Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Brent Bozell :: Townhall.com Columnist
Al Gore's Recycled Doom
by Brent Bozell
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Do you feel the leaked information from a global warming alarmist organization is meaningful?



Al Gore may not have won the presidency (thank God), but over the last two years, he's been given an enormous consolation prize by his friends on the left. He's been designated as the Savior of the Planet.

First came the warm wave of supportive publicity surrounding his slide-show documentary "An Inconvenient Truth." Katie Couric, Harry Smith and Oprah Winfrey all touted Gore as so warm, so vulnerable and self-effacing, and his predictions so impossibly scary. Last May, Gore and Couric sat together on a sunny day in Central Park and unspooled the doom. Manhattan would be under deep water soon if we don't take drastic measures, they warned.

Now comes another warm wave of media smooches and applause with the news of his plan for an international set of "Live Earth" concerts to promote massive government action to curb humanity's excessive reliance on energy. Impending global doom has become such a hip cause it's now pushed by Cameron Diaz, Jon Bon Jovi and a flock of other Hollywood astrophysicists, the homelessness issue having become passe.

Ever since the whole planet-panic kicked in around Earth Day 1970, there have been repeated predictions of impending doom, which didn't exactly work out. When will someone in the media ever admit this?

Go back to 1989 and 1990. Instead of NBC's Katie Couric handing the microphone over to Al Gore to lament how Manhattan's about to go underwater, the same NBC network handed its microphone and camera crew directly to left-wing "Population Bomb" author Paul Ehrlich, awarding him large chunks of airtime to imagine America losing the nation's capital and the entire state of Florida.

In May 1989, Ehrlich claimed, global warming was going to melt the polar ice caps, causing a flood in which "we could expect to lose all of Florida, Washington D.C. and the Los Angeles basin. ... We'll be in rising waters with no ark in sight." Ehrlich didn't give a time frame, but his panicked report clearly suggested doom around the corner.

The panic was necessary to sell an extremely harsh "solution" of "enormous, rapid change." Ehrlich commanded that to forestall doom, the world needed to cut its energy use in half over 20 years. Industrialization needed to be dragged to a screeching halt, not only in America, but especially in the Third World. Ehrlich felt the next generation of Americans should be denied the Earth-strangling prosperity of their parents, saying the world's ecosystems "cannot support the spread of the American lifestyle to the Third World or even to the next generation of Americans."

Ehrlich was back on NBC in January 1990 to sell his "inconvenient truth" line again. This time, he gave a more concrete timeline. Antarctica's ice sheets were slipping, and then "we'll be facing a sea-level rise not of one to three feet in a century, but of 10 or 20 feet in a much shorter time. The Supreme Court would be flooded. You could tie your boat to the Washington Monument. Storm surges would make the Capitol unusable."

It's been almost twenty years, we never cut our energy use in half, and Florida is still above water, not to mention Washington and Los Angeles. We have yet to tie our boats to the Washington Monument. But the media are still handing over their microphones and their accolades to panicky predictions, with no apparent expectation that anyone will ever question their accuracy in a decade or two. How many decades do we wait to question these predictions?

Despite this, too many media outlets approach global warming with a surprising arrogance, insisting that all the facts are in and that anyone who seeks to confuse the public with dissent is too harmful to be heard. CBS reporter Scott Pelley scoffed, "It would be irresponsible of us to go find some scientist somewhere" to cast doubt on the doomsayers. He went on to suggest any scientist who disagreed was probably paid off by fossil-fuel interests.

Skeptics of global warming are even being compared to Holocaust deniers. It seems that climate science isn't the only thing leftists monstrously exaggerate.

Don't expect that in 2027, NBC will challenge Al Gore to explain why his "climate crisis" talk of Manhattan under water never occurred, it being assumed that NBC will still be broadcasting out of New York. By then, the torch of panic will be passed on to a new generation, which will no doubt also ignore the collapsed predictions of yesteryear as they pat themselves on the back as the vanguard of planetary compassion.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Founder and President of the Media Research Center, Brent Bozell runs the largest media watchdog organization in America.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Brent Bozell's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
 
©Creators Syndicate
AlGore
is a blathering idiot!

You missed it.
It was the Iraq war that caused Global Warming. Too many guns going off

Having lived through the Ice Age predicted in the 70's, and still using oil as fuel in the 21st Century (you know oil was exhausted by 1985), I can speak with greater authority than AlGore.

Although I still drink tap water, which federal regulation requires to be more pure than packaged water, I can see clearly!

The planet has been colder, and warmer, than the present but this time it is our fault. So we must hurl ourselves back into the stone age so India and China can become the great polluters of out time.

I just have an urge to slap some people. Lucky for those I am nonviolent. Unless you threaten my life or family. So I guess I'm back to slapping some people?

An Inconvenient SPOOF
is up for an Academy Award this weekend.

I hear we are in for cold rainy weather in Los Angeles, starting around Thursday. It is supposed to warm up for the Academy Awards on Sunday.

However, it has often happened that we get one Pacific Storm after another. If that happens, then I am praying for hail on Sunday.

I posted this at the tail end of
the thread for the top 10 postings at TH. A lot of you may not have seen it but it shows how rediculous this stuff has become.

The UN wants you to give up eating now for GW.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0220/p03s01-ussc.html

I hope everyone will join me in praying
for another winter storm behind this one, which should hit right about the time Gore the Bore is droning on about Global Warming.
**************************************

http://www.wunderground.com/cgi-bin/findweather/getForecast?query=hollywood%2C+ca#SPE
"... Potential for significant rain and mountain snow for the Southland
later this week... A cold storm system originating from the Gulf of Alaska will likely
impact central and Southern California late Wednesday night through
Friday...Snow levels are generally expected to be around 5000 feet on Thursday
in advance of the cold front... with snow levels likely falling to
around 3000 feet by late Thursday night or Friday morning. Preliminary
snowfall estimates of 6 to 16 inches can be expected above 5000
feet. A Winter Storm Watch may need to be issued for the Southland
mountains due to the potential for heavy snow and gusty winds."
*********************************

When we get these kind of storms that deposit snow in the mountains that surround Los Angeles, it usually gets quite chilly in the L.A. Basin.

I'd like to hand the microphone
over to Al Gore and ask him to insert it like a rectal thermometer when his global warming scheme fails to materialize. The only hot air (global warming) we have to worry about is what comes out of that guy's mouth.

To all psoters up to 0500...
Agreed, and funny! Isn't he great for a good laugh? Marc of CA...good post. I remember all of that as well...Algore's nomination for the Nobel sleaze prize and his possible honorary degree in "procto-climatolgy" is almost as funny.
Not ashamed- we should be worrying about what comes out of his a**, it might cause more GW. Perhaps that is what the microphone should be used for- a stopper!!!

Fifteen minutes
The inventor of the internet is looking for his lost 15 minutes.

Unbelieveable Gall
I was pretty amused when I found out that Gore wanted one of his "Live Earth" concerts in Antarctica!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17168544/

"Gore added that the campaign even plans to stage the first-ever rock concert on Antarctica."

If any corporate entity wanted to do something like this they would be blasted for being destructive to the environment. Nobody lives in Antarctica, so everyone will have to fly or take a boat, and it's going to be cold, and quite possibly dark (unless they wait until next fall or later) so they'll have to bring in lots of extra heat and lights. It's a fossil-fuel-burning bonanza! Good thing they aren't requiring these concerts to be carbon-neutral...

This has got to be the worst idea in a movement known for bad ideas.

Say Goodbye to Gaia?
The liberals' capacity to delude themselves is infinite. Real threats, such as a super volcano eruption or a large meteor striking the earth, are ignored. My belief is that essentially these people are godless and have chosen to worship Gaia, the earth, wanting to cuddle it like a newborn babe. Of course, throughout millions of years the earth has gone through horrendous changes and, HELLO, still exists, green, fecund, life-supporting. The logic of the GW fanatics taken to the extreme would be to eliminate carbon footprints by offing themselves.

Jerseyvet
Check my blog (click on my handle) to read about Al Bore getting an HONORARY DOCTORATE from the Univ of Minn, for being an expert on GW!

HAHA!

I guess since ol Al could not earn one on his own, getting it handed to him is the only other avenue of approach!

Al Gore...expert climatologist...with a C+ average in science at Harvard!

not ashamed to be right
Better still, ask them to stake their LIVES ON IT and make them give us a time frame.

If it's BS, then we can toss em off of the Golden Gate!

Wouldn't it be nice
to have the leisure time to worry about things that might or might not happen fifty years from now?

What about the Population Bomb that was supposed to cause massive starvation in the Western World by 2000? Now people in Western countries are squalling that we need to have MORE babies because people were stupid enough to listen to them and cut the number of babies in response to the last squall-fest and now there aren't enough taxpayers!

Now, if you will excuse me, it's Ash Wednesday, and I have much more long-range things to consider ... regardless of which version of We're-All-Gonna-Die is running rampant today or tomorrow.

Sorry, Al; it takes all the running I can do to stay in the same place. When I have time and money to devote to minding other peoples' business, I'll let you know.

Alpha_Gore
This man is a total freak !!! His failed presidential bid has obviously affected his ability to properly relate to the rest of the planet.

Can you see?
A book written by Gore and produced by Michael Moore?

Marc
But I thought Global Warming caused the Iraq War, not vice versa. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

Oh, and it's soon to be "DOCTOR" Algore with his honorary doctorate. Followed by Grammy winner Algore, Emmy Winner Algore, Nobel Peace Prize Winner Algore, I guess the hope is that by piling more and more awards on this bozo people may overlook the fact that he's an idiot and take his scare-mongering seriously.


I'm just a simple man,
not nearly as "brilliant" as Algore so this is how my mind works:

Back in 1970, after returning from Nam, I bought a cherry '54 Chevy to get off base with, and proudly installed a new 8 track player in order to play my music collection as I cruised around Ft. Hood. Problem was, 8 tracks were becoming scarce as the big switch was on to cassettes.

Begrudgingly, I bought an AM/FM/cassette and installed it in the car, instantly making my old 8 tracks obsolete. A few years later when CD's started coming out, I was incensed! I now had two music collections with out of date technology, and I put my foot down. I refused to buy a CD player until they came out with a guarantee that this was it....they wouldn't invent anything new and force me to change again.

Well, we all know that progress cannot be stopped and look at all the stuff we have to play music now. I don't own any of it, but still have stacks of LP records, boxes of 8 track and cassette tapes stored in my shed. I could get an Mp3 player and duplicate yet another music collection but I'M NOT BUYING IT!

