Ask Experts Questions for FREE Help !
Ask
    George_1950's Avatar
    George_1950 Posts: 3,099, Reputation: 236
    Ultra Member
     
    #81

    Jan 27, 2009, 07:54 AM

    Come on, down, Al. Tell me more: DRUDGE FLASH 2009®: GORE HEARING ON WARMING MAY BE PUT ON ICE
    speechlesstx's Avatar
    speechlesstx Posts: 1,111, Reputation: 284
    Ultra Member
     
    #82

    Jan 27, 2009, 08:15 AM
    None of it matters now George, the damage we've done to the planet is done.

    Global warming 'irreversible' for next 1000 years

    WASHINGTON (AFP) — Climate change is "largely irreversible" for the next 1,000 years even if carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions could be abruptly halted, according to a new study led by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

    The study's authors said there was "no going back" after the report showed that changes in surface temperature, rainfall and sea level are "largely irreversible for more than 1,000 years after CO2 emissions are completely stopped."

    NOAA senior scientist Susan Solomon said the study, published in this week's Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences journal, showed that current human choices on carbon dioxide emissions are set to "irreversibly change the planet."

    Researchers examined the consequences of CO2 building up beyond present-day concentrations of 385 parts per million, and then completely stopping emissions after the peak. Before the industrial age CO2 in Earth's atmosphere amounted to only 280 parts per million.

    The study found that CO2 levels are irreversibly impacting climate change, which will contribute to global sea level rise and rainfall changes in certain regions.

    The authors emphasized that increases in CO2 that occur from 2000 to 2100 are set to "lock in" a sea level rise over the next 1,000 years.

    Rising sea levels would cause "irreversible commitments to future changes in the geography of the Earth, since many coastal and island features would ultimately become submerged," the study said.

    Decreases in rainfall that last for centuries can be expected to have a range of impacts, said the authors. Regional impacts include -- but are not limited to -- decreased human water supplies, increased fire frequency, ecosystem change and expanded deserts.
    Suddenly, since Obama is the Prez the global warming gasbags are getting even more hysterical.
    excon's Avatar
    excon Posts: 21,482, Reputation: 2992
    Uber Member
     
    #83

    Jan 27, 2009, 08:27 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by speechlesstx View Post
    US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
    Hello Steve:

    Gasbags?? Dude!

    I know science is out of favor with you guys. But you're going to have to get used to the NEW paradigm. That's one that bases things on reality. It's going to be that way from here on out.

    excon
    tomder55's Avatar
    tomder55 Posts: 1,742, Reputation: 346
    Ultra Member
     
    #84

    Jan 27, 2009, 08:42 AM

    Science must be out of favor with the hundreds of climatologists who attended the U.N. Global Warming conference in Poznan, Poland this December .650 of the world's top climatologists stood up and said man-made global warming is a media generated myth without basis.
    George_1950's Avatar
    George_1950 Posts: 3,099, Reputation: 236
    Ultra Member
     
    #85

    Jan 27, 2009, 09:05 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by excon View Post
    ... But you're gonna have to get used to the NEW paradigm. That's one that bases things on reality. It's gonna be that way from here on out.

    excon
    Really? "...the Nevada Democrat is already worried about his own re-election fight in 2010. Sen. Reid, perhaps the most-vulnerable Democrat who will face re-election in a midterm race that is likely to favor his party once again, began interviewing campaign managers last week. The Senate majority leader also recently stepped up fund-raising." http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123033501646236333.html
    tomder55's Avatar
    tomder55 Posts: 1,742, Reputation: 346
    Ultra Member
     
    #86

    Jan 27, 2009, 09:06 AM

    George ;ever notice that whenever the Goracle schedules these high profile events to promote his carbon trading business that inevidibly a cold spell or blizzard occures. Momma Gaia must be telling him something.
    speechlesstx's Avatar
    speechlesstx Posts: 1,111, Reputation: 284
    Ultra Member
     
    #87

    Jan 27, 2009, 09:17 AM

    You mean we're finally going to hear the truth about the junk science and political agenda over climate change in the media? Is that the new paradigm?

    Perhaps you missed my post on the previous page about warming finally reaching Antarctica where the scientist said "It is hard to make data where none exist." Is that the kind of science that should be in favor?
    excon's Avatar
    excon Posts: 21,482, Reputation: 2992
    Uber Member
     
    #88

    Jan 27, 2009, 09:17 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by George_1950 View Post
    Really? "...the Nevada Democrat is already worried about his own re-election fight in 2010.
    Hello again, George:

    Dude! We're missing each other in the night, even more than usual... I'm talking about policy being based on science from here on out.

