Was Al Gore Right?

[Superlative]

I was to attend the last Congressional hearing on Climate Change but it was cancelled due to a snow storm in DC

Well wouldnt that make sense?

Was the snow storm a normal seasonal occurrance?

If not couldnt that be attributed to "Climate Change"

 

[red states rule]

Well wouldnt that make sense?

Was the snow storm a normal seasonal occurrance?

If not couldnt that be attributed to "Climate Change"

The enviro wacks use global wamrmng whenever their is a warm day during the winter but dismiss the opposite when it goes against them

 

[red states rule]

Well wouldnt that make sense?

Was the snow storm a normal seasonal occurrance?

If not couldnt that be attributed to "Climate Change"

and should you disagree with Al and Co............


Bias 101: How to Impugn the Credibility of an Inconvenient Expert
Posted by Matthew Sheffield on April 7, 2007 - 13:38.
John at Power Line has an excellent post documenting just how a left-wing reporter can use neutral-sounding language to make a casual observer doubt the credibility of a leading global warming skeptic:

Sometimes media bias is blatant and grotesque; it can extend to flat misrepresentations, use of fake documents, etc. Much more often, it is relatively subtle, as reporters push their version of a story in small ways, day after day. Here is a textbook example, via Power Line News.

Yesterday, in an interview with the Associated Press, one of the world's leading weather experts, Dr. William Gray, blasted Al Gore for perpetrating global warming hysteria. Since Dr. Gray is generally recognized as the world's leading expert in the science of forecasting hurricanes, this is news. But let's examine how the AP handled it in the article that resulted from their interview. The AP begins in a straightforward manner:

A top hurricane forecaster called Al Gore "a gross alarmist" Friday for making an Oscar-winning documentary about global warming.
"He's one of these guys that preaches the end of the world type of things. I think he's doing a great disservice and he doesn't know what he's talking about," Dr. William Gray said in an interview with The Associated Press at the National Hurricane Conference in New Orleans, where he delivered the closing speech.

But watch where the story goes from there. First the subtle demeaning of the distinguished Dr. Gray:

Gray, an emeritus professor at the atmospheric science department at Colorado State University, has long railed against the theory that heat-trapping gases generated by human activity are causing the world to warm.
Gray is implicitly depicted as a crank; he "rails." Note that the hysterical and ill-informed Gore never "rails." Further, Gray "has long railed," which suggests that, rather than being a consistent critic of an unproven theory, he is a tiresome eccentric whose views have been heard and discounted. More on this later. The AP continues:

Gray's statements came the same day the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change approved a report that concludes the world will face dire consequences to food and water supplies, along with increased flooding and other dramatic weather events, unless nations adapt to climate change.
As we have noted elsewhere, the U.N.'s IPCC is a political body, not a scientific one, and its findings have been subject to withering criticism. But the AP implies that the U.N's report represents a scientific consensus.

http://newsbusters.org/node/11898

 

[Avatar4321]

No. Of course he isnt right. He is a professional politician. Since when are they right about anything?

If the world is warming... and that's a huge if, then great! I like warm weather. I hate freezing my butt off in the winter. I like the green plants of spring and summer. We are humans. We will adapt.

 

[red states rule]

Record Cold Sweeps Nation After Release of IPCC’s Global Warming Report
Posted by Noel Sheppard on April 7, 2007 - 19:51.
The multitudes of anthropogenic global warming skeptics around the country couldn’t have scripted this any better.

As the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released its Fourth Assessment Report Friday presaging doom and gloom as a result of global warming, a cold snap gripped much of the country promising all-time low April temperatures in many cities across the fruited plain.

You really can’t make this stuff up!

As reported by AccuWeather:


A brutally cold surge of arctic air into the eastern half of the United States will easily bring record-low temperatures on Easter morning and could cause significant losses in some of the nation's most prolific agricultural areas.

High pressure building toward the Southeast will bring calm winds and clear skies, which combined with the very cold air mass in place, will allow temperatures in many cities to challenge the coldest lows ever reached during the month of April. The cold will severely tax peach orchards across Georgia, and strawberry orchards throughout the Southeast. Bitter cold will also be felt throughout the wheat-growing areas of the Midwest and central Plains.

Timing is everything, wouldn’t you agree? The article continued (emphasis added):

The springtime arctic outbreak will also allow for snow in areas that very rarely see wintry precipitation this late in the year. On Saturday morning, snow mixed with rain in much of North Carolina, and flurries were observed as far south as Atlanta. The system that caused this rare April snowfall will scrape the Northeast coast with some additional snow on Saturday. Moderate snowfall also fell in Washington, D.C. early Saturday morning. The nation's capital has not received accumulating snow in April since 2001.

