duesentrieb
Well-known member
Well, who cares about the personality of the messenger then?Nigel Tufnel":7b14f said:
duesentrieb
Well-known member
Just a hint: those who are diagreeing with the issue of global warming need funding too - and guess what, most of them are from the US.Nigel Tufnel":4f27d said:
And guess what there's still a wide consent worldwide among climate scientists and meteorologists.
duesentrieb
Well-known member
Yeah, Gray is the person who is quoted the most.Randy Van Sykes":bf0aa said:
Those really interested in the whole thing should do some further reading not just about Gore, his movie and several mis- and overinterpretations in the movie (which are there, no doubt about that), but also about Gray's background, agenda and - to come back to Nigels posting - sources of his funds.
duesentrieb
Well-known member
I'm on a mission today 
Code001
Well-known member
duesentrieb":bd699 said:I'm on a mission today
I can tell.
Soon, this entire thread will be filled with only replies from you!
duesentrieb
Well-known member
Hi Richarddicky sofa":06ac7 said:Al Gore is still 1,000,000,000 times better than the current administration...
duesentrieb
Well-known member
Code001":f4906 said:duesentrieb":f4906 said:I'm on a mission today
I can tell.
I should work now, thats right, or do some research about Gray. I will come back when I found out where he gets his funds from
duesentrieb
Well-known member
Well, its pretty easy to find something . . .
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... ay-on-agw/
conclusion (quoted
The Wall Street Journal has insinuated that there is some ageism involved in the reaction to Gray's work ("Hurricane debate shatters civility of weather science," by Valerie Bauerlein, Feb.2, 2006). The problem is not Gray's age — we all revered Henry Stommel who did some of his finest work in his seventies. The problem is Gray's failure to adapt to a modern era of meteorology, which demands hypotheses soundly grounded in quantitative and consistent physical formulations, not seat-of-the-pants flying. The WSJ also made much of the withdrawal of an invitation for Gray to join a debate on hurricane trends at an Atlanta tropical meteorology conference. We can't speak for the organizers, but we find it easy to believe that their decision was guided more by the invalidity of Gray's scientific reasoning than by any political or personal considerations.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... ay-on-agw/
conclusion (quoted
The Wall Street Journal has insinuated that there is some ageism involved in the reaction to Gray's work ("Hurricane debate shatters civility of weather science," by Valerie Bauerlein, Feb.2, 2006). The problem is not Gray's age — we all revered Henry Stommel who did some of his finest work in his seventies. The problem is Gray's failure to adapt to a modern era of meteorology, which demands hypotheses soundly grounded in quantitative and consistent physical formulations, not seat-of-the-pants flying. The WSJ also made much of the withdrawal of an invitation for Gray to join a debate on hurricane trends at an Atlanta tropical meteorology conference. We can't speak for the organizers, but we find it easy to believe that their decision was guided more by the invalidity of Gray's scientific reasoning than by any political or personal considerations.
duesentrieb
Well-known member
If you have some time, go thru this:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 05_pf.html
quoting:
Mainstream climate scientists readily accept that there is natural variation in the system. For example, greenhouse gases alone can't melt the Arctic at the alarming rate that has been observed recently. Americans sorting through this issue may feel constrained by all the unknowns. Perhaps they need to adapt to uncertainty, to see uncertainty as the norm, and not as a sign of scientific failure.
Or as an excuse to do nothing.
LET US BE HONEST about the intellectual culture of America in general: It has become almost impossible to have an intelligent discussion about anything.
Everything is a war now. This is the age of lethal verbal combat, where even scientific issues involving measurements and molecules are somehow supernaturally polarizing. The controversy about global warming resides all too perfectly at the collision point of environmentalism and free market capitalism. It's bound to be not only politicized but twisted, mangled and beaten senseless in the process. The divisive nature of global warming isn't helped by the fact that the most powerful global-warming skeptic (at least by reputation) is President Bush, and the loudest warnings come from Al Gore.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 05_pf.html
quoting:
Mainstream climate scientists readily accept that there is natural variation in the system. For example, greenhouse gases alone can't melt the Arctic at the alarming rate that has been observed recently. Americans sorting through this issue may feel constrained by all the unknowns. Perhaps they need to adapt to uncertainty, to see uncertainty as the norm, and not as a sign of scientific failure.
Or as an excuse to do nothing.
LET US BE HONEST about the intellectual culture of America in general: It has become almost impossible to have an intelligent discussion about anything.
Everything is a war now. This is the age of lethal verbal combat, where even scientific issues involving measurements and molecules are somehow supernaturally polarizing. The controversy about global warming resides all too perfectly at the collision point of environmentalism and free market capitalism. It's bound to be not only politicized but twisted, mangled and beaten senseless in the process. The divisive nature of global warming isn't helped by the fact that the most powerful global-warming skeptic (at least by reputation) is President Bush, and the loudest warnings come from Al Gore.
Code001
Well-known member
Sounds like someone is just trying to say Americans are stupid and only care about war. Also, last time I checked, Bush said global warming was real, and he's taking steps to prevent greenhouse gases....
duesentrieb
Well-known member
I don't read that in the WP article. I think its actually true not just for US americans, but also europeans.Code001":6fc56 said:
Yeah, he had his own "counter-revolutionary" conference - without asking for concrete consequences though.Code001":6fc56 said:
duesentrieb
Well-known member
One last - the best - and most interesting
Massachusetts et al vs. EPA - US supreme court, not really Gore friendly as far as I know, right?
http://docket.medill.northwestern.edu/a ... 003742.php
Massachusetts et al vs. EPA - US supreme court, not really Gore friendly as far as I know, right?
http://docket.medill.northwestern.edu/a ... 003742.php
Juggernaut
Well-known member
I think it's all bullshit......all of it, both sides. It's ALL about politics plain and simple, Both sides swear up and down to have "experts" supporting both theories.
