BS: Palin v. Gore...

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: EBarnacle
Date: 13 Dec 09 - 04:50 PM

pdq Percentage of CO2 in the air is the issue, not whether there should be CO2.

Whether or not we are responsible for the increase in greenhouse gasses in the air, the increase corresponds to both our emissions and our removal of the biosphere's ability to handle the increased emissions. If you look at the temperatures of Venus, Jupiter and Mars, they are all higher than can be accounted for by direct solar radiation, very likely due to the preponderance of greenhouse gasses in their atmospheres not allowing as much thermal reradiation as the "thinner atmosphere" planets allow.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: akenaton
Date: 13 Dec 09 - 04:07 PM

The problem is, that if man made pollution is destroying life on earth and I'm sure it is, what exactly are we going to do about it.....recycle our newspapers?

Already capitalism is moving East, finding undeveloped countries, cheap raw materials and slave labour.
Soon the whole world will be a reeking workshop, because capitalism cannot stop expanding, if it does, it dies....and its leaders will ensure that while there is a cent of profit to be squeezed from planet Earth and its inhabitants, the system will go on!

Anyone seriously wishing to start reversing the damage already done, will have to accept a drastic lowering of living standards, on a scale almost unthinkable at present......central heating, production and use of electricity, mass production of consumables, importation of food and raw materials, foreign travel for social purposes and a host of other energy wasteful activities would have to be curtailed or banned.......putting these measures into practice might just be possible......after the riots had been put down and the leaders shot.....but how are we going to stop the huge populations of China and India from trying to attain the standard of living that we have enjoyed for the last sixty or seventy years?
Are we prepared to be serious about global warming? Or do we just like talking about it? If it is a reality are we already too late to have any effect? What about "human rights" a matter which concerns many here, how do peoples rights fit into any mission to save the planet?

Or do we just give up, admit that capitalism and technology have fucked us and the planet.....steal what we need to survive another few decades and let the future look after itself....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: pdq
Date: 13 Dec 09 - 04:06 PM

Global Warming hawkers calling Global Warming skeptics names has become a serious problem.

Is one says that CO₂ is a necessasry part of the air, people say you are in favor of polluting the air.

Is one says that human beings are not responsible for the (slight) rise in CO₂ over the last 150 years, you are compared to Hitler.

The GW hawkers are losing their audience. Honest scientists left this type of discussion a long time ago.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Dec 09 - 03:35 PM

Ebarnacle, I have said over and over that we would be better off with cleaner air, land and water...

You and I have no argument there.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 13 Dec 09 - 03:29 PM

The Chevron article may be found by clicking onto "Global Issues" within the Chevron website:
Chevron

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: EBarnacle
Date: 13 Dec 09 - 03:24 PM

Akenaton, LH, whether or not our emissions cause global warming, it is possible to deny that we would be better off with cleaner air, land and water? What difference does it make as to cause if we can make Earth a better, less foul place...and if Gaea cools off a little that would be real nice, too.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 13 Dec 09 - 03:24 PM

Little Hawk, Amos is correct in stating that Al Gore recognizes both geologic and human causes of global warming.
I have read a bit of his book, which one of my daughters bought, and he does not minimize the natural effects.
He does concentrate on changes resulting from man's activities. Opponents pick on this portion of his book to the exclusion of all else.

Not all energy companies are opposed to changes to cut greenhouse emissions.
Chevron presents their views succinctly in this article; they do recognize that man is affecting the planet's climate. Shell and others have research programs studying the problem, many with well-qualified scientists in their laboratories. Even Exxon-Mobil, perhaps the most 'business-oriented'and a critic of many greenhouse submissions, has contributed to the battery cells needed by electric cars and has other research underway in their labs; remember, there is money to be made for investors in 'green' science and change is in the air. BP has a unit making solar panels, etc.
Palin is completely out-of-touch.

The link is too long for me, the luddite, but here is part of it-
"Climate Change"
http://www.chevron.com/globalissues/climate change/...
I found it by googling "Al Gore, climate change. Maybe a reader of this thread can link it.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Dec 09 - 02:41 PM

By "his" theory...I mean the theory he espouses not that he invented it. I'm not suggesting he owns the theory or that he was the first to come up with it, merely that he publicly espouses it.

