happiness, and certainly human fecundity, is not as important as a wild and healthy planets…Some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along.
—David Graber, biologist, National Park Service
The collective needs of non-human species must take precedence over the needs and desires of humans.
—Dr. Reed F. Noss, The Wildlands Project
If I were reincarnated, I would wish to be returned to Earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.
—Prince Phillip, World Wildlife Fund
Ecologists and environmentalists also seem to hate capitalism and free enterprise.
Free Enterprise really means rich people get richer. They have the freedom to exploit and psychologically rape their fellow human beings in the process…. Capitalism is destroying the earth.
—Helen Caldicott, Union of Concerned Scientists
We must make this an insecure and inhospitable place for capitalists and their projects…. We must reclaim the roads and plowed land, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers and return to wilderness millions of tens of millions of acres of presently settled land.
—David Foreman, Earth First!
http://www.pushback.com/environment/EcoFreakQuotes.html
Scientists get articles and papers published by universities and scientific journals by having their work peer reviewed. As the following suggests, the peer review process is biased toward established theories. So if you write an article or paper that disagrees with what's commonly thought to be true, it's likely that no one will take your work seriously, even if it's correct.
Peer review is not at all suited, however, to adjudicate an intense competition for
scarce resources such as research funds or pages in prestigious journals. The
reason is obvious enough. The referee, who is always among the few genuine
experts in the field, has an obvious conflict of interest. It would take impossibly
high ethical standards for referees to fail to use their privileged anonymity to their
own advantage. Most scientists do hold themselves to high standards of integrity,
but as time goes on, more and more referees have their ethical standards eroded by
the unfair reviews they receive when they are authors. Thus the whole system is in
peril.
..........
4.3 Inadequate Recognition and Encouragement of Innovation
Examples abound of groundbreaking ideas that were rejected for publication or not
funded because of the inherent conservatism (or lack of imagination?) of reviewers; in
particular see McCutchen33 and Horrobin.34 Yalow summarized the gist of the problem
with the following memorable remark.
There are many problems with the peer review system. Perhaps the most
significant is that the truly imaginative are not being judged by their peers. They
have none!
Editors must be constantly on the lookout for highly innovative submissions, ensuring
that referees of the highest quality are engaged in evaluating such work; and ultimately
editors must make an informed judgment on the publishability of the work based on a
careful reading of the work itself as well as the referees’ reports on the work.
Apparently there are pathological symptoms that occur when a scientist is trying to pass something off that's not really science. Consider what you know about Global Warming and Climate Change as you read these.
Langmuir’s Symptoms of Pathological Science
1. The maximum effect that is observed is produced by a causative agent of barely
detectable intensity, and the magnitude of the effect is substantially independent of the
intensity of the cause.
2. The effect is of a magnitude that remains close to the limit of detectability or, many
measurements are necessary because of the very low statistical significance of the
results.
3. There are claims of great accuracy.
4. Fantastic theories contrary to experience are suggested.
5. Criticisms are met by ad hoc excuses thought up on the spur of the moment.
6. The ratio of supporters to critics rises up somewhere near 50% and then falls gradually
And finally this quote, which I think sums things up nicely.
"The whole aim of practical politics,is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."
H.L. Mencken in 1920
Now I want to know.
Do you still believe that Global Warming is happening?
Last edited:
Here is what is proven fact. The average temperate of the world changes and it appears to have cycles. There is a period of time it goes up and there is a period of time it goes down.
Sometime those cycles have extended periods of rise or fall. One of those periods was called the ice age. You should remember being taught that in school CL. That is when most of this continent was cover in ice.
It would be a reasonable assumption that the earth’s temperature started to go up at the end of the ice age and the glaciers receded.
Given man only recently invented the automobile, it would not be possible for man to have caused the Earth to warm as much as it did to cause the ice covering this continent to melt.
CL - news flash Al Gore did not invent global warming.... he invented the internet.
I would actually vote for Gore’s film if it was placed in the category of best fictional film. The whole concept that the earth is warming because the rich and famous are flying ground in their Lear jets is far fetched. For one if they really believed it; they would stop that behavior (wouldn’t they?).
Good luck tonight Ex-Vice President Gore; it will be interesting to see how loony Hollywood sees your film.
Sometime those cycles have extended periods of rise or fall. One of those periods was called the ice age. You should remember being taught that in school CL. That is when most of this continent was cover in ice.
It would be a reasonable assumption that the earth’s temperature started to go up at the end of the ice age and the glaciers receded.
