Monday, February 26, 2007
|
|
Inconvenient Al Guzzles More Electricity Than 20 Average Right-Wing Climate-Change Deniers
|
|
Posted by:
Mary Katharine Ham at
6:26 PM
|
|
The Tennessee Policy Center caught him at it: Last night, Al Gore’s global-warming documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, collected an Oscar for best documentary feature, but the Tennessee Center for Policy Research has found that Gore deserves a gold statue for hypocrisy.
Gore’s mansion, [20-room, eight-bathroom] located in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville, consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, according to the Nashville Electric Service (NES).
In his documentary, the former Vice President calls on Americans to conserve energy by reducing electricity consumption at home.
The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWh—more than 20 times the national average.
Last August alone, Gore burned through 22,619 kWh—guzzling more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year. As a result of his energy consumption, Gore’s average monthly electric bill topped $1,359.
Since the release of An Inconvenient Truth, Gore’s energy consumption has increased from an average of 16,200 kWh per month in 2005, to 18,400 kWh per month in 2006.
Gore’s extravagant energy use does not stop at his electric bill. Natural gas bills for Gore’s mansion and guest house averaged $1,080 per month last year.
“As the spokesman of choice for the global warming movement, Al Gore has to be willing to walk to walk, not just talk the talk, when it comes to home energy use,” said Tennessee Center for Policy Research President Drew Johnson.
In total, Gore paid nearly $30,000 in combined electricity and natural gas bills for his Nashville estate in 2006. The accolades will continue unabated, of course. Lefties get credit for "bringing attention" and "starting dialogues." They don't have to actually do anything that produces results.
|
|
|
gonna have a lot of fun bringing up this little tidbit. It'll fall on deaf ears, but... |
|
|
the blatant hypocrisy of the liberal left. Now if only someone can get Gore's jet fuel and limo gas bills to add to all the "Gore hot air." |
|
If you go back 175 years, right there in Gore's neighborhood of Belle Meade, they used fewer coal-fired steam-engines because their plantations had lots of people doing the work of the machines--slaves. Maybe Gore is dividing his carbon footprint over the last two centuries.
/end sarcasm |
|
|
Hey, come on....give this guy a break. He probably used all that electricity while inventing the internet. And as far as (gas) heat is concerned, where do you think he gets all that hot air? |
|
|
Great post. Nothing better than exposing the abject stupidity of the libstooges. |
|
here is a discussion between me and a liberal on another (sports-related) board I frequent. Screennames have been omitted to protect the ignorant.
-------------------------------------------------
After posting the article...
Him: It would be interesting to see what some of Gore's neighbors pay...you know...the ones in his neighborhood that presumably live in mansions too.
Comparing what Gore pays for his mansion to what the average household pays is like comparing apples to oranges.
tdau1997: Really not the point, _____.
Him: Sure it is. Your dislike of Gore isn't allowing you to see that the author is comparing apples to oranges.
Heating and cooling a mansion is going to cost a lot more than heating and cooling an average American house (hint for you...compare square footage!). So yes he is going to pay more and use more energy. Comparing the two is disingenuous. I would think you could see that. I guess not.
tdau1997: Yes, I know that heating a mansion costs more than heating a regular house. I also know that taking a private jet burns more than driving an SUV. Wonder how many of the folks in his neighborhood go around making documentaries lamenting the human race's inefficient usage of natural resources while burning more power in a month than most homes do in a year? It's called hypocrisy. That's where my dislike comes in. It's the principle of the thing. Just like John Edwards' estate as he laments the Two America's he likes to campaign on. "Do as I say, not as I do" is a philosophy these guys are fond of, and I hope most folks can see that this really chips away at their credibility. If you want to enact change, then that change should start with you. Don't b&!^& about a problem that you are contributing to in a major way.
