Every time I talk about An Inconvenient Truth, the deniers come out in full force, regardless of whether they have actually seen the documentary. The science is bogus, they tell me. They insist that there is no scientific consensus that climate change is a reality, or that human activities have led to increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the Earth’s atmosphere.
Um… well… tell that to the insurance industry:
The planet’s most conservative, risk-averse businesspeople now recognize the reality of global climate change.
The insurance industry, which has to pay up if the consensus of scientists is correct, has quite literally bought into the scenario.
[…]
Lloyd’s of London, the oldest insurance market in the world, released a report this month on the threat the industry faces. “Climate Change: Adapt or Bust,” warns, “If we do not take action now to understand the risks and their impact, the changing climate could kill us.” While the report “focuses on adaptation … we recognize that mitigation of the risk itself (i.e., the reduction of CO{-2} emissions) is crucial.”
Marsh, the world’s leading risk and insurance services firm, released a report in April in which it called climate change “one of the most significant emerging risks facing the world today.”
Last month, American International Group adopted a policy that “recognizes the scientific consensus that climate change is a reality and is likely in large part the result of human activities that have led to increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the Earth’s atmosphere.”
But then, we all know that the insurance industry is nothing but a bunch of wide-eyed, liberal propagandists.
Meanwhile An Inconvenient Truth has already earned over $6.4 million in four weeks, making it the 11th-top-grossing documentary of all time.
Goldy they are an insurance company that wants to make as much money as John Kerry and his friends. Now if you could charge more for insurance, folks like you will pay more out of fear that the sky is falling, now what would you do(Bill the hell out of them fools)? Everybody except Jessie Jackson will scam everyone for a buck. Jessie Jackson prefers to extort all your money because he’s not run a fancy con artistic like the Kennedy’s.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.c.....ion19.html
Looks like we get to see how the righties feel about government by referendum in SD where the anti-abortion bill faces a challenge. How do you righties like government by referendum now?
Klake @ 1
Would it be possible for you to translate your post into English? (You should sue your grammar teachers for malpractice.)
I belong to a history forum, and the arguments against global warming remind me of those I see from holocaust deniers.
The overwhelming evidence demonstrates that the holocaust did exist, and the general scope was in the scale which has been widely publicised. Allied troops liberating the camps were horrified at what they found, so quite a bit of effort was made to document the crimes with photographic, film, and recorded testimony, much of which was used in the Nuremburg trials. Yet today new-Nazis still argue that the Holocaust didn’t happen, that all evidence of it must be discounted as a part of a Jewish or anti-German conspiracy, or that if it did happen, it was “accidental” (disease) or on a very small scall. The dissapearance of millions of Jews from the European continent during the war years is passed off as “due to immigration”. In short, they refuse to consider any of the credible and overwhelming evidence, prefering instead to believe whacky consipiracy theories and grab upon any thread of argument which they believe “proves” their point.
So when I hear those who argue that there is insufficient evidence to prove global warming exists, I get a feeling of deja vue. Not, you understand, that I am calling them Nazis, because I reserve that label only for those who subscribe to that ideology. But the “scientific method” they employ is similar.
The proper way to conduct science is to compile the available evidence, form a hypothesis, test the hypothesis, and then form a conclusion (if warranted). Unfortunately, the global warming deniers seem to have it backwards – they form a conclusion that no global warming exists, deny the credibility of any evidence which supports it, latch onto evidence to the contrary (no matter how flimsy or how rare in comparision with the overall evidence), and then re-assert their conclusion.
Correction: “…new Nazis…” should be “…neo Nazis….”
Klake @ 1
Would it be possible for you to translate your post into English? (You should sue your grammar teachers for malpractice.)
Commentby proud leftist— 6/19/06@ 2:16 pm
That really nice of you proud leftist and my english teacher jump off a bridge for that reason. You can not sue the teacher or the school for not doing their job because the Teacher Union comes to their rescue. The only thing I am allowed to do today is vote Democrate and read blogs like this for fun.
Anybody got any solutions that will work in time to prevent the disaster, or are we doomed to the ineveitable and any effort will just slow it down a bit??