    That has nothing to do with the "Nevada Democrat" running again... Nothing! I have NO idea where you got that.

    excon
    speechlesstx's Avatar
    speechlesstx Posts: 1,111, Reputation: 284
    Ultra Member
     
    #89

    Jan 29, 2009, 10:18 AM
    Seems the new Prez is one of those "so as I say and not as I do" guys also... and the NY Slimes doesn't even get it. It's all about the new "more informal culture" in the White House to them. While a 92-year-old WWII vet freezes to death in his home, Mr. Obama "had cranked up the thermostat" in the White House because “He’s from Hawaii, OK?" “He likes it warm. You could grow orchids in there.”

    Maybe someone needs to point out his EPA's website for tips on saving energy and fighting global warming? Or perhaps he should follow Carter's advice and leadership on this issue?
    speechlesstx's Avatar
    speechlesstx Posts: 1,111, Reputation: 284
    Ultra Member
     
    #90

    Jan 29, 2009, 10:30 AM
    Update, Ed Morrisey of Hotair gleaned this Obama gem from the campaign trail:

    “We can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times … and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK,” Obama said.

    “That’s not leadership. That’s not going to happen,” he added.
    Like Ed says, "Well, apparently some of us can, and those lucky few do call themselves “leaders”. The rest of us call them hypocrites as we fetch another sweater."
    excon's Avatar
    excon Posts: 21,482, Reputation: 2992
    Uber Member
     
    #91

    Jan 29, 2009, 10:42 AM
    Hello wrong wingers:

    Memo to RickJ:

    The following should be a "sticky note" on the current events page:

    If a Democrat wants to be warm, flies first class, doesn't carpool, or uses very heavy, non fuel efficient Cadillac limos to drive around in, they're HYPOCRITES.

    Ok?? I got it.

    excon
    speechlesstx's Avatar
    speechlesstx Posts: 1,111, Reputation: 284
    Ultra Member
     
    #92

    Jan 29, 2009, 11:07 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by excon View Post
    Hello wrong wingers:

    Memo to RickJ:

    The following should be a "sticky note" on the current events page:

    If a Democrat wants to be warm, flies first class, doesn't carpool, or uses very heavy, non fuel efficient Cadillac limos to drive around in, they're HYPOCRITES.

    Ok??? I got it.
    I think we've been here before on this post. Yep, we've definitely been there, done that. I don't recall even implying that a Democrat that "wants to be warm, flies first class, doesn't carpool, or uses very heavy, non fuel efficient Cadillac limos to drive around in" is a hypocrite... just those (of whatever affiliation) that do so while preaching the religion of global warming.

    I'm sure you'd call Bush a hypocrite for saying "we don't torture," why can't I call Obama a hypocrite for telling us to turn our thermostats down while he's cranking up the White House thermostat? I'd be more than willing to bet you that my turning my thermostat up to 72 in the winter - which doesn't generally happen since I use programmable thermostats to warm up the house to 70 as I get home from work - would be a lot less damaging to the environment than cranking up the heat in the White House. So which of us is the hypocrite on the environment?
    George_1950's Avatar
    George_1950 Posts: 3,099, Reputation: 236
    Ultra Member
     
    #93

    Jan 29, 2009, 11:50 AM

    Check this: "But an environmental movement had been established and its funding and very existence depended on having a continuing crisis issue. So the research papers from Scripps came at just the right moment. And, with them came the birth of an issue; man-made global warming from the carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels", from "The Amazing Story Behind Tho Global Warming Scam". The Amazing Story Behind the Global Warming Scam | KUSI - News, Weather and Sports - San Diego, CA | Coleman's Corner
    N0help4u's Avatar
    N0help4u Posts: 19,823, Reputation: 2035
    Uber Member
     
    #94

    Jan 29, 2009, 07:36 PM

    Yep they say that (I think it is 6,000) scientists are saying global warming is a lie.

    Once again this winter I am begging for people to send me their global warming!
    On Monday I asked for a shipment of sand-----I got a ton of snow!

    The sole purpose of global warming is so they can tax us for breathing by convincing people about the necessity of carbon footprints.
    TexasParent's Avatar
    TexasParent Posts: 378, Reputation: 73
    Full Member
     
    #95

    Jan 30, 2009, 07:04 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by N0help4u View Post
    Yep they say that (I think it is 6,000) scientists are saying global warming is a lie.

    Once again this winter I am begging for people to send me their global warming!
    On Monday I asked for a shipment of sand-----I got a ton of snow!

    The sole purpose of global warming is so they can tax us for breathing by convincing people about the necessity of carbon footprints.
    I suspect those scientist's were bought by big oil :D
    tomder55's Avatar
    tomder55 Posts: 1,742, Reputation: 346
    Ultra Member
     
    #96

    Jan 30, 2009, 07:14 AM

    Lol scientists all over the world are looking to cash in on the Big Oil stimulus .