-------------------------------------------------
Haven't heard back from him and don't expect to. It seems like an indefensible position. |
|
In Canada a senior advisor to then-Prime Minister Jean Chrétien admitted the other day, ""I believe that the signing of the Kyoto accord in the face of vigorous opposition served to galvanize public opinion to bring it to where it is today in Canada," said Goldenberg, who served as Chrétien's chief of staff in 2003. "In the long run, that will be far more important than whether we can meet all the short term deadlines in the accord."
http://www.macleans.ca/canada/national/article.jsp?content=20070223_100209_4440
Note what Tasha Kheiriddin said in the comments. |
|
The farmers like the idea that they can fuel their machinery off of unprofitable crops like cotton and soy.
Twin turbo diesels like running on what they were originally intended to run on.
|
|
|
America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year Gore paid nearly $30,000 in combined electricity |
|
The lack of good science and the profound logical fallacies of Gore et. al. continue to amuse; the carbon dioxide emissions being the latest. Assuming a strong correlation between co2 levels and global temperatures(yet to be demonstrated strongly), causation may well be the other way. Global warming (from cyclical solar and sun spot activity) may well lead to increased co2 producing biomass and thus explain any correlation, strong or weak.
|
|
|
America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year Gore paid nearly $30,000 in combined electricity |
|
|
America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year Gore paid nearly $30,000 in combined electricity |
|
|
...it's what they believe that's important. It's the environmentalist version of salvation by grace. Gore's energy-hogging mansion; his many, many trips by private jet to preach the gospel of global warming--none of it means anything. If you believe hard enough in the socially fashionable truth, your own actions, no matter how hypocritical, melt away. |
|
|
average of 16,200 kWh per month in 2005, to 18,400 kWh per month in 2006. |
|
I am sure it never crossed the fool's mind he would have to modify his lifestyle. Or it did and he couldn't have cared less, he has an audience to perform for.
Gore is truly a despicable hypocrit. |
|
Okay, Gore is a hypocrite and doesn't do enough to reduce his emissions.
Now, does the right wing agree with the scientific consensus on global warming? Hello? Hello?
|
|
"Now, does the right wing agree with the scientific consensus on global warming? Hello? Hello?"
consensus =/= fact
and if it was GLOBAL warming, then you'd have to expect that everywhere on the GLOBE would actually be .. you know ... warming o.O |
|
"Now, does the right wing agree with the scientific consensus on global warming? Hello? Hello?"
Nope. Not due to human intervention, anyway. Doesn't mean I don't think human's shouldn't try to take care of the environment. Google global cooling to see how faddish this stuff is.
|
|
If you figure that Americans contribute most to gloabl warming (such as it is), because of technology, doesn't this put Owlgore in the top 1% of causes of global warming?
I wonder how much fuel John Edwards' new arena, I mean house, burns through each year? |
|
|
I don't believe in it because of the holes in the models, but if I did, it seems the obvious solution is to get rid of Owlgore, John Edwards, Babs, and every rich celebrity with big houses and pools. |
|
Folks like Al Gore are global warmings' worst enemy. By focusing on ONLY ONE of the causes of global warming (that being man), Al and the rest of his ilk do an injustice to the actual science of the problem. And as an end product, they alienate many that would be willing to listen because the political beliefs of the left are so intertwined with the tunnel vision causes and effects of their so-called scientific findings and recommendations.
Global warming actually has at least four other non-manmade potential causes that get nearly zero press time from Algorites. We in the scientific community then stop listening because we dont want to listen to folks using global warming as a tool to achieve a desired political end result. |
|
As if computer models are the only evidence for AGW.
"and if it was GLOBAL warming, then you'd have to expect that everywhere on the GLOBE would actually be .. you know ... warming o.O"
Oh, boy. Yes, if America is getting richer it means every single person is getting richer. lol.
|
|
"Global warming actually has at least four other non-manmade potential causes that get nearly zero press time from Algorites."
What are you talking about? You don't think climatologists have looked at all possible causes? CO2 is the dominant driver of the current warming, especially the past 50 years. If you really are a scientist you can read the 2001 IPCC report or the new one due out in May.
|
|
four other non-manmade potential causes that get nearly zero press..."