Al Gore’s movie is a classic model of Left-wing propaganda:
1. Sensational
2. Emotional
3. Utter bulls*** (but that doesn’t matter)
4. Make the Crazy Statement
5. Base all future arguments on your initial Crazy Statement by stating that “it is widely accepted that…”
Scientists have an independent obligation to respect and present the truth as they see it,” Al Gore sensibly asserts in his film “An Inconvenient Truth”, showing at Cumberland 4 Cinemas in Toronto since Jun 2. With that outlook in mind, what do world climate experts actually think about the science of his movie?
Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia gives what, for many Canadians, is a surprising assessment: “Gore’s circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention.”
But surely Carter is merely part of what most people regard as a tiny cadre of “climate change skeptics” who disagree with the “vast majority of scientists” Gore cites?
No; Carter is one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant global climate change. “Climate experts” is the operative term here. Why? Because what Gore’s “majority of scientists” think is immaterial when only a very small fraction of them actually work in the climate field.
Even among that fraction, many focus their studies on the impacts of climate change; biologists, for example, who study everything from insects to polar bears to poison ivy. “While many are highly skilled researchers, they generally do not have special knowledge about the causes of global climate change,” explains former University of Winnipeg climatology professor Dr. Tim Ball. “They usually can tell us only about the effects of changes in the local environment where they conduct their studies.”
This is highly valuable knowledge, but doesn’t make them climate change cause experts, only climate impact experts.
So we have a smaller fraction.
But it becomes smaller still. Among experts who actually examine the causes of change on a global scale, many concentrate their research on designing and enhancing computer models of hypothetical futures. “These models have been consistently wrong in all their scenarios,” asserts Ball. “Since modelers concede computer outputs are not “predictions” but are in fact merely scenarios, they are negligent in letting policy-makers and the public think they are actually making forecasts.”
We should listen most to scientists who use real data to try to understand what nature is actually telling us about the causes and extent of global climate change. In this relatively small community, there is no consensus, despite what Gore and others would suggest.
Here is a small sample of the side of the debate we almost never hear:
Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, “There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth’s temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years.” Patterson asked the committee, “On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century’s modest warming?”
Patterson concluded his testimony by explaining what his research and “hundreds of other studies” reveal: on all time scales, there is very good correlation between Earth’s temperature and natural celestial phenomena such changes in the brightness of the Sun.
# 8:
Nice job of cutting and pasting:
http://www.canadafreepress.com.....061206.htm
Maybe you should learn to think for yourself.
Oh, and by the way, the High Park Advocacy Group is a lobbying firm that represents energy companies. They would clearly be much more independent than scientists.
Klake@6 Sometimes the student is not the measure of the school and the teacher, but rather just a measure of the student . I think this is true in your case…
Libertarian @ 7
I think stocking up on booze to prepare for the coming calamity is the wisest strategy. Sobriety is no friend during time of disaster.
@12 Ah, shades of Woody Woodbury’s Booze is the only Answer
Club .
1. Sensational
2. Emotional
3. Utter bulls*** (but that doesn’t matter)
4. Make the Crazy Statement
5. Base all future arguments on your initial Crazy Statement by stating that “it is widely accepted that…”
Sounds like the typical Sharkansky post at (un)SP.
ID(IOT)GAF – nice to see you again. Looking forward to wiping you all over the floor come November – like last November..
How’s that Able Danger bullsh*t going?
Clue you forgot to mention a few more USP trademarks….
6) Blame Clinton
7) Ignore all facts
8) Avoid responding to posts that defeat your argument
9) Ask Steffy to ban anyone who’s able to recite truth
I saw the movie this weekend. It’s quite good. As for Libertarian’s question about the inevitability of a global disaster, the movie concludes on a hopeful note. In short, it won’t be *easy*, but there are plenty of both top-down and bottom-up changes that can reduce our greenhouse emissions to “safe” levels.
Libertarian, I also would recommend the book “The Greening of Conservative America” (I can’t remember the author’s name off the top of my head) for some potential environmental policies from both libertarian and conservative perspectives. The book isn’t perfect, but it’s written by a conservative environmentalist, so I think it would be more persuasive to you than something written by a lefty firebrand.