Given man only recently invented the automobile, it would not be possible for man to have caused the Earth to warm as much as it did to cause the ice covering this continent to melt.
CL - news flash Al Gore did not invent global warming.... he invented the internet.
I would actually vote for Gore’s film if it was placed in the category of best fictional film. The whole concept that the earth is warming because the rich and famous are flying ground in their Lear jets is far fetched. For one if they really believed it; they would stop that behavior (wouldn’t they?).
Good luck tonight Ex-Vice President Gore; it will be interesting to see how loony Hollywood sees your film.
Well LD, he WAS actually the President - Elect for about ten minutes. Until he got done in by a few Florida chards.luckydog71 said:
The ice is melting because it is warmer now than when the ice formed, which (surprise!) was in the ice age.luckydog71 said:
Since the end of the last ice age, 18000 years ago, temperatures have risen 16 degrees Fahrenheit and the sea level has risen 300 feet. Unless the interglacial warm period ends, and a new ice age begins, the ice will continue to melt for thousands of years. That is, to "save the ice" and reverse the overall melting would require a new ice age.
For those who are deeply worried for the endangered Antarctic ice sheet, rest assured that given its vast size and thickness, it will easily last until the next ice age. At best, man-made CO2 and methane emissions will simply delay the onset of the next ice age.
Gawd, these right winger's keep repeating the same drivel until they consider part of accepted fact... accepted in an extra-dimensional loony word.luckydog71 said:
They're STILL pissed that Bush had to steal a national election away from Gore, & they STILL keep repeating their drivel to tear him down. The only ones who claim anything about Gore inventing the internet is right wing mythology, refashioned & vomited out repeatedly by the lap dogs.
I guess I shouldn't be surprised that they twist everything I say & ignore all the points about global warming--- if they won't accept accepted science, they sure won't accept the actual words that anyone says who doesn't accept their delusional world, whether Gore or me.
I know, I know -- purple heart winners like Kerry are just really cowards, when they come up against draft dodging chickenhawks like Cheney and Bush & their crew; & decorated POW's like McCain were just brainwashed cause they have black babies when they dare to run against the conservative establishment.
When Truth Doesn't Win in the Marketplace of Ideas: Entrapping Schemas, Gore, and the Internet
Chip Heath & Jonathan Bendor, Stanford University, March 10, 2003
"... we study an example where Al Gore was falsely attributed with saying that he "invented the internet." We show that the false version of Gore's statement dominated the true one in mainstream political discourse by a wide margin. This is a clear failure in the marketplace of ideas, which we document in detail."
He did not invent the internet, he claims to have created it. There is a difference.
His exact quote is:
"During my service in the United States Congress I took the initiative in creating the internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system"
source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore_controversies#Influence_on_the_Internet
If ya don't like wikipedia, google it - there are lots of other references to this claim.
Perhaps Citylover could do a bit more research before opening his piehole.
That's prolly asking too much though.
His exact quote is:
"During my service in the United States Congress I took the initiative in creating the internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system"
source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore_controversies#Influence_on_the_Internet
If ya don't like wikipedia, google it - there are lots of other references to this claim.
Perhaps Citylover could do a bit more research before opening his piehole.
That's prolly asking too much though.
Rod Steel said:
Glad you agree w/ me that these right wing ideologues with an axe to grind are just blowing smoke, then & now, when they try to hold him up for ridicule.
Done in by Republican activist judges who have to reject their previous judicial stands to select Bush over the wishes of the majority of the US voters, & a majority of the Florida voters.Rod Steel said:Well LD, he WAS actually the President - Elect for about ten minutes. Until he got done in by a few Florida chards.
It's pretty conclusive that Gore got more votes than Bush in Florida but they weren't ever counted -- but then, I'm speaking to a group who think global warming don't exist, tobacco don't cause cancer, and Iraq is in the middle of a decade long celebration of the mighty victory by the US forces.
Another Voice Of Reason:
This Sunday, Al Gore will probably win an Academy Award for his global-warming documentary An Inconvenient Truth, a riveting work of science fiction.
The main point of the movie is that, unless we do something very serious, very soon about carbon dioxide emissions, much of Greenland’s 630,000 cubic miles of ice is going to fall into the ocean, raising sea levels over twenty feet by the year 2100.
Where’s the scientific support for this claim? Certainly not in the recent Policymaker’s Summary from the United Nations’ much anticipated compendium on climate change. Under the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s medium-range emission scenario for greenhouse gases, a rise in sea level of between 8 and 17 inches is predicted by 2100. Gore’s film exaggerates the rise by about 2,000 percent.
