Whoops For Hypocrisy of Al Gore

[red states rule]

As i thought you have zero clue of the consequenses of this. Or you just made fun of people. try to raise the level of this discussion thanks.

Global Warming Hearing Cancelled Due to Ice Storm

There was supposed to be a hearing today on Global Warming at the Rayburn House Office Building in DC. The hearing is entitled “Climate Change: Are Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Human Activities Contributing to a Warming of the Planet?”

The hearing was cancelled because a snowstorm was followed by an ice storm and the entire region is covered with a wintry mix of nastiness. All area schools are closed, colleges are closed and government offices are closed or on a reduced work schedule.

Traffic is tied up, accidents are every where and people have decided to stay home for the day.

All of this on the day a Global Warming Hearing was set to begin. It is amazing how many people blindly follow this Global Warming idea even with contradictory evidence slapping them in the face like a cold northeastern wind.
http://texasfred.net/?p=1016

 

[Relay]

Global Warming Hearing Cancelled Due to Ice Storm

There was supposed to be a hearing today on Global Warming at the Rayburn House Office Building in DC. The hearing is entitled “Climate Change: Are Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Human Activities Contributing to a Warming of the Planet?”

The hearing was cancelled because a snowstorm was followed by an ice storm and the entire region is covered with a wintry mix of nastiness. All area schools are closed, colleges are closed and government offices are closed or on a reduced work schedule.

Traffic is tied up, accidents are every where and people have decided to stay home for the day.

All of this on the day a Global Warming Hearing was set to begin. It is amazing how many people blindly follow this Global Warming idea even with contradictory evidence slapping them in the face like a cold northeastern wind.
http://texasfred.net/?p=1016

The global warming sceptics
some quotes from the article

Scientists and environmentalists say the sceptics have been so good at spreading their message they have slowed action mitigating global warming. In Australia, the sceptics have been so persistent that the CSIRO, which employs some of the nation's leading climate scientists, has been forced to be far more proactive in defending climate change science .

Meanwhile, the evidence of climate change keeps mounting. Last century's global warming of 0.6 degrees - 0.8 degrees in Australia - may sound small, but an extra 1.5 to two degrees will mean the loss of coral and other delicate ecosystems. It is the most rapid warming the planet has seen in 10,000 years. In that time, carbon dioxide in the atmosphere remained constant at around 280 parts per million. It is now nearly 380ppm, a level the earth has not experienced for at least 400,000 years.

 

[red states rule]

In St Louis an inconvient ice storm cancels gores farce of a movie in St Louis

Poor Al, his movie was to be shown at a college and the ice storm caused it to be cancelled

 

[maineman]

In St Louis an inconvient ice storm cancels gores farce of a movie in St Louis

Poor Al, his movie was to be shown at a college and the ice storm caused it to be cancelled

do you understand the effects of ocean currents on weather? do you understand the effects of glacier ice pack melt on ocean temperatures and ocean currents? you seem to think that global warming merely means that things will get warmer and it is so much more complex and dynamic an issue than that. it really is too complicated for a noted simpleton such as yourself to really get a handle on.

 

[red states rule]

do you understand the effects of ocean currents on weather? do you understand the effects of glacier ice pack melt on ocean temperatures and ocean currents? you seem to think that global warming merely means that things will get warmer and it is so much more complex and dynamic an issue than that. it really is too complicated for a noted simpleton such as yourself to really get a handle on.

Why listen to the same idiots who cannot tell us (correctly) what the weather will be in 24 hours, what will happen 75 years from now?

Yes, this global warming is a bitch. I had to go buy a BIGGER snow blower this year

 

[Relay]

do you understand the effects of ocean currents on weather? do you understand the effects of glacier ice pack melt on ocean temperatures and ocean currents? you seem to think that global warming merely means that things will get warmer and it is so much more complex and dynamic an issue than that. it really is too complicated for a noted simpleton such as yourself to really get a handle on.

Dont forget that species animals insects and plants spreading to new places, including diseases by animals or insects. Rising water levels and change in the behaviour of El Nino to show tendency to be more permanent than before.

