Artic Sea Ice

[J. J. Hunsecker]

Originally Posted by Rob71

Invent, create, the man taking credit for something he had little to no influence over is laughable. I guess since congress is going to force standards on car companies the next batch of presidential hopefuls will claim to have designed cars for Detroit.

From the same Snopes.com article: Clearly, although Gore's phrasing might have been a bit clumsy (and perhaps self-serving), he was not claiming that he "invented" the Internet (in the sense of having designed or implemented it), but that he was responsible, in an economic and legislative sense, for fostering the development the technology that we now know as the Internet. To claim that Gore was seriously trying to take credit for the "invention" of the Internet is, frankly, just silly political posturing that arose out of a close presidential campaign. Gore never used the word "invent," and the words "create" and "invent" have distinctly different meanings — the former is used in the sense of "to bring about" or "to bring into existence" while the latter is generally used to signify the first instance of someone's thinking up or implementing an idea. (To those who say the words "create" and "invent" mean exactly the same thing, we have to ask why, then, the media overwhelmingly and consistently cited Gore as having claimed he "invented" the Internet, even though he never used that word, and transcripts of what he actually said were readily available.)

[J. J. Hunsecker]

Originally Posted by quirkmanly

I was suggesting that Al Gore travelling on a private jet that has a capacity of 12 people and uses 1 gallon of fuel per mile is less ecologically friendly than travelling on a 747, which uses 5 gallons of fuel/mile and can accommodate 450 passengers.

Of course, I can't confirm the number of cabin crew on these flights, so you'll probably discount it out of hand.

From a decidedly pro Al Gore site: "Al Gore flies commercial whenever possible. He is also an ex Vice President of the United States and receives numerous threats. Depending upon the security assessment and his schedule he is sometimes precluded from flying commercial."

Also mentioned on the site is that Gore drives a hybrid, has recently installed solar panels on his roof, buys carbon offsets, etc., etc. In other words, he practices what he preaches, so you don't need to keep attacking the messenger.

[J. J. Hunsecker]

Originally Posted by camper

Write a research paper and quote Wikipedia. See where that gets you in academic circles, or at least ones beyond community college or high school. And since the articles in question are where the 'meat' of the wikipedia entry comes from, and it would be 'so easy' to look them up, then it would be just as easy for someone defending their position to quote the known legitimate source (such as newsweek) rather than one that has a reputation of being an online encyclopedia that "anyone can edit".



Read Crichton's bio, and you'll see his extensive credentials. He was also an MD and a biologist, which are both *gasp* withn the realm of science. Applied science, specifically. Sure, he was also a fiction writer but if you're going to discount him due to that then you'll have to diminish Sagan's credentials because he wrote a fiction novel as well.

But the point of his essay being (since you obviously didn't read it) that there is no vetting process with these climate scientists--those who believe in man-made global warming, are the only ones who are verfying the findings and any research that may prove those findings as innacurate are immediately dismissed because they do not agree with the theory of man-made global warming.

You're attitude towards Crichton's opinion sums up theirs perfectly--you're ready to dismiss whatever Crichton said because of of him being writer and not based on the challenges he presented. Which is (again, if you read it you'd know) what the essay is really about.

camper

If you would have scrolled down the page on the Wikipedia article I linked to, you would have seen the links to the information the article gleaned from. Here are just a few of the links from the Wikipedia article. Check them out for yourself:
^ Adams, David (2005-01-27). "Oil firms fund climate change 'denial'". The Guardian. Retrieved on 2007-08-03.
^ a b Adams, David (2006-09-20). "Royal Society tells Exxon: stop funding climate change denial". The Guardian. Retrieved on 2007-08-02.
^ Gelbspan, Ross (December 1995). "The heat is on: The warming of the world's climate sparks a blaze of denial". Harper’s Magazine. Retrieved on 2007-08-02.
^ a b c d e f g h i Begley., Sharon (2007-08-07). "The Truth About Denial". Newsweek.
^ Monbiot, George (2006-09-19). "The denial industry". Guardian Unlimited.


About Chrichton: a medical doctor and biologist is not the same as one who studies climatology and atmospheric science. Therefore, Crichton's educational background holds no water in this debate.

Carl Sagan was an astronomer, but at least on one occasion his work involved the study of atmosphere: Venus' temperature, and that its high temperatures was caused by a "greenhouse effect," in which the sun's heat was trapped between the planet's surface and its carbon dioxide cloud cover.

[quirkmanly]

Originally Posted by J. J. Hunsecker

From a decidedly pro Al Gore site: "Al Gore flies commercial whenever possible. He is also an ex Vice President of the United States and receives numerous threats. Depending upon the security assessment and his schedule he is sometimes precluded from flying commercial."

Also mentioned on the site is that Gore drives a hybrid, has recently installed solar panels on his roof, buys carbon offsets, etc., etc. In other words, he practices what he preaches, so you don't need to keep attacking the messenger.

I didn't attack him so please don't accuse me of that, I merely pointed out an inconsistency.