If Gore continues on his current pace, he may be contributing in another unhealthy way - to the bovine emissions problem... |
|
What the heck do you think creates the conditions for Co2 increases?? There are many climatologists that dont let politics color their judgements that understand that man is most likely NOT the only contributor to the present global warming phase. The climatologists and other scientists from various fields I know at least understand they only have 0.00000005% of the earth's total climactic record to base their conclusions on. I had a Physics professor in college once tell me that if I claimed that I had proven a theory with this level of data aquisition, that he would fail us on the next experiment.
Boris, there is no question the earth is getting warmer in the last 50 years. There is no question that period of time is but a flash of a light bulb in geologic time. I can cite nearly countless times in the geologic past where we have had NON-MANMADE increases in earth's global temps. I will not try to convince you about all the NATURAL CAUSES of global warming (which by the way conversely cause global cooling, cyclically). Suffice it to say, we should do what we can to reduce Co2 emissions. But we dont need politicians USING GLOBAL WARMING to achieve their political goals.
By the way, I am a geologist. |
|
|
The bathrooms should outnumber every other room in the house after all when someone is so full of it like he is a moment is precious and waiting to use a facility is not an option! He forgot to mention that part of the warming is the hot air he emits from both ends. |
|
Big fat Algore (not mean -- he is big and he is fat) has some explaining to do, but he'll never be able to do it. Like nearly all leftist leaders, he says one thing and does another. Once again, it appears SOME are more equal than OTHERS.
AND I'm wondering if Boris Q was jumping on the GLOBAL COOLING bandwagon back when that was popular with the lefties. What about it Boris??? Fess up. |
|
Owlgore = Conserver of Energy
Logically following, the next thing we should expect is:
Clinton = Marriage Counselor
It's a coin toss which one would be funnier. At least with Slick Willie, he's not telling everyone else to be faithful. |
|
Chew on this...
The 4,000-square-foot house is a model of environmental rectitude.
Geothermal heat pumps located in a central closet circulate water through pipes buried 300 feet deep in the ground where the temperature is a constant 67 degrees; the water heats the house in the winter and cools it in the summer. Systems such as the one in this "eco-friendly" dwelling use about 25% of the electricity that traditional heating and cooling systems utilize.
A 25,000-gallon underground cistern collects rainwater gathered from roof runs; wastewater from sinks, toilets and showers goes into underground purifying tanks and is also funneled into the cistern. The water from the cistern is used to irrigate the landscaping surrounding the four-bedroom home. Plants and flowers native to the high prairie area blend the structure into the surrounding ecosystem.
No, this is not the home of some eccentrically wealthy eco-freak trying to shame his fellow citizens into following the pristineness of his self-righteous example. And no, it is not the wilderness retreat of the Sierra Club or the Natural Resources Defense Council, a haven where tree-huggers plot political strategy.
This is President George W. Bush's "Texas White House" outside the small town of Crawford.
http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0429-03.htm |
|
|
But you don't understand logic. Making speeches about global warming while contributing WAY more than your share to it is okay. Installing energy-saving devices while not making speeches is bad. It's all about how much you care. Ask any liberal. |
|
|
;-) This the funnest topic ever. |
|
|
I read that whole article, and it is more liberal raving. He devotes a sentence or two talking about the house. The rest is a snide diatribe about how bad his environmental policies are. It's the typical liberal template: Anything GW Bush does is bad, period. |
|
|
Though there is a link on Fox and Drudge about Owlgore's mansion, there is NOT A WORD about it on Clinton News Network.com. Hmmm... |
|
and the fact that he doesn't make a big deal about his efeiciency contribution wouldn't even register with these people.
"He devotes a sentence or two talking about the house. The rest is a snide diatribe about how bad his environmental policies are." |
|
|
|
"AND I'm wondering if Boris Q was jumping on the GLOBAL COOLING bandwagon back when that was popular with the lefties. What about it Boris??? Fess up."
Yawn. Was there a scientific consensus on global cooling? Name one scientific body who said that global cooling was an immediate problem. (Hint: Newsweek doesn't count).