Now we come to the GW hysteria currently in vogue. As many of us who went to school in the 50's and 60's, I was taught the prevailing hypothesis at the time that we were heading into an ice age and, by the way, we were going to run out of oil and would have to migrate south in order to keep warm (imagine that, humans having to adapt to their environment).

Here we are, 30-some years later and the new ice age never showed up, we have more oil than ever and whatta you know, the population didn't bomb either.

These new purveyors of catastrophe can bloviate all they want because I'M NOT BUYING IT!!!

The problem is...
There are a whole lot of people out there that have bought this man-made global warming BS, hook, line and sinker.

We need to develop a very clear set of unemotional facts and publish them, far and wide.

Because otherwise, I see governmental reactions to this scare tactic being shoved down our collective throats.

It's been days and days
It's been days and days since the last TH global warming denial. I guess not everyone gets to bash Hillary or Obama every day.

Since the last one, I read in Scientific American (Feb, 2007) that trees produce methane, a greenhouse more greenhousy than CO2. The authors say how the scientific community recieved their findings -- not embracing them at first, but finally accepting the evidence as other labs verified the findings.

The interesting part was at the end where they describe how global warming deniers distorted their findings. They absolutely believe that industrial CO2, if unchecked, will cause catastrophic climate changes in the next century.

Liberty
The facts are out there, the problem is that they are all published by "industry shills."

Like Al Boor Tross isn't getting paid!

The second problem is that "unemotional facts" won't sell with this crowd. Unless you can scare them, or show poor beach front land owners getting flooded, it won't sell.

Sold us a swamp?
Gee, maybe flooding of New York was why Manhattan island was bought so cheap after it flooded during the middle age warming period when it was much warmer than it is today or will be , oops it never was, never mind.
anyone ask the Seminoles and other tribes in Florida if it was under water during the middle age warming period? Coral is dying, the state of Florida is mostly coral so I guess that has happened before. Bon Jovi appears to be intelligent, why hasn't he done his own research? Probably because the money to be made at these concerts where all the lights and amplifiers will suck up electricity and the cars getting out of a crowded concert will suck up gasoline,
I remember a folk song from the 50's perhaps sung by Pete Seegar or the Limelaters, or someone all all the above called "Where Have All The Flowers Gone?" Anyone not seen flowers anymore?

An experiment
I remember this from grade school, actually.

Fill a glass 3/4 full of water. Put an ice cube in the glass. Mark the level of the water.

Now, walk away, and come back in 2 hours, after the ice has melted. What's the level of water in the glass?

The level has not changed; because ice is water, its mass doesn't change (although its density does) and the displacement will be the same regardless of its state.

Now, let's apply this to the melting of the global ice caps. If BOTH GLOBAL ICE CAPS, north and south, melt IN THEIR ENTIRETY, how much will sea level change?

Correct answer: not a micron. Because the global ice cap is water, and it's not sitting on land. Same as the ice cube in the glass.

If the melting of ice is going to change the level of the sea, it will all have to come from melting glaciers that are sitting on solid land.

Somebody needs to tell Al Gore that he's flunked 5th grade science.

lib"good"man
Ok, lgm, there's a greenhouse gas that is denser than CO2. Wow, that's alarming.

Did you notice, last night, that the temperature of your neighborhood is only 20 or 30 degrees colder than the temperature while we're facing the sun? Why do you suppose that is? Why doesn't the temperature plunge to 150 below while the sun is on the opposite side of the earth?

Some is because of the residual heat radiating from the earth, yes. But for the most part, your nighttime temp is close to your daytime temp (relatively speaking) because the heat from the sun is trapped inside the atmosphere by -- TADAAAAA! -- greenhouse gases.

Yep, those nasty greenhouse gases are what make the planet liveable during those hours when we're not within the line of sight of the earth's sole heat source, the sun.

Can you see why the announcement that there exist greenhouse gases like methan, in and of itself, is not greeted with alarm by anybody who knows even 9th grade science?

liberalgoodman
I am not doubting that global warming is happening. The issue is whether it is man-made, or is a natural cycle of the earth. There seems to be a wide disagreement among top scientists.

Listen, I realize that man pollutes like a drunken sailor and some of this needs to be cut way back. However, it's not only "industry shills" that mis-state facts. Some of the biggest environmental groups are being used to further the UN's Agenda 21 and plan for Sustainable Development. This whole global warming issue and the plans to remedy just fit too nicely into the UN's plans, for it to be a coincidence. Regionalization... compact cities.... the whole gamut.

Please check those out.

Must be Bush's fault
Global warming must be President Bush's fault! Why you ask; because the left always blames anything that may have a negative message on President Bush. I would like to ask those people that live in upstate New York where 16 foot of snow has just about shut down any movement what they think about Al Bore Gore's global warming. Al Gore is like Brittney Spears, he misses the Television cameras being in his face every minute. Go back to Tennessee and ride your tractor Big AL.

The photo reminds me

Have you heard Paul Shanklin's parody?

Al Gore singing "World's on fire" to hte tune of "Ring of Fire" by Johnny Cash.

Johnny was a lot more interesting.

Don't bother trying to bring logic
to the global warming scaremongerers. The actual experts out there that are vomiting this BS about how we're all going to die in the next 5 years if we don't return to the Stone Age all know full well they're only spewing that garbage to get their cut of the billions of dollars of government funding.

Every day more and more evidence is discovered showing the Grand Canyon sized holes in the global warming scaremongerers assertion that global warming is all George Bush's and Exxon/Mobile's fault. Evidence like the fact that profoundly more greenhouse gases are produced by cows than by the entire global transportation industry (http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0220/p03s01-ussc.html), or that the claimed glacial recessions are being totally fabricated due to the fact that there just isn't enough evidence to suggest anythign of the sort (http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_1925164,0008.htm), or the results of a recent experiment that suggest cosmic rays cause clouds, thereby effecting global temperature (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1363818.ece), to proof's that Dr. Mann's ridiculous "hockey stick" model is a total sham (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=22003a0d-37cc-4399-8bcc-39cd20bed2f6&k=0), to one of the leading hurricane experts who quit the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, that political body the global warming scaremongerers so love to point toward as "proof" of global warming, because, in his words, the panel is "being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound" (http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/landsea.html).

No, it doesn't matter how much proof is presented to prove the global warming scaremongerers are full of s**t. The global warming scaremongerers all see the billions of dollars ($1.6 billion dished out by the US government just last year alone) in it for them if they keep up the charade, and the kooky commies all see the power they can sieze from their manipulations of the truth.

Global Climate Change
Appreciate that many of the scientists being funded to research and model the many aspects of climate now call the problem "global climate change" NOT "global warming". I understand that all the climatologists and oceanographers we produced during the Cold War need some why to obtain funding. The Left's motivations are just a bit different.

First, Al Gore, John Kerry, Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader Reid and their supporters believe they can be advocates of global warming caused by humans because they are rich enough to avoid the extreme economic and lifestyle changes the rest of us will face when they implement critical carbon dioxide reduction mandates.

Second, the folks leading the global warming agenda see it as the ultimate way to attack the capitalistic system and what they see is world domination by the USA. They had success with pollution in general, but we all adapted. They had success with ozone even seeming world wide agreement that something had to be done. Global warming caused by human produced green house gases, most especially carbon dioxide, is the ultimate stick to beat down capitalism. Why would China and India be exempt from the provisions of Kyoto?

Almost everything we do in life, especially the lifestyle of the average American, produces carbon dioxide. Look around and imagine living with 25% less of everything that you now have. Or a punitive tax high enough so it would reduce consumption by 25% and not just of petroleum. Then appreciate the global warming chicken littles believe an immediate 25% reduction is not enough soon enough to prevent catastrophe.

This has little to do with real climate warming and a lot to do with the old long desired leftist scenario of leveling the playing field between the rich and poor of the world. It is ultimate class warfare predicted by Marxism.

Remember the one word that describes our Earth's climate is change. If human didn't exist on Earth, the Earth's climate would still change. Since we do our choice is the same as it has always been "we adapt to the change as it comes". It is truly a scary thought that with as little as we know about the mechanism that drive our climate that we should be arrogant enough to believe we can "fix it."

Julie
You have some nerve slamming others for their ignorance.

You wrote: "He's to be blamed for the non-response that cost the lives of many people, mostly black people about whom he could not care less."

A) What non-response? we know now, 18 months after the fact, that the National Guard was on site at the Superdome, as planned, with ample supplied to meet the needs of the people who fled there. The reports you heard of horrific conditions turned out to be utterly untrue. The disaster at New Orleans was caused, not by a failure of planning, but by a failure of engineering; the levees washed out from UNDERNEATH, resulting in Lake Ponchartrain basically draining into the punchbowl that New Orleans truly is.

B) You perhaps did not hear much about the response to Katrina in Biloxi, MS, or Ocean Springs, MS, because it was appropriate, complete, and effective. Same FEMA, same storm. The difference was NOT (as you charge without the slightest evidence) that Biloxi and Ocean Springs don't have many blacks; they're at LEAST 50% black. The difference is that 1) Mississippi doesn't have the degree of corruption New Orleans has, and 2) didn't serve the MSM's meme about Bush's "failure."

You also wrote: " perhaps you've heard of this stuff called ice. It's a hard whiteish looking substance that, when collected from the depths of the Antarctic ice shelf, can actually tell us about how the earth's climate has changed over thousands of years."

Yes, and the sediment under the Sargasso Sea tells us things, and tree rings tell us things, and carbon deposits in glaciers tell us things. But the picture is complex and requires a great deal of study, and models on which the current HCCC (human-caused climate change) scare is based have no predictive value, having not included such variables as solar activity.

Finally, you wrote: "Based on that scientific evidence, we are overdue for a massive freeze..."

????? All the studies I've been reading say we're on the upward swing from the low point of a 400-year warming cycle, and a 16,000-year warming cycle. I've not heard a peep, not even from the AGW crowd, that we're due for a deep freeze. Where, exactly, did you get this from?

Julie -- fresh water?
I've been reading the "let's inform the uneducated public" sites, and they all talk about how the ice cap has some huge % of the planet's fresh water. What doesn't make sense to me is, how does the freezing of a salt sea create a fresh-water ice pack? This is a question we didn't cover in high school, and as my undergrad and postgrad majors didn't require Ecoscience, I'm missing some of the details. So perhaps you can explain that bit to us.

trees, crops, grass, and global warming
Okay, global warming alarmists. I have one for you. If any of you have any knowledge of biolegy, botany, or agronomy, I challenge you to refute the following statements with VERIFIABLE FACTS.

