Immigration protests and boycotts

[Aporkalypse]

I realize there is a natural ebb and flow of global climate. But global warming is occuring much faster than these changes.

You're telling me that the overwhelming scientific consensus *isn't* that global warming is caused by us?

I have reviewed the data. So have NASA scientists. So have scientists from hundreds of universities.

You're acting like you know that the data is inconclusive. You don't.

Bill Nye is a good scientist. He has a deeper understanding of science and what defines it. He is involved with scientists from the top Universities and has a wider breadth of knowledge on the topic than you or I ever will have.

My dad is an academic. Honestly, his expertise is astronomy and physics (masters), but he has several friends from local Universities (UALR and others) who have deeper knowledge of global warming. We often invite some over (although I haven't been home in a while) to just discuss these matter. Global warming is real.

I have done research at Drexel University at the fuel cell laboratory, a top 50 engineering school. (You might know this, but just in case, fuel cells are an alternative energy that utilize chemical energy for electrical energy. Hydrogen fuel cells have zero emissions, besides water.) The overwhelming consensus there is that global warming is caused by us too.

(My science fair revolved around global warming and alternative energy. I read several books on the matter.)

But really, you can brush me off as some highfalutin' teenager--I really don't mind. But you cannot brush off the scores and scores of scientist who say rapid global warming is caused by us.

Clearly you haven't bothered to look at any of my links, because you would see there are multitudes of high-profile scientists who believe global warming is caused by us. At least one of the links I gave you showed how the Bush-hired NASA press secretary purged anything about global warming from a NASA scientist's lecture. Another showed how the Bush administration purged reports of global warming from the EPA.

You name 2 high profile scientists who believe global warming is a bunch of hocus pocus, and I can find 20 who believe we have caused it. I'll admit, it would be a much harder job for me, because not every scientist (who believes we're the cause) has published papers on global warming. Environmental scientists, chemical engineers, etc. have more relevant things to worry about, such as which components of a fuel cell reduce electro-osmotic drag or whatever.

And just for eye candy, Mount Kilimanjaro, then and now (from Columbia University):

From Wikipedia: Mount Kilimanjaro, at 5,895 m (19,340 feet), is the highest peak on the continent. Since 1912 the glacier cover on the summit of Kilimanjaro has apparently retreated 75%, and the volume of glacial ice is now 80% less than it was a century ago due to both retreat and thinning. In the 14-year period from 1984 to 1998, one section of the glacier atop the mountain receded 300 m (984 ft).(Wielochowski) A 2002 study determined that if current conditions continue, the glaciers atop Kilimanjaro will disappear sometime between 2015 and 2020.(Thompson, et alia)(OSU) A March 2005 report indicated that there is almost no remaining glacial ice on the mountain, and it is the first time in 11,000 years that barren ground has been exposed on portions of the summit.(Guardian)

Do not be so quick to brush off organization like environmental defense. If you'll brush off them, then at least look at PBS, which I later quoted....and essentially says the same thing as Environmental Defense. I know it's easy to brand these organizations as "hippy" and "crazy liberal"---it automatically discredits what they say without having to look at it. It also makes it easier for a person to use fossil fuels by just claiming, erroneously, that only the fringes of science and organizations think global warming is a threat.

The truth is, I doubt this post will convert you either. I can post opinions from high profile scientists, I can tell you about my personal alternative energy and global warming research with graduate students and professors, I can post images showing the effects of global warming in a mere 7 years from an Ivy League University, I can post links to the New York Times showing Bush stifling the EPA and NASA reports on global warming, I can post links showing that oil companies are paying scientists and media pundits to muddy the water on the debate so that it appears "inconclucsive"--but it's no use. You can give me vague generalities without ever really producing a strand of evidence, or without ever really having worked in the field yourself. I don't know what it is about topics such as the environment, but people who take the conservative view of the matter will rarely, if ever, change their opinion. Perhaps there is too much pride involved. I, personally, have changed my opinion on immigration and integration (to an extent) just on these debates here, and in school, I have changed my views on several topics, life affirmative action, just from debate with conservative friends. But what is it about some issues that will cause a person to defend it to his death, even if the overwhelming evidence shows the contrary? Is it because there's a risk of not appearing resolute--of being a "flip-flopper?" Ah, what a weakness. What a weakness.

Anyways, let's stick to urban development. It's a lot easier.

The bad thing about the internet is that it looks like I really hate you or something....but if we were in person, it would be clear that we just had simple differences of opinions. Too bad you (anyone) can't discern tone on the internet.

Great. I have been published for work in several different labs, all biotech-related but varying from electrophysiology to cell culture to molecular biology. Now I transitioned to clinical research, though I can't say this is something I plan on doing indefinitely.

You are arguing that "high profile scientists believe it". I'm not interested in what others "think" or "believe" of your imaginary polls of the academic scientific community. I'd love to see some kind of quantification of those claims. A thousand years ago everyone believed the world was flat. I just want to know what kind of evidence we have. Conjecture without data is a treacherous road.

Again, you gave evidence about Kilimanjaro dating solely from the 20th century. I stated that Western Europe was warmer from 1200-1400 than it is today. You neglected to comment on that, despite your insistence I wasn't basing my assumptions on "evidence". Furthermore, we all know that glaciers covered the bulk of North America 10,000 years ago. Are we to believe that man caused that as well of was that just part of the waxing and waning of the earth's temperatures that has been going on since all of life was unicellular?

Again, I never said that global warming wasn't a logical theory and might not be true, I just said it was difficult to prove. In fact, it is impossible at this time to prove causality. This is not the situation with CFCs and the depletion of the ozone layer in which theory was quite easily translated into clinical proof and subsequent response by the U.S. and the rest of the world is thwarting environmental disaster. Surely you see the differences.

I do thank God that unlike the uneducated masses out there, you didn't bring up the hurricane season being linked to "global warming". Thank goodness you didn't fall into that trap.

I agree this is an urban development forum, so I'm finished with this. I'm not the one that derailed a thread on immigration with this kind of stuff, though.

[johnnydr87]

I didn't want to stir this up again (especially considering the nice comment in the other thread), but I just saw "An Inconvenient Truth" today (9:30 PM showing).

I felt well-versed on the perils and consequences of global warming upon entering the film, but I was surprised by the breadth of reports, pictures, and graphs documenting the case of global warming.

Here is an interesting fact in film (quote taken from a blog):

Gore noted that in an exhaustive study of almost every piece of research published on global warming in scientific journals, a sample of 928 articles was examined. Every single one of those 928 studies concluded that global warming was happening and that human activity was substantially responsible for it. In other words, as Gore has noted, the scientific debate about global warming and its sources, is over. In a parallel study of 636 news accounts of global warming, by contrast, 53% suggested that there was no scientific consensus on the question of global warming and its causes.