But today, every scientific body that studies the climate has issued statments and positions on AGW: AGU, EPA, NOAA, National Academies of Science, Royal society, the IPCC--composed of 2,500 climatologists and Earth scientists...Need I go on, because I could.
So, which is it? Are you guys donning the tinfoil hat and calling all these scientists corrupt? Or are you smarter than they are even though you don't know the first thing about climatology?
|
|
Apologies if someone mentioned this as it's likely someone did.
This is Kyoto-like off-sets in use. See how easy it is? |
|
"What the heck do you think creates the conditions for Co2 increases??"
I don't see your point. The CO2 increase we are experiencing now is entirely manmade. |
|
Boris,
The problem is, I do know something about climatology. Not everything (as IPCC purports to), but some things. My Master's Thesis was all about the effects sulfates have on COOLING the atmosphere and how they are accounted for in climate models (answer - they're not). I also worked at the largest climatology center in the US for several years. Frankly, I'm more interested in the process being passed off as "science" than I am in the politics.
I know when you model something, the input is key to the output. When climate models approximate the atmosphere by using grid points, you can expect an approximate output. These models have resolutions ranging from 5-40 km, and every point in the area represented by one grid point is uniform, which is far from true in real life. And everyone should know about the butterfly effect, so even a tiny change in initial conditions can result in a huge change in output.
How do you measure the temperature of the earth? It's easier said than done. Do you think we have good, long-term, reliable data for temperatures in the U.S.? How about West Africa and the former Soviet Union? Are weather stations high on their priorities? Do you think we understand fully the Quasi-Biennial oscillation, ocean currents, or even El Nino? My guess is that we don't.
Also, do you think these guys invent a model, run it once, and accept the answer? If so, I have some oceanfront property in Arizona for you. No, they "tweak" the model, basically until it gives the output they want.
I'm not a denier - I'm a skeptic, and there is an enormous difference. A denier denies something staring him in the face, whereas a skeptic says "prove it" when someone espouses a theory.
|
|
|
Also, I threw away my tinfoil hat last year. |
|
To all who are convinced of global warming based on computer models, here's an idea: Pick the model you believe. Pick a parameter, like sea level, number of hurricanes in the Atlantic, mean temperature in a location of your choice.
Then, pick an amount of money you would bet on your model being correct with some precision. How much would you put up? $10K? $100K? Your house?
If you are THAT sure that IPCC has it nailed, and the rest of us are just fools, you should be willing to bet quite a lot. |
|
AZPhil,
Again you act as if models are the only evidence of human caused global warming.
The IPCC is made of 2,500 scientists--the ones actually doing the research. I think I'll go with their assessment of the science over yours. No offense, of course.
|
|
|
I totally understand why you dont see my point. That's not a problem with me. You just need to learn a whole lot more about the subject than you do now. |
|
|
Re "Inconvenient Al Guzzles Electricity"---how about "Scolding George Guzzles Jet Fuel", since the same president who rebukes (current favorite press word) the public for using so much gasoline did not scruple to fly all over hell & back campaigning before the election---and Air Force One isn't the economy model, to say nothing of G traveling with full retinue...and sticking taxpayers with his gas bill. |
|
Your call, but know they have biases and agendas. If iy believe that a single grid point can accurately represent up to a 5000 sq km area (pi times 40 km squared), okay. Like I said, pick your favorite model and bet any sum you want on it.
As a scientist myself, I'd rather hear about all the data, including the hundreds of meteorologists who question global warming, rather than a hand-picked few from a left-leaning organization. Science isn't like elections - if 51% of scientists think something is true, that doesn't mean it is (for historical examples, see "flat earth" and "geocentric theory".
And in case you missed it before, I'm not saying that global warming definitely does NOT exist; I'm saying I'm not convinced it definitely DOES.
|
|
Your Air Force One point would have some relevance, but every president flies all over the place on Air Force One (I mean, not Lincoln and Jefferson, but the recent ones).