Plants, in general, consume Carbon Dioxide (CO2) and produce Oxygen (O). Since CO2 is the chief greenhouse gas in our atmosphere, and the one that everyone seems to be worried about, and since plants consume it, it would seem that the EASY way to combat global warming is to have more plants on the planet. (Also, since animals consume O and produce CO2, it would also be advisable to reduce the number of animals on the planet. But that's a different discussion.)

Now, given that we need to increase the number of plants, some analysis should be given to the question of WHICH plants we should have, because SOME plants consume more CO2 than others.

How about trees? Okay, they're big, and on a per-organism basis, consume more CO2 than smaller plants. However, in the same space required to crow just one tree, many, many individual smaller plants could be growing, and thus, the relevant comparison is on a per-acre basis. So, acre for acre, what kind of plant consumes more CO2?

A botanist will tell you that, even among trees, young, rapidly-growing organisms consume more CO2, on a biomass basis, than older trees. And since you can have many more smaller trees on the same acreage as one large tree, an acre of young trees consumes more CO2 than an acre of older trees. Therefore, the so called "old growth forests" are, in fact, poor consumers of CO2, compared to new growth forests. So, assuming we should stick with trees, we need to cut down all the old growth forests and plant young trees.

One more thing about forests. Forests, particularly old-growth forests, are home not only to trees, but to ANIMALS. And what have we learned about animals? That's right - they produce CO2. So, by the time you subtract the CO2 generated by the animals in the forest from the pitiful amount of CO2 consumed by the old trees in the forest, most forests are net CO2 PRODUCERS, rather than consumers. For new-growth forests, at least the trees are still growing fast enough to consume more CO2 than the smaller animal population there can produce.

But, let's think outside the box for a minute. Can we do even better than young trees? Yes, we can. Agronomic crops are much more efficient, on a per-acre basis, at consuming CO2. Almost all crops are harvested before they reach the age of one year. Therefore, for the vast majority of their lives, they are rapid consumers of CO2. And there are thousands of times more of them, per acre, than of any old-growth, or even new-growth, forests.

If you can connect the dots, you understand by now that, if the goal is to curtail global warming, then there is absolutely nothing wrong clear-cutting the Amazon forest and planting crops there. Even more so, we should be clear-cutting all the old-growth forests everywhere else in the world. And quickly, if Al Gore's timeline is to be believed.

But what about fertilizers? Fertilizers encourage plant growth, thus increasing biomass, which in turn increases CO2 consumption. So not only should we be planting agronomic crops on every acre we can cut, we should be fertilizing the hell out of them.

How about pesticides? Well, for herbicides, the case can be made that weeds are as efficient at consuming CO2 as crops, and therefore, we are not GAINING any CO2 consumption by killing weeds. However, insectides are CLEARLY beneficial in combatting global warming. First, they kill insects, which exhale CO2. Second, by killing insects, insecticides promote plant growth. And as discussed in the previous paragraph, plant growth increases CO2 consumption.

Note: Insects, though individually much smaller than humans, produce much more CO2, by virtue of their huge numbers. In fact, it is possible that insects, as a group, produce more CO2 than every other organism on the planet combined, including the CO2 generated by human industry. Therefore, insect eradication on a massive scale would go a long way toward reducing the CO2 content of the atmosphere, regardless of what we do about crops.

Regards,
Trevor

Julie
You cracked me up.

We're due for a massive freeze? I thought the big danger was global WARMING.

BTW, though it was an interesting segue into irrelevance when you brought Katrina into the discussion, I have to tell you that any response by the Feds was more than was warranted, as the Constitution doesn't authorize that kind of activity by the Feds.

I'm personally looking forward to
Buffalo becoming the Miami of the North. Who's with me??

CO2
"You should probably head back to high school. Of course, our atmosphere is composed of gases which allow us to retain some heat from the sun while allowing some to escape out. The problem with our rising CO2 levels is that less heat is escaping than it should, raising the average temperature of the planet."

A) I was replying to lgm's breathless delivery of the fact that the earth is producing greenhouse gases; his post included nothing about whether there were too many of those. The fact is, greenhouse gases are necessary for life on the planet, something he apparently didn't realize.

B) "Less heat is escaping than it should" Nonsense. This is something no scientist on the planet can say with certainty, because none of them have sufficient understanding of the complexity of global climate to say what the level of CO2 should or should not be. It is theorized by some (who, sadly, are letting their philosophy and politics interfere with their scientific judgment) that the current human production of CO2 is too high; but it is observed by others that most of this century's rise in temperature PRECEDED the human production of most of this CO2, and therefore certainly isn't caused by that.

C) The best fit to fluctuating global temperatures is sunspot activity; and while we can't say with certainty that this is the primary cause of the current warming trend, it does make intuitive sense that the temperature of the planet is primarily affected by its primary heat source, wouldn't you say?

D) Your gratitous insult marks you as one of those whose civility is nothing but a thin veneer. It's common among your political grouping. If you'd someday come over to the other side, you'd find what you'd consider an unusual percentage of folks whose civility actually comes from the heart. Having grown up as a liberal among liberals, and now knowing both conservatives and liberals, I speak from long and varied experience.

For Packrat
You mean PLAGIARISED (rather than "written") by BoreGore, right?

Oh, nevermind--he follows the Tom Lehrer approach (though he can't even stage a Russian accent) as in "Lobachevsky".

Trevor-LOL
I can think of a few insects on Capital Hill who are producing entirely too much CO2!!!

Hey if what you are saying is true, then Democratic Presidential Candidate John Edwards is doing what he can to reduce Global Warming by clear-cutting his property in order to build his new 28,200 square foot house.
http://carolinajournal.com/exclusives/display_exclusive.html?id=3848

We can only hope he plans to landscape, which will contribute mightily to CO2 absorption.

What a champion of the environvent that man is!!!

Packrat- what would you call that?
Packrat writes: Wednesday, February, 21, 2007 8:13 AM
Can you see?
A book written by Gore and produced by Michael Moore?
************************************

So would you call that a Gore Moore Bore?

Fresh water ice cap
I'm seriously asking anyone here if they understand this:

All the sites that talk about the global ice cap say it contains some huge % of the planet's fresh water. My question is:

How does the freezing of a salt sea produce a fresh-water ice cap? Is this from some primordial period before erosion of the continents produced salinity in seawater?

Julie and Atmospheric Gases
Julie writes: Wednesday, February, 21, 2007 10:25 AM
"And for you inkling
You should probably head back to high school. Of course, our atmosphere is composed of gases which allow us to retain some heat from the sun while allowing some to escape out. The problem with our rising CO2 levels is that less heat is escaping than it should, raising the average temperature of the planet. I'm not advocating for a gasless atmosphere, nor do I agree with the relic of the constitution called the electoral college which gave an election to the candidate with the 2nd most votes. Doesn't sound like Democracy to me."
*********************************

Hey, I guess we better get back to work on increasing that hole in the Ozone layer, to make sure that the gases escape.

In the mean time why don't you do your part to eliminate the production of gas?

Hey, and speaking of going back to Highschool, I guess that you were smoking dope behind the gym when they covered the part in the Constitution where it says we are a Democratic Republic!

I guess they forgot to cover the fact that our Constitution is the greatest political document in the history of the world, and was written by great men who were infinately smarter than you!!!




Ever notice Al Gore's appearance lately?
I think he has gone on a vegan diet, which is O.K. for some people, but those of us who are sensitive to carbs start accumulating imflamation in our bodies, which show in the face.

I think he needs to go back to eating up some of those Co2 and Methane producing cows!!!

Trevor
You've put your finger on a point that is rarely discussed on these threads, namely the fact that plants consume CO2. Part of the warminista con job involves convincing people that CO2 is the same as harmful pollutants that we should indeed control rather than the natural part of life that it is. Let's pretend that their doomsday models had some basis in reality (which they don't) and that the draconian, multi-trillion dollar, economy-crippling "solutions" they proposed would make a significant difference according to even their own models (they won't) and that China and India were included (they aren't). The allowable CO2 output levels mandated by the Kyoto treaty (you know, the one that the Senate voted 95-0 against, and the one that is being routinely ignored by its European signatores) fails to account for the NET CO2 output as impacted by the vast forestation of the US compared to Europe. This reveals truth of the con job--an attempt by socialist Europe and their Marxist allies here to hamstring our economy and allow Europe to compete again.

I'm with Julie - I believe that the scientists' warning of a coming ice age in the 70's was the true religion, and those scientists who have now changed to global warming are heretics, akin to Holocaust deniers. I will do my part by consuming as much energy as possible to fend off the deadly effects of this ice age.

Julie
Perhaps you should have taken a few writing classes while you were there at Princeton!

My neice took classes there while she was still in High School, so I am not impressed.

Julie
Wow, Princeton! I'm impressed! You must have also learned cool stuff like the beauty of bestiality and how it's ok to kill babies in the first year of life from resident Princetonian genius Peter Singer. But don't feel bad, I saw enough knuckleheads in Ann Arbor and grad school in Evanston to realize that higher learning can't cure blindness.

Thanks for the explanation of how the ice sheet formed. Now perhaps you can explain how Manhattan will be deluged when the land-based ice in Greenland and Antarctica is increasing in thickness, and only icebergs already in the water are melting.

Oh, and the rest of you...lay off Al Gore! I really like that Internet thing--use it all the time. Credit where credit is due, I say.

Julie
Bush offered help to the governor and the mayor. They said not right now, we'll take care of it.

How can you blame Bush for Nagin's failure to evacuate 9th Ward according the city's disaster plan?
Everybody in that area knew that if the levees broke or the pumps quit, or they got it with "THE BIG ONE" that there were going to be major problems. GOOOOLLLLEEEE!!! They hit the lottery 3 out of 3.

The last time a hurricane headed my way ( once lived near Houston), I headed inland as soon as possible and watched the hurricane come ashore with family in NORTH Texas. That's what the school buses were for, for evacuating those with out their own transportation.

Let go of Katrina. Did you not see that NO held Mardi Gras on Bourbon Street? They're better at letting go of the past than you.



GlobalWarming weather update
I like the Weather Channel calling below-freezing temperatures "warm!"

Of course, we all know that they are sympathising with Gore the Bore, and it must have killed them to report 5 weeks of record-breaking cold!!!

Looking at the forecast from the Weather Underground (no, not that one) we can see that the night time lows in Montana will still be below Zero. Just because they can walk out their front door without having their feet frozen to the front porch does not mean it is WARM!!!

It was annoying when Al Gore politicized the food industry during his stint as Veep, but politicizing the weather is just too much.