 

[red states rule]

Dont forget that species animals insects and plants spreading to new places, including diseases by animals or insects. Rising water levels and change in the behaviour of El Nino to show tendency to be more permanent than before.

or what the enviro wackos are spreading

 

[ScreamingEagle]

And i also think you have missunderstood the term global warming.
The influence of green house gases cause the climate and weather to go nuts not only by unusual warm weather but also in unusual cold extreme weather in other places.

How do you define global warming?

 

[Avatar4321]

do you realize that "global warming" does not mean the end to cold temperatures, but a change in weather patterns? In fact, global warming might very well cause the next ice age by stopping the tropical currents that bring warm moist air to the northern latitudes.

Do you really buy that global warming might cause the next ice age? It's one of the major reason the theory is completely absurd to me.

You see regardless which direction the tempature goes, politicians can "blame" it on the people and use it to justify oppressing us with laws that do absolutely nothing but restrict our freedom.

If the tempature goes up - global warming
If the tempature goes down - global warming.

Either way the politicians have an issue that cant go away and which can be blamed for anything that happens. It doesn't matter what direction the tempature changes. The issue wont ever go away.

Kind of convenient for politicians dont you think?

Kind of convenient that the elite rich can buy themselves out of saving the environment too dont you think?

So who is going to suffer? The poor. The poor who are oppressed and cant afford the indulgences called "carbon offset." The people who are going to suffer are the hard working poor who wont be able to pull themselves out of poverty because of government interference.

All of this done for what? For the children? Why the heck should we believe the left gives a damn about the children? The left has has the murder of children as a central issue on their political platform for over 30 years! Why the heck should we believe they are somehow sincere now?

Those advocating "global warming" are some of the most hypocritical insincere people in the world. Why the heck should I believe them when a number of scientists disagree with their assertion? Why shoulld I give up my freedom because they tell me I have to?

Global warming is supposely a "moral issue" now. Why should the left be allowed to impose their morality on us when they decry us even suggesting that there is morality??

Explain this too me. Why should I believe it? Why should I believe in such a thing that just happens to work out nicely for the politicians who want to control our lives?

 

[maineman]

do you know what caused the LAST ice age?

I'll wait.

 

[Bern80]

do you know what caused the LAST ice age?

I'll wait.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age

Gotta love Wikipedia

of particular interest is the paragraph, "Processes which make glacial periods more severe."

 

[maineman]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age

Gotta love Wikipedia

of particular interest is the paragraph, "Processes which make glacial periods more severe."

thank you bern..that paragraph is "on point".

 

[Bern80]

and the one after it for that matter

 

[red states rule]

Spann spawns cyber-storm
TV meteorologist disputes human role in global warming
Saturday, January 20, 2007
BOB CARLTON
News staff writer
James Spann is used to covering storms.

Not being in the middle of one.

But the ABC 33/40 meteorologist finds himself at the center of the global-warming controversy after the Internet site The Drudge Report posted a link to comments Spann made on his weather blog Thursday night.

"Everything kind of exploded," Spann said Friday. "Writing stuff like that is something I always do, but when Drudge links to it, it just brings the world to you all of a sudden."

All that controversy is over a cyber-disagreement Spann has with a climate scientist from The Weather Channel.

In essence, Spann does not believe that human activity is contributing to global warming and contends that "billions of dollars of grant money is flowing into the pockets of those on the man-made global warming bandwagon." Spann received so much traffic on his site that it was temporarily shut down Thursday night, he said.

"We have never been shut down with traffic before," he said. "During tornado outbreaks and hurricanes, we've been close, but we've never had a total shutdown or crash like this. It's kind of unprecedented."

Then the FOX News Network called and asked him to appear on "Hannity & Colmes." And CNN Headline News, which wanted to book him for "Glenn Beck." Spann said he is scheduled to appear on both of those shows Monday night.

What pressed all of those hot buttons was Spann's response to comments made by the Weather Channel's Heidi Cullen on a blog she posted Dec. 21.

On that post, titled "Junk Controversy, Not Junk Science," Cullen supported the theory that increases in levels of gases, particularly carbon dioxide, in the atmosphere have led to global warming, and she challenged meteorologists who say it is the result of cyclical weather patterns.

"If a meteorologist can't speak to the fundamental science of climate change, then maybe the (American Meteorological Society) shouldn't give them a Seal of Approval," Cullen wrote.