One of my favorite parts of the movie was when he talked about the ice studies in Antarctica that reminded me of our discussion. Basically, scientists can drill through the miles of ice in the Antarctic to trace the history of the atmosphere. The ice from the different eras store carbon dioxide (trapped in the ancient falling snow) and can be measured. The more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the more heat is trapped. They can also trace the average temperature of the year by measuring the half lifes of the isotopes.

In tracing the earth's carbon dioxide content and the earth's temperature of the last 650,000 years, the study found that the carbon dioxide content (and therefrom temperature) of our era is far, far higher than that of the normal cyclical changes of the last 650,000 years. Gore pointed out the 7 ice ages that have occurred over the last 650,000 years and their corresponding carbon dioxide content. Then he pointed out our carbon dioxide content presently and and projected amount.

In Japan in 2005 there was a record number of typhoons: 10 (compared to seven). The United States had a record number of tornadoes in the same year. The last 14 years have produced the ten hottest years on record. The fact is that Hurricane Katrina was strengthened by warm waters caused by global warming.

In our previous debate, I cited only a few facts. In the movie, an avalanche of videos, graphs, studies, before/after pictures, and the like are poured onto the viewers.

So this is all I request: please see the movie. If you have any doubt that global warming is caused by humans and occurring at an alarmingly fast rate: that's you're prerogative. However, I doubt that will be the case.

[Aporkalypse]

I didn't want to stir this up again (especially considering the nice comment in the other thread), but I just saw "An Inconvenient Truth" today (9:30 PM showing).

I felt well-versed on the perils and consequences of global warming upon entering the film, but I was surprised by the breadth of reports, pictures, and graphs documenting the case of global warming.

Here is an interesting fact in film (quote taken from a blog):

One of my favorite parts of the movie was when he talked about the ice studies in Antarctica that reminded me of our discussion. Basically, scientists can drill through the miles of ice in the Antarctic to trace the history of the atmosphere. The ice from the different eras store carbon dioxide (trapped in the ancient falling snow) and can be measured. The more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the more heat is trapped. They can also trace the average temperature of the year by measuring the half lifes of the isotopes.

In tracing the earth's carbon dioxide content and the earth's temperature of the last 650,000 years, the study found that the carbon dioxide content (and therefrom temperature) of our era is far, far higher than that of the normal cyclical changes of the last 650,000 years. Gore pointed out the 7 ice ages that have occurred over the last 650,000 years and their corresponding carbon dioxide content. Then he pointed out our carbon dioxide content presently and and projected amount.

In Japan in 2005 there was a record number of typhoons: 10 (compared to seven). The United States had a record number of tornadoes in the same year. The last 14 years have produced the ten hottest years on record. The fact is that Hurricane Katrina was strengthened by warm waters caused by global warming.

In our previous debate, I cited only a few facts. In the movie, an avalanche of videos, graphs, studies, before/after pictures, and the like are poured onto the viewers.

So this is all I request: please see the movie. If you have any doubt that global warming is caused by humans and occurring at an alarmingly fast rate: that's you're prerogative. However, I doubt that will be the case.

I am going to see it, but it is a movie - made by a person for a very specific purpose. It is probably not as one-sided as something Michael Moore would do but I would wager it is entirely one-sided.

[skirby]

Look up to the sky maybe the sun is to blame. Don't take records as proof. How long has the weather service been checking out the number of tornadoes each year? I remember in the late 70's the temp., for part of one winter in LR. was equal to that of Pittsburgh and within a couple of years it was over a 100 for 30+ days in a row. Did www.Al's film say anything about the change of the earth's angle in relationship to the sun when he talked about past findings? www.Al only know the truth when it fits his needs. Remember he is married to the queen of censorship.

[itk]

I'd like to opine on this off-thread topic-- to all those who think they are convinced one way or another, I would like to encourage anyone, who at least is somewhat educated, to read the research literature yourself, or at least research commentaries, journals, circulars, etc. Getting the info (or, trying to) firsthand from the sources is better than relying on anyone-- me, you, an ex-Vice President, anyone-- who may in the slightest way have possible subjectivity and emotions tied to his/her interpretation of the facts, or what he/she thinks are the facts.

Now, scientists are no exception, but good research will minimize with all reasonableness any subjectivity of the researcher(s) whatsoever. The Internet is crammed full of free information, reserach literature, etc.; unfortunately, over the topic of climatic change, there is a lot of crap to sift through. Just my two cents.

[johnnydr87]

I'd like to opine on this off-thread topic-- to all those who think they are convinced one way or another, I would like to encourage anyone, who at least is somewhat educated, to read the research literature yourself, or at least research commentaries, journals, circulars, etc. Getting the info (or, trying to) firsthand from the sources is better than relying on anyone-- me, you, an ex-Vice President, anyone-- who may in the slightest way have possible subjectivity and emotions tied to his/her interpretation of the facts, or what he/she thinks are the facts.

Now, scientists are no exception, but good research will minimize with all reasonableness any subjectivity of the researcher(s) whatsoever. The Internet is crammed full of free information, reserach literature, etc.; unfortunately, over the topic of climatic change, there is a lot of crap to sift through. Just my two cents.

Exactly.

The studies are out there for the taking. See it for yourself, and if those "crazy" scientists (who, as we know, are rarely right about anything) still aren't able to convince you through scientific method--nothing will.

But ten years from now, your opinion definitely will be entirely different.

A review from the Arkansas Times (which admittedly is liberally biased): http://www.arktimes.com/Articles/ArticleVi...0f-f5394218125f

[skirby]

The issue of global warming looks alot like what was being preached in the 70's about the energy crisis. At that time there was constant talk that the world's oil supply would be used up by the end of the 20th century. The only thing used up was the supply of cheap oil. The last of the cheap oil was in 1999 when oil was at $10. The thing about the oil supply is the higher the price gets the more oil there is. When was the last time you drove 55 on the interstate to reduce the use of oil and therefore reduce global warming? How much water will be used to grow corn in order to save on the use of oil? If www.Al is so concerned about the use of oil why did he push to open up the Elk Hills Oil Reserve in California when he was the VP?

[johnnydr87]

The issue of global warming looks alot like what was being preached in the 70's about the energy crisis. At that time there was constant talk that the world's oil supply would be used up by the end of the 20th century. The only thing used up was the supply of cheap oil. The last of the cheap oil was in 1999 when oil was at $10. The thing about the oil supply is the higher the price gets the more oil there is. When was the last time you drove 55 on the interstate to reduce the use of oil and therefore reduce global warming? How much water will be used to grow corn in order to save on the use of oil? If www.Al is so concerned about the use of oil why did he push to open up the Elk Hills Oil Reserve in California when he was the VP?