How the media cover this is anybody’s guess. However, as temperatures in some areas will be 20 degrees colder than average, it is quite safe to say this will get far less attention than if they were 20 degrees warmer.

Anyone care to guess why?


http://newsbusters.org/node/11902

 

[red states rule]

King parade can't escape winter

By Tarron Lively
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
April 8, 2007
Low temperatures and snow flurries weren't exactly what organizers had in mind when they moved the annual Martin Luther King parade in Southeast from January to April.
But the winterlike weather yesterday didn't hamper the traditional event, which officials and residents said was one of the best in recent memory.
http://washingtontimes.com/metro/20070408-121654-1203r.htm

 

[red states rule]

Houses and masters

In recent weeks, chortling e-mail comparisons of President Bush's relatively eco-friendly Texas ranch with the energy-gobbling Tennessee mansion of former Vice President Al Gore have buzzed around the Internet. Chiefly of interest to global-warming skeptics, they also find an audience with anyone with a taste for measuring hypocrisy. Is this churlish? Sure. It is a game of "gotcha"? You bet.
The facts virtually guarantee that this would happen. Mr. Bush is supposedly anti-environment. Mr. Gore is supposed to be the environmental conscience of the nation. "An Inconvenient Truth" ends with an exhortation to change our ways personally. But only one of these men lives in a home straight out of "Bobos in Paradise," and it's not Al Gore.
The Chicago Tribune reported six years ago that Mr. Bush's 4,000-square-foot home uses geothermal heat from water pumped 300 feet into the earth, where the temperature is a constant 67 degrees. The water warms the home in winter and cools it in summertime. The system uses an estimated 25 percent of the electricity in comparable home heating and air-conditioning units. Mr. Bush's ranch is relatively water-efficient thanks to a 25,000-gallon underground cistern, which purifies rain and home wastewater before the newly clean water is used to irrigate the surrounding landscape of native high-prairie plants and flowers. In other words, Mother Earth can breathe easy.
The particulars of Mr. Gore's 20-room, 10,000-square-foot Belle Meade mansion are by now well known, thanks to the Tennessee Center for Policy Research. The Gore house consumes more energy in a month than the average American household does in a year. Mr. Gore spent nearly $30,000 on gas and electricity in 2006. Of course, "carbon offsets" are Mr. Gore's claimed recompense, they being investments in sustainable energy projects, reforestation or other salves for the energy consumer's afflicted conscience. Mr. Gore also takes part in the local utility's "green energy" program.
There will be a temptation on the left to dismiss all this as conservative hit-jobbing, which no doubt some of it is. But there's more to the story than that. First, those who talk the talk should also walk the walk. That's obvious, but the lesson clearly hasn't been learned.
Second, and what's less obvious: If we're talking about hypocrisy and not questioning the underlying goal of reducing one's "carbon footprint," shouldn't the left be pleased that such a major victory for the environmentally conscious has taken place? We should think so. But we're not hearing it.
http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20070407-095755-7164r.htm

 

[dilloduck]

The math was done years ago---The world is OVER-POPULATED. How in the hell can all these people help but cause some kind of climate change? I don't care how you try to slice it. We have X amount of resources and the number of people continues to balloon.
If we are worried about human caused climate change we have to eventually decide the maximum human capacity of the Earth. War, famine and disease can't be continually relied upon for population control.
Policies like the Kyoto Treaty are mere band-aids and serve only to distract from the huge moral and ethical challenge of population management.

 

[red states rule]

The math was done years ago---The world is OVER-POPULATED. How in the hell can all these people help but cause some kind of climate change? I don't care how you try to slice it. We have X amount of resources and the number of people continues to balloon.
If we are worried about human caused climate change we have to eventually decide the maximum human capacity of the Earth. War, famine and disease can't be continually relied upon for population control.
Policies like the Kyoto Treaty are mere band-aids and serve only to distract from the huge moral and ethical challenge of population management.

IF their is such a huge problem with global warming - let the limo libs start walking the walk instead of just talking

 

[red states rule]

Well wouldnt that make sense?

Was the snow storm a normal seasonal occurrance?

