Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
He is one of the lead nuts out there telling us how to live our lives
Like Al Gore
Of course stories like this debuk the global warming wackos
Mostly Mild Weather Greets Live Earth Global Warming Concert Goers
By Noel Sheppard | July 7, 2007 - 09:30 ET
Global warming skeptics have reveled the last few years in climate change rallies and events occurring at venues or towns experiencing colder than normal temperatures as well as late season snows.
It goes without saying that one of the funniest was House Speaker Nancy Pelosis (D-California) visit to Europe in April to discuss global warming with various European leaders just when parts of the continent were hit with some of the latest snows in history.
With that in mind, it would be only fitting if Live Earth concert goers around the world were greeted with sub-average temperatures as they come together to draw attention to the planets imminent doom caused by global warming.
The first concert began Saturday in Sydney, Australia, with temperatures fitting in perfectly for AGW skeptics looking for a chuckle (put down your soft drinks and coffee):
High of 53, low of 43, with an historical average daily high of 62 and average low of 43.
Gotta love it. So, the first Live Earth concert to warn the world about global warming will occur in temperatures almost ten degrees below normal.
Fabulous start for skeptics with a sense of humor.
Lets see how things are setting up elsewhere:
Toyko saw a high of 78, a low of 71, with averages for this day of 82 and 70.
Marvelous. Two for two:
Shanghai made the alarmists happy, as temperatures soared into the mid-90s a good nine degrees more than normal.
Yet, Johannesburg, South Africa saw temperatures about three degrees below normal.
Hamburg, Germany concert goers also saw cool temperatures as highs only got into the low 60s well below the historical average for this day of 70.
London concert goers saw normal temperatures at Wembley Stadium around 70.
The same is true in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, where temperatures Saturday will reach normal highs of 79 degrees.
In East Rutherford, New Jersey, where the New York concert will be held, temperatures will get into the high 80s about six degrees above normal, but well below the all-time high for the day of 96.
Add it all up, and the Live Earth concerts designed to draw attention to global warming averaged a high temperature slightly below normal for this time of year.
Anybody want to bet that if this issue is even addressed, only the above average highs in New Jersey and China will get reported?
http://newsbusters.org/node/13947
You think the fact that it was a cold day debunks the theory of global warming? Interesting. Does that mean that every individual warm day supports it? What if it is a warm day on the equator and a cold day in the Arctic? Is this just a neutral day from discussion standpoint?
Would you please just post any ideas of your own rather than excerpting parts of pointless and silly articles such as the one above?
not one cold day - many when it should be hot
or this one.........
Greenland Ice Find Debunks Al Gores Global Warming Theories
By Noel Sheppard | July 7, 2007 - 10:19 ET
Just in time for worldwide concerts to draw attention to the planets imminent doom at the hands of anthropogenic global warming, a new find in Greenland suggests that much of the hysteria in Al Gores schlockumentary An Inconvenient Truth has absolutely no basis in scientific fact.
Even though this study will likely get little to no attention from a media in full fawn mode over Gore and his Live Earth concerts, the findings throw a huge monkey wrench into alarmist warnings of climate-related devastation to the planet and species offered as reasons for developed nations to radically change behavior.
As marvelously reported by the Boston Globe Friday (h/t Benny Peiser, emphasis added throughout):
An international team of scientists, drilling deep into the ice layers of Greenland, has found DNA from ancient spiders and trees, evidence that suggests the frozen shield covering the immense island survived the earth's last period of global warming.
The findings, published today in the journal Science, indicate Greenland's ice may be less susceptible to the massive meltdown predicted by computer models of climate change, the article's main author said in an interview.
"If our data is correct, and I believe it is, then this means the southern Greenland ice cap is more stable than previously thought," said Eske Willerslev, research leader and professor of evolutionary biology at the University of Copenhagen. "This may have implications for how the ice sheets respond to global warming. They may withstand rising temperatures."