At least GW fixes his house up to conserve energy, instead of clear-cutting half of N. Carolina like Edwards did.
|
|
|
This piece of news is just about his mansion in Bellemeade, TN he has two other homes. One ia a huge farm mansion he inherited from his liberal U.S. Senator father Al Sr. This farm also contains Fat Albert's mining operation which pollutes the nearby Caney Fork River. For all you liberals, Al's father voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act. Al Jr. also likes to cavort around in his classic 50's cars, all of which are gas guzzlers and pollute Fat Al's ozone area. |
|
as a climatologist, what do you say about how the IPCC hangs it hat on 150 years worth of daily climate data (vs. at least 2.7 billion years since earth has had an atmosphere). Even when you add in ice core date that takes you back over a million years, they still dont have enough data to say for certainty that this warming period is different and therefore totally man's fault.
Why does the IPCC report (done under the wing of the UN which has its own agenda) not mention hypothesis such as geomagnetics and polar reversals(and how the magnetic poles have shifted over 800 miles since we started measuring it), solar radiation, albedo, eccentric orbit, etc, all things that have been responsible for past warming and cooling events. Why do these very real causes now go out the window for the sake of politics? |
|
AZPhil:
"I'd rather hear about all the data, including the hundreds of meteorologists who question global warming, rather than a hand-picked few from a left-leaning organization."
Which organization is left leaning? The IPCC? The American Geophysical Union? The American Meteorological Society? NOAA? The EPA? The Royal Society? The National Academy of Sciences?
It's a lot more than 51%. You have read the literature, right? What sceptical articles do you take stock in?
Eagleone:
"The IPCC [does]... not mention hypothesis such as geomagnetics and polar reversals(and how the magnetic poles have shifted over 800 miles since we started measuring it), solar radiation, albedo, eccentric orbit, etc, all things that have been responsible for past warming and cooling events."
It's ironic that you would tell me to learn more when you obviously haven't looked at the IPCC report, which covers albedo/land use changes, solar irradiance, and orbital forcings. I don't know about magnetic theories, but I'd be hard pressed to figure out how they could be a climate forcing. I know there's a very suspect GCR theory that might be related to magnetism, but it doesn't fly because of a lack of trends in GCR or global cloud cover.
|
|
I think I'll invent some "carbon innersoles" (different from Dr. Scholls) at a more affordable price than the "carbon credits' Al is buying up (just who is selling them to him anyway?), and market them in the inner city. Then we can all be like Al and continue doing exactly what we've been doing all these years without having to feel guilty about it.
|
|
Explain this for me. IF...
scientific = "accurate, systematic, exact"
AND
consensus = "a collective opinion" or "general agreement"
How can there can be "scientific consensus"
One can either prove something scientifically, or "reach an agreement" whereby proof is not necessary.
...why should we worry about Global Warming? I have seen a lot of hysteria, conjecture and, collective opinionizing from the left, but not one shred of irrefutable evidence. That's called PROOF for you hysterical (I mean REALLY LOL HYSTERICAL) guys & gals on the left.
|
|
His series of posts are typical an AGW alarmist. No understanding of the scientific process and no ability to think through issues.
Claiming 2,000+ scientists have consensus on a view is a NON-SCIENTIFIC manner to establish certainty for a HIGHLY COMPLEX phenomenon.
The evidence needs to speak for itself...and currently it doesn’t. That’s why the IPCC is aggressively pushing and brow beating people with the ‘consensus’ argument. It knows the evidence cannot stand on its own.
Do you understand how the IPCC works as a political body? Firstly, most scientists who are known to have an opposing view and opposing evidence are precluded from contributing the IPCC assessment. But here is the real killer…there is NO real ‘consensus’ even amongst the contributing scientists to the IPCC assessment. There is in fact a range of views and opinions, ALL of which are couched in HIGH LEVELS OF UNCERTAINTY!
All you can say is that there is ‘consensus’ amongst a group of pre-screened ‘scientists’ (very few of the computer modelers are true scientists) that:
- there is a range views and opinions about our climate into the future
- all of which are couched in high levels of uncertainty
So on that basis, are supposed to spend many trillions of dollars, and destroy and stifle economies world-wide???