Spann fired off his response in a blog he posted before his 6 p.m. weather forecast Thursday on ABC 33/40. It was picked up by The Drudge Report three hours later.

"Well, well," Spann wrote on his blog. "Some `climate expert' on `The Weather Channel' wants to take away AMS certification from those of us who believe the recent `global warming' is a natural process. So much for `tolerance,' huh?

"I have been in operational meteorology since 1978, and I know dozens and dozens of broadcast meteorologists all over the country. ... I do not know of a single TV meteorologist who buys into the man-made global-warming hype. I know there are a few out there, but I can't find them."

Cullen, who was not available for comment Friday afternoon, has since posted a follow-up blog item in which she wrote that she did not want to stifle the debate over global warming.

"I've read all your comments saying I want to silence meteorologists who are skeptical of the science of global warming," she wrote. "That is not true. ...

"Many of you have accused me and The Weather Channel of taking a political position on global warming. That is not our intention."

300 and counting:

As of late Friday afternoon, Spann reported more than 300 responses to his comments on his blog, which can be found at www.jamesspann.com.

About 80 percent of those supported what he wrote, Spann said. Of the opposing 20 percent, some were "as nasty as when I have to cut off `General Hospital' for a tornado warning."

Among those posts:

"Stand your ground, James. That's why your `whole team,' however many of us there are, love you. How ridiculous to want to revoke something that you have EARNED."

"Way to go, James! I always thought you were a man of character, and this proves it once again."

"Taking away AMS certification may be a little severe, but on the other hand, clearly anyone who refuses to believe that humans have any affect on the weather is no one anyone should listen to about anything."

"James, the only reason to watch TWC (The Weather Channel) is to see if Jim Cantore will finally get taken out by a sheet of wind-borne corrugated metal. Count me as a scientist who believes that global warming is caused by hot air in Congress and overheated printing presses at the Bureau of Engraving and Printing."

Spann said he just wants "an open marketplace of ideas" about global warming and would like to engage in a debate on the subject with Cullen.

"She suggested that anybody that didn't agree with her, that our AMS certification should be taken away," Spann said. "That was my biggest problem with it.

"I welcome opposing viewpoints," he added. "The only way I can learn is by reading what other people think and believe, but I just don't think pride and arrogance has a place in science."

Third-party view:

NBC 13 meteorologist Jerry Tracey was unaware Friday afternoon of the battle of the blogs between Cullen and Spann. But he said there was not enough evidence yet to support or dismiss the claim that humanity is to blame for global warming.

"Yes, it's an important topic, and yes, we need to learn more about it," Tracey said. "But no, we do not yet know enough to say definitely that there is a significant impact toward global warming occurring because of man-made activities.

"Last weekend was so warm here and people tried to explain that based on global warning," he said. "There's just nothing to that. It was warm because of the weather pattern
http://www.al.com/printer/printer.ssf?/base/news/1169288539262650.xml&coll=2

 

[Bry]

no.... if Gore uses more electricity than I do, does that mean his message is any less valid?

And if I chose to doubt the fact that a regulated public utility would violate customer confidentiality regulations, that does not make me like RSR... I find that to be profoundly insulting.

I admit, it's one of the things that crossed my mind as I was watching the film. How much energy does Al use? It would bother me significantly if this report turned out to be true. There is no room for hypocrisy on that level in this debate.

But apart from reflecting badly on his character, I decided it was probably irrelevant since he is probably the person who has done most to get this information into the public debate. Our "Left wing media" certainly hasn't done much on that score. It always makes me giggle whenever someone expresses surprise at the info in the movie, but it shouldn't. Most people really had no idea.

And the weathermen denying the science? That's about as interesting as my mechanic denying it. The AMS "Seal of Approval" only means you're competent to analyze and present the weather for the week. A college degree in meteorology is as specialized as they get.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

"Well, well," Spann wrote on his blog. "Some `climate expert' on `The Weather Channel' wants to take away AMS certification from those of us who believe the recent `global warming' is a natural process. So much for `tolerance,' huh?
http://www.al.com/printer/printer.ssf?/base/news/1169288539262650.xml&coll=2

Does the fact that even our weather channel has become part and parcel of the liberal agenda give anyone pause?

Would anyone on the left want to comment on this attitude? What does this say to you about left wing politics? Fanatics and fascism perhaps?