Great movie. The data is all there for people to see.
Especially important are:
1) The top 10 warmest years in recorded history.
2) The rate of increase of CO2 gases and relationt to temperature increases.
3) The wolrdwide recession of glaciers and icepacks.
The insurance industry knows the basis of the film is true and will likely make areas most hard hit by global warming uninsurable or raise their rate.
Global warming is the poster child for junk science. Will somebody puuhleeeeze show me the data that says current temps are beyond historical norms? Some of you are too stoopid to do chi squared; others say other methods are better. So use whatever method you want, but show me (and yourself) that current temps aren’t just normal variation.
The scientific merits of the film are one thing, and there is sufficient disagreement there to provoke a good debate, which I welcome.
The more we discuss the more we learn.
But if you are selling me on the concept because the insurance industry backs it, well I am sorry, but that is really meaningless as to its scientific merits.
The insurance industry is going to swing whichever way makes it more money. They dont care about science.
6
Don’t blame the teacher. Garbage in, garbage out.
I know how to solve the problem. Every wingnut who doesn’t believe science should jump off a bridge. Gravity will do the rest.
“Global warming is the poster child for junk science.”
Questions for redneck:
1. Are you a climatologist?
2. How many climatologists do you know?
3. With how many of these climatologists have you discussed the scientific literature on global warming?
4. On what authority—above and beyond your assertion that the global warming hypothesis can be disproved solely by examination of “historical norms”—can you unequivocally state that the entire matter is just “junk science”?
By the way, redneck, when the Bushco nazis start rounding up people for “unpatriotic” or “un-American” activities such as posting on liberal blogs, what makes you think that they’re not gonna stop and pick you up too?
If only there were a way to globallllly warm the brains of all the right wingers so that they weren’t so fucking stupid.
The earth is constantly warming or cooling. There is no evidence that human activity has any impact on these trends.
If there is global warming, what do you propose we do? The fastest growing economies are China and India, thus any action would have to curtail this growth. Buying a Prius in the US is not going to do it. Even Al Gore not flying around the world on his jet will not reverse the tren. (But at least it would be a little less hypocritical.)
Curtailing growth in China and India would probably have to be done by force, since neither country has shown any desire to treat Kyoto with any seriousness. Any ideas on how to do this, and we all still survive?
What about nuclear energy? Are you all out there advocating this as really the only viable alternative energy source? I thought not – it isn’t politically correct. Can’t figure out why the french get away with it.
“The earth is constantly warming or cooling. There is no evidence that human activity has any impact on these trends.”
Janet, let me redirect my questions at 23 above to you.
Janet S, it truly amazes me how you wingers can so effectively put your hands in front of your ears and scream like a five year old, “I can’t hear you.”
Your argument is positively psychotic. I can’t think of another word for it. After all, unlike Mark the Redneck, you are a reasonably intelligent person with an advanced education. Presumably you’ve learned how to do research. Gore speaks the truth when he states that there IS a scientific concensus on the powerful role humans are playing in an unprecedented warming of the planet.
Of course, you can’t admit that (at least in public) because you seem to have some burning need to see everything through a partisan lens.
It’s really quite useless to argue with you about what to do about global warming since you can’t even admit that we humans are causing it. That discussion will need to occur in other venues, where people choose to talk like adults rather than spoiled little brats.
Shame on you, Janet S. You should know better.
Does that mean you aren’t able to answer straight-forward questions? What solutions do you offer? What evidence do you have that they will have any affect on temperature changes?
Janet @ 28:
All of the links to highly credible scientific sources that you could ever want have been presented in the last few weeks on this blog. You have chosen to ignore them in order to further your own political ends.
You are not speaking out of ignorance — you are attempting to spread a Big Lie.
Let me say it again: Shame on you.
You obviously didn’t read my post. What I’m asking are what solutions you propose, assuming that human action can change anything. Al Gore is short on answers (but long on using lots and lots of fossil fuel).
Scaling back our own usage by 5% isn’t going to change anything. You need to figure out how to get those whose usage is increasing the fastest to either change energy sources or cut back. Do you want nuclear energy? I think we are being foolish not to develop it, regardless of global warming arguments.