Huh? It's almost pointless arguing with you because it's obvious you don't have the slightest grasp of what you're arguing against.

So, since you semi-argued a point that was semi-relevant to a semi-rebuttal, I'll tell you about another point in the movie: the MPG standards in other Japan and Europe are much higher than that of the United States. The common argument against raising standards in the US is that it will hurt the economy. But, the most profitable car companies have all been the ones that have adhered to the tough standards (Toyota, Nissan---mainly Japanese.....while American companies like Ford and GM have tanked over the years). The worst part is that even China has tougher standards than the United States now. American car-makers can't sell cars over in China. America is not up to China's environmental standards for MPG. Ironic.

In the movie, Gore never argues against using oil-driven cars. He argues for more efficient cars, in one way or another (I just gave you the MPG example). Like I said, you argued against a point that never existed (that is, that Gore is against oil).

Sort of like the people who say that Gore claimed to have invented the internet, despite the fact that the newspaper that first perpetrated the whole mess later came out and said that its article was misleading in that it implied that Gore said he had invented the internet (Boston Globe). It's sad that some people still don't know about that because they're so blinded by spin.

It's kind of funny that, in your argument, you ask how much water we're going to have to waste to cut back on oil. Fun fact for the day: water's a renewable resource.

One more thing: studies have been tracking global warming for a while. (And, surveys can even be measured by taking out huge cores of ice in Antarctica....if you never read my above posts.) It's not a prediction like the 70s energy crisis. It's a phenomen that started slowly during industrialization and has been growing exponentially since as population grows exponentially. View the before/after pictures. View the studies. Yes, even *try* to view "www.Al's" movie--illegally pirate it if that's what it takes.

And here's what I'm certain of: you may not believe global warming now, but I guarantee in ten years global warming will be common knowledge, as ubiquitous as every child's knowledge that cigarettes are harmful (and let's not forget the spin campaigns that those cigarette companies produced as well) and the Earth revolves around the sun.

And in ten years, you'll remember this argument. You'll find that in the scheme of history, you were the flatlander, the naysayer, the disbeliever. You'll wonder why you didn't just bother to take a block of time to peruse the arguments on "both sides" of the scientific discussion. You'll find that you only came to the enlightenment when there was no turning back, when you were faced at every corner with the indisputable fact of global warming, when even your average 8 year old could recite what global warming is and what causes it.

If only, in the face of overwhelming evidence, you had mustered the will to actually look at any of it.

A simple aphorism when exploring global warming: review both sides of the argument fairly, conscious of your own biases. Once you have read thoroughly on both sides, find out the sources of those arguments and if they have any fishy connections (say, like an oil company or ....the ACLU).

[skirby]

Huh? It's almost pointless arguing with you because it's obvious you don't have the slightest grasp of what you're arguing against.

So, since you semi-argued a point that was semi-relevant to a semi-rebuttal, I'll tell you about another point in the movie: the MPG standards in other Japan and Europe are much higher than that of the United States. The common argument against raising standards in the US is that it will hurt the economy. But, the most profitable car companies have all been the ones that have adhered to the tough standards (Toyota, Nissan---mainly Japanese.....while American companies like Ford and GM have tanked over the years). The worst part is that even China has tougher standards than the United States now. American car-makers can't sell cars over in China. America is not up to China's environmental standards for MPG. Ironic.

In the movie, Gore never argues against using oil-driven cars. He argues for more efficient cars, in one way or another (I just gave you the MPG example). Like I said, you argued against a point that never existed (that is, that Gore is against oil).

Sort of like the people who say that Gore claimed to have invented the internet, despite the fact that the newspaper that first perpetrated the whole mess later came out and said that its article was misleading in that it implied that Gore said he had invented the internet (Boston Globe). It's sad that some people still don't know about that because they're so blinded by spin.

It's kind of funny that, in your argument, you ask how much water we're going to have to waste to cut back on oil. Fun fact for the day: water's a renewable resource.

One more thing: studies have been tracking global warming for a while. (And, surveys can even be measured by taking out huge cores of ice in Antarctica....if you never read my above posts.) It's not a prediction like the 70s energy crisis. It's a phenomen that started slowly during industrialization and has been growing exponentially since as population grows exponentially. View the before/after pictures. View the studies. Yes, even *try* to view "www.Al's" movie--illegally pirate it if that's what it takes.

And here's what I'm certain of: you may not believe global warming now, but I guarantee in ten years global warming will be common knowledge, as ubiquitous as every child's knowledge that cigarettes are harmful (and let's not forget the spin campaigns that those cigarette companies produced as well) and the Earth revolves around the sun.

And in ten years, you'll remember this argument. You'll find that in the scheme of history, you were the flatlander, the naysayer, the disbeliever. You'll wonder why you didn't just bother to take a block of time to peruse the arguments on "both sides" of the scientific discussion. You'll find that you only came to the enlightenment when there was no turning back, when you were faced at every corner with the indisputable fact of global warming, when even your average 8 year old could recite what global warming is and what causes it.

If only, in the face of overwhelming evidence, you had mustered the will to actually look at any of it.

A simple aphorism when exploring global warming: review both sides of the argument fairly, conscious of your own biases. Once you have read thoroughly on both sides, find out the sources of those arguments and if they have any fishy connections (say, like an oil company or ....the ACLU).

johnnydr87 maybe you should look at a few facts. When did water become a renewable resource? Tell that to the farmers of south and east Arkansas. On Gore and the internet. "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet." Gore's own words on CNN in 1999. Gore and the oil-driven car. In his book Earth in the Balance he wrote:"It ought to be possible to establish a coordinated global program to accomplish the strategic goal of completely eliminating the internal combustion engine (by government fiat) over, say, a 25 year period." You talk about looking at all the evidence then maybe you should. I never did say that global warming did not exist but to take stock in what Gore has to say is no better than taking GW's word that he will stop the flow of illegal immigrates.

Can you answer me this? It has been shown that there is a relationship between increase carbon dioxide and increase temperature. Before the use of fossil fuels the norm would have been a higher rate of cardon dioxide/temperature with a decrease of both during the 7 ice ages. What caused the changes during these periods? If carbon dioxide causes a rise in temperature what caused the increase and decrease of carbon dioxide during these periods? If you go back 50 million years the carbon dioxide levels were higher than they are now. What is normal for the Earth during its lifetime? Is it normal for the Earth to have a population of over 6 billion people exhaling carbon dioxide? The population of the Earth has more than doubled since 1950 and it is during this time that carbon dioxide levels have shot up. Maybe it is time we should hold our breath.