And, as I say, since I also want to clean up the air and the environment, the same as he does....and since I'm only one person on a planet of 6 billion and my opinion won't change jack shit...what difference does it make if I don't believe exactly what Al Gore believes about it? Why let it trouble you?

Keep this in mind, and you won't get nearly so het up about my heretical opinions on the subject. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Don Firth
Date: 13 Dec 09 - 02:37 PM

I've been an astronomy and earth sciences buff since I was a kid and my Dad bought me a couple of science books. I've been interested all my life in such things as the birth and evolution of stars, how the earth came to be, plate tectonics, what makes a volcano work, that sort of thing.

But a pretty good catch-up course is "The Making of the Earth," a series on the History Channel (available on DVD, I think).

Astronomers, meteorologists, oceanographers, and earth scientists in general have pretty well plotted the earth's normal cycles—and the normal cycles of the sun that affect the earth. As Amos points out, what has them concerned is the recent anomalies—deviations—from those cycles, particularly the measurable increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere that began with the advent of the industrial revolution and has been accelerating since. And with the inevitable effects thereof.

Al Gore is merely reporting these findings.

And—

Well, you know—

Kill the Messenger!!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 13 Dec 09 - 02:30 PM

Much confusion over the scientific finding, partly because of simplistic language directed at a public whom is considered incapable of understanding anything more complicated than 2 + 2 = 4.
There are two aspects to the argument; climatic change as a result of natural earth processes, and change brought about by human activities.

Climatic change has occurred throughout geologic history, as the earth's axis changes in inclination and (possibly) solar intensity variance. These changes are often referred to as cyclical, although there is more irregularity than regularity to the intervals.
In part of Tertiary time, the inclination was such that the Canadian Arctic Islands had a temperature approximating that of the Carolinas, with plant and animal life (including alligators) that offer evidence of of the strong effect. Large peat and soft coal deposits are widespread in the Arctic.
Much closer to our times, a cooler shift brought the ice ages, with warmer interglacial intervals. The last ice to affect North America impinged on northern Minnesota, some 11,000 years ago.
Many lesser shifts since then have affected man and his agriculture.

That we have shifted into a warming period is evident from the melting of the icecaps and the glaciers, the first ship to to navigate the Northwest Passage unaided (this year), partial destruction of coral beds and the shifts in marine faunas, variance in plant distribution, and other changes.

The effects of human activity are the points being argued today.

The Industrial Revolution marks the beginning of industries that burn much fuel, wood from forests or fossil fuels such as coal and, later, petroleum.
That such activities are affecting the environment is evident from analyses of ice cores taken in the Arctic and Antarctic. From the time of the Industrial Revolution, carbon dioxide and other 'greenhouses' increase in amount, becoming exponential over the last 100 years or so as more and more fossil fuels are burned and forests are stripped.
Alarmingly, toxic chemical residues made their appearance in the analyses.

How large are these man-made effects on climate? Regardless of the temperature effect, our atmosphere is being polluted, this alone should call for action.

Moreover, if (doubtfully) man's activities are not contributing to temperature increase, the 'natural' changes are enough to cause concern. Low-lying population and agricultural centers such as the Bangladesh and other deltas could be inundated, some island populations could be looking for a new home (Maldives), loss of mountain glaciers (Himalayas, etc.) impinges agriculture and human activity that needs the meltwater, decreases in rainfall cause drought, etc.
Should not these natural shifts also be planned for and contingencies formed?

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Amos
Date: 13 Dec 09 - 06:24 AM

Little Hawk:

I don't think you know Al Gore or his theory well. He would be the firt one to acknowledge the cyclical component in the temperature chart. The problem is not the cyclical aspect of warming, it is the anomalous part that breaks out of the whole prior range.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Alice
Date: 13 Dec 09 - 12:52 AM

US Global Change Research Program codified by Congresss, 1989

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Ebbie
Date: 13 Dec 09 - 12:52 AM

Ezactly. "Al Gore" is just a handy tag to lay the bundle of burden on. Kind of like when people of Alaska say they don't like what's going on in Juneau- they actually are talking about the lawmakers they themselves sent to the capital city.

Al Gore is a spokesperson for this "inconvenient truth" and an excellent one but it isn't his theory. If he were removed from the scene tomorrow our dilemma would not be lessened in any way.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Alice
Date: 13 Dec 09 - 12:42 AM

It's not Al Gore's theory.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Dec 09 - 12:35 AM

I think we may well be contributing to Global Warming some, Bobert, but I don't think we caused it. I don't think we're the primary factor that caused it, because I think it's cyclical. That's where Al Gore and I differ.