Nope, Janet, you aren’t going to get away with that dodge. As long as you deny the overwhelming scientific concensus that the planet is experiencing an unprecedented building in human-caused greenhouse gases then we cannot have an intelligent discussion about possible courses of action.
So far you have not proven yourself to be an honest debater. Instead, you have played manipulative rhetorical games.
One more time with feeling: Janet, shame on you.
AlGore’s theory of CO2 levels causing climate changes over the last 650,000 years is just plain wrong:
“Milankovitch cycles are the collective effect of changes in the Earth’s movements upon its climate, named after Serbian geophysicist Milutin Milanković. The eccentricity, axial tilt, and precession of the Earth’s orbit vary in several patterns, resulting in 100,000 year ice age cycles of the Quaternary glaciation over the last few million years.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
In reality, temperature changes have HISTORICALLY resulted in CO2 level changes. When the temperature goes up, the CO2 level goes up with a lag time of 800 to 1000 years. When the temperature goes down, CO2 level goes down with a lag time of 800 to 1000 years.
Warmer oceans tend to store a little less CO2, which goes into the atmosphere. Also, peat bogs and other frozen areas thaw up, and the organic material there tends to deteriorate (i.e. oxidized by biological processes) into carbon dioxide and methane.
When it gets colder, cooler oceans hold in more CO2. And dying organic material in areas turning icy freezes up, rather than being metabolized into CO2 and methane.
Of course, CO2 levels are presently much higher than they have been in millions of years, and that is due to all the fossil fuel that has been burned. However, temperatures will rise only a small fraction of the increase predicted by AlGore and other psuedo-scientists.
The greenhouse gasses in our atmosphere make the planet about 15C (or 27F) warmer than it would otherwise be. 97% of the warming effect comes from water vapor, the other 3% from CO2. So even if we doubled the current CO2 level, this should increase global temperatures by only about 0.5C or 0.9F. This is about 1/10 of the increase that AlGore is predicting.
Janet S @25
The earth is constantly warming or cooling. There is no evidence that human activity has any impact on these trends.
Your initial premise is flawed.
…The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC’s purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature (3). In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth’s climate is being affected by human activities: “Human activities … are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents … that absorb or scatter radiant energy. … [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations” [p. 21 in (4)].
IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members’ expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: “Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth’s atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise” [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: “The IPCC’s conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue” [p. 3 in (5)].
Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).
The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies’ members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords “climate change” (9).
The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position. … < a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686">(source)
– As to your “Scaling back our own usage by 5% isn’t going to change anything.” Argument; It’s a starting point not an all encompassing solution. No one expects the world to switch-off the juice and go back to living in caves. U.S. fossil fuel is 25% of the worlds total fossil fuel consumption. Reducing Our fossil fuel consumption by 5% would be an easily do-able goal… a 10% increase in automobile fuel efficiency would do it. Once We have begun to reduce our fossil fuel consumption, then we would have the moral standing to begin talking to India and China about their carbon emissions (btw – China already has tighter fuel efficiency and emissions standards than we do). Clean energy technology is the growth industry of the near future. Only saps and suckers wouldn’t be investing there. Nuclear Power plants are soooo last century… geeez
@25 Oops – my formatting bad, the last paragraph shouldn’t be one big line.
Why is it so important that I agree with the basic premise, that we are in a major warming trend, and that it is caused by human activity? I’m just trying to figure out what your solutions are, and whether they are worse than the problem, or possibly reasonable steps that make sense either way.
My problem with global warming adherents isn’t the diagnosis. It is the draconian measures proposed to deal with it. The far left and sociali$ts seem to think this is an excuse to impose their collectivist vision on the rest of the world. Conservation is great, but not if it means going backward in human progress.
The increased CO2 levels are extremely beneficial for the world, if you disregard whatever global warming effect they may have. All plants grow faster when the CO2 level increases — including food plants. This is a major contributor to increased crop yields over the last 100 to 200 years.
If AlGore’s theory of global warming is correct, we are screwed anyway. We would have to reduce the fossil fuel burning to close to ZERO in order to keep the CO2 levels from rises. I don’t mean keeping carbon fuel burning from increasing from the present level of about 7 billion tons a year. I mean reducing it all the way down to about 500 million to 1 billion tons a year.