Seems like a pretty stupid thing to do…
|
|
Let me field these separately:
Boris: Which organization is left leaning? The IPCC? The American Geophysical Union? The American Meteorological Society? NOAA? The EPA? The Royal Society? The National Academy of Sciences?
Mostly the IPCC. I'm a member of the AMS, and I don't know much about the others. Which reminds me, within AMS, there is far from a consensus. Read on for why that doesn't matter.
Boris: It's a lot more than 51%.
I just threw the number 51% in as the smallest simple majority. It could be 98% and it wouldn't matter. Probably 99% of their counterparts thought Copernicus, Galileo, Pasteur, and Einstein were wrong, too.
My point was that we don't decide whether the Earth circles the Sun or vice versa by popular vote.
Boris: You have read the literature, right?
Yes.
Boris: What sceptical articles do you take stock in?
There are many scientists who express skepticism at this theory. And unlike gravity, relativity, and other theories, I can't believe the mob mentality behind GW disciples. It really is a religion to you folks, isn't it? I'm not even denying it - just saying there may be other possibilities.
|
|
Reminsicing again about Einstein, if you've read relativity theory, it seems insane at first. And not that I'm old enough to remember, but Einstein didn't get 1500 of his friends together and say "don't question relativity". On the other hand, his theory was tested and tested again (including at Hiroshima), not decided by consensus. That's how real theories get proven over time.
Look up "eugenics" some time and check out the agreement on that 100 years ago.
|
|
Gore needs to practice what he preaches. "Live simply that others simply may live"
He needs to get out of that energy hole of a house, far bigger than any one family needs. He should dismantle it, then recycle some of the materials to build his family a modest and energy efficient home. He then should recycle the rest of the building materials to Habitat for Humanity who can then build a few small homes for the poor.
I'm sick of these leftists. You hear them talk with disdain of all the "McMansions", the 3000-5000 square foot homes on tiny lots, popular with many of the hardworking tax paying upper middle class. But then they don't even blink at the true mansions their celebrity activists and leaders live in.
Greenies who are serious should avoid jet flight when at all possible, NEVER use a private jet, shy from Jets with first class sections as they aren't maximizing the number of people transported per C02 pounds generated. They should walk or carpool when they can, and should never be found in a Limmo.
They want to dish out dogma about how others should live, they should be the first, and perhaps the most extreme examples, to live it.
|
|
I never received any response from any GW disciples on how much they would wager on a climate model correctly predicting anything.
Even if the resolution is 5 km (3 miles), the model is still saying one mathematical point represents 30 sq miles accurately. That seems like a large area to have a uniform temperature to me, especially with any kind of tereain involved. |
|
|
I meant "terrain", of course. |
|
If you can find anyone willing to take the wager, Tell them I have a s/w model that predicts the price of the top 10 Dow stocks 3 years out from now....
It will cost them $50million to purchase it, but tell them to think of all the money they can make from the predictions...
(I have a Cayman Island bank account set up and ready to take their money....
Note: Will also shortly have a "carbon off-set scam", oops sorry, "scheme" set up shortly as well, so that Gas Gore and & co and ease their guilt about burning fossil fuels) |
|
Sounds good...are you going to demand the cash up front?
I also have a service to the Cayman Islands where I will fly them. To offset the carbon emissions, though, I'll need to charge an extra $8000 per ticket. |
|
"Look up "eugenics" some time and check out the agreement on that 100 years ago."
I don't get this. Almot all scientists who study the climate agree and you use that as a reason to believe the opposite? That sounds more like religious thinking to me.
Of course consensus could be wrong, but the sceptics have no real ideas. They need to show a theory that can work AND they need to show why CO2 doens't behave the way physics dictates it should. Thus far they have done neither.
|
|
"Sounds good...are you going to demand the cash up front?"
- Sounds fair; after all I have a consensus that the s/w is accurate. Therefore, they should pay up front.