If not couldnt that be attributed to "Climate Change"

Agence France Presse: 50 Million People to Lose Homes to Global Warming
Posted by Warner Todd Huston on April 8, 2007 - 08:14.
Agence France Presse has published a whopper about Global Warming, titled "Climate refugees -- the growing army without a name", in which we get the claims of a UN Climate Committee that "50 million" will be homeless because of Global Warming "by 2010". But the report is so filled with could be's, might be's and the ever popular "some experts say" that it is hard to take the claims seriously. It is, in fact, downright impossible to believe a word in the report unless you suspend all faculties of disbelief and merely accept as a matter of faith that they "could be" right. Of course, that is the nub of the Globaloney debate in the first place; the willing suspension of disbelief.

The first paragraph of this report sets a dichotomy that the rest of the report tries hard to refute with their "expert" testimony.

Global warming could create tens of millions of climate refugees, although numbers are hard to predict with accuracy and the definition itself is open to debate, experts say.

"Experts say", do they? Yet, even as the claims that our mean 'ol Globaloney could create all these refugees the report admits it is "hard to predict with accuracy". Then how do we take them seriously? Could our "experts" be any more disingenuous?

Just about every paragraph is so filled with qualifiers that it is hard to know where facts begin and fantasy reigns. The next two paragraphs don't work to solidify real facts any better than the self-contradictory first one.

"According to some estimates, there are already almost as many environmentally displaced people on the planet as traditional refugees," said Yvo de Boer, executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

"As the impacts of climate change strike home, the numbers are likely to rise considerably, possibly as high as 50 million by 2010," de Boer said on Friday on the sidelines of a meeting in Brussels of the UN's top climate panel.

In our first three short paragraphs alone we find one "could", one "some" and one "likely", not to mention one "hard to predict with accuracy" and one "according to some estimates", qualifying the claims as not grounded in provable fact.

We are presented with not one salient fact in a piece that abounds with fearmongering and arm waving. Of course the UN wants ever more power and money to "solve" the problem that they cannot even quantify, naturally.

The most ridiculous part of the article uses Hurricane Katrina to justify their absurd refugee claims.

By some yardstick, it could also apply to the tens of thousands who fled New Orleans in 2005 after Hurricane Katrina, they say.

Some scientists, though, say there is no long-term evidence yet for declaring Katrina to have been a storm intensified by global warming, rather than a natural, extremely violent event.

"By some yardstick"... now that was a howler.

Another amusing quote was by one Thomas Downing, director of the Stockholm Environment Institute at Oxford, who said "Not all will be permanent refugees..." What, exactly is a "permanent refugee", anyway? At some point aren't they just called immigrants? How can you be a "permanent refugee"? When someone leaves their home as a refugee for what ever reason do they forever more just wander the Earth never to settle again?

What tosh.

Even our renowned "experts" cannot seem to agree what the term "environmental refugee" means. As the report nears its end a disagreement is extent.

...A major report on the impact of global warming released by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) at the Brussels meeting avoided the term "refugee" entirely, referring instead to "environmental migrants."

..."Estimates of the number of people who may become environmental migrants are at best guesswork," the report said, citing several uncertainties: migrations that are often temporary or seasonal, while motivations are complex and can include the desire to escape from poverty.

..."The UNHCR (UN High Commissioner for Refugees) doesn't want people to talk about climate refugees," UNFCCC spokesman John Hay said. "They would prefer that the term 'refugee' apply to politics only."

In other words, they got nuthin' but a political agenda. In this case, they don''t even have Al Gore's vaunted "consensus"!

What they do have, however, is what my neighborhood pals when I was a child used to call "shoulda', coulda' woulda's". Nothing but a bunch of claims, but not a single concrete fact is to be had.

But like all Globaloney zealots, fear is all they need to wring out of their flock of true believers more money for ever more "studies" and increasing support to legitimize the UN panels and committees that will result in ever more political power for the those who claim to be the "experts". Truly a self-perpetuating scheme they have there.

And, obviously, they can count on the AFP to lend them a hand.

http://newsbusters.org/node/11906

 

[red states rule]

In February, the panel released a report that for the first time concluded with 90-percent certainty that humans were the main cause of warming since 1950.
At a news conference capping four days of debate between scientists and representatives from more than 100 governments....

The report, written by hundreds of scientists and reviewed by outside experts and government officials, warned that adaptation is essential because decades of rising temperatures and seas are already inevitable due to the buildup of carbon dioxide and other long-lived greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

Final details were completed by hundreds of scientists in Brussels early this morning and approved by officials from more than 100 countries. The report, focusing on measured and projected effects of warming and possible responses, was scheduled to be posted on the Web this morning at www.ipcc.ch.





http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/06/science/earth/06cnd-climate.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

Global Warming Alarmists in Media Ignore Freezing Fire Hydrants in Alaska
Posted by Noel Sheppard on April 5, 2007 - 10:26.
A rather inconvenient truth occurred in late March that went totally unreported by the global warming alarmists in the media.