Yes, there is some equilibrium effect that will absorb excess CO2 over time. The oceans will absorb more if atmosphere levels of CO2 rise. And more plant growth will occur, absorbing some into organic material.
However, anything more than a fraction of our current fossil fuel burning will increase the CO2 level in the atmosphere. At a slower rate of course, but the level will still increase.
In addition, AlGore says that our global temperatures are ALREADY high enough to melt most of Greenland and much of Antarctica.
If AlGore is correct, then we would have to completely stop burning fossil fuels so that the CO2 level can actually go down.
Otherwise, it is already too late.
Hey, Richard, don’t let common sense and facts get in your way.
#
The increased CO2 levels are extremely beneficial for the world, if you disregard whatever global warming effect they may have.
I think that’s a big if. Is the flooding and increased storms worth the greater growth rate for plants?
Here’s something to think about.
The earth’s atmosphere is about 380 parts per million of CO2.
Venus has an atmosphere that is 97% CO2. Its pressure is 90 times that of Earth. When adjusted for Venus having slightly less gravity and for CO2 weighing a lot more than O2 or N2, this means there are 64 times as many CO2 molecules in Venus’ atmosphere as there are total molecules in Earth’s atmosphere.
In other words, Venus has approximately 168,000 times more CO2 in its atmosphere than does the Earth.
The average surface temperature on Earth is about 15C and on Venus is about 400C.
Let’s suppose that Venus’ higher temperature is due solely to the greenhouse effect of all that CO2, and not because Venus is closer to the sun.
If we double the present level of CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere, that would make the Earth’s temperature get 1/168,000 closer to that of Venus. There is a 385C difference in temperature between the Earth and Venus.
Therefore, doubling the present level of CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere should make the average temperature on Earth rise approximately 0.0023C.
yeah, yeah..it’s written by one of those evil, stupid (can one actually be evil AND stupid at the same time?… just wondering) conservative jerks…. get over it… it doesn’t change the INCONVENIENT FACTS
Al Gore does not believe in) The Sun of God
Who, besides Al Gore, would be surprised that Mars’ ice caps are shrinking? And how about this: Jupiter is brewing up new, monster, hurricane-like storms because of measured increases in Jovian temperatures. Why is it I don’t believe “greenhouse gases” are at fault?
Here’s the deal, one of God’s great creations – the Sun – is going through another one of its on-again, off-again solar cycles. Sometimes it burns a little brighter, other times it emits a little less energy. The result? Every planet in our solar system either gets a little warmer or cooler depending on our sole energy source. The massive furnace in the center of our solar system is pretty consistent, but it isn’t perfectly constant.
Earth’s scientists have determined that every globe, I mean, every planet, in the solar system is currently experiencing a warming trend – including Earth. I was surfing the Internet recently and came across two fascinating articles from Space.com. The first headline reads, ”New Storm on Jupiter Hints at Climate Change.” Here’s what planetary scientists have discovered:
Little is known about how storms form on the giant planet. They are often described as behaving similar to hurricanes on Earth. Some astronomers believe that the spots dredge up material deep below Jupiter’s clouds and lift it to where the Sun’s ultraviolet light chemically alters it to give it a red hue.
The latest images could provide evidence that Jupiter is in the midst of a global change that can modify temperatures by as much as 10 degrees Fahrenheit on different parts of the globe. The study was led jointly by Imke de Pater and Philip Marcus of University of California, Berkeley.
”The storm is growing in altitude,” de Pater said. ”Before when they were just ovals they didn’t stick out above the clouds. Now they are rising.”
”This growth signals a temperature increase in that region,” she said. “Of course it signals a temperature increase. Of course it signals a temperature increase. When temperatures rise, gases rise. Clouds (made up of gases) rise. This is basic physics.”
The other article was written several years ago. The thrust of this scientific writing was Mars’ ice caps have been observed to be shrinking.