[johnnydr87]

johnnydr87 maybe you should look at a few facts. When did water become a renewable resource? Tell that to the farmers of south and east Arkansas. On Gore and the internet. "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet." Gore's own words on CNN in 1999. Gore and the oil-driven car. In his book Earth in the Balance he wrote:"It ought to be possible to establish a coordinated global program to accomplish the strategic goal of completely eliminating the internal combustion engine (by government fiat) over, say, a 25 year period." You talk about looking at all the evidence then maybe you should. I never did say that global warming did not exist but to take stock in what Gore has to say is no better than taking GW's word that he will stop the flow of illegal immigrates.

Ok, so Gore took initiative in helping create the Internet. He never said he invented it. Is it really so crazy to believe he was part of the senata bloc that helped push forward the internet?

And re-read your paragraphs carefully. Gore said he wants to phase out, over a 25 year period, the combustion engine. Your words. However, that is not the same as saying he's against oil. When you say he is outright against oil, you imply that he just wants to get rid of it. A 25 year process to phase out combustion engines is the same thing that most logical individuals, with no ties to oil companies and the like, would want.

Can you answer me this? It has been shown that there is a relationship between increase carbon dioxide and increase temperature. Before the use of fossil fuels the norm would have been a higher rate of cardon dioxide/temperature with a decrease of both during the 7 ice ages. What caused the changes during these periods? If carbon dioxide causes a rise in temperature what caused the increase and decrease of carbon dioxide during these periods?

And I'm glad you brought this up, because it is exactly covered in the movie (and studies used in the movie). If only you would read my posts, before these, fully, before making me repeat answers. Scientists took ice cores from the past 650,000 years from Antarctica. They measured the carbon dioxide content in the ice, which was trapped in ancient snowfalls. From measuring the isotopes (half lifes) of these samples, they could also track the temperature. The difference in carbon dioxide levels between the ice ages and normal ages was about the same between every age.

Until you got to our era. Then, the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere, starting in the very recent decades, became several times the carbon dioxide content of the previous warm eras. Like so (since I can't explain very well):

/

/ <---rough representation

/

/

/

/ / \ /

/ {sodEmoji.{sodEmoji.|}} / \ /

/ \ / \ /

/ \ / \/

EDIT: My graph didn't work.

Those first two humps were pretty much how the first 7 ice ages were represented in carbon dioxide content (and therefrom temperature levels). The ending, of course, was where we were at, a carbon dioxide content a few units higher, in proportion, than the other corresponding warm eras. In the coming years, the "projection" for those carbon dioxide levels is supposed to be even higher.

If you go back 50 million years the carbon dioxide levels were higher than they are now. What is normal for the Earth during its lifetime? Is it normal for the Earth to have a population of over 6 billion people exhaling carbon dioxide? The population of the Earth has more than doubled since 1950 and it is during this time that carbon dioxide levels have shot up. Maybe it is time we should hold our breath.[

Are you sure about your first statement? You may be right, but I'd like a link or book to reference, so I can read about that.

I see you at least partially understand the cause of global warming (overpopulation).

Here's the clincher: we are a force of nature, as you seemed to have acknowledged. But, unlike the changes that occurred in climate in the past....these are happening at a much faster rate than the Earth can adjust to. Species extinction is happening at a rate several hundred times higher than the normal background. (A few examples: the forests that normally have their roots in permafrost are losing footing, and often dying...which, in turn, of course affects the animal population. For the first time, scientists have record polar bears dying in the artic from drowning because they sometimes have to swim over 40 miles looking for ice.) Species and ecological extinction, on scales never seen before, may not be part of your moral agenda, or being "good stewards" of the land (as in the bible). Even so, there are urgent consequences, because of the rapid nature of global warming, that will affect civilization.

One interesting example was the raising in sea level. (We can already see those affects on coastal Louisiana.) Gore gave an example of a large chunk of ice in Antarctica, several "Rhode Islands" in size, that was expected only to break up in a century or so, even with the pressure of global warming. Baffling to scientists, it broke up in a matter of weeks. Scientists later found out the reason. During melting, pools of water would form on the ice surface, often a few feet to several hundred deep. Ice reflects 90% of the sun rays, while water practically does the opposite (absorbs). These pools acted as bores into the ice, effectively weakening the structure, and the ice (again, several "Rhode Islands" in size) broke apart rather quickly. These aren't 3 feet thick pieces of ice. They're several dozens, sometimes hundreds, of feet. (It even gets more complicated than that, because once the sea ice broke apart, the land ice started to slide into the ocean as the sea ice was an integral part of their structure.)

Gore played out a scenario, if the "Western Antarctic Sea Ice" (I believe that was its name) or Greenland encountered the same problems as the previous mentioned anecdote, then the sea level would rise approximately 20 feet. Or, if half of both melted. The Netherlands would be mostly covered. So would Florida and other coastal areas. The WTC memorial and other areas of Manhattan. Huge swaths of land in crowded India and China. And of course, many more places.

From our life spans, this change seems very gradual. In the course of earth history, of course, it is extremely fast. A good anecdote is that of a frog about to be cooked. If a live frog is placed in a boiling pot, it jumps out, immediately jolted by the sudden change of heat. However, if the frog is placed in a pot of water at room temperature, and then the pot is gradually heated, it never jumps out. And then it's too late, and it's a meal.

[skirby]

Ok, so Gore took initiative in helping create the Internet. He never said he invented it. Is it really so crazy to believe he was part of the senata bloc that helped push forward the internet?

And re-read your paragraphs carefully. Gore said he wants to phase out, over a 25 year period, the combustion engine. Your words. However, that is not the same as saying he's against oil. When you say he is outright against oil, you imply that he just wants to get rid of it. A 25 year process to phase out combustion engines is the same thing that most logical individuals, with no ties to oil companies and the like, would want.

And I'm glad you brought this up, because it is exactly covered in the movie (and studies used in the movie). If only you would read my posts, before these, fully, before making me repeat answers. Scientists took ice cores from the past 650,000 years from Antarctica. They measured the carbon dioxide content in the ice, which was trapped in ancient snowfalls. From measuring the isotopes (half lifes) of these samples, they could also track the temperature. The difference in carbon dioxide levels between the ice ages and normal ages was about the same between every age.

Until you got to our era. Then, the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere, starting in the very recent decades, became several times the carbon dioxide content of the previous warm eras. Like so (since I can't explain very well):

/

/ <---rough representation

/

/

/

/ / \ /

/ {sodEmoji.{sodEmoji.|}} / \ /

/ \ / \ /

/ \ / \/

EDIT: My graph didn't work.

Those first two humps were pretty much how the first 7 ice ages were represented in carbon dioxide content (and therefrom temperature levels). The ending, of course, was where we were at, a carbon dioxide content a few units higher, in proportion, than the other corresponding warm eras. In the coming years, the "projection" for those carbon dioxide levels is supposed to be even higher.