I'm so sick and tired of hearing about:
Global Warming
Rascism
Iraq
Iran
China
All of it.
I was raised in a very politically aware family, and have ALWAYS voted, and paid attention to the issues at hand. BUT everything, and I mean EVERYTHING has gotten so out of hand, be it freedom of speech, Gun rights, abortion, war, environment, etc.... IT ALL HAS NOTHING to do with reality and EVERYTHING to do with politics and MONEY!
I'm so sick and tired of hearing about:
Global Warming
Rascism
Iraq
Iran
China
All of it.
I was raised in a very politically aware family, and have ALWAYS voted, and paid attention to the issues at hand. BUT everything, and I mean EVERYTHING has gotten so out of hand, be it freedom of speech, Gun rights, abortion, war, environment, etc.... IT ALL HAS NOTHING to do with reality and EVERYTHING to do with politics and MONEY!
duesentrieb
Well-known member
Well Mike, if you don't want to go thru all the court stuff but you're a bit interested in science, just have a look here:
http://docket.medill.northwestern.edu/a ... ntists.pdf
I take it that you agree when you have a look where these guys are working, they should be called independent from either "side".
One of them, Rowland, got his nobel price in 1995 (for chemistry btw).
To make in easier, here's their "conlusion":
A consensus of scientists now working on climate
change holds that it is likely that emissions of carbon
dioxide and other greenhouse gases from mobile sources
and other anthropogenic sources have already had an
effect on the earth's climate and are changing the Earth's
climate in ways that are significantly increasing the risk of
adverse impacts on public welfare.
. . . 3. It is likely or very likely that human-induced
increases in greenhouse gases are already causing
global climate to change. The average global surface
temperature has risen (human activities likely caused
most of the approximately 0.6°C -- 1.1° F -- rise over
the 20th century), global average sea level has risen (by
0.1 to 0.2 meters -- 1/3 to 2/3 feet -- over the 20th
century), snow cover and ice extent in the Arctic has
decreased by about 10% and 25%, respectively, since
the late 1960s, and stratospheric temperatures have
dropped (a virtually certain consequence of both
stratospheric ozone depletion and greenhouse gas
increases). A variety of other related climate factors
are changing in a way that is consistent with
greenhouse gas-induced planetary warming. By
contrast, it is very difficult to find global scale
measures of climate that indicate cooling.
here's the arctic in 1979 (top) and 2005 (bottom
http://docket.medill.northwestern.edu/a ... ntists.pdf
I take it that you agree when you have a look where these guys are working, they should be called independent from either "side".
One of them, Rowland, got his nobel price in 1995 (for chemistry btw).
To make in easier, here's their "conlusion":
A consensus of scientists now working on climate
change holds that it is likely that emissions of carbon
dioxide and other greenhouse gases from mobile sources
and other anthropogenic sources have already had an
effect on the earth's climate and are changing the Earth's
climate in ways that are significantly increasing the risk of
adverse impacts on public welfare.
. . . 3. It is likely or very likely that human-induced
increases in greenhouse gases are already causing
global climate to change. The average global surface
temperature has risen (human activities likely caused
most of the approximately 0.6°C -- 1.1° F -- rise over
the 20th century), global average sea level has risen (by
0.1 to 0.2 meters -- 1/3 to 2/3 feet -- over the 20th
century), snow cover and ice extent in the Arctic has
decreased by about 10% and 25%, respectively, since
the late 1960s, and stratospheric temperatures have
dropped (a virtually certain consequence of both
stratospheric ozone depletion and greenhouse gas
increases). A variety of other related climate factors
are changing in a way that is consistent with
greenhouse gas-induced planetary warming. By
contrast, it is very difficult to find global scale
measures of climate that indicate cooling.
here's the arctic in 1979 (top) and 2005 (bottom
I
itsme
Well-known member
Al Gore is a cunt along with Obama Bin Ladin, Hillary Dike Clinton, John Headwards, and all other liberals!
duesentrieb
Well-known member
interactive . . .
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2007 ... PHIC.html#
and 2007 is not just statistically happening . . . here's the calculation
to this graph . . .
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2007 ... PHIC.html#
and 2007 is not just statistically happening . . . here's the calculation
to this graph . . .
kannibul
New member
duesentrieb":78391 said:
The point is, the message is wrong...
duesentrieb
Well-known member
LOLkannibul":1040e said:
So the US supreme court and its scientists is wrong too?
kannibul
New member
duesentrieb":ac36b said:
The Supreme Court can most certainly be wrong, as can scientists that have an agenda / need grant money.
Load up one side of the table with enough BS, people will believe the BS.
The data models that some scientists have been using weren't Y2K compliant - so when you go to calculating data before or after Y2K, it skewed the results.
http://www.dailytech.com/Blogger%2Bfind ... le8383.htm
This is the same as the Ozone Hole issue of the 80's, and the impending Ice Age from the 60's and 70's.
Digital Jams
New member
duesentrieb":06ec7 said:My sources are telling me thatDigital Jams":06ec7 said:His utility bill for one of his mansions is over $25,000 and he wants my poor ass to bolt solar panels on my roof
a) the website who spread this "news" into the world is run by a doubtful (right wing ?) company, which just really is a letter box.
b) on Gore's website is a statement about it - and what forms/kinds of energy he's using.
Hey Olaf
The information was taken from CNN and the bills were posted, I could see some crap slinging from the haters but the bills were real.
I do respect his concerns and I do my part to help by recycling, low wattage light bulbs, etc but Gore throughout the years just has not impressed me as he had to pay $$$$$$$$ to a firm to give him a personality during his run for Prez