THANKS FOR YOUR WEATHER PRAYERS!

I just want to point out that the weather forecast for the ACADEMY AWARDS is evolving.

Yesterday, the weather gurus were predicting that it would be sunny on Saturday and Sunday, but if you look today, you will notice that it will be cloudy Saturday and Sunday.

I am still praying for hail, at the very least, but I would settle for snow in Hollywood.

It already snowed in Malibu this year, a phenomon that happens only once every twenty years or so!!!

I am praying for a big hail storm to hit the Red Carpet, just when Al Gore is being interviewed by Entertainment Tonight!!!

Julie, electric cars
I don't mean to be insulting, Julie, but I'm sure you're a better biologist than you are a political scientist.

You wrote: "There is nothing preventing Americans from driving electric cars except the powerful lobbying interests of the automotive industry"

Actually, you're wrong. What's preventing Americans from driving electric cars is that the market won't support them. The hybrids so far are not substancially better than the pure hydrocarbon cars in fuel economy, and they're considerably more expensive. There are no pure electric offerings, not because of lobbying (laws have little to do with auto manufacturers' marketing, we're still more or less a free market), but because the price/performance of electric cars still isn't up to the standard the market expects.

Free markets really confound leftists, who can't seem to grasp that we continue to use fossil fuels because they really are, for the time being, the cheapest, most readily available fuel source.

You also wrote: "Switching to electric transportation may be the only way to save the planet"

Wrong again, I'm afraid. Has it occurred to you that we burn hydrocarbons for the vast majority of our electricity? And that replacing gasoline engines with electric motors will simply shift the bulk of energy production from unburned hydrocarbons (delivered primarily to the immediate surface of the planet) to nitrous oxides (delivered efficiently to the lower statosphere)?

Any beneficial effect of running mostly electric cars would have to be preceded by a major crash construction project for nuclear power plants.

I hate to keep picking on you, Julie...
But apparently you neglected to register for Econ 101 while pursuing that biology degree. Nothing is preventing people from buying electric cars now except for their cost, inconvenience, low top speed and limited range. Perhaps these problems will be ironed out and everyone will be driving electric cars in the future, or maybe some other technology like fuel cells, hydrogen, or something we haven't thought of yet will come to the fore. But one thing we do know is that it will be provided by the market, not the government. Lobbyists do not determine the demand for electric cars, the market does. If people want electric cars and it is profitable to sell them, the automakers will do so. Maybe you think the lobbyists and evil robber barons are scheming in the same smoke filled room where they keep the 200 MPG carburator hidden?

And where do you suppose the electricity comes from that powers those batteries? Coal-fired power plants--and the amount of energy it takes to produce the electricity is less efficient than just burning gas. Third world polluting will be solved by free trade, the rule of law, foreign investment and free market capitalism. Only wealthy societies can afford environmentalism.

By the way, what make of electric car do you drive?

Julie - not even right on the ice caps
You wrote: "Inkling- your problem with the ice-in-a-glass theory should be obvious now- that the majority of the freshwater icecaps are above sea level and will have an effect when they cascade into the ocean."

Well, since it's the NORTH polar ice cap that's melting (it's floating, and it's not fresh water), while the SOUTH polar ice cap is actually getting thicker (apparently due to a slight wobble of poles), then you're still wrong. Melting of the Greenland glacier will affect sea level, but melting of the north polar ice cap won't.

Manhattan
under water? Would that be a bad thing?

Let the UM President hear
from you about what a crock it is to give "Hot Air Gore" an honorary doctorate degree.
http://www1.umn.edu/pres/

While this is off topic, anyone else note the hypocrisy of Al Gore's appearance at the latest Grammy awards...what a joke given his wife and he "invented the rating system for clean lyrics." Ha Ha, give me a break!

To inkling_revival and Julie
Julie obviously hasn't read my posting from the last one of these AGW threads. (Why is it that each new GW thread has a new lib in it?)

Julie:

We get 70% of our current electric generation from fossil fuel. The U.S. electric power industry's total installed generating capacity in 2005 was 1,067,019 Mwe. We would need to replace 70% of that or roughly 1067 new 1000 Mwe plants at a cost of over 5 billion dollars each. At this point you have to start using scientific notation just for the money needed. (app 10E+12 dollars).

Packrat- speaking of Mardi Gras this
year...

I was listening to the news yesterday, and heard a clip form some official proclaiming that Mardi Gras is for pleasure.

This is really indicative of the character of the people of that area and why they did not help each other during the disaster.

If you compare New Orleans to New York in disaster response, the New Yorkers ran to help their fellow New Yorkers, and in fact inspired the entire nation. Volunteers started removing rubble from the smoking mess with their bare hands, inhaling jet-fuel and walking on sharp, hot, twisted steel. Those who were not qualified to help in that way, brought water and food to the workers, and at the very least lined the streets to cheer on the heroes.

When Katrina hit, I realize that it was more difficult to help, but I understand that the police panicked and ran, and the Mayor neglected to evacuate the disabled with hundreds of school buses that ended up floating away. After the storm, instead of volunteering, the citizens of New Orleans sat around on their duffs waiting for help from the Federal government.

I remember clearly seeing a group of survivors loudly complaining that no one was volunteernig while surrounded by piles of trash.

Helloooo! Why aren't YOU picking up the trash? The city has to be cleaned up; wouldn't that be a start?

Instead of cheering the heroes, the N'awleenzians whined about government, looted, and refused to cooperate with police.

Incidently, the Mayor of New York ran toward danger while the Mayor of New Orleans ran away. Quite a contrast.

So what can we learn from this modern tale of two cities?

New Orleans is a city devoted to pleasure, and it attracts hedonists.

New York is a city devoted to commerce, and attracts hard workers.

I ask everyone, who would you rather have as neighbors?

Oh...and Julie
That only takes care of the electrical industry. Of course, the UN has now admited that bovine flatulance has more impact than vehicle transportation, so there is no problem there. We just quit eating.

Stop Picking on Julie
Guys, let up on Julie, it's obvious she is just a kid (relatively speaking). The real danger are those idiots in Washington who are more than willing to take money out of our wallets, and dispense it to every euro-weinee, or third world country, anytime a light bulb in the US is illuminated. Theses salivating politicians are the ones that need to know that they cannot get away with this global warming shell game.

Wow!
Julie, you are now moving out of the realm of the deluded and into the world of the full-on paranoid, joining other friends like Tanabear. So "they" mysteriously took away all the electric cars? Perhaps you have also seen the documentary about the secret cabal of Jews that is pulling the strings of even the evil oil companies. They control Bush, who controls the oil companies (or do the oil companies control him, I forget)and they'll be coming for you soon, in black hellicopters. You'd best keep your tinfoil helmet tuned to the right frequency.

You still haven't addressed the fact that you can buy an electric car today but most people don't want them, that electric cars use more fossil fuel than gas engines, or that land ice is thickening. Nor have you told us about your own electric car. Don't have one? What a shock, another hypocritical lib!

And now we learn that Bush is responsible (as he is for all evil in the world) for our dependence on foreign oil. Yet he proposed exploiting our own domestic oil reserves, but was blocked by...Dems. He proposed increased nuclear power (as used safely and effectively in the liberal utopia France) but was blocked by...Dems. He proposed wind power off the MA coast, but was blocked by...The Swimmer. I don't have the time to educate you on how oil is a fungible global commodity, and that "dependence on foreign oil" is meaningless.

And finally you drop the bomb that Iraq was not involved in 9/11. It must have escaped your attention that Bush never claimed they were, and in fact explicitly said they were not. Here's another news flash for you...Nazi Germany had nothing to do with Pearl Harbor. What could FDR have been thinking?

Libs are always welcome here, but please, try to come up with something intelligent.

Julie Princeton Savant
"On New Orleans, I’ll agree to disagree. The reports I read and viewed on CNN talked about the national guard preventing fleeing citizens from crossing a bridge that would have led them away from the chaos at the Superdome. My main complaint is that evacuation plans for the elderly and handicapped were not in place nor were they utilized, thus stranding the most helpless in our society, who happened to live in the black projects of New Orleans’ 9th ward. And I am a Princeton-trained biologist, so I do apologize for your misunderstanding of basic science. And thanks for the compliment- it takes nerve to enlighten people who push untruths upon others as gospel."


Oh, CNN, the paragon of honest, unbiased news. FYI, it was the LOCAL authorities who blocked the Mississippi River bridge on the Gretna (West Bank) side of the river. Evacuation plans? Those are the responsibility of LOCAL (look up the word in dictionary.com) authorities. FEMA is NOT a first responder. FEMA was not responsible for the 1000 unused buses in New Orleans, was it? The corrupt Democrat machine that has controlled New Orleans and Louisiana for decades failed its citizens, and continues to do so. Now billions of our tax dollars are disappearing down the New Orleans cesspool. (I lived in New Orleans for some years, so unlike you, I know something about it). Mississippi got hit just as hard by Katrina, so did south Alabama. Why are there no recovery problems there? Rita hit west Louisiana and east Texas a month or two after Katrina. Guess which region had more problems recovering.

As for your attempts at sounding intelligent on atmospheric and planetary science, I suggest you stick to your field of biology. FYI, my degrees are in earth and planetary science from an institution at least as prestigious as Princeton. At least I learned the scientific method. Too bad you didn't.

Julie
Did you think electricity came out the air into the cars. Electricty out of the ground into the air, sometimes. It's called lightning. But to support enough electric transportation for the nation, you would have to accept nuclear power plants as Japan and Europe have done. Don't want nuclear, try windmills, no that's only good for limited areas, can't do that, don't want natural gas, then it's coal. Coal with its hydrogen sulfide and oher byproducts.

Remember there are unintended consequences of regulation. I had a 1972 Honda with a 61 cubic inch engine, got nearly 50 miles to gallon. It was outlawed by EPA because it did not meet their rules. It was replaced by a larger Honda that burned more gas. Be careful what you wish for. You just may get it. But not in the way you wanted.

RE JohnGalt
"You must have also learned cool stuff like the beauty of bestiality and how it's ok to kill babies in the first year of life from resident Princetonian genius Peter Singer."

Indeed. Peter Singer is IRREFUTABLY one of the most abominable human beings to ever exist on Planet Earth. This absolute FREAK actually believes that there is nothing morally wrong with murdering infants. And, no, we're not talking about those born with birth defects. He openly stated in public interviews that he thinks that it is ok to simply smash a born childs head in with a sledgehammer for no reason at all.