Are you sure about your first statement? You may be right, but I'd like a link or book to reference, so I can read about that.

I see you at least partially understand the cause of global warming (overpopulation).

Here's the clincher: we are a force of nature, as you seemed to have acknowledged. But, unlike the changes that occurred in climate in the past....these are happening at a much faster rate than the Earth can adjust to. Species extinction is happening at a rate several hundred times higher than the normal background. (A few examples: the forests that normally have their roots in permafrost are losing footing, and often dying...which, in turn, of course affects the animal population. For the first time, scientists have record polar bears dying in the artic from drowning because they sometimes have to swim over 40 miles looking for ice.) Species and ecological extinction, on scales never seen before, may not be part of your moral agenda, or being "good stewards" of the land (as in the bible). Even so, there are urgent consequences, because of the rapid nature of global warming, that will affect civilization.

One interesting example was the raising in sea level. (We can already see those affects on coastal Louisiana.) Gore gave an example of a large chunk of ice in Antarctica, several "Rhode Islands" in size, that was expected only to break up in a century or so, even with the pressure of global warming. Baffling to scientists, it broke up in a matter of weeks. Scientists later found out the reason. During melting, pools of water would form on the ice surface, often a few feet to several hundred deep. Ice reflects 90% of the sun rays, while water practically does the opposite (absorbs). These pools acted as bores into the ice, effectively weakening the structure, and the ice (again, several "Rhode Islands" in size) broke apart rather quickly. These aren't 3 feet thick pieces of ice. They're several dozens, sometimes hundreds, of feet. (It even gets more complicated than that, because once the sea ice broke apart, the land ice started to slide into the ocean as the sea ice was an integral part of their structure.)

Gore played out a scenario, if the "Western Antarctic Sea Ice" (I believe that was its name) or Greenland encountered the same problems as the previous mentioned anecdote, then the sea level would rise approximately 20 feet. Or, if half of both melted. The Netherlands would be mostly covered. So would Florida and other coastal areas. The WTC memorial and other areas of Manhattan. Huge swaths of land in crowded India and China. And of course, many more places.

From our life spans, this change seems very gradual. In the course of earth history, of course, it is extremely fast. A good anecdote is that of a frog about to be cooked. If a live frog is placed in a boiling pot, it jumps out, immediately jolted by the sudden change of heat. However, if the frog is placed in a pot of water at room temperature, and then the pot is gradually heated, it never jumps out. And then it's too late, and it's a meal.

You never did answer the question of what caused the rise of carbon dioxide and temperature in the past. As for costal Louisana I think its problems have more to do with man trying to control the Misissippi River and the sinking of land mass than the rising of Gulf waters. You are right that Gore does not want to get rid of oil because he and his family have made a great deal of money off of it in the past. You need to re-read Gore's quote on the internet. At no time did he say he helped to create the internet but he said "I took the initiative in creating the Internet." The defination of initative is "inaugural: serving to set in motion" or 'first step: the first of a series of actions." Therefore he states that he took the first steps in creating the internet and does not give credit to others in the Senate. He does not include the terms we or I and my fellow Senators created the internet but states "I took the initiative..."

The following was printed in the Wall Street Journal in August 1992 concerning a memo about Gore from the DNC .

* "Al is a radical environmentalist who wants to change the very fabric of America."

* "He (Gore) criticizes America for being America -- a place where people enjoy the benefits of an advanced standard of living."

* "He (Gore) has no sense of proportion: He equates the failure to recycle aluminum cans with the Holocaust."

* "He (Gore) believes that our civilization, itself, is evil (because it is, in his words, 'addicted to the consumption of the earth.')"

These are the words of his own party and you want to take his word.

One final word on www.Al. He can run for president on his own dime. He has made enough money by his association with Google to fund his run. I find it interesting that Google is allowing censorship in China along the lines of what Tipper tried to do here in the U.S.

One other thing I know the meaning of being a good steward of the land. I grow beef cattle without the use of chemicals of any kind on my animals or land. Johnny, what do you do daily to improve the world around you?

[johnnydr87]

You never did answer the question of what caused the rise of carbon dioxide and temperature in the past. As for costal Louisana I think its problems have more to do with man trying to control the Misissippi River and the sinking of land mass than the rising of Gulf waters. You are right that Gore does not want to get rid of oil because he and his family have made a great deal of money off of it in the past. You need to re-read Gore's quote on the internet. At no time did he say he helped to create the internet but he said "I took the initiative in creating the Internet." The defination of initative is "inaugural: serving to set in motion" or 'first step: the first of a series of actions." Therefore he states that he took the first steps in creating the internet and does not give credit to others in the Senate. He does not include the terms we or I and my fellow Senators created the internet but states "I took the initiative..."

The following was printed in the Wall Street Journal in August 1992 concerning a memo about Gore from the DNC .

* "Al is a radical environmentalist who wants to change the very fabric of America."

* "He (Gore) criticizes America for being America -- a place where people enjoy the benefits of an advanced standard of living."

* "He (Gore) has no sense of proportion: He equates the failure to recycle aluminum cans with the Holocaust."

* "He (Gore) believes that our civilization, itself, is evil (because it is, in his words, 'addicted to the consumption of the earth.')"

These are the words of his own party and you want to take his word.

One final word on www.Al. He can run for president on his own dime. He has made enough money by his association with Google to fund his run. I find it interesting that Google is allowing censorship in China along the lines of what Tipper tried to do here in the U.S.

One other thing I know the meaning of being a good steward of the land. I grow beef cattle without the use of chemicals of any kind on my animals or land. Johnny, what do you do daily to improve the world around you?

That memo (I just looked it up) was written by a DNC staffer--how could you take that as the DNC's stance on Al Gore, especially when they fielded his candidacy? Additionally, Gore's stance on global warming sounded much, much more radical back then. But, dare I say it, he was right. Then and now. We are seeing the evidence pile up.

It's funny you equate Gore to the censorship in Google, especially when that same censorship in China is occuring on other engines like Yahoo. Does Gore have his fingers in Yahoo too? As much as I disagree with that censorship, I have to believe that Google's advisors, just like Yahoo, felt the need to compete for the bottom dollar. Hell, even AOL censored a website against it right here in the good ole' USA. The Bush administration censored EPA and NASA reports (as I reported earlier). Maybe Gore could have made a difference in the Google censorship. Maybe he couldn't have. You don't know---nor do I. Still, that doesn't change any of the facts about global warming.

That's great what you do with your cattle and land. What do I do? Minor things; minor recycling. The difference is that I'm 18, and you're somewhere in your 40s or 50s (maybe 30s). I have a minimum wage job, just waiting for college to start. You're settled in and have your own land, and apparently a salaried income. The extent of my power in the matter pretty much lies in my voice, opining in threads like these, perhaps helping rally a candidate. Your power extends to financial assets. (But don't worry, I plan on getting there.)