[petenad]

I find alot of bad comments on poor old Al Gore. Alot of people in here don't live in the states and outside your borders it's been unanimously decided that it's happening by a large group of international scientists. Not sure what Al Gore has to do with any of it? Mind you I still drive my car and do my part in warming this part of the world.
http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/
I attached this because it has some interesting stuff.

[GaS]

Originally Posted by petenad

I find alot of bad comments on poor old Al Gore. Alot of people in here don't live in the states and outside your borders it's been unanimously decided that it's happening by a large group of international scientists. Not sure what Al Gore has to do with any of it? Mind you I still drive my car and do my part in warming this part of the world.
http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/
I attached this because it has some interesting stuff.

It has also been decided unanimously by a just as large group of scientists that it isn't happening and whatever changes were are seeing are cyclical and natural.

[J. J. Hunsecker]

A minor correction: "It has also been decided unanimously by a just as large group of scientists -- who have been funded by the oil industry -- that it isn't happening and whatever changes were are seeing are cyclical and natural."

[J. J. Hunsecker]

Originally Posted by quirkmanly

I didn't attack him so please don't accuse me of that, I merely pointed out an inconsistency.

C'mon, just admit it. You were using that "inconsistancy" to paint the man as a hypocrite (which, as I pointed out, he isn't). There is an inference that if he is a hypocrite then he isn't serious about his message of the real threat of Global Warming, and we shouldn't be worried about it either. By ridiculing Gore's personality instead of seriously debating his message, one can make the message look foolish, too.

Look, I didn't vote for the guy but I still feel it's wrong to try and smear him as some holier-than-thou hypocrite, when he in fact practices what he preaches and doesn't ask others to make major changes in their lifestyles, either. Some people here are unwilling to look beyond their own political noses, though.

[quirkmanly]

Originally Posted by J. J. Hunsecker

C'mon, just admit it. You were using that "inconsistancy" to paint the man as a hypocrite (which, as I pointed out, he isn't). There is an inference that if he is a hypocrite then he isn't serious about his message of the real threat of Global Warming, and we shouldn't be worried about it either. By ridiculing Gore's personality instead of seriously debating his message, one can make the message look foolish, too.

Look, I didn't vote for the guy but I still feel it's wrong to try and smear him as some holier-than-thou hypocrite, when he in fact practices what he preaches and doesn't ask others to make major changes in their lifestyles, either. Some people here are unwilling to look beyond their own political noses, though.

You couldn't be more wrong about my intentions, but you go ahead and see what you want, I really couldn't give a rat's arse.

[petenad]

Originally Posted by quirkmanly

You couldn't be more wrong about my intentions, but you go ahead and see what you want, I really couldn't give a rat's arse.

And that my friend is an attitude that must change

[J. J. Hunsecker]

Originally Posted by Rob71

"Private planes, take for instance your typical commercial jet, a Boeing 737, well, it seats a maximum of 189 people, it burns 800 gallons of fuel per hour and emits 16,880 pounds of carbon dioxide per hour in the air. Now take a Gulfstream 400, one of the more common brands of private jet. Well, it seats a maximum of only 19 people, it burns 415 gallons of fuel an hour and emits 8,785 pounds of carbon dioxide per hour. That means per passenger a Boeing 737 emits 89 pounds of carbon dioxide an hour while Gulfstream and similar private jets emit 462 pounds of carbon dioxide per passenger per hour."

Taken from Sean Hannity, so I know it's not true.

I have no idea how much fuel commercial and private jets use. This site was the only one I could find that listed the fuel used relative to the amount of CO2 released into the air. It's seems to contradict your pal Sean Hannity who, most people would agree, is rather biased.

[Blu-ray Neo]

Originally Posted by DrinkMore

Oh man, that is downright hilarious! A government conspiracy to keep you down? BWAHAHAHA! Please, don't share that with anyone else. Nobody will take you seriously afterwards.

Really? Is it totally impossible?


The US Government knew Agent Orange caused cancer, but used it anyway.

http://www.2ndbattalion94thartillery...Discussion.htm


A British expert knew Agent Orange caused cancer, but was paid to keep his mouth shut.

http://www.shortnews.com/start.cfm?id=58874


The US Government administered large doses of radiation to US service personnel to study it's effects.

http://www.hss.energy.gov/healthsafe...new/index.html

http://www.mapcruzin.com/rev_governm...cret_tests.htm


The US Government directly injected citizens/service personnel with plutonium.

http://library.lanl.gov/cgi-bin/getfile?23-09.pdf

http://www.whale.to/b/plutonium.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_r...on_experiments

[Rob71]

Originally Posted by J. J. Hunsecker

I have no idea how much fuel commercial and private jets use. This site was the only one I could find that listed the fuel used relative to the amount of CO2 released into the air. It's seems to contradict your pal Sean Hannity who, most people would agree, is rather biased.

Small, private jet pollutes 4x per person more than airliner. Check.

Also Algore not only loves to pollute with his air travel, he also loves doing it from the comfort of his very own home.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/house.asp

I'm growing weary of this little game. Can we just agree that Al Gore is like most of us? He cares about the environment, but he has a comfort level that he is not willing to compromise. Which doesn't make him a bad person.