How can that be? After all, soon-to-be-Dr. Al Gore who has had absolutely no training in the relevant areas of science despite the media belief that he is indeed the foremost expert on the subject says Greenland is going to thaw in the near future with devastating repercussions. Surely he cant be wrong:
A painstaking analysis of surviving genetic fragments locked in the ice of southern Greenland shows that somewhere between 450,000 and 800,000 years ago, the world's largest island had a climate much like that of Northern New England, the researchers said. Butterflies fluttered over lush meadows interspersed with stands of pine, spruce, and alder.
Greenland really was green, before Ice Age glaciers enshrouded vast swaths of the Northern Hemisphere.
Wait. Isnt the debate over and the science settled on this issue? It appears not:
More controversially -- and as an example of how research in one realm of science can unexpectedly affect assumptions in another -- the discovery of microscopic bits of organic matter retrieved from ice 1.2 miles beneath the surface indicates that the ice fields of southern Greenland may be more resilient to rising global temperatures than has been forecast. The DNA could have been preserved only if the ice layers remained largely intact.
A scenario often raised by global warming specialists is that Greenland's ice trove will turn liquid in the rising temperatures of coming decades, with hundreds of trillions of gallons of water spilling into the Atlantic. This could cause ocean levels worldwide to rise anywhere from 3 to 20 feet, according to computer projections -- bad news for seaport cities like Boston.
But the discovery of organic matter in ice dating from half-a-million years ago offers evidence that the Greenland ice shield remained frozen even during the earth's last "interglacial period" -- some 120,000 years ago -- when average temperatures were 9 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than they are now. That's slightly higher than the average temperatures foreseen by most scientists for the end of this century, although some environmentalists warn it might get even hotter.
Incredible. And, as many scientists have been claiming regardless of such falling on deaf press ears, this indicates just how nonsensical and worthless climate models proclaiming imminent planetary doom are:
Researchers from the Danish-led team said the unanticipated findings appear to fly in the face of prevailing scientific views about the likely fate of Greenland's thickly-layered ice, although Willerslev stressed that the findings do not contradict the basic premise that the earth's temperature is rising to worrisome levels, with gases emitted by industry, cars, and other human activity playing a big role.
"But it suggests a problem with the [computer] models" that predict melting ice from Greenland could drown cities and destroy civilizations, according to Willerslev.
Think this will be headline news during Live Earth weekend?
No. Neither do I. Regardless, it certainly makes watching the concerts more comical
http://newsbusters.org/node/13948
It only debunks that rants of Al Gore.
Well, you did respond with your own thoughts, and beggars can't be choosers, so thank you.
When the debate goes against the left (which is normally does) they fall back on the insults
Typical
You are a beautiful man.
Hysterical Satire: 'Global Warming Now World's Most Boring Topic
By Noel Sheppard | July 17, 2007 - 17:42 ET
In the wake of the dismal failure of Al Gores Live Earth concerts, an Australian journalist has written a deliciously satirical look at anthropogenic global warming.
Published at Australias The Age Wednesday, Jim Schembris Global Warming Now Worlds Most Boring Topic: Report offered readers a much-needed chuckle about this issue by presenting results of a study, conducted by a non-partisan think tank located somewhere between the small township of Tibooburra and the NSW border, with some truly hysterical conclusions.
Schembri set the joke up wonderfully
Global warming and the debate over whether man-made carbon gas emissions are having a detrimental influence on climate change has been ranked as the most boring topic of conversation on earth, according to a new report.
The issue of global warming far out-performed other contenders for the title, such as the production of goat cheese, the musical genius of the artist formerly known as P Diddy and media speculation over the likely outcome of the upcoming federal election.
These topics still tracked strongly, according to the report, but global warming was identified as the topic most likely to prompt people into feigning heart attacks so as to avoid hearing the phrases "procrastination penalty", "precautionary principle" and "peer-reviewed analysis" ever again.
You gotta love it. Fortunately, Schembri was just getting warmed up:
According to the parents in the survey, global warming has now replaced the traditional bedtime story when it comes to putting children to sleep. The study found the topic was also being used instead of water cannon by riot police around the world to disperse crowds.
In a key finding, the survey revealed that the amount of damaging carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere as a result of discussing the global warming issue now exceeds the greenhouse gas emissions of northern China.