Al Gore and I agree, however, on the wisdom of reducing our harmful industrial emissions and helping to clean up the air and the rest of the environment, regardless of whether we caused Global Warming or not.

I just don't buy his specific theory about it, that's all, but I do agree on cleaning up our act. Given that I want to do the same thing that he wants to do (in a general sense)...what's the problem with my disagreeing about his theory? What difference will it make to what happens?

No difference. And I know it.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Dec 09 - 05:57 PM

Well, the thing is that Ms. Sarah has found the soft spot in the liberal agenda and is going to pound away at it... Hey, smart politics...

But it ain't like humans aren't responsible for global warming it's just that it is impossible to prove beyond the political shadow of doubt and thus you have the big energy companies allready punching the soft spot and tellin' folks that if the Climate Bill (which hasn't even been written yet) is passed that efvryone's taxes are going to go up... Smart politics.. Hey, the voters don't know squat about stuff so what's to lose???

Meanwhile Ms. Sarah is gonna pound away on poor ol' Al Gore until he does the impossible and that is ***prove*** that greenhouse gases are responsible for global warming...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Don Firth
Date: 12 Dec 09 - 05:43 PM

Jaysus!!

Now, if that isn't an obvious piece of trolling!

PEE-YOOO!!!

Don Firth (holding nose)

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: akenaton
Date: 12 Dec 09 - 05:01 PM

Well, enough of these pleasantries, I do hope Ms Sarah manages to see off Hillary the Hawk and become the first female president of the US, we all want to see change....real change....systemic change and it obviously aint gonna come from Mr Obama who is turning out to be a creature of the system, just as I predicted.

Tear the labels off Ms Sarah, and she might just prove woman enough to unite all the factions...just like Joan of Arc....mind you the bastards burnt Joan at the stake!!

Now that would give the trolls a right good laugh....eh gnu?

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: gnu
Date: 12 Dec 09 - 04:42 PM

ake... crap. Sod off troll.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: akenaton
Date: 12 Dec 09 - 04:36 PM

So sayeth the mighty Q........:0)

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 12 Dec 09 - 04:24 PM

The pharoah Akenaton confined his worship to the sun god and ignored the rest of the gods, thus was somewhat of a trouble maker.

Beware those who take his name!

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: akenaton
Date: 12 Dec 09 - 04:08 PM

Well gnu I dont try to wind people up, they manage that perfectly well all by themselves.
I told you before, I really believe all I write on this forum, I dont lie or try to curry favour with anyone if you find my opinions disgusting or perverted or whatever, I'm sorry because I rather like you.....but I will continue to say what I think, as anything else would be a waste of my time and the time of all the other members.

There are a few really good people here gnu and I'm glad I found this site...I've probably learned more from them in my few years on Mudcat, than twenty in the real world.

Let the discussions continue I say!! Let nothing be left out, this could be one of the last outposts of freedom!    :0)

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: gnu
Date: 12 Dec 09 - 12:17 PM

ake... I believe a troll is anyone who tries to wind up someone they perceive as tight arsed, oh so right on "liberals" because if they lose their cool the troll finds it really funny!

I believe that is a fairly accurate partial description of this type of bully.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Dec 09 - 07:06 AM

Anything that challenges a ruling orthodoxy is mentally painful to most people and arouses their hostility, contempt, outrage, etc. Suggest that drinking cow's milk is quite bad for your health or that some vaccines are considerably more dangerous to your health than some of the illnesses they are supposedly going to protect you against...and many people will pretty much go berserk, because you are challenging some of their most basic and long-held assumptions...and that's part of their identity.

It's kind of like publicly saying "I do not worship Allah nor do I believe that Mohammed is the greatest prophet!" while inside a mosque in Riyahd or Mecca... ;-) It's more dangerous to do that there, of course. Even Chongo is not that reckless.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: akenaton
Date: 12 Dec 09 - 03:29 AM

You guys really should ditch your political affiliations (on all subjects) and start living your own lives.

Everyone here is reasonably intelligent, why dont you allow youselves to be guided by your intellect, not a bunch of slimy, self serving politicians.

gnu talks of "trolls" on the threads, but the political manipulators are the real trolls.......they determine what you say and what you think.
When a real human like LH comes along and rocks the boat, you try to savage him.....is independent thought physically painful to you?