So let me get this straight. Whenever you don't have a vitriolic reaction at hearing "Al Gore," you acknowledge there is a possibility that global warming exists. Thus, you also acknowledge that species are going extinct hundreds of times faster than that of normal background, and that in 50-100 years (if we don't stricten our stands) we might be redrawing maps for a changed coastline (in extreme scenarios). You acknowledge that it's possible that humans are a force of nature, and because of our critical mass, are rapidly changing the environment, ecological system, and climate around us---much faster than ever before. You admit that being a good steward of the land is important to you.

And yet, somehow, this matter still doesn't really concern you. Oh, paradox of paradoxes. I can't help but wonder how different your response would be if McCain were citing the studies and statistics. It seems your brain has been preprogrammed to automatically regurgitate anything that Gore advocates as "crazy."

Well, as long as you do your part as a "steward" with your cattle and land, I guess it's A-ok. As long as your generation dies off in the earlier stages of the bell-curve that is global warming, then I guess you really don't have to be concerned.

Sleep tight, and keep feeding those cattle organic foods. Sleep tight through the years, happy with your lifestyle on your farm-ranch. Sleep tight while your hallowed duck hunting grounds in Eastern Arkansas gradually get worse and worse as global warming encroaches. Sleep tight while precipitation and climate patterns gradually change over your life time. Sleep tight while your children and grandchildren inherit a different Arkansas than the one you left behind.

Sure, you have an inkling it will happen, but that's so far from now. You, after all, may never see any real changes. If it does happen, then there will surely be others to fight the fight in time.

In times of change, the Patriot is a scarce man; brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a Patriot. --Mark Twain

[skirby]

McCain would make no difference if he was making the same statements. McCain is no better a taliking head than Gore. You need to learn to read at no time did I say that I use organic foods for my cattle. My cattle are grassfed and therefore avoid all the organic BS that is around. By the way I have no interest in duck hunting again you make statements that have no support. Also, I do not live on a farm-ranch, again you make statements without knowing any facts. I think the majority of farmers in Arkansas are killing their land. Is this the way you look at the things around you ? You remind me of my sons. They have a habit of taliking before they find out what they are talking about. I see why you take the word of www.Al. I think our views on global warming are closer than you think. I have the opinion that an issue of this importance needs a better frontman than www.Al. Let him go back to his life as a tobacco farmer. I don't think he should go back to Vanderbilt University's College of Divinity where the flunked five of the eight classes he took. Nor back to Vanderbilt's College of Law where he also dropped out.

[johnnydr87]

McCain would make no difference if he was making the same statements. McCain is no better a taliking head than Gore. You need to learn to read at no time did I say that I use organic foods for my cattle. My cattle are grassfed and therefore avoid all the organic BS that is around. By the way I have no interest in duck hunting again you make statements that have no support. Also, I do not live on a farm-ranch, again you make statements without knowing any facts. I think the majority of farmers in Arkansas are killing their land. Is this the way you look at the things around you ? You remind me of my sons. They have a habit of taliking before they find out what they are talking about. I see why you take the word of www.Al. I think our views on global warming are closer than you think. I have the opinion that an issue of this importance needs a better frontman than www.Al. Let him go back to his life as a tobacco farmer. I don't think he should go back to Vanderbilt University's College of Divinity where the flunked five of the eight classes he took. Nor back to Vanderbilt's College of Law where he also dropped out.

I wasn't sure what to call your....err...ranch with cows. What do you call a home with cows? I'm pretty sure ranch is it. At least I thought so. Perhaps you can introduce a new word to my vocabulary.

I was using the duck hunting example mainly as another evidence of global warming, not necessarily saying you duck hunted (although, I admit, it did come off that way).

I definitely would consider non-chemical grown grass an organic food for cattle. Obviously I don't think you buy them organic vegetables from the vegetable isle. Use a little common sense.

Ok, so you don't like Al. But you believe in global warming. So you don't want to see the movie because you don't like Al. And because you don't like him, you will automatically assume the studies he cites are wrong.

So who do you want to lead? I'm guessing you don't like Clinton. Or Kerry. Or Bush. Or <insert name>. Then who?

It certainly could never be the scientists themselves (only rarely, if ever); the news media would never consider them glamorous enough.

[Aporkalypse]

I don't think this is really the best place for this debate.

I don't disagree that global warming is probably real but I have read plenty of conflicting research and I'm only counting that put out by academia, not be private sources with an axe to grind. I have no doubt that ice caps are melting, CO2 levels are higher, or that temperatures have changed a degree in a century. I just think it is VERY difficult to show causality vs normal variation for all but the CO2, where I think you can clearly show causality. You can't change a lot of people's minds on it, though, and I don't really see why it belongs on the Arkansas board.

Just because I don't agree doesn't mean I don't respect other's opinions. Johnnydr has his reasons for disagreeing and I understand why he does. He's certainly very intelligent, and we're not discussing something as concrete as evolution where all "real" scientists agree.

[skirby]

I wasn't sure what to call your....err...ranch with cows. What do you call a home with cows? I'm pretty sure ranch is it. At least I thought so. Perhaps you can introduce a new word to my vocabulary.

I was using the duck hunting example mainly as another evidence of global warming, not necessarily saying you duck hunted (although, I admit, it did come off that way).

I definitely would consider non-chemical grown grass an organic food for cattle. Obviously I don't think you buy them organic vegetables from the vegetable isle. Use a little common sense.

Ok, so you don't like Al. But you believe in global warming. So you don't want to see the movie because you don't like Al. And because you don't like him, you will automatically assume the studies he cites are wrong.

So who do you want to lead? I'm guessing you don't like Clinton. Or Kerry. Or Bush. Or <insert name>. Then who?

It certainly could never be the scientists themselves (only rarely, if ever); the news media would never consider them glamorous enough.

There is no need for a new word it is very simply if you don't assume you know something. I do not live where I raise my cattle. As far as food for cattle again you assume to know what you are talking about. I buy hay for winter feeding offsite, which would not be considered organic. By the way most cattle eat very little grass during their lifetime. They are fed grains and plant by products along with phone books, out of date candy(with wrappers), distillers by products and a number of other products that scientists looking for lower cost come up with. Can you give any scientific evidence to back up you statement that duck hunting has something to do with global warming?

I think you or anyone interested in the science of global warming should read "Prometheus: The Science Policy Weblog." It is run by the University of Colorado. Take some time and go over the Climate Change Archives.