Of course, no parody on this issue could possibly exempt the Global Warmingist-in-Chief:
Of those surveyed, 83 per cent said that while they understood both sides of the issue, they did not understand Al Gore.
Participants in the study were asked whether Gore's film An Inconvenient Truth had helped enlighten people to the importance of the global warming issue.
The standard response was that if the issue of global warming is as important and urgent to Gore as he keeps saying every time he is on Letterman, then why didn't he make the movie during the eight years he was vice-president of the United States, the second most powerful position in the world? Why did he wait until his political career was dead?
As many of you are aware, this is actually an issue I have raised since Gore began this campaign. And, it is a question that virtually no media representatives have posed either to themselves or to the soon-to-be-Dr.
http://newsbusters.org/node/14167
Now eating meat is worse then driving an SUV
The enviro wackos keep providing great material
Buying Meat Worse For Environment Than SUVs
By Noel Sheppard | July 19, 2007 - 14:56 ET
Forget about carbon credits. SUV owners should just stop buying meat, and all their enviro-guilt will disappear faster than a Big Mac placed in front of former President Bill Clinton.
Such was the finding of a Japanese study published by Blackwell Synergy's Animal Science Journal, and reported at New Scientist Wednesday (emphasis added throughout):
A kilogram of beef is responsible for more greenhouse gas emissions and other pollution than driving for 3 hours while leaving all the lights on back home.
For those reaching for their metric calculators, a kilogram is about 2.2 pounds, the amount of steak a relatively health conscious family of four might consume at dinner with a variety of yummy side dishes:
This is among the conclusions of a study by Akifumi Ogino of the National Institute of Livestock and Grassland Science in Tsukuba, Japan, and colleagues, which has assessed the effects of beef production on global warming, water acidification and eutrophication, and energy consumption. The team looked at calf production, focusing on animal management and the effects of producing and transporting feed. By combining this information with data from their earlier studies on the impact of beef fattening systems, the researchers were able to calculate the total environmental load of a portion of beef.
Their analysis showed that producing a kilogram of beef leads to the emission of greenhouse gases with a warming potential equivalent to 36.4 kilograms of carbon dioxide. It also releases fertilising compounds equivalent to 340 grams of sulphur dioxide and 59 grams of phosphate, and consumes 169 megajoules of energy (Animal Science Journal, DOI: 10.1111/j.1740-0929.2007.00457.x). In other words, a kilogram of beef is responsible for the equivalent of the amount of CO2 emitted by the average European car every 250 kilometres, and burns enough energy to light a 100-watt bulb for nearly 20 days.
For those metrically challenged, 250 kilometers is about 155 miles:
Most of the greenhouse gas emissions are in the form of methane released from the animals' digestive systems, while the acid and fertilising substances come primarily from their waste. Over two-thirds of the energy goes towards producing and transporting the animals' feed.
With this in mind, maybe Al Gore should do some concerts to save cattle, and get sycophants Laurie David and Sheryl Crow to tour college campuses extolling the benefits of vegetarianism.
Stay tuned.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/buying-meat-worse-environment-suvs.html
No, I still love you.
ReillyT + RSR = forever
Nice job of ducking the nutty rants from the gloabl warming crowd
How is a scientific study a rant? It is not prescriptive, it is descriptive. (You should look those words up).
ignor him he just brings it down to libs and dems and throws pointless actices at you.
The question is, does co2 influence temp or the other way round. no one has awnsered this.
A kilogram of beef is responsible for more greenhouse gas emissions and other pollution than driving for 3 hours while leaving all the lights on back home.
That is a rant
ignor him he just brings it down to libs and dems and throws pointless actices at you.
The question is, does co2 influence temp or the other way round. no one has awnsered this.
ignor him he just brings it down to libs and dems and throws pointless actices at you.
The question is, does co2 influence temp or the other way round. no one has awnsered this.
Actually, now that I think about it, wouldn't logic suggest that CO2 influences temperature to a greater extent than the converse. For if increasing temperatures influenced CO2, that would beg the question "why are temperatures increasing?" to which the answer would seem to be "CO2 emissions are responsible."
Once again, I have very little scientific background. I am just thinking out loud here.