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Bobert
Date: 11 Dec 09 - 09:31 PM

Smoking stinks, too...

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Dec 09 - 08:50 PM

Don, false humility will not win you points at a good Ashram! ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: artbrooks
Date: 11 Dec 09 - 08:43 PM

FactCheck.org took a look at this earlier today, and basically concluded that the disagreements in those hacked emails don't have any effect on the overall scientific consensus on global warming.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Dec 09 - 08:38 PM

I think smoking causes so many illnesses, McGrath, (cancer included) that if you wrote them all down it would fill a scroll from here to China. It's an idiotic practice. It hurts your health, makes you age faster, and makes everything you own stink. I've been an anti-smoker all my life. No animal is stupid enough to deliberately inhale smoke (except for this one chimpanzee in a zoo somewhere....I've seen him smoking on Youtube). Only human beings would do something so unnatural to themselves. There's nothing good I can think of to say about it.

However, I also have some ideas on cancer that might strike you as...unconventional. Don't get me started. ;-) I don't have time for it.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Bill D
Date: 11 Dec 09 - 08:31 PM

"Apparently many of the statistics had been "manipulated".
Does the phrase "out of context" ring any bells?

**THE** statistics? I just 30 min. ago saw in interview with a climate scientist who explained that the most quoted set of emails... the ones that seem to expose wholesale deceptive manipulation of data, were in fact talking ONLY about studies of trees in Siberia! They were discussing (if I understood it correctly)how to re-state data in order to use it for different purposes...not to 'deceive' the general public!

   Now... IF that is true, and IF releasing all the emails would clarify the matter, I would hope we could learn something about not assuming too much about damning 'disclosures' which appear right before some major event... like Copenhagen.


I am searching and watching to try to find out more details.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Dec 09 - 08:16 PM

Where do you stand on the alleged link between smoking and cancer, Little Hawk?

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Don Firth
Date: 11 Dec 09 - 08:09 PM

"Oh, yes, master," he says, with hands clasped and bowing humbly. "Please pardon one so ignorant as I!" (tugging forelock).

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Dec 09 - 08:05 PM

Don, you do that too... ;-) And so do most argumentative people, specially when it comes to politics. We all have a tremendous respect (if not admiration) for our own clear-headedness and objectivity when it comes to matters deemed worthy of debate.

What I really think is that we are all just partially informed. Matter of fact, we may know less than 5% of what there is to know about it. That wouldn't surprise me at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: gnu
Date: 11 Dec 09 - 07:58 PM

Miss January? She could be my whole year... gosh she is a babe... alas, it will never be, as I actually want to be able to have an intelligent conversation with my true love.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Don Firth
Date: 11 Dec 09 - 07:55 PM

Little Hawk, you always seem to operate on the assumption that no one is as clear headed and well-informed as you are. Did it ever occur to you that you may be the one who is uninformed?

No, of course not!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Bobert
Date: 11 Dec 09 - 07:52 PM

Oh, I agree, Q... We don't need her as, ahhhhh, president... That much is for sure... Maybe Miss January...

But let's get one thing clear... Like it or not she has at least put together some backroom team of folks helping her with her positions... No, not those positions... Political positions, gol danged it... I read the op-ed and thought that while it provided no real scientific evidence, it did hit all the right wing talking points... That's better than she did last yer as VP candidate where she said purdy much anything that came into her head... Which, I'll admit, wasn't much...

But now Gore??? Man, he's gonna have to pull himself up off the mat and try to make a fight out of it 'er it's gonna be a long night for him...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 11 Dec 09 - 07:46 PM

Sarah Palin more and more exhibits unbelievable scientific ignorance, whether it be genetics, earth history or economics.

Airhead or blockhead, she would be a disaster in national political office.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Amos
Date: 11 Dec 09 - 07:44 PM

The situation of climate change--anthropogenic climate change--is, indeed, beyond all reasonable doubt. Some folks., of course, are less reasonable than others.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Dec 09 - 07:40 PM

We all enjoy that heady "voice in the wilderness" feeling from time to time, Don...specially when resisting a massively marketed and hugely popular fad. ;-) I bet you have enjoyed it on occasion too. Just not on this one.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: gnu
Date: 11 Dec 09 - 07:37 PM

Fox... yeah... the whole KIT and KABOODLE... what a babe! But, then she talks and ruins it. What an airhead.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Bobert
Date: 11 Dec 09 - 07:34 PM

Her period 'er yers, LH???