On the very day that soon-to-be-Dr. Al Gore was informing Congress of the planet’s imminent doom, the Anchorage Daily News reported that this winter has been so cold there that fire hydrants are exploding.

I bet your favorite drive-by media outlet didn’t share any of this as they were falling all over themselves with sycophantic praise for the global warming alarmist-in-chief (h/t NB member dscott, emphasis added throughout):

A cold spell last November, plus a too-cold March, drove frost deeper than usual in Anchorage this winter, down to about nine feet, which is just one foot above the official burial depth of city water pipes.

Pipes buried 10 feet underground are freezing all around the city, according to the Anchorage Water and Wastewater Utility.

The main lines are flowing fine, said Brett Jokela, assistant general manager of AWWU.

But even as spring slunk into town, fire hydrants popped out of the ground Monday and Tuesday nights and sent water flowing into buildings. And the spurs that lead to houses -- which property owners are responsible for -- are freezing around the city.

"Everything in town is freezing up faster than we can keep it thawed out," said Larry Libby, owner of Libby Thawing Service, who was out trying to get a main line flowing on Fort Richardson on Tuesday.

Isn’t that just delicious? The article marvelously continued:

November's weather lies at the heart of the problems this month. November is generally one of Anchorage's snowiest months, said National Weather Service meteorologist-in-charge Bob Hopkins. The snow insulates the ground. But in fall 2006, there was virtually none until December.

On top of that, November temperatures averaged a low of 5 and a high of 18, versus the normal average high of 28, according to National Weather Service data. The frost deepened and the stage was set for frozen pipes in the spring.

[…]

This year's freeze isn't the worst ever -- that was 10 years ago, when the frost reached about 13 1/2 feet deep, Libby said.


Hmmm. So the worst-ever freeze was ten years ago? I thought the globe has been warming for the past century?

Facts certainly are a stupid thing, aren’t they? Maybe folks like Gore and his not so merry band of alarmists should try them sometime.

Of course, that wouldn't fit with the agenda being driven, would it? After all, if we want Americans to believe the globe is warming, we certainly wouldn't want to report the parts of the planet that are actually colder than usual, would we?

Conversely, if this were the mid-70s, and the fear-mongering was an imminent ice age, do you think exploding fire hydrants in Alaska would have been headline news?

America's Media Motto: We Only Report What Fits Our Agenda!

What a disgrace!

http://newsbusters.org/node/11840

 

[TheStripey1]

No. Of course he isnt right. He is a professional politician. Since when are they right about anything?

so your reasoning behind supporting everything bush wants is what again?

 

[TheStripey1]

The math was done years ago---The world is OVER-POPULATED. How in the hell can all these people help but cause some kind of climate change? I don't care how you try to slice it. We have X amount of resources and the number of people continues to balloon.
If we are worried about human caused climate change we have to eventually decide the maximum human capacity of the Earth. War, famine and disease can't be continually relied upon for population control.
Policies like the Kyoto Treaty are mere band-aids and serve only to distract from the huge moral and ethical challenge of population management.

population management? you mean like birth control? but but but... how do you propose to do that?

 

[TheStripey1]

IF their is such a huge problem with global warming - let the limo libs start walking the walk instead of just talking

that'll probably happen around the same time as all those republican chickenhawks enlist in the military and start walking their war talk...

 

[red states rule]

The myth of global warming has yet to be proven to be the crisis the enviro wackos have claimed it to be

 

[TheStripey1]

you're pretty good at cut and paste, rsr...

can you, in your own words, answer the questions I asked earlier?

 

[red states rule]

you're pretty good at cut and paste, rsr...

can you, in your own words, answer the questions I asked earlier?

Why are people so stressed out over factual articles that prove them wrong?

 

[boedicca]

I'm going to go with: Cuz they don't like to read.

 

[TheStripey1]

Here... let me help you...

How many people were adversely affected by GW/CC the last time it happened?
How many were displaced by the rising seas?
How many starved because of drought induced crop failures?
How many died in the land wars that ensued when populations were forced to move inland?
What was the social and economic impact to civilization the last time we had GW/CC?

Any answers?

 

[TheStripey1]

You know... Climate Change doesn't need anyone's purrmission to happen.