Compound that with the fact that this kook, on the other hand, thinks that killing lab rats for the purpose of scientific research is immoral. This freak is granting rights to filthy rats -- whose diseases they carry are responsible for more human deaths throughout history than all forms of cancer combined times 1000 -- that he doesn't even grant to fellow members of the species which he is a member (I guess that is debatable).

That someone like this -- who makes people like Adolf Hitler, Charles Manson, and Osama bin Laden seem like they deserve the Nobel Peace Prize (ok, bad comparison...Yasser Arafat was given the Nobel Peace Prize once) -- is allowed within 10 miles of an institution of learning is absolute proof that our university system in the United States is simply broken.

The definition of legal insanity is one's inability to discern right from wrong. If Singer ever went up on trial for murder (not an inplausible scenerio, considering his notions on "post birth abortion"), and I were on the jury, I'd have no choice to declare him "not guilty by reason of insanity". That he fails to comprehend that assassination of an innocent child is the absolute in immorality is proof that this guy is completely and irrepairably insane.

All that, and he's teaching our kids at one of the most "prestegious" universities in the nation.

But then what can we expect from the home of Noam Chomsky -- a person who thinks that Pol Pot is one of the world's greatest heroes.

Mountain Rose
You didn't go far enough with your comments on New Orleans. New Orleans is a classic case of an al-Democrat welfare state gone amuck, graphic proof of how uncontrolled government handouts cause indolence and sloth, and suck ambition and personal responsibility right out of the citizenry.

Inkling_Revival Freshwater Ice Caps
Salt is stored in water as a solution. If you cool the water, it loses its solvent property. The salt begins to fall out of the solution as the water approaches freezing.

The same principle is involved if you try to add sugar to already iced tea. You can stir and stir, and the sugar just won't mix.

Minerals don't usually stay with water as it changes states. Distillation (boiling water and condensing the steam) is one of the most common ways to purify water.

Whatever, Global Warming is still politically-motivated bilge.

Crops and CO2 - a mathematical analysis
Plants consume carbon dioxide at an average rate of between .012 and .024 kilograms per hour per square meter (Source: http://ezinearticles.com/?Positive-Effects-of-Carbon-Dioxide-for-Plant-Growth&id=1607, converted from kg/hour/100 square meters). Let's assume the low end, 1.2 grams per hour per square meter, then convert it to a kilogram-hectare basis (1 hectare = 10,000 square meters), and you have 1200 Kg (or 1.2 metric tons) per hectare per hour. In a 24-hour day, that's 28.8 MT/hectare/day of carbon dioxide CONSUMPTION across every hectare of crops in the US. Over a growing season of 150 days, that's 4,320 metric tons of carbon dioxide consumed per hectare per year.

Now, the US Department of Energy estimates carbon dioxide emissions, from the consumption of energy, in the US, during 2004, at 5.912 billion metric tons (Source: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/carbondioxide.html). Keep in mind that this INCLUDES energy consumed in the production of crops.

So, how many acres of crops are needed to COMPLETELY consume this amount of carbon dioxide? About 1.4 million hectares, or for the metric-challenged, about 3.4 million acres. That's a little over 1% of land planted to principle crops in the US (2004 = 322 million acres)(Source: http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/current/CropProdSu/CropProdSu-01-12-2007.pdf). That means we could plant just an additional 1.06% of the current crop acreage in the US and scrub every single molecule of carbon dioxide generated by the consumption of energy in the US.

So where will the additional acreage come from? Well, first there is an ample supply of idle cropland across the US. Though some vegetation is already growing there (cover crop, wild grasses, brush, etc), this acreage is not currently being maximized in terms of CO2 consumption. Even if we left it idle, we could get more CO2 consumption by just FERTILIZING the idle cropland. OR we could plant crops on land not historically used for crops. Run some irrigation channels into the desserts of Arizona, for example. OR, we could just clear-cut some old-growth forests. As mentioned in my previous post, these old-growth forests are very poor CO2 consumers, and replacing them with wildlife-free, rapidly-growing, densely packed CROPS will vastly improve the current CO2 consumption.

Do the math, global warming alarmists. If you're really worried about CO2, cut down your precious old-growth forests, plant crops, fertilize the hell out of them, and eradicate the insects. IF there really was a problem with global warming (and there isn't) that's the solution!

Regards,
Trevor

Julie and LGM
...and anyone else who supports this lie.

I'd like an answer for why Al Gore wants to have a concert in Antarctica. As I previously said, no one lives there, it will be a massive energy cost for questionable benefit.

Explain his rationale, or take your complaints elsewhere (like to Gore's site).

And another thing...
Julie, you imply that the liberation of Iraq was a strictly Republican affair (what that has to do with the "global warming" scam is beyond me). You seem to forget the "inconvenient truth" that Dems were all for the invasion before it became politically expedient for them to begin aiding and abetting our enemies. Either you are too young to remember this (your lack of knowledge screams "recent grad") or you are wistfully living in the past when the MSM could enable the Dems to re-write history. As with their Soviet fellow-travellers, the future is always known to the Dems--it's the past that keeps changing.

You decry the intrusion of Iran into the war in Iraq as if Dems would support Bush doing something about it.

You blather about Bush's disregard for human rights without providing a single instance in which he has abused anyone's, while at the same time ignoring the civil rights he has procured for millions of people who had been brutalized by Saddam and the Taliban.

Please, at some point get a clue.

.Julie, your ignorance astounds me
Although Mtn. Rose attempted to clarify this with you I do not imagine it sunk in after seeing your other posts. May I enlighten you?
This GREAT country, the United States of America, was founded as a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC. When you say it "doesn't sound like Democracy to me" it shows how little you understand. The Founding Fathers knew exactly what they were doing when our government was set up this way, and it was brilliant. I would encourage you to read the following book as soon as possible because it would appear you are in desperate need of facts about how the United States goverment REALLY works.
http://www.amazon.com/Enlightened-Democracy-Case-Electoral-College/dp/0977072207/sr=1-1/qid=1172084480/ref=sr_1_1/104-5784544-2548732?ie=UTF8&s=books
Please educate yourself and stop the foolishness from spreading.

Julie
Julie said:

"Trevor- the wealth of scientific knowledge here is astounding. You’re actually advocating for the destruction of rainforests and ensuing extinction of rare animal species and plants that may hold cures for diseases. I’m surprised Bush hasn’t named you to be his chief science consultant. The amount of CO2 being released by insects does keep me up at night, although I’m slightly more concerned that your brilliant plan would eradicate all flowers, also CO2 consumers, and leave the world much worse off. How about we take after Brazil and become self-sufficient by running our cars off of biofuels and giving the middle east the finger? That kind of jives with your plant plan."

It's called a "trade-off", Julie, and if you understood anything about economics, or even the environment, you would know what I'm talking about. You can trade a small percentage of the rain forests and the old-growth forests for a HUGE decrease in CO2, as my subsequent "mathematical analysis" shows. Or you can trade the prosperity of the US and world economy for a very small change in CO2. What is amazing to me is that you global warming alarmists are fully prepared to sacrifice the world's economy for a negligible SLOWING of global warming, but don't want to give up a SINGLE ACRE of rain forest for the cause. Scratch that - it doesn't amaze me at all. This whole global warming scare was cooked up as an excuse to destroy capitalism, and any solution that preserves capitalism will therefore be immediately rejected. Why don't you f'ing communists just come out of the closet?!

Rare animal species? It's a trade-off. Is it worth a few species to stop global warming? If not, then well, too bad. I guess we'll all just have to fry because you want to protect the three-toed Columbian macaw. Besides, if global warming "continues" (if it even exists at all), far more species will become extinct from that than from clear-cutting the Amazon.

Cures for disease? You environmentalists have made it clear that humans are the problem here, and that the world was in perfect harmony and ecological balance before we came along and screwed it all up. So why do you care about diseases? So they kill a few thousand humans. Big Deal! Less CO2-producing organisms, from your point of view. (Oh, by the way, far more diseases have been cured from DOMESTICATED plants and animals than WILD species. Also, far more humans will die as a result of the world-wide super-depression that will occur if we go with YOUR plans for combatting global warming.)

Flowers are CO2 consumers? Well, technically, no, they're not. If you're going to be specific about the parts of the plant, it's the LEAVES that consume CO2. But, in any event, the plants that produce flowers, especially those in FORESTS are very POOR consumers of CO2, while crops are very GOOD CO2 consumers. Therefore, I can only assume that by "leave the world much worse off", you are referring to the aesthetic loss of flowers. Fine. If you think being able to see a wild, tropical flowers is more important than having livable temperatures, that's your trade-off. Personally, I'll sacrifice the flower.

Biofuels is an idiotic notion. In the US, the only viable option for producing ethanol is corn. But it takes more energy (in the form of diesel) to grow the corn than you get from the ethanol. So it results in a net INCREASE in fossil fuel usage. Brazil uses sugarcane, because they can grow it in abundance there, and it takes SLIGHTLY less energy to produce ethanol than you get from the ethanol. But even then, ethanol production from sugarcane is not economically profitable, and wouldn't be occurring if not for the huge subsidies provided by the Brazilian government.

Look, what it all boils down to is this: Put up or shut up! You GW alarmists have been preaching doom and gloom about global warming for years, saying we have to cut this and cut that, or we're going to fry. Personally, I think you're all full of sh!t. But, assuming it's true, I have presented an option that will DRASTICALLY curtail global warming. The only problem you have with it, is that it is you environmentalists that will have to sacrifice something near and dear to your heart, rather than us capitalists sacrificing something. If you won't give up a few million acres of rain forest, or a few endangered species, or a couple of "pretty flowers" for a SURE-FIRE tool to ELIMINATE global warming, then stop asking us to give up the entire world's economy, and millions of human lives as well, for a minute SLOWING of global warming.

Regards,
Trevor

Julie, it is with good reason
that you have been "picked on" by other posters.
I was wondering if you meant "Princeton High School" instead of the college. It is truly frightening to think you have been to college given your posts (although it would prove the reality of the deterioration of college educations on liberal left dominated campuses.)

Trevor
"If you won't give up a few million acres of rain forest, or a few endangered species, or a couple of "pretty flowers" for a SURE-FIRE tool to ELIMINATE global warming, then stop asking us to give up the entire world's economy, and millions of human lives as well, for a minute SLOWING of global warming."

Didn't you learn anything from the big DDT scare a few decades ago? Kooky commies don't give a rat's a$$ about human lives. They're fully willing to sit back and watch as the entire world's population of humans dies if it would just save the life of a single unborn pigeon (amusing how these quacks care more about protecting unborn rats with wings than they do about protecting unborn members of the species of which they are, themselves, a member).