Even 17 inches is likely to be high, because it assumes that the concentration of methane, an important greenhouse gas, is growing rapidly. Atmospheric methane concentration hasn’t changed appreciably for seven years, and Nobel Laureate Sherwood Rowland recently pronounced the IPCC’s methane emissions scenarios as “quite unlikely.”
Nonetheless, the top end of the U.N.’s new projection is about 30-percent lower than it was in its last report in 2001. “The projections include a contribution due to increased ice flow from Greenland and Antarctica for the rates observed since 1993,” according to the IPCC, “but these flow rates could increase or decrease in the future.”
According to satellite data published in Science in November 2005, Greenland was losing about 25 cubic miles of ice per year. Dividing that by 630,000 yields the annual percentage of ice loss, which, when multiplied by 100, shows that Greenland was shedding ice at 0.4 percent per century.
“Was” is the operative word. In early February, Science published another paper showing that the recent acceleration of Greenland’s ice loss from its huge glaciers has suddenly reversed.
It would be nice if my colleagues would actually level with politicians about various “solutions” for climate change. The Kyoto Protocol, if fulfilled by every signatory, would reduce global warming by 0.07 degrees Celsius per half-century. That’s too small to measure, because the earth’s temperature varies by more than that from year to year.
The Bingaman-Domenici bill in the Senate does less than Kyoto — i.e., less than nothing — for decades, before mandating larger cuts, which themselves will have only a minor effect out past somewhere around 2075. (Imagine, as a thought experiment, if the Senate of 1925 were to dictate our energy policy for today).
Mendacity on global warming is bipartisan. President Bush proposes that we replace 20 percent of our current gasoline consumption with ethanol over the next decade. But it’s well-known that even if we turned every kernel of American corn into ethanol, it would displace only 12 percent of our annual gasoline consumption. The effect on global warming, like Kyoto, would be too small to measure, though the U.S. would become the first nation in history to burn up its food supply to please a political mob.
And even if we figured out how to process cellulose into ethanol efficiently, only one-third of our greenhouse gas emissions come from transportation. Even the Pollyannish 20-percent displacement of gasoline would only reduce our total emissions by 7-percent below present levels — resulting in emissions about 20-percent higher than Kyoto allows.
And there’s other legislation out there, mandating, variously, emissions reductions of 50, 66, and 80 percent by 2050. How do we get there if we can’t even do Kyoto?
When it comes to global warming, apparently the truth is inconvenient. And it’s not just Gore’s movie that’s fiction. It’s the rhetoric of the Congress and the chief executive, too.
link:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YjI4NTc0YWMzNTA3ZjRmYmJiMDRjNmI5MGEwZTFhM2E=
This Sunday, Al Gore will probably win an Academy Award for his global-warming documentary An Inconvenient Truth, a riveting work of science fiction.
The main point of the movie is that, unless we do something very serious, very soon about carbon dioxide emissions, much of Greenland’s 630,000 cubic miles of ice is going to fall into the ocean, raising sea levels over twenty feet by the year 2100.
Where’s the scientific support for this claim? Certainly not in the recent Policymaker’s Summary from the United Nations’ much anticipated compendium on climate change. Under the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s medium-range emission scenario for greenhouse gases, a rise in sea level of between 8 and 17 inches is predicted by 2100. Gore’s film exaggerates the rise by about 2,000 percent.
Even 17 inches is likely to be high, because it assumes that the concentration of methane, an important greenhouse gas, is growing rapidly. Atmospheric methane concentration hasn’t changed appreciably for seven years, and Nobel Laureate Sherwood Rowland recently pronounced the IPCC’s methane emissions scenarios as “quite unlikely.”
Nonetheless, the top end of the U.N.’s new projection is about 30-percent lower than it was in its last report in 2001. “The projections include a contribution due to increased ice flow from Greenland and Antarctica for the rates observed since 1993,” according to the IPCC, “but these flow rates could increase or decrease in the future.”
According to satellite data published in Science in November 2005, Greenland was losing about 25 cubic miles of ice per year. Dividing that by 630,000 yields the annual percentage of ice loss, which, when multiplied by 100, shows that Greenland was shedding ice at 0.4 percent per century.
“Was” is the operative word. In early February, Science published another paper showing that the recent acceleration of Greenland’s ice loss from its huge glaciers has suddenly reversed.