Aporkalypse, you are right that this is not the best place for this debate but Johnny brought it up. I have no doubt about his intelligence. I just continued because there is a difference between Snake Oil and Science. It is like the story about an accountant that went in for a job interview. The interviewer ask him for the answer to the problem, four + four. The accountant's answer was "What do you want it to be?" Sometimes science is no better than snake oil when it is used to fit an agenda.

[johnnydr87]

Silly, naive me for believing the vast majority of studies.

I guess this shouldn't be on an Arkansas forum, but every often I feel the itching for a debate, especially since I have been devoid of intellectual discussion since school let out. (This would, however, be relevant on the newly created thread "It's so damn hot!")

I understand what you're saying: statistics can be used to distort as well. Mark Twain said:

There are lies, damned lies and statistics.

Nevertheless, I, too, will close the arguments, for the time being.....but with this quote:

Gore noted that in an exhaustive study of almost every piece of research published on global warming in scientific journals, a sample of 928 articles was examined. Every single one of those 928 studies concluded that global warming was happening and that human activity was substantially responsible for it. In other words, as Gore has noted, the scientific debate about global warming and its sources, is over. In a parallel study of 636 news accounts of global warming, by contrast, 53% suggested that there was no scientific consensus on the question of global warming and its causes.

Any questions?

[skirby]

I emailed a man today, retired from the National Weather Service , about comparing temperature readings from the last one hundred years by the NWS. His reply was: "But I think since almost all temperature sensors are now located at airports with all that concrete as compared to 100 years ago being in a large grassy field without the heat caused by the pavement, naturally the sensors are going to read higher temperatures today

than 100 years ago. All runways, and all the pavement on streets definitely are causing temperatures to be recorded as higher than years ago - sort of an artificial warming."

Since you quote Al Gore as the master of all facts I will quote Michael Crichton about science:"The work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had."

You only have to look at the Everglades to see where scientists went wrong. Look at the flood control along the Mississippi and the final results on costal Louisana.

Did Gore's movie make a statement about the retreat of Alaska's glaciers? Did it mention that some were expanding?

[johnnydr87]

Since you quote Al Gore as the master of all facts

Get off of Al Gore for once, and look at the studies.

You keep on arguing points that are simply idiotic in the larger context.

Their are numerous studies that measured global warming in Antarctica. Yeah, I'm sure the airports there really affected the temperature.

Your random NWS guy, who for all we know could be one of the lowlies, does not refute hundreds of studies.

Sorry, it just doesn't.

F*** Al Gore. ('Scuse the language.) I could care less about him. I knew and read about global warming from different sources before his movie. I don't need you to say that he defeats the global warming argument because you don't like him.

I'm sorry, but that Michael Crighton quote is completely idiotic for obvious reasons. Evolution is a lie? I'm sure billions are made off of it. DNA? All lies. All it takes are 90% of the scientific facts--earth revolves around the sun etc---to show why that quote is idiotic.

Is there such a thing as scientific debate? Of course. And when the global warming concept was first introduced it had many naysayers. If you actually listened to any of the facts or studies I cited before (and it's evident that you don't because of your "airports" theory), I would post some links to some of those scientists who have changed their opinions of over the past decades.

Global warming has reached a critical mass. It's beyond debate at this point. Just like the sun is the center of the solar system.

Your "glaciers advancing" thing is interesting, but after a quick google search....it has more to do with change in atmospheric circulation:

“Norway and New Zealand both experienced recent glacial advances, commencing in the early 1980s and ceasing around 2000, which were more extensive than any other since the end of the Little Ice Age. Common to both countries, the positive glacier balances are associated with an increase in the strength of westerly atmospheric circulation which brought increased precipitation. In Norway, the changes are also associated with lower ablation season temperatures. In New Zealand, where the positive balances were distributed uniformly throughout the Southern Alps, the period of increased mass balance

was coincident with a change in the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation and an associated increase in El Ni

[masons_dad1]

So... is global warming the reason behind the increase in illegal immigration? Makes sense since Mexico is getting hotter they're all coming here to cool off.

[skirby]

Get off of Al Gore for once, and look at the studies.

You keep on arguing points that are simply idiotic in the larger context.

Their are numerous studies that measured global warming in Antarctica. Yeah, I'm sure the airports there really affected the temperature.

Your random NWS guy, who for all we know could be one of the lowlies, does not refute hundreds of studies.

Sorry, it just doesn't.

F*** Al Gore. ('Scuse the language.) I could care less about him. I knew and read about global warming from different sources before his movie. I don't need you to say that he defeats the global warming argument because you don't like him.

I'm sorry, but that Michael Crighton quote is completely idiotic for obvious reasons. Evolution is a lie? I'm sure billions are made off of it. DNA? All lies. All it takes are 90% of the scientific facts--earth revolves around the sun etc---to show why that quote is idiotic.

Is there such a thing as scientific debate? Of course. And when the global warming concept was first introduced it had many naysayers. If you actually listened to any of the facts or studies I cited before (and it's evident that you don't because of your "airports" theory), I would post some links to some of those scientists who have changed their opinions of over the past decades.

Global warming has reached a critical mass. It's beyond debate at this point. Just like the sun is the center of the solar system.

Your "glaciers advancing" thing is interesting, but after a quick google search....it has more to do with change in atmospheric circulation:

I only quoted Crighton because you qoute Gore as the know all of all science. Let me qoute Richard Lindzen. Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT. "Don't Believe the Hype Al Gore is wrong. There's no "consensus" on global warming." Or do you think a professor at MIT know less than Gore.

Gore says that glaciers retreat has to do with global warming but fails to mention glaciers advancing. You say that glaciers advancing has to do with the change in atmospheric circulation. Then why would glaciers retreat not be the results of atmospheric circulation?

In an interview with George Stephanopoulos on ABC Gore made the following statement about his movie's statement about rising sea level. ( scientists) "don't have any models that give them a high level of confidence" one way or the other and went on to claim--in his defense--that scientists "don't know. . . . They just don't know." from the Wall Street Journal.

As for my airport theory I think is shows the problems that science faces. Little Rock has changed the location of it temperature reading a number of times over the years. Therefore comparing temperatures over the years is like comparing apples to oranges.

How do you know global warming has reached a critical mass. What does that mean? Is it at the point of no return? Has not the earth been warmer in the past than it is now? In the 1970's the so-called scientists were calling for a mini ice age. I remember when the crisis of the day was the population explosion. The earth would run out of food. It would be the end of the world as we knew it. The world is still here and the population is still expanding except in certain countries that are facing a real problem with a decline in population.

You know nothing about the NWS person I qouted. Because his opinion does not fit yours then his view does not count. He is some lowlie according to you. He spent most of his adult life working with weather and you critize him. You have read all there is to know and you say you could care less about Gore. Then why have you supported him so much? You are the one who talked about his movie as if it was the standard on gloabal warming.