In this sense, Peter Singer is a fitting poster-child for their side.

Julie
I've never attended Princeton University (although I did drive by it once).

It seems to me that Julie is ignoring Trevor and other smart people who post on TH.com.

Climatology isn't my field. Law and political science are my bag. It scares me to think that Algore was almost the president of the US.

The "CO2 causes climate change" theory has never been adequately proven. The number one greenhouse gas is water vapor (which is a by-product of hydrogen fueled cars). Methane (from what I've read) is a more potent G.H. gas than CO2.

No one has mentioned the sun. The sun is the prime mover of our system. Without it, there'd simply be a bunch of cold rocks floating around space. Minor variations in the sun's heat can cause significant changes in our climate. What if ice ages were caused simply because our solar system passed through a cosmic dust cloud, then warmed again after we left the cloud?

The Doom & Gloom crowd..

They are at it again. When I grew up it was the planet cooling of going into another ice-age. I guess then the thermometer was just upside down, right?

This time they have it right? Bet not, just after air-time in the MSM. I laugh when I hear/read the the temp rise since 19 or 18XX had been 3.2 degrees or what ever number they dream up. Their thermometer is just as accurate at the town clock ticking down high-noon in the old western movies - well it is something near noon at best.

Ed

Crops and CO2 - UPDATE
I found another source: Crops and CO2 - http://www.ontariocorn.org/envt/envclim.html

Looks like, for corn at least, the rate of CO2 consumption is quite a bit higher than the average I posted in my previous "mathematical analysis". It's 22 metric tons per year, over 5 times the estimate I used previously. That means we would only have to increase crop area by 700,000 acres to completely eliminate every molecule of carbond dioxide resulting from energy use in the US.

Forget the rain forests. If Julie wants to keep her precious rare species and pretty flowers, fine. We could just clear-cut 1100 square miles of old-growth forest, plant corn on it, fertilize the hell out of it, and watch CO2 levels plummet.

Julie, if you just want to keep the old-growth forests for sentimental reasons, fine - just admit it. Or, if you have some real reason, explain it in such a way that it's more important than 1) stopping global warming, and 2) saving the world's economy from the certain destruction that your plans would bring. And if you can't do that, then you're going to have to refute my math.

The solution to global warming (if it's even a crisis, which I don't believe) is to plant more crops and apply generous, but not excessive, amounts of fertilizer and insecticides. Personally, I believe we can achieve the additional acreage with little if any destruction of old-growth forests. But, if that's what it takes, the old-growth forests are not helping global warming, and therefore need to be replaced with fast-growing, high-CO2-consuming crops. Just 700,000 acres of corn would neutralize every molecule of CO2 generated by energy use in the US.

Regards,
Trevor

An Alaskan take on electric cars
For Julie

It's winter here in my home town -- a brisk and bracing -40 degrees F. Yes, that would be nearly 70 degrees BELOW freezing (no chill factor -- we have no wind in the winter, thank God!). So, in order to use our cars (because life goes on even at severe temperatures) we plug them in. We all have heating devices on our cars that warm the oil and the battery so they will function for us. Plug in your car for about two hours and it runs. Don't plug in and it doesn't.

This year, my car is costing about $40 a month to plug in for two to six hours a day (depending on whether I have to take my kids somewhere in the evening). Now, I'm going to make some extrapolations here, based on that info. If I had an electric car, I'd most surely have to heat the batteries at least as much as I currently heat my internal combustion car. Bigger batteries, more heating appliances. So, let's just say that keeping them warm for two to six hours a day would cost $80 a month. Ah, but cold batteries don't recharge well and they lose their charge more quickly, so in reality, I'd probably have to heat my car 24 hours a day. Since I didn't factor in the time I currently plug in at work, I'll assume 12 hours of heating time. That's $120 a month just heating the car.

Now, I'm not really up on how many kilowatt hours it takes to recharge an electric car, but it can't be less than having to leave an oven on overnight -- something a friend experienced last month when her furnace broke. That little foray into electric heating of her home cost her about $50 in electricity. So, do the math -- a 30-day cycle would cost about $1500.

So, in very loose math (I will admit that, but I'm sure there are others on this site who know where to find the figures and could do a better job than I) we're looking at a cost of about $1600 a month just to operate an electric car.

Yeah, it would be less in the Lower 48 states where you don't have to deal with the cold, but I'm guessing about $1000 a month. I currently pay less than $200 a month to operate my Jeep.

And, there is just one reason why electric cars haven't taken off in this country -- they're too expensive to operate.

And, Julie, please don't start babbling about government rebates and all that jazz. We the people are the government and that means I pay for it in my electrric bill or I pay for it in my taxes, but I don't get to not pay for it.

Oh, and by the way, a protype electric car was tested the University of Alaska. Although the university professor who tested it liked it in the summer, he said it was impractical for both Alaskan and wintertime use. It was good only for in-town driving (which at $50,000 list price and $1000 a month electric bills, it would be hard to own a second car) and it didn't like the cold (nothing electrical likes the cold).

So, when you say NOTHING is preventing us from using electric cars -- well, that's not true. A lot of things are preventing us from using electric cars. They might be practical for sunbelt commuters with less than 100 miles to drive every day and a load of cash to pay for electricity, but for the rest of us -- we have to live with reality.

Packaged Wisdom
"Expertise in one field does not carry over into other fields. But experts often think so. The narrower their field of knowledge, the more likely they are to think so."

Also: "If 'everybody knows' such-and-such, then it ain't so, by at least ten thousand to one."

And finally: "The majority of so-called scientists are merely button-sorters and bottle-washers."

Robert A. Heinlein (1907-1988)

A book written by Gore and
produced by Michael Moore?

Packrat, perish the thought and wash out your mouth with soap!
ROFL!

Julie Bandwagon
Regarding your take on Hurricane Katrina and the federal response. I have som questions for you, what was the role of the local and state government in the preparation for the hurricane? They had, I believe, 4 days to prepare. What did the local and state authorities do? Did they have mandatory evacuation as in Florida? (lived there so I know, ok). Why were the buses left empty, why did Amtrax leave with empty trains? Where was nagin during the storm?
Julie, the left and the MSM have been using this strictly for poltical reasons and nothing else. Nagin & Blanco have been given a pass and that is disgusting.
Why did Blanco wait to send in the National Guard? You know, I'm really sick of talking about this issue. You and your party should be ashamed of yourselves.

Electric Autos?
Electric cars are the most dangerous vehicles on the road and the VERY WORST POLLUTERS!
I understand many people do not consider something they can't see as inportant or believe it exists. To them I ask you feel the end of a live 450v wire to understand there are things you can't see.

Generating electricity causes energy loss from fossil fuel to electrical energy, line loss in transmission, transformer loss reducing voltage for domestic use, loss converting to chemical energy to store in a battery, storeage loss, loss converting chemical energy back to electrical energy to drive wheels.
Using gas to directly drive the wheels takes about 45% as much as it does to use electricity and pollutes much less.
If you crack a battery jar in an accident, (or by freezing), the acid you spill will ignite any flamable substance, like gas, dry weeds or even that pair of cotton Jocky shorts you are wearing.

Ozone is like that live 450v wire. You can't see the danger but it is very real. Wherever electricity passes it generates an ionized field.
Ionization is a catalyst that changes the harmless Oxygen we breath, (O2) to Ozone, (O3), a caustic poison! Direct sunlight serves as a catalyst to swiftly turn Ozone back to harmless oxygen.
Ozone builds up swiftly around power transmission lines but power use NORMALLY drops at night when factories and offices close and people go to bed.
Ozone is an integral part of smog because smog protects it from sunlight.
If you have ever had smog sting your eyes and nostrils or walked under a power line on a cold dark night and fealt the same thing, you have breathed ozone at about 0.009ppm.
This will damage plant leaves and kill small insects. At 0.0147ppm IT WILL KILL EVERYTHING, even humans, pets and even fish.
What do you think would happen if there was no drop in power use at night because people were charging batteries all night?
(Darn, this is a windy keyboard, Sorry guys.)

The Power of One
A lone scientist with a lone hypothesis has a high probablilty of being wrong. Thousands of scientists in basic agreement on something have a high probability of being right. It makes no more sense to pick out Paul Ehrlich (who got ahead of himself on global warming) for negative treatment than it does to pick out Richard Lindzen (one of a handful of skeptics on the same issue) for positive treatment. What is more significant is that so many scientists are in basic agreement. And yet for reasons that perhaps only a board of psychiatrists are competent to comment on, many conservatives still want to ignore or explain away that fact and turn informed scientific opinion into a political issue.

What happened to evolution?
According to some global warming is responsible for species (like polar bears) becoming endangered. Regardless of what we do species will die and new ones will flourish, we are required to learn about evolution in schools so the dying off of species should be survival of the fittest so do not worry about global warming, species will adapt and the Earth will go on right? Climate on this planet has been both warmer and cooler than it is presently. Matter of fact some scientists say we just came out of a mini Ice Age so that would mean we are warming up back to what the planet's temp should be right? But Al Gore says it is us so it must be! We are killing ozone! Pollution causes holes in the ozone layer! Forget the fact that the hole is actually smaller now than it was 10 years ago and ignore the fact that the hole is over Antartica where there is no pollution. Al Gore says it so it must be true!

Julie,
First, thanks for posting here. It keeps us from having to talk to ourselves. You are much more pleasant than the usual liberal crowd.

The details of the science are beyond most of the commenters on TH -- but not all of them. But we are good at smelling BS.

One point I need to correct you on is the increase in temperature over the last century. My understanding is that the scientific consensus is for 0.7 degrees C. That's way different from 4 to 7.

To everybody else, and in the words my Dad, "FOR THE MILLIONTH TIME, CLOSE THE &*$^ DOOR!! I'M NOT TRYING TO HEAT UP THE WHOLE OUTSIDE, I'M JUST TRYING TO KEEP THE INSIDE WARM!!"

Why Al Gore Wins
So there are a couple of reasons Al Gore is easily going to win the global warming hearts and minds.

1.) It doesn't matter whether the Earth is going to kill you because man or nature did. If the planet is warming, climate change destroys your home, and the you die I don't think you really care whether CO2 was the cause.

2.) The Universal Value. The Universal Value is simply stated. Every generation everywhere on this planet wants to leave a better world for their children, regardless of religion or country.

If our generation passes laws dealing with global warming it is a win-win situation or lose-win.

Win 1.) If the scientists supporting global warming are correct then taking steps to mitigate it are correct.

Win 2.) Parents send a message to their children that they were willing to make sacrifices for their children and that is a given heritage.