 

[maineman]

Does the fact that even our weather channel has become part and parcel of the liberal agenda give anyone pause?

Would anyone on the left want to comment on this attitude? What does this say to you about left wing politics? Fanatics and fascism perhaps?

Last I knew, the weather channel was not a government run entity. If the owners of that channel want to maintain a certain unanimity of meteorlogical philosophy, it would seem to me that the free market boys of the right would not complain about that, and would reserve their complaints to situations where tax dollars are involved in some form of coercion.

If you don't agree with the meteorological philosophy of the weather channel, my guess is that your local network affiliate has a weatherman on each of their local newscasts and you could get all the weather information you need from that source.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Last I knew, the weather channel was not a government run entity. If the owners of that channel want to maintain a certain unanimity of meteorlogical philosophy, it would seem to me that the free market boys of the right would not complain about that, and would reserve their complaints to situations where tax dollars are involved in some form of coercion.

If you don't agree with the meteorological philosophy of the weather channel, my guess is that your local network affiliate has a weatherman on each of their local newscasts and you could get all the weather information you need from that source.

So you admit that liberalism has inundated the media to the point where its political agenda is even being promoted on a seemingly innocuous weather channel to the general public? And you liberals wonder why conservatives are worried about our public education system...

I notice that you failed to address the statement of a liberal who thinks the critical weatherman's professional AMS certification should be taken away from him because he doesn't fall into lockstep with the liberal viewpoint on global warming. This is exactly how liberalism steps into the realm of fascism.

ps: What exactly is "meteorological philosophy"? I thought meteorology was a science.

 

[maineman]

So you admit that liberalism has inundated the media to the point where its political agenda is even being promoted on a seemingly innocuous weather channel to the general public? And you liberals wonder why conservatives are worried about our public education system...

I notice that you failed to address the statement of a liberal who thinks the critical weatherman's professional AMS certification should be taken away from him because he doesn't fall into lockstep with the liberal viewpoint on global warming. This is exactly how liberalism steps into the realm of fascism.

ps: What exactly is "meteorological philosophy"? I thought meteorology was a science.

I admit no such thing. the folks who own the weather channel are free to push any sort of weather model they so chose...just like Murdock and Fox News are free to push whatever spin on news that THEY so chose. I find it interesting that free market capitalism is great from your perspective except on those occasions when, oddly enough, it isn't. If you disagree with the weather channel's way of reporting the weather, use your remote and display your displeasure... boycott products that advertise thereon...but don't whine about those nasty liberals...it is so unbecoming.

And if the AMS were to decide that a belief in global warming was part and parcel of their certification process, and someone refused to do so, it is up to the AMS to discipline their members. What if a doctor decided that smoking was GOOD for you and prescribed cigarettes to his patients, would the AMA have any recourse?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

I admit no such thing. the folks who own the weather channel are free to push any sort of weather model they so chose...just like Murdock and Fox News are free to push whatever spin on news that THEY so chose. I find it interesting that free market capitalism is great from your perspective except on those occasions when, oddly enough, it isn't. If you disagree with the weather channel's way of reporting the weather, use your remote and display your displeasure... boycott products that advertise thereon...but don't whine about those nasty liberals...it is so unbecoming.

Of course you admit that the weather channel is pushing a liberal agenda. Just listen to yourself.

Isn't the weather channel representing itself as an unbiased and scientific-based medium? To insinuate a biased liberal agenda into its program is therefore underhanded and a form of lying to the public.

And if the AMS were to decide that a belief in global warming was part and parcel of their certification process, and someone refused to do so, it is up to the AMS to discipline their members. What if a doctor decided that smoking was GOOD for you and prescribed cigarettes to his patients, would the AMA have any recourse?

However, they haven't decided that....in fact there is no agreement about global warming within the scientific community. Yet, liberals jump to ostrasize anyone who disagrees with their viewpoint. This is fascism, pure and simple. Fascists will override the facts if it is in it their interest to do so and stamp out any opposition. Seeing this play out with a stupid weather channel is rather eye opening for you, don't you think?

A weather channel is supposedly representing scientific facts to the public; it does not represent itself as a political commentary show. The cigarette companies were sued because they hid the facts about cigarette smoking. Maybe we should sue the weather channel for misrepresenting the facts about global warming?