Here’s a quick Martian weather report:
In the other study, led by Michael C. Malin, features at the South Pole were observed to retreat by up to 10 feet (3 meters) from one Martian year to the next. The odd shapes – circular pits, ridges and mounds – were first photographed in 1999. Since then, the features have eroded away by up to 50 percent. Two good, straight-forward science articles that prove Jupiter and Mars are warming. No politics to get bogged down in. No agendas to sort out. Simple facts: Temperatures on Jupiter and Mars are rising.
Now, is anyone surprised the Earth is also experiencing a warming trend? Please, I’m begging you; tell me why these articles weren’t splashed across the front pages of every newspaper in the country? Aren’t these scientific observations shocking considering the massive amounts of press, television specials, radio broadcasts, classroom time, and dining room conversations this country has devoted to the misnomer, ”global warming”? The most prominent news story on the planet Earth in the new millennium has been that man and his evil combustion engine have begun the cooking of the planet by the suffocating amounts of carbon dioxide – a (GASP!) greenhouse gas – we’ve pumped into our atmosphere.
Fast fact: Did you know when the Earth was in the grips of one of its great Ice Ages, carbon dioxide levels were significantly higher than they are today? (OOPS.now there’s an inconvenient fact!)
Take a deep breath. All is well. Our climate has changed due to the efforts of the Sun of God, not people like the son of Senator Al Gore, Sr.
Why not put the guilt trip back in the closet? Why not let yourself off the hook? We have discovered one of God’s great creations, the Sun, is throwing off a little more energy these days and warming all the planets in our solar system. That’s worthy of a global celebration, right?
And, with the information we now have, can we get rid of the phrase, ”global warming,” and start using the more appropriate, ”solar warming”?
Look, the Sun of God is an unimaginably powerful furnace. Take a moment to learn a little bit about the closest star to the Earth and re-educate yourself about how tiny and insignificant we are. It will also help when politicians and those with a purely political agenda stop scaring us with the threat of imminent death as a result of man-made global warming.
Just for kicks, next time one of these hysterical, science-challenged scare-mongers spews their voo-doo environmentalism your way, ask them if they know what the No. 1 greenhouse gas is. It is water vapor. Let me repeat that so you don’t forget. Water vapor, not carbon dioxide, is, by far, the most prevalent of all the greenhouse gasses. Water vapor! In fact, water vapor accounts for about 95 % of the greenhouse effect on our planet.
Why doesn’t everyone know this?
Why not teach science, instead of political hysteria in our schools?
The Sun of God, not the by-products of man’s combustion engines, is responsible for the mild increases in temperature on Earth, Mars and Jupiter. And that’s only inconvenient to Al Gore, Jr.
oh darn… I forgot the quotation marks to appease the anal.
Venus sounds like a wonderful place, if you happen to be a fireproof coleus.
Well, let’s do a little “thinking outside the box” here.
For one thing, fire’s fire. Whatever the fuel, if it’s organic, it’ll use up oxygen and make carbon dioxide. So…if the activities of Man are really the principal driver for climate change, the only way we’re going to turn things around is to stop burning ANYTHING….RIGHT NOW, DAMMIT!
Another way to look at things is to put both denial and search for blame aside and admit that there seems to be evidence that SOMETHING is happening. The glaciers in Greenland, the Arctic ice pack and the Ross Ice Shelf are all shrinking, and damned fast at that. Whether the cause of that has anything to do with us or not, it would seem to behoove us to be ready to adapt to some alterations in the world around us.
Man, in his supreme egotism, still seems to want to believe he’s the most powerful force…or that the Almighty has given him “dominion”. Beyond a certain point, standing up and yelling at the wind to blow the way you want it to is at best silly, and at worst, catastrophic.
In other words, Venus has approximately 168,000 times more CO2 in its atmosphere than does the Earth.
Yes. And Venus is a dead planet. Should we continue trying to make the earth like venus?
Here’s how liberals can help stop rising ocean levels and also reduce carbon levels in the atmosphere.
Urine is mostly water and also contains urea. When you pee, these substances usually make their way back into the environment. Water goes back into the ocean. Urea is metabolized by microorganisms and releases carbon dioxide and methane — greenhouse gasses.
Liberals need to save their plastic soft drink (and water bottles) with those screw on tops. Pee into these bottles, instead of the toilet or backyard. Screw the tops back on. Store the bottles in your apartment or condo.