Lose 1.) The scientists supporting global warming are wrong and attempts to cool the planet are a waste.

However, even if Lose 1. is the case above then Win 2.) still applies.

In some respect Al Gore's wager is no different than Pascal's wager when it comes to believing in God. If you die as an atheist and there is a God, you lose. If you die as a Christian and there is no God, the outcome is no different than if you were an atheist.

Conservatives were predicting economic doom when environmental laws in the 70's and 80's were passed. But, surprise, surprise. No such doom. That's because new markets were created.

Or in other words, the markets follow the consumer, not vice-versa. If we decide we want electric cars over gasoline cars, the markets will follow.

Al Gore is going to "win" this debate, hands down, flat out.

Finally, on a technical note, there is something one can understand about Al Gore's presentation that doesn't require a PhD.

The measured levels of CO2 in the atmosphere are approaching 600ppm and climbing. No one is debating that. Measurement is easy enough.

Where's the sleight of hand?

It happens fast so you have to pay attention.

Al Gore says that CO2 levels correspond to temperature. He then goes on to say that "the relationship is very complicated but suffice it to say that when CO2 levels go up then so do temperatures."

Ok, Al. Either the relationship is very complicated or there is a simple relationship that when one goes up, so does the other.

Which is it, Al?

In the end, though, its not going to matter. Al Gore will easy win the day on this because the consequences of if he is right are too dire to ignore for our following generations.

No generation wants to be the generation that mucks it up for their kids.

Conservatives need to understand this or be further marginalized from the mainstream.


Lynne
All, check my blog for Al's HONORARY doctorate as well as the info on GW.

BTW, check the post on my blog on what a believer in GW wishes for 3/4 of the humans on earth!

Kim, still pumping bilge out of your oral sewer I see.

Some things, like your small IQ, never change.

AGW BUNKO SCAM PEDDLERS
If AGW was anything outher than a HOAX would there be any reason to coerce and bribe scientists to concur?
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPrint.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200702/CUL20070208c.html

When Politicians publish a statement claiming specific scientists agree on AGW and we find later these scientists never even saw the document and some do not agree, it is obvious the politicians are liars.

AGW IS A POLITICAL BUNKO SCAM!
The only thing scientific about it is the Grant money and threats to harm scientists who do not concur with a HOAX.
Any scientist who does agree with AGW is probobly either prostituting his science for money or too cowardly to denounce the lie.

Anyone who has been around TH for the last few days has seen AGW PROVEN to be fiction several times.

AGW is only a sacred cow to Leftist Algore followers. Go sell it at DailyKos or moveon.
I am sure they will buy it.
Just don't ask us at TH to pay an International Green Tax to the United Nations.

Lynne
LOL!

I used to stand with the front door open, talking to my friends, with the AC on. Dad used to yell, close the &*(&^&^%^()@%^#%# door, I'm not trying to cool the neighborhood.

I though that the impending Ice Age predicted in the 1970's was my fault. Thank God it's heating up.

One more thing, Julie,
Even though the alamists are saying we're facing our doom, if we did everything called for in the Kyoto accords, it is my understanding that we would simply reach the same temperature anyway -- six years later.

So if the world is going to end, it's going to end anyway. And we've heard it all before. It's like movie we've already seen and we know how it ends.

If this wasn't the same crowd that is also against nuclear power (despite all its scientific and economic support) maybe they'd have more credibility. We recognize others under the GW tent as well.

There are those who seek to use GW as a pretext for raising taxes, and others who would like to use this as a vehicle for transferring cash from the US to other countries to corrupt to have healthy economies of their own.

We see anti-American leftists who support the side of whatever issue that would weaken the US.

And we recognize pandering by politicians who aren't above jumping on any bandwagon if it will win them votes.

You are proof that there are many who believe the alarmists not because you have an agenda, but you trust the scientists whom you have read, and you sincerely want to preserve the place we call home.

We want the same thing as you do, but not everybody in the alarmist camp has the same agenda.

Katrina and the Coast Guard
I'm sorry to keep up the Hurricane Katrina thing when it was gratuitously inserted into the thread, apparently for no other reason other than short-term gratification of someone's Bush Derangement Syndrome, but remember I didn't start it. Has anyone else ever observed, as I have, how the media has glanced over the magnificent performance of the U.S. Coast Guard in New Orleans? Last time I checked, the Coast Guard is part of the Federal government (it is even under the Department of Homeland Security). There were a lot of mistakes made before, during, and after Katrina on all levels of government, but if anyone wants to look at who did it right, my vote goes to the U.S. (read “Federal”) Coast Guard.

Bozo er Boselle er never mind
Has been a Bozo for years. Stirring up muck and never making any real 'points' . Just like everyone at this blog. Lets's acll each other names instaed of saving our grandchildrens lives.

Lynne, and Gunny,
See, it's our fault after all!

Way way way way way into the future we'll be hailed as heroes for delaying the time when the molten core of the earth cools, leaving our planet as a dead, frozen rock orbiting a dimming sun...

Of course, I'm not worried. Long before the universe experiences heat-death we'll have burned up in the Apocolypse... now THAT will cause some global warming!

Kodiak
So the Coast Guard did thier job. GOOD That's what they are paid to do. When did You get a write up for doing your job? That,my friend Is The Point.

actreal,
Bettre yet, lets crush their skllus jsut before therye born.

Thta way thyell nevre hvae ot laern how ot use sellpchkere.

ah Steveo
Always coerrecting me spllin' Go back to yor parets basement and get a Jab!

Lynne: About Giegengack
I have a hard time believing a scientist would actually say one-to one correspondence and not correlation. (maybe the writer misquoted him...hopefully that’s it). Correlation is a statistical technique that plots the strength of relationship between two random variables. Correspondence? That would be a very poor choice of terms for a scientist to use...too nebulous. I have never read about any scientist suggesting a one to one correlation between CO2 and temperature gain. Anyone who did would be laughed at. There is simply no evidence to prove that, so that is a strawman argument at best.

BTW, how much do you agree with Giegengack’s statement: “The real short-term environmental issues include threats like tobacco, stored nuclear weapons, land mines left behind in war zones and more. “We’re killing off all the fish; we’re damaging the soil; we’re poisoning our water. Biodiversity is plummeting; ancient bacterial diseases are burgeoning. We’re not paying attention to the real problems”

IF
the Best You can come up with is My spelling,it shows your upbringing and Your way of discussion. In verbal debate,there is No spellcheck.

From Elephant to Dinasaur
Well, I was going to use "From Elephant to Cow" given that the "being put out to pasture" idiom would be very global warming-esque, but Dinasaur is better in that Dinasaur's just were not sustainable, too big.

Conservatives are turning into Dinasaurs. Which is too bad, and sad and something forlorn I think.

Here's a question for you.

Which state has the largest economy in the U.S.?

Which state has the largest economy per capita?

Which state has the most business hostile envionmental regulations bar none?

Answer to all of the above: California.

That's right, the most regulated state on the planet is also the most economically successful.

California's minimum wage is higher than the national average.

And the reason is? Liberals are very good at capitalism.

The financial capital of the world is NYC, home to the former twin towers. And NYC is ... liberal! wooo hooo!

Conservatives are so behind the curve.

Where is the *new* money being created. In *new* markets of course. The Internet and the Information Age are synonomous. Who dominates the Internet money? Silicon Valley of course. Name me one *conservative* company that can stack up to Google.

Money for nothing. That's what software is. That's what information is, all in the physical sense of course.

You all are fools if you think liberals are going to exclusively promote global warming with legislation.

Energy is the primary commodity used to convey information. Energy stored in computers as 1's and 0's.

Last month there was a Silicon Valley symposium on Technology's role in global warming and energy management. Both are the two sides to the same coin.

Liberals are going to start building energy efficient products. The will kick a** because

1.) Energy prices are going to continue to rise as information becomes ever more important.

2.) Less heat equates to less global warming and less environmental impact. Electricy has to be produced and the production by products are all enviornmentally polluting. Whether its nuclear waste or C02.


So Liberals are building more energy efficient products. And they are going to make a lot of money. Billions. They already have. And California will continue to regulate the environment even more. California will become an even larger economy. California will become a very wealthy, very presevered place. A place parents can easily feel good about handing to their children.

All the while classic conservatives on this site are singing their socialist and communist tunes.

Remember the golden rule. He who has the gold makes the rule. In the information age, the rule will be slightly revised. Remember the energy rule, he who has the energy makes the rules.

Keep playing your feel good socialist and communist fiddles. Maybe they will keep you warm at night. One things for sure. Liberals are going to rule the future. They are going to be the masters of energy and the masters of capitalism.

drivebyposting
You left out one;
Which State has a NEGATIVE groth rate in spite of the runaway influx of illegals?

And while you are calling Republicans names;
If you think any Republicans here are going to buy your AGW scam, you have got to be the most naive person to walk the face of this earth!

Driveby, would you like to buy 49% interest in a well maintained suspension bridge that spans the entrance to San Francisco bay?
Just for you I will make a bargain!

MyOpine
BINGO!

I wonder if drivebyloon has done any research on how many businesses have LEFT Kalifornia since the 90's thanks to runaway corporate taxation?

kalifornia's budget deficit is what? 15 BILLION now and rising?


Lynne
GREAT POST.

I have to laugh like h*ll when I think of the idiots who hang on the words of a C+ science student.

I would PAY to watch Gore debate a real anti GW scientist. Watching a real PhD rip up a wannabe like Gore would be too much fun.

GunnyG
We also have a musselhead RINO Govenor who buys into ever confidence scam that comes along.
He is going to save the world from AGW.
When he starts implementing that Kyoto stuff here we can expect to loose nearly all our mfg. jobs.
The CA minimum wage is not what is killing jobs here.
The EPA is taking a heavy toll but the "Unions" are chasing more employers out of State.
"Unions" in Quotes?
They are not really Unions in the true sense of the word.
They are more like professional Labor Pimps.
Real Unions have real power because they have no assets to sue for. If you threaten to sue the Agent of a real union, step back and give him room to laugh.
These "Unions" own huge bank accounts, big buildings, private jets, etc. They are not Unions, they are commercial enterprise.
They can't do anything for the people because they tremble in fear of legal action.

MyOpine
One of my sisters is in Wyoming and they have taken in a number of businesses from Cal. They were given huge tax breaks and other incentives.

Yeah, Arnold is a huge disappointment but then he married a lib and is involved with one of the most corrupt families in America.

I wonder why Bush trusts mary matalin, married to Cockroach Carville. Surely there is a conflict of interest there...