[U4K61]

Back to Arctic Sea Ice

[U4K61]

The discussion has been great!

This thread addresses an anomaly by trying to be as objective as possible. We might be the culprit, but perhaps we are just witnessing one of natures' natural variations as history is full of such examples. One view has it that the relative temperature stability of the 10,000 year Holocene, the period we are living in, is drawing to a close, to be replaced by a more volatile climate. Many postulate it enabled civilization, and our use of the earth, especially from agriculture, actually stabilized the climate. On the other hand, "the profligate burning of fossil fuels during the past two hundred has restarted the tipping mechanisms that can upset things again"
(The Long Emergency).

Climate change policy must consider cause and effect, where everything we do has a consequence. Modern industrial civilization has generated considerable wealth but has depleted many non-renewable resources. Our charge to go green can be tempered by rasing costs for goods and services and increasing poverty. The CO2 tax can raise the price of fuel and food so the poorest can not afford it, leading some into starvation and negating a well intioned climate policy.




The Quixotic Charge for Green and Renewable Ethanol:

"Producing first generation ethanol from corn is a mistake"

“It is not a good policy to have these massive subsidies for first-generation ethanol,” Al Gore told a gathering of clean energy financiers in Greece this week. The benefits of ethanol are “trivial,” he added, but “It’s hard once such a program is put in place to deal with the lobbies that keep it going.”
No kidding, and Mr. Gore said he knows from experience: “One of the reasons I made that mistake is that I paid particular attention to the farmers in my home state of Tennessee, and I had a certain fondness for the farmers in the state of Iowa because I was about to run for President.”

The Wall St Journal

The measure used to calculate the energy required to produce energy is Energy Return on Investment (EROI). the Renewable Fuel Asociation places ethanol from corn at 1.6 where gasoline is 5. But this is only part of the story. By 2012, we will have the capacity to produce 12 billion gallons, but will consume 48 billion gallons of water for the production process, plus an amount to grow the crop, giving a total of between 1,700 - 2,500 gallons of water for each gallon of ethanol. This gives a grand total of 1.7 - 2.5 trillion gallons to produce the government mandated 12 billion gallons of ethanol. Did they figure in the energy needed to pump all that water out of the ground? Got to love that law of diminishing returns: more work for less energy. Source: Unquenchable, Robert Glennon, p54-55




Back to Arctic Sea Ice

[Uniquely]

Originally Posted by Blu-ray Neo

Really? Is it totally impossible?


The US Government knew Agent Orange caused cancer, but used it anyway.

http://www.2ndbattalion94thartillery...Discussion.htm


A British expert knew Agent Orange caused cancer, but was paid to keep his mouth shut.

http://www.shortnews.com/start.cfm?id=58874


The US Government administered large doses of radiation to US service personnel to study it's effects.

http://www.hss.energy.gov/healthsafe...new/index.html

http://www.mapcruzin.com/rev_governm...cret_tests.htm


The US Government directly injected citizens/service personnel with plutonium.

http://library.lanl.gov/cgi-bin/getfile?23-09.pdf

http://www.whale.to/b/plutonium.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_r...on_experiments

The US Government experimented on poor black sharecroppers who had syphillis. Instead of giving the men penicillin shots to cure it.... they were told they had a blood disease for which they were receiving FREE treatment. The men were then left to die from an easily curable disease so that their bodies could be studied. Nothing the government does or doesn't do surprises me.

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/bhmtuskegee1.html

[Forrestandjen07]

were all going to mars neway

[plowmanjoe]

Originally Posted by Rob71

Small, private jet pollutes 4x per person more than airliner. Check.

Also Algore not only loves to pollute with his air travel, he also loves doing it from the comfort of his very own home.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/house.asp

I'm growing weary of this little game. Can we just agree that Al Gore is like most of us? He cares about the environment, but he has a comfort level that he is not willing to compromise. Which doesn't make him a bad person.

everyone please go to this link, http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/house.asp

[U4K61]

2009 April

April rate of Arctic Sea Ice decline was the third slowest on record.

It was also reported on February 18, there was an understimation of up to 500,000 square kilometers of sea ice due to sensor drift. Meaning there was more ice then what the data was showing, though much of this is thin first-year non-perennial ice. And London England had its first October snow in more then 80 years, Baghdad, its first ever...

However, it also important to note the ten hottest years:
01 - 2005
02 - 1998
03 - 2002
04 - 2003
05 - 2007
06 - 2006
07 - 2004
08 - 2001
09 - 1997
10 - 1995
Source: WorldWatch.Org

NASA | Taking Earth's Temperature 4:00
NASA | 2009 Tied For Second Hottest Year 2:31
Earth temperature surface since 1884 0:33





Back to Arctic Sea Ice

[mikejet]

Shouldn't we be more worried about ice melting in the Antartic continent rather than the North Pole? I mean technically, the ice at the North Pole is all floating therefore if it melts the waters won't rise. If the South Poles Ice were to melt, where all that ice is on land, then we should be worried.