Nevrmind that question...

Hey, I think Ms. Sarah has really found her issue here... I mean, she has ol' Al on the ropes and it's only the 2nd round... Does that mean I believe that she wrote that op-ed??? Of course not, but who cares... She's a fox...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Don Firth
Date: 11 Dec 09 - 07:30 PM

"It's my own independent perspective on the matter, period."

Gosh, Little Hawk, doesn't it get a bit lonely up there on that mountain top?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Dec 09 - 07:18 PM

I think Sarah Palin is closer to the truth on this one than Al Gore is. In other words, I think she is correct that human-based activities are not a primary factor in climate change, and that cyclical events in Nature are the primary factor, while human-based activities are a much secondary factor.

To support Al Gore's particular views on climate change is simply to parrot a popular cause that has become a holy gospel to the Left and the "liberal" intelligentsia, to the extent that they will personally attack and ridicule anyone who doesn't repeat that gospel as a mantra, and they'll do it with the same hungry zeal shown by people in Salem who hunted around for witches back when people were burning witches.

This does not impress me with either the honesty or the impartiality of many people who imagine themselves to be good, clear-thinking "liberals". It seems more like the self-righteous raving of a group of religious fanatics against "the unbelievers" than the comments of people who actually wish to talk in a useful way about something.

I might add that in a general sense I am "liberal". I'm also a Leftist in a general sense. And I like Al Gore in a general sense and I regard Sarah Palin's political stance on most things as way off the beam.

So it is not knee-jerk loyalty to some pre-arranged set of political assumptions that lies behind my opinion of her opinion of climate change. It's my own independent perspective on the matter, period.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: gnu
Date: 11 Dec 09 - 07:14 PM

Ake... "continual sniping"... ??? Sniping? I thought I was rather clear. Perhaps not. You are a troll plain and simple. Either that or you are truly intolerant and ignorant. Or both. Hundreds of your posts verify it.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: akenaton
Date: 11 Dec 09 - 06:45 PM

Surely it does not matter that some of the e mails date back to 1999?

Is it not the veracity of these e.mails, not their age that is being called into question.

Apparently many of the statistics had been "manipulated".

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Bill D
Date: 11 Dec 09 - 06:33 PM

Are 'we' aware that many of those leaked/hacked emails - whatever one may think of the folks who may have sent them, are up to 13 years old?

"In one email, dated November 1999, one scientist wrote:..."

and later in the same article:

"Ward said that if the emails are correct, they "might highlight behaviour that those individuals might not like to have made public." But he added, "Let's separate out [the climate scientists] reacting badly to the personal attacks [from sceptics] to the idea that their work has been carried out in an inappropriate way."

The revelations did not alter the huge body of evidence from a variety of scientific fields that supports the conclusion that modern climate change is caused largely by human activity, Ward said. The emails refer largely to work on so-called paleoclimate data - reconstructing past climate scenarios using data such as ice cores and tree rings. "Climate change is based on several lines of evidence, not just paleoclimate data," he said. "At the heart of this is basic physics."

Ward pointed out that the individuals named in the alleged emails had numerous publications in peer-reviewed scientific journals. "It would be very surprising if after all this time, suddenly they were found out doing something as wrong as that."

One can find almost any opinion if one looks long enough, but the huge majority of scientists involved in studies agree on the basic facts of climate change and our part in it.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: akenaton
Date: 11 Dec 09 - 06:24 PM

gnu.. give it a break, I believe human activity over the last few decades has contributed to "global warming".
I was simply trying to provide a bit of additional information...the situation is not proved beyond reasonable doubt.

I take exception to your continual sniping..if you dont like a thread, read and contribute to another.
Contrary to your expressed opinion, I am not a "troll", but stand by everything I write on here......that doesn't mean my opinions are always correct:0)...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: gnu
Date: 11 Dec 09 - 06:15 PM

Oh my. Here we go again. Next, we'll be told the gays are causing global warming. Trolls are in the house.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: akenaton
Date: 11 Dec 09 - 06:09 PM

HERE

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: akenaton
Date: 11 Dec 09 - 06:00 PM

Sorry Bill....I'm having trouble with m'clickies.
That wasn't the page I intended to link to.

I'll try again