It would be nice if my colleagues would actually level with politicians about various “solutions” for climate change. The Kyoto Protocol, if fulfilled by every signatory, would reduce global warming by 0.07 degrees Celsius per half-century. That’s too small to measure, because the earth’s temperature varies by more than that from year to year.
The Bingaman-Domenici bill in the Senate does less than Kyoto — i.e., less than nothing — for decades, before mandating larger cuts, which themselves will have only a minor effect out past somewhere around 2075. (Imagine, as a thought experiment, if the Senate of 1925 were to dictate our energy policy for today).
Mendacity on global warming is bipartisan. President Bush proposes that we replace 20 percent of our current gasoline consumption with ethanol over the next decade. But it’s well-known that even if we turned every kernel of American corn into ethanol, it would displace only 12 percent of our annual gasoline consumption. The effect on global warming, like Kyoto, would be too small to measure, though the U.S. would become the first nation in history to burn up its food supply to please a political mob.
And even if we figured out how to process cellulose into ethanol efficiently, only one-third of our greenhouse gas emissions come from transportation. Even the Pollyannish 20-percent displacement of gasoline would only reduce our total emissions by 7-percent below present levels — resulting in emissions about 20-percent higher than Kyoto allows.
And there’s other legislation out there, mandating, variously, emissions reductions of 50, 66, and 80 percent by 2050. How do we get there if we can’t even do Kyoto?
When it comes to global warming, apparently the truth is inconvenient. And it’s not just Gore’s movie that’s fiction. It’s the rhetoric of the Congress and the chief executive, too.
link:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YjI4NTc0YWMzNTA3ZjRmYmJiMDRjNmI5MGEwZTFhM2E=
I keep waiting for the great moderator & bouncer Rod Steel to tell Randy that:
except Rod is very selective about whom he attacks for "over 220 posts and a lot of them are yours". He only tries to pull rank & drive people off the board who don't march in lock step to the principles he salutes.
Rod Steel said:
except Rod is very selective about whom he attacks for "over 220 posts and a lot of them are yours". He only tries to pull rank & drive people off the board who don't march in lock step to the principles he salutes.
Hollywood without transportation this morning
That is the natural result of voting 2 Oscars to the film, isn't it? Or are they such hypocrites that they think we don't notice what they drive to the corner store this morning?
http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/arts/story.html?id=b1906792-d179-49aa-9d59-36b9d0480527
That is the natural result of voting 2 Oscars to the film, isn't it? Or are they such hypocrites that they think we don't notice what they drive to the corner store this morning?
http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/arts/story.html?id=b1906792-d179-49aa-9d59-36b9d0480527
Rod are you still miffed about what happened in 2000?Rod Steel said:Well LD, he WAS actually the President - Elect for about ten minutes. Until he got done in by a few Florida chards.
Maybe you do not know how the US Electoral College works.
Each state receives a certain number of votes in the Electoral College. Most states are set up as a winner takes all votes.
So it is very possible for the person who gets the most electoral votes and becomes president is not the person who received the majority of votes cast at the general election. It was designed that way so large states such as NY and CA would not control elections.
There have been many instances of the person getting fewer votes being president. Nixon received more votes in the general election than JFK. But JFK received more Electoral College votes and became president.
and others treat global warming like Chicken Little.Sonny said:
Sonny it is a fact the earth is getting warmer.
If Al Gore is correct that it is humans that are causing global warming then Al Gore's contribution to human emitted emissions would place him in the top 10% of poluters. He traveled the world in AF2 (a 747) to preach to others to reduce pollution. Now he flies around in his corporate jet spewing pollution and preaching the same message.
I am still waiting for Al "Chicken Little" Gore and his Hollywood alarmists to show us the way and change their habits.
Until then I will stock up on sun tan lotion and weight for high tide to reach Calgary.
I am no Chicken Little, and I do not think that humans are the only cause for global warming. And I do think the former VP would be representing his cause better by flying on regular commercial flights and not using large limos.luckydog71 said:
However, I have been on this earth long enough to witness the results of humankind's negative and mindless actions against the well-being of this planet. Negative because of being harmful, mindless because of lack of thought. Not just global warming, but much more as well. There have been strides in positive directions as well, but there is lots of forward motion yet to be accomplished.
I would encourage people of intelligence and conscience to do whatever they reasonably can to contribute in some way to the welfare of our planet Earth. If everyone waits for the lead of another person, then we do worse than stand still, we slide further backward. Why not be some wholesome example, even in small ways, and thereby encourage others to think a bit and maybe follow suit?