    Maybe the Torquemada of the climate cult will hold Stalinist show trials for all the heretics
    Put oil firm chiefs on trial, says leading climate change scientist | Environment | The Guardian

    The credibility of science may never recover

    Sea levels are rising, but they have been rising at least since the early 1800s. In the era of satellite measurements, the rise has not accelerated (actually we've seen a sea-level fall over the past two years). The UN expects about a 30-centimetre sea-level rise over this century — about what we saw over the past 150 years.

    In that period, many coastlines increased, most obviously in Holland, because rich countries can easily protect and even expand their territory. But even for oft-cited Bangladesh, scientists just this year showed that the country grows by 20 square kilometres each year, because river sedimentation win out over rising sea levels.

    Obama's claim about record droughts similarly fails even on a cursory level — the US has, in all academic estimates, been getting wetter over the century (with the 1930s 'dust bowl' setting the drought high point). This is even true globally over the past half-century, as one of the most recent scientific studies of actual soil moisture shows: “there is an overall small wetting trend in global soil moisture.”

    Furthermore, famine has rapidly declined over the past half century. The main deviation has been the past two years of record-high food prices, caused not by climate change but by the policies designed to combat it: the dash for ethanol, which put food into cars and thus upward pressure on food prices. The World Bank estimates this policy has driven at least 30 million more people into hunger. To cite policy-driven famine as an argument for more of the same policy seems unreasonable.
    Obama and global warming- Comments & Analysis-Opinion-The Economic Times
    speechlesstx's Avatar
    speechlesstx Posts: 1,111, Reputation: 284
    Ultra Member
     
    #97

    Jan 30, 2009, 07:22 AM
    You mean credibility is important in science?
    speechlesstx's Avatar
    speechlesstx Posts: 1,111, Reputation: 284
    Ultra Member
     
    #98

    Jan 30, 2009, 03:51 PM

    I had to ponder which post to add this update to, so in honor of the Goracle here it goes.

    Stimulus Plan: Non-Existent Unemployed Climate Modelers Get $140 Million

    President Barack Obama’s trillion dollar stimulus plan, has morphed into an appropriations bill devoid of debate. The process forgoes any pretense of targeting unemployed people and resources.

    For instance, the bill reads “Provided further, That not less than $140,000,000 shall be available for climate data modeling.” This raises the question of how many unemployed climate modelers are out there pounding the pavement.

    When presented with that question, last Friday, Pat Michaels, former president of the American Association of State Climatologists stated “I don’t know one unemployed modeler.”

    Whether another $140,000,000 for climate data modeling is a good idea, it is hard to see an immediate, economy-stimulating impact from this item.

    What’s the rush? Maybe they need to get all their modeling done before another cool year highlights how bad the models are.
    N0help4u's Avatar
    N0help4u Posts: 19,823, Reputation: 2035
    Uber Member
     
    #99

    Jan 30, 2009, 04:54 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by TexasParent View Post
    I suspect those scientist's were bought by big oil :D
    NO I would say they are good scientists with common sense!
    Gore has N0 real scientific proof of his scam!
    TexasParent's Avatar
    TexasParent Posts: 378, Reputation: 73
    Full Member
     
    #100

    Jan 31, 2009, 07:46 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by N0help4u View Post
    NO I would say they are good scientists with common sense!
    Gore has N0 real scientific proof of his scam!
    Um... well there needs to be a scientific Superbowl between those who don't have any proof of Global warming and those that don't have any proof of the counter argument (what is that anyway).

    It's easy to say that the scientists don't have any proof, but since it is science you better bring your science to say it isn't true by proving your theory.

Not your question? Ask your question View similar questions

 

Question Tools Search this Question
Search this Question:

Advanced Search

Add your answer here.


Check out some similar questions!

Al Gore - the high priest of environmentalism - just a pop scientist? [ 93 Answers ]

Just curious: where did Gore study climatology, anyway? YouTube - Al Gore Debates Global Warming

Did I miss Clinton/Gore defanging the Saddam tiger? [ 8 Answers ]

Interesting video of Gore making the case for evidence of Saddam's terrorists acitivities. I don't recall Clinton/Gore being engaged in this issue. YouTube - Gore criticizes Bush for ignoring Iraq's ties to terrorism

Al Gore Set To Rake In Millions Off An IPO [ 11 Answers ]

Al Gore Set To Rake In Millions Off An IPO - America Talks Back, News It has been reported that former Vice President Al Gore stands to make approximately $50 million when the TV channel he founded, Current TV, goes public. The channel is very popular among tech-savvy 18-34 year olds, and it...

Al gore and pres. Bush [ 4 Answers ]

Urban Legends Reference Pages: A Tale of Two Houses How do you account for this discrepancy?

Global Warming again. Al Gore, SHAME on you! [ 20 Answers ]

Judge for yourselves: Urban Legends Reference Pages: A Tale of Two Houses To Al Gore, Richard Dreyfuss, Alec Baldwin and the rest of the likes of you: Move to another planet and quit your lying and fearmongering! ... rant over...


View more questions Search