$8,000 per flight seems resonable. We should also look at offering a 'yearly package' to cover someone's total yearly C02 emssions. This will be a far more competative offer. We could call it the "Yearly Total Carbon Off-Set Package". Say, $50,000 per year per family should cover it.
|
|
"but the sceptics have no real ideas. They need to show a theory that can work AND they need to show why CO2 doens't behave the way physics dictates it should. Thus far they have done neither."
You really have no idea what you are taking about do you?
You don’t understand the concept of falsifiability in science do you?
YOU (more likely the proponents of AGW) have to show the compelling evidence that the NATURAL climate cycles have been overridden by humans to the extent that the climate will behave as AGW alarmist are claiming.
YOU are the one that has to prove your ridiculous claims. YOU, and your type, are demanding we spend trillions and fundamentally change our lives. Your extraordinary claims require the extraordinary evidence, for us to undertake extraordinary actions….
WHERE IS THE COMPELLING EVIDENCE??!!
Flakey computer models are NOT evidence. A poor correlation over 50years (logarithmic at that) is NOT EVIDENCE, when it’s doesn’t even register on a broader scale of climate changes across millions of years…
From whatever proxy data we can build on past climate and gas compositions, C02 does not display any significant role; it’s more likely a LAG indicator in climate changes.
Look at Svensmark et al latest research for a more compelling argument for causes in climate change (Solar).
The point is we don’t know enough to make any compelling conclusions…The IPCC itself even recognizes that most of the ‘known’ forcing on the climate we either have a ‘low’ or ‘very low’ understanding of. But then, the IPCC conveniently ignores this fact, and goes on to make its wild claims… Read what I said about the IPCC above. It is a political body, not a scientific body.
You can’t expect people to dramtically change their lives on that!
|
|
|
|
"YOU (more likely the proponents of AGW) have to show the compelling evidence that the NATURAL climate cycles have been overridden by humans to the extent that the climate will behave as AGW alarmist are claiming."
It's been done, Phil. What natural forcings do you claim have caused the recent warming? If you've look at the literature, you know it's not orbital forcing, you know it's not volcanic activity (or a lack thereof), you know it's not a natural source of GHGs, you know there is no known natural forcing that could cause the warming.
What about the claim do you not believe, Phil? Do you disbelieve in CO2's greenhouse properties? Do you not believe attribution studies? Positive feedbacks? You go on about compuetr models, but don't really tackle the rest of the evidence and the heart of the theory.
Your touting Svensmark shows your bias. Svensmark showed that cosmic rays could produce cloud condensation nuclei, but he didn't show that 1)this effect would overide natural cloud formation, or add significantly to it and, 2) the nuclei were large enough to matter. In addition, there is no trend in GCR and no global cloud cover trend. How can a forcing with no trend cause warming? But right wingers jump all over this untenable theory.
The IPCC is a body of scientists--2,500 who publish and do research. |
|
|
The fact the IPCC glossed over these well established causes of past glacial and interglacial events actually proves my point. You cant throw out the past causes of countless glacial and warming events in favor of one that has NEVER been proven. This makes the IPCC report more of an opinion paper than providing proof you trumpet that a good hypothesis has somehow bypassed the necessary steps to be proven a theory and gone right to unequivocal fact. |
|
Eagle:
"The fact the IPCC glossed over these well established causes of past glacial and interglacial events actually proves my point."
They did not "gloss over" them at all. They looked at the evidence and there was not enough forcing to explain the warming. It is obvious you have never so much as looked at the IPCC report when you say such things.
Sakaki:
"In fact, I trust the words of former Oregon State Climatologist George Taylor over most of the International Pissant Climate Communists."
Well, that's your problem. The IPCC is made of scientists, but believe your conspiracy theory if you must. Tin foil can chafe, however.
|
|
|
Have Hillary's fingerprints on this been found yet? |
|
Whatever they did, I have a problem with their incredulous conclusion. Not that man is the cause of warming, but THAT HE IS THE ONLY CAUSE. That conclusion renders the entire paper as an opinion paper. Quite convincingly so. I have promised not to do this in the past, but you seem sincere in your need for knowledge. You said in past responses you could not see how geomagnetism and other related natural forcings can be the cause(s). Here is a paper that very well sums up these natural forcings and then just a couple of interesting links thereafter that provide more creedence to these PROVEN causes of past global warming and cooling the so called IPCC threw out because it did not meet with their intended outcome. The IPCC also threw out several top scientists that disagreed with their conclusions. One's that were top in past UN reports, but just couldnt bring themselves to join the cult.