Lynne
I'm sure Kimbat has multiple personalities...

Both ON this board and OFF!

actreal
Actually, my point was that a government entity that performed extremely well -- perhaps/ probably better than any other -- is also part of that evil Bush administration. By inference, that observation was meant to imply the media coverage was driven by an anti-Bush agenda, as is indeed the selective evaluation of local\ state\ federal government bungling after-the-fact. But that is not what this thread is about, and I've shown poor manners twice by injecting my comments within it. I shall try to refrain in the future.

Lynne: Giegengack
First, I read the article. Second, I am not necessarily dismissing Giegengack’s claims. I’m questioning that particularly odd statement regarding correspondence. That link was not a scientific dissertation, it was an article written by a spectator of one of his presentations. How accurate was the author’s recitation of what Giegengack said? That is what I am questioning. And if turns out that that is exactly what he said, then there is no need for me to be his academic equivalent to challenge an obviously faulty argument.

Also you never responded about how you feel about Giegengack’s other statements. Do you agree with him that we are we’re killing off all the fish? That we are poisoning our water?” That Biodiversity is plummeting?

Julie
To refer to Valerie Plame as a " secret CIA Operative " that was outed to "get back at her husband for refuting one of Bush's main reasons for going to Iraq". It was not a "false claim that Niger gave Iraq enriched Uranium" but they were looking to get it.

She was outed by her husband and as as been discussed during Libby's trial, most reporters knew where she worked. Jane Bond she wasn't.

Libby is on trasil for purjury, not outing her.

Bullwinkle
I've read articles recently about many new species being found. Not to mention the extinct fish caught off of Africa.

The rpoblem I have with proponents of GW is their supreme arrogance that man is somehow responsible for global warming.

Their absolute disregard of things like the melting of the polar caps on Mars is just more fuel to the fire that GW is pure bullsqueeze.

Lynne
What are your credentials? Are you schooled in the sciences enough to be able to competently verify the veracity of Giegengack's claims? Or are you just citing him as a source because he confirms your predisposed beliefs about the subject? Your argument is a double edged sword. If I don't have the credentials to say he is wrong, then you don't have the credentials to say he is right. But surprise me...what are your credentials?

I have two business degress, and have worked as an electronics techinician for 15 years. I have taken plenty of advanced statistics and mathematic courses, as well as extensive schooling in electrical theory and electronics. Does that make me an expert on global warming? No. But I have plenty of training troubleshooting logic problems. And I do know when I see the misuse of a statistical term.

Plus, I see you do not want to answer my last question, that I have asked twice now. What about his claims about water quality, the depletion of fisheries or biodiversity? Agree with him or disagree?

Lynne and Gunny,
1) My parents both used to yell at all six of us kids to "Shut the door! Were you born in a barn?"
And guess what, I have been saying the exact same thing (with more colorful words) to MY kids for the past decade!

2) Here is a link to another actual REAL geologist,as in SCIENTIST who do not accept the GW hysteria (nor its grant money used to fuel the fire.) He was interviewed on a local radio show not long ago. The nicest thing about the whole interview is that he just calmly presented his facts (not hysterical emotional rantings like some posters on this site) as to why he thought the whole GW scare is just that, a SCARE tactic.
Note: If you watch Dr. Gerhard's slide show be prepared to read MUCH technical and scientific information (which may be too much for some of the minds of various posters.)
http://dpa.aapg.org/correlator/2006/globalwarming.cfm

3)Julie, do you realize HOW the government of the United States was founded now and WHY it works the way it does? I guess those "Princeton" biology classes just kept you too busy,yes?

typo
should read "who does not accept"

Bullwinkle (Off Topic)
I have not experimented with Series Resonance since the days of vacuum tubes and that is what was in the cabinets over my bench when the experiment threw comutator segments like machinegun bullets.

Do you think it is possible for a computer to control Series Resonance?

That would sure solve our clean energy problems.

CO2 is and Temps
The relationship between CO2 increases (ppm) and increased surface temperature due the increases in CO2 (the Greenhouse Theory) are not linear; the actual relationship is expressed as a regressive, nonlinear function. That is, there is a point of diminishing returns (in this case temperature increases) as CO2 content increase. The greatest rate of change in surface temperatures comes when the relative CO2 content is small. As CO2 increase (dp), the rate of change of the temperature (dt) will begin to decrease. Therefore, you can double the amount of CO2 in a given volume and only increase the volume's temperature 0.5 to0.9 Deg C - about the same increase in gas temperature when adding smaller amounts of CO2

This type of regression can also be seen in the field of economic, most notably Charles Laffer and his famous curve.

Dr Lindzen of MIT discovered this relationship between CO2 and temperatures many years ago -back when it was safe to be a pure scientist. It has been confirmed in many labs throughout the world, as well as in our own atmosphere.

Julie
Your ignorance continues to astound me. Get this book and read it now. As to whether any of the information will actually sink in, should you read it, is another matter.

http://www.amazon.com/Enlightened-Democracy-Case-Electoral-College/dp/0977072207/sr=1-1/qid=1172298097/ref=sr_1_1/002-4750682-9524067?ie=UTF8&s=books

Julie
I would venture to say you do not live in a "heavily republican" state since it is the Democrats who seek to overturn the Electoral College so brilliantly designed by the Founding Fathers. Their reason? To insure that the heavy Democrat coastal states will be sure to decide that this country's future presidents will be Democrats. Please educate yourself further and read the book linked above. Do not just fall for whatever liberal baloney is being sold to you.

Julie, so nice of you to post again.
The Founding Fathers studied numerous failed "democracies" so they knew exactly what they were doing when they set up the United States as a "constitutional republic," an ingenious combination of democratic institutions and anti-democratic safeguards (Bill of Rights, representative government, two Senators/state, separation of powers, presidential veto, judicial review, and the Electoral College.) The United States is a confederation of individual states with each state having its own sovereign powers. The Electoral College was specifically set up to protect against the "tyranny of the majority" (where larger more populated states overpower the smaller states.) There is much more, but like I said, go get the book (linked above) to read and do some actual learning instead of just reiterating looney liberal ideas.

Observations
Curious that the left puts so much credence in a man that was barely a "C" student in science and showed such incredible stupidity by lying about things easily disproved.
(1)Gore says he was the subject Eric Segal's, Love Story. Segal said no it was actually Tommy Lee Jones that he had in mind.
(2) Gore said he assisted Hubert Humphrey draft his acceptance speech at the 1968 democrat conventtion. The writer gore confided this to said he had never heard of gore nor had anyone ever made this claim to him.
(3) Gore claimed to have introduced the EITC legislation. Couldn't have happened because the EITC was enacted in 1975 and gore didn't enter Congres until 1977 two years after EITC.
(4) gore said he invented the internet - nuff said on that whopper.
(5) In the mid'90's moron gore was having a debate about Naturally Occurring Climate Change when his opponent mentioned that volcanoes throw ash and smoke 30-40 thousand feet into the air. gore said it's impossible for volcanoes to do that. Yet an airline pilot flew through that impossibility at 41 thousand in a 747, his engines quit and didn't restart until they had reached 21 thousand feet.

And people really want to put their trust in this moron, gore?

Recent reports of ice bergs off New Zealand prove global warming is happening. FALSE Ice bergs ahve benn reported off New Zealand going back to 1893-4 - with pictures and a running diary of how ice bergs were dodged for 1400 miles. Reports of massive ice bergs in ships logs going back to 1527 with additional accounts every century thereafter. In other words this phenomenom has been occurring forever. We just didn't have algore to scare us.

The scaremongers tell us that climate cycles don't occur. Really! The Sahara 15,000 years ago was pretty mush as it is today. Then about 8-10,000 years ago there was an ice age, then a few thousand years later a tropical climate followed by what we have today. In other words a cycle that man could not possibly have caused. Unless you are "D" student algore.

The scaremongers tell us the oceans have risen 6-12 inches over the last several decades. Not true! The closest measurement over a 160 year period is 2-3 CENTIMETERS, which equals approximately 1 inch. And scientists have long known that oceans rise and fall about 6 inches and have been doing so ever since the end of the last great ice age.

The scaremongers tell us that co2 is minimal from volcanic eruptions - maybe at most 3%. Then in the next sentence: I don't know how much co2 comes from an eruption. We can't measure it. Then why the certainty of "at most 3%"?

The scaremongers tell us that virtually no scientist doesn't believe man is the root cause of Naturally Occurring Climate Change. Fine. Then what's the harm in letting scientists who don't believe in this junk science to attend the Kyoto Protocol. Why is the OISM list not permitted equal time. Why has the poll of meteorologists and climatologists, showing 62% don't agree with moron gore, been buried?

Because if the truth comes out, there is no payday for the communists/socialists/marxists/liberals


No Julie, I won't be thanking you
because the chance of the Electoral College being overturned BY VOTERS is highly unlikely.
For the last time, get the book, Enlightened Democracy:The Case for the Electoral College by Tara Ross. There is a reason that the organization behind getting rid of the Electoral College is funded by a socialist who would love nothing better than to completely dismantle America's constitutional republic.

P.S.
Bush won the state, get over it.

Julie
A true measure of a person's character and intelligence is revealed in the way they talk.
Your latest post following Doug Giles column showed just how true this is. It is too bad you proved it to be true.

Julie, talk and actions both count.
No, it's not irony and it's not being unappreciative of first amendment rights. It is NOT appreciating people who hide behind the anonymity of the internet in order to spew vile trash talk used for shock value. As I said, it just shows a person's character and intelligence
(and coming from a supposed Princeton educated person such as yourself reveals even more.)
By the way, Mr. Giles column was one of humor, don't make it more than it was meant to be.

weownthenight, you are right!
Ever notice how liberals have their own language? Remember how the media told us that Clinton was "truthful?" We USED to refer to these sorts of people as honest, but the Clintons brought their own language to Washington in the early '90s. When the media refer to someone as "truthful," you can almost guarantee that he/she is lying between his/her teeth.

not ashamed to be right
Well said on the Electoral College.

Once again the Founding Fathers showed that they were WAY SMARTER than today's politicians ever could be.

That way, the tyranny of the masses was instantly and totally avoided.

Of course, the ONLY ones who want to do away with it are the ones using votes from dead people, illegal aliens, winos, felons, etc. The same ones who stole the 1960 election thanks to Joe Kennedy Sr and Mayor Daley.

Thanks for your support Gunny.
By the way I just started reading the book I linked to Julie....it is fascinating so far.
Further into the book it breaks down all the old and tired arguments being used by Democrats against the Electoral College. I am looking forward to those chapters!
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.