This way, liberals can take water and carbon out of the environment and combat both rising ocean levels and greenhouse gasses.
Global climate change. Insurance. Mike McGavick! That’s it. That’s the issue he can run on. Mike will pledge to stop global warming so our policies won’t be cancelled. Mike will save the day. (What else has he got to run on? “Hi everybody. I was Slade Gorton’s towel boy.” He’s already alienated the footballers.)
Gree Thumb says: Nope, Janet, you aren’t going to get away with that dodge. As long as you deny the overwhelming scientific concensus that the planet is experiencing an unprecedented building in human-caused greenhouse gases then we cannot have an intelligent discussion about possible courses of action.
So far you have not proven yourself to be an honest debater. Instead, you have played manipulative rhetorical games.
One more time with feeling: Janet, shame on you.
Commentby Green Thumb— 6/19/06@ 8:31 pm
Green Thumb: Even the French believe in nuclear energy. The leftist morons called the greenies and the sierra club are AGAINST clean energy. So how DARE you require a simpleton “yes” answer from Janet S when your side acts idiotic to any alternative methods!!! Wake up you leftist pinheads and tell US (not U.S.) how you plan to cause “temperature reversal”? I don’t expect to view answers just innuendo and frontal attacks on my entry. Why? The dr e’s and dj have no answer and they are your learned people here. I support nuclear energy. They don’t!
I agree with Gore’s premises, yet I dislike the hypocrisy of many leftwing elites on such issues. If I remember correctly: To reduce sprawl (and pollution/global warming), Gore wishes for the bulk of us to live in tall, shanty tenements. Yet, will he and like-minded elites move to such dwellings?–Hell, no! They’ll continue to live on multi-acre spreads in Martha’s vineyard near their rich conservative “opponents”–twins of different mothers…. This is why I didn’t vote for him. Nevertheless, I don’t think such a person as he should live in a hovel–I just wish he would afford us the same courtesy.
Knowing cheapo building contractors and lax government concern, such tenements would not have elvators–this will not be acceptable for our aging population.
Unfortunately, the issues are not all that simple–the circles intersect.
MWS – You’re not with it, d00d. It’s “nukular power”.
I’d be careful after O’Reilly tells you it’s OK to have a glass of French wine.
Pope, does YOUR kid read this crap you’re posting? Fill up your own bottles. Jeez.
Yeah….what is it that makes Republican pee any different from Democrat pee?
Geoffrey Morrison @ 53:
Shanty tennements?
Excuse me?
Walk, bike, bus, train, or carpool up here to Vancouver and I’ll take you on a tour of the “shanty tennements” in False Creek and Coal Harbour. You can’t afford them, but it might be enlightening to see how the half you’d like to join lives.
Knowing cheapo building contractors and lax government concern, such tenements would not have elvators–this will not be acceptable for our aging population.
1) Most modern buildings have elevators.
2) Developers are in business to make money. When you look at the people who are purchasing expensive properties, they are not young families. A lot of the purchasers are older people who are “downsizing”. A developer who produces condos above the 300K mark will put in elevators due to plain and simple market demands.
Rich liberals have resort homes. Rich conservatives have resort homes. Rich European billionaires have resort homes. Rich Asian billionaires have resort homes. Rich people buy land. What is your point?
One of the richest people I know owns a nice resort house on the beach in Northern Taiwan. He also owns a very nice apartment in a Taipei high-rise, another one in Guangzhou, and a cottage out in BF, Ontario. He works out of his apartments, and goes to the vacation homes on the weekend, holidays, whatever.
Is it “hypocrisy” that he owns a nice vacation home? I think not.
I don’t want to accuse people of trolling, but your article hits so many keywords I can’t help but wonder if you’re working off a tip sheet, or if you’ve just listened to way more talk radio than is possibly healthy.
I am not Geoffrey Morrison.
Geoffrey Morrison is also not Geoffrey Morrison.
There is no Geoffrey Morrison. He does not exist.
I am Jeremy Anderson. ;-)
Just too good to miss.
Bernie Ward smacks down wingnut talk show host.