I will stop wasting my time with you after this.
http://www.hartnell.cc.ca.us/faculty/mercurio/gcr2.html
http://sait.oat.ts.astro.it/MSAIt760405/PDF/2005MmSAI..76..969G.pdf
http://www.habitablezone.com/space/messages/458169.html |
|
Whoa, Eagle, since when have GCRs been PROVEN to cause past warming? You don't think the IPCC report covered this, huh?
"Kuang et al. (1998) have repeated Svensmark and Friis-Christensen’s analysis of ISCCP data and showed high correlations with an El Niño-Southern Osciallation (ENSO) index difficult to distinguish from the GCR flux. Farrar (2000) showed that the pattern of change in cloudiness over that period, particularly in the Pacific Ocean, corresponds to what would be expected for the atmospheric circulation changes characteristic of El Niño. Kernthaler et al. (1999) have also studied the ISCCP dataset, using both geostationary and polar orbiter data and suggested that the correlation with cosmic ray flux is reduced if high latitude data are included. This would not be expected if cosmic rays were directly inducing increases in cloudiness, as cosmic ray flux is greatest at high latitudes. Kernthaler et al. (1999), Jørgensen and Hansen (2000), and Gierens and Ponater (1999), also noted that a mechanism whereby cosmic rays resulted in greater cloud cover would be most likely to affect high cloud as ionisation is greatest at these altitudes. Even if high cloud did respond to cosmic rays, it is not clear that this would cause global cooling as for thin high cloud the long-wave warming effects dominate the short-wave cooling effect. Kristjánsson and Kristiansen (2000) have additionally analysed the ISCCP D2 dataset, 1989 to 1993, and found little statistical evidence of a relationship between GCRs and cloud cover with the possible exception of low marine clouds in mid-latitudes. They also noted that there was no correlation between outgoing long-wave radiation, as represented in ERBE data, and GCRs. Thus the evidence for a cosmic ray impact on cloudiness remains unproven."
You see they look at all available evidence, not only at articles that confirm their ideology. Because they are real scientists.
|
|
|
I tried to follow your "logic", but failed. Oh well, less than 24 hours till Ann's column comes out. Another chance for you to use the word "bloviate" is looming. Aer you excited? |
|
|
If these "real" scientists looked at "all" of the evidence. Why can a schmuck like me come up with evidence to the contrary? See my last post. |
|
Yuo asked me this:
What about the claim do you not believe, Phil? Do you disbelieve in CO2's greenhouse properties? Do you not believe attribution studies? Positive feedbacks? You go on about computer models, but don't really tackle the rest of the evidence and the heart of the theory.
And some other stuff that I didn't even write. I've answered your questions as well as possible in earlier posts, but I've never seen you state a sum of money you'd be willing to bet on a climate model - which you are 100% convinced of.
Why do I keep harping on models? Because no matter how else you cloud the issue (pun intended), the statements predicting a certain outcome a decade or a century from now aer based on model output. If these models are right, how well have they simulated past (i.e., known) climates?
|
|
You're right, I mucked up the comments. But the question still applies to you as well as "The SKEPTIC"
I'm sorry I don't bet with unknowns on the internet, but there are plenty of folks who are taking bets on future warming. Do a search and you'll find plenty of people to take a bet--but then you haven't really explained what you are betting on anyway.
Do some research on hiundcasting to see how accurate models have become. Also check out Hansen's 1988 paper, which hasn't been shown to be skillful yet, but which did predict the warming thus far.
Everyone seems to concede CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but skeptics argue it has not/will not cause warming in the global climate. I'm not sure where this idea comes from.
|
|
|
|