How much money has been spent to study global warming by the government? If it ws proved that is did not exist then the funding would go away. What would the experts then do? Come up with another crisis. Maybe then next crisis is the use of AC. I read the other day of a study that in the United States people began to get fat when the use of air conditioners became wide spread. It turns out according to the study that people eat more when they are cool. As we all know the US has a real problem with an overweight population. Sounds like a crisis to me. We have got to ban the use of AC. But if we do that then carbon dioxide levels will go down due to a reduce demand on fuel to run them. The result will be a lower global temperature and people will go back to eating more. It looks as though we are damned if we do and damned if we don't. Maybe Al Gore should make a movie about it. I'm sure Johnny would go see it.

[johnnydr87]

I only quoted Crighton because you qoute Gore as the know all of all science. Let me qoute Richard Lindzen. Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT. "Don't Believe the Hype Al Gore is wrong. There's no "consensus" on global warming." Or do you think a professor at MIT know less than Gore.

Care to talk about other things Richard Lindzen said:

Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise. Temperatures are, in fact, rising. The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability.

So Richard Lindzen does think there is some debate. But he also thinks it's most likely because of human activities.

You fail to mention that.

Atmospheric circulation change was due in part because of el nino, which I bolded in the quote in my previous post. Several scientist argue that el nino is a global warming phenomenon. I wish you would have caught that so I don't have to burn everything down I say to bite size, digestible levels for you.

And once again, I'm going to say get off of Al Gore.

And, before you post erroneous information about people like Richard Lindzen or your NWS guy's airport theory (which doesnt make any sense in the larger context of the data):

Read my previous posts where I document NASA, EPA, and other scientists who say global warming is an issue, so that I don't have to point out that I already covered the subject of your next argument in my posts. Even if Richard Lindzen did disagree with global warming, he'd be the oddball among scientists. Fortunately for me, he's not quite sure, but he thinks it's probably human caused.

Now, I want to cover one more thing I have issue with your, frankly, idiotic post:

You know nothing about the NWS person I qouted. Because his opinion does not fit yours then his view does not count. He is some lowlie according to you. He spent most of his adult life working with weather and you critize him.

Here's what I actually said:

Your random NWS guy, who for all we know could be one of the lowlies, does not refute hundreds of studies.

Since you keep this guy anonymous, I said for al we know he could be one of the lowlies. What do I mean by that? Although he has a meteorlogical education, he might still be one of the less talented meteorlogists out there. He might be one of the meteorologists doing the the desk job under other, more talented and tenured meteorologists, like Ned Perme. Just because he's been working in weather all his life doesn't make his opinion more credible, especially if he's just some guy you contacted through email. Finally, I still can't believe you'd take the idiotic airport theory when there have been a diverse set of studies over a diverse set of contexts.

I'm not going to lie. I did like the Gore movie. That doesn't mean I think he's the second coming of Jesus. I was talking about global warming in the post long before the Gore movie came out. So get your facts straight. Don't insult my and your intelligence by implying that the only reason why I care about global warming is because Gore made a movie on it. I'm surprised someone your age can still consistently make arguments with gaping flaws, and fail to notice them.

[skirby]

Care to talk about other things Richard Lindzen said:

So Richard Lindzen does think there is some debate. But he also thinks it's most likely because of human activities.

You fail to mention that.

Atmospheric circulation change was due in part because of el nino, which I bolded in the quote in my previous post. Several scientist argue that el nino is a global warming phenomenon. I wish you would have caught that so I don't have to burn everything down I say to bite size, digestible levels for you.

And once again, I'm going to say get off of Al Gore.

And, before you post erroneous information about people like Richard Lindzen or your NWS guy's airport theory (which doesnt make any sense in the larger context of the data):

Read my previous posts where I document NASA, EPA, and other scientists who say global warming is an issue, so that I don't have to point out that I already covered the subject of your next argument in my posts. Even if Richard Lindzen did disagree with global warming, he'd be the oddball among scientists. Fortunately for me, he's not quite sure, but he thinks it's probably human caused.

Now, I want to cover one more thing I have issue with your, frankly, idiotic post:

Here's what I actually said:

Since you keep this guy anonymous, I said for al we know he could be one of the lowlies. What do I mean by that? Although he has a meteorlogical education, he might still be one of the less talented meteorlogists out there. He might be one of the meteorologists doing the the desk job under other, more talented and tenured meteorologists, like Ned Perme. Just because he's been working in weather all his life doesn't make his opinion more credible, especially if he's just some guy you contacted through email. Finally, I still can't believe you'd take the idiotic airport theory when there have been a diverse set of studies over a diverse set of contexts.

I'm not going to lie. I did like the Gore movie. That doesn't mean I think he's the second coming of Jesus. I was talking about global warming in the post long before the Gore movie came out. So get your facts straight. Don't insult my and your intelligence by implying that the only reason why I care about global warming is because Gore made a movie on it. I'm surprised someone your age can still consistently make arguments with gaping flaws, and fail to notice them.

\

Are you saying that Ned Perme(KATV) is a more talented meteorologist? I remember when he was just a weatherman before he got he correspondance degree from Mississippi State. His degree is a broadcast meteorologist by the Department of Geoscience and Meteorology. Melinda Mayo has the same degree. If you believe this then you are a fool. By the way you have failed to answer my questions to you. Or is it easier to aviod questions like those of glaciers advancing and those that are retreating. Later today I will find out what qualfications the Weather Service gentleman I quoted holds. I'm sure they are better than those of a TV weatherman.

[johnnydr87]

\

Are you saying that Ned Perme(KATV) is a more talented meteorologist?

I was using an example. Don't go assuming things. Didn't you just lecture me about this?

Or is it easier to aviod questions like those of glaciers advancing and those that are retreating.

What have I avoided. You tell me. You asked if it is possible that glaciers are retreating because of changes in atmospheric circulation. Then I said re-read my post, because part of the reasons for changes in atmospheric circulation to begin with are because of El Nino, a global warming phenomenon.

Later today I will find out what qualfications the Weather Service gentleman I quoted holds. I'm sure they are better than those of a TV weatherman.

Go for it. And also don't forget to tell him about studies of global warming in antarctica, where there are no airports. Ask him for his scholarly opinion on those studies, please.

In fact, give me his/her email address. I dare you.

[skirby]

I was using an example. Don't go assuming things. Didn't you just lecture me about this?

What have I avoided. You tell me. You asked if it is possible that glaciers are retreating because of changes in atmospheric circulation. Then I said re-read my post, because part of the reasons for changes in atmospheric circulation to begin with are because of El Nino, a global warming phenomenon.

Go for it. And also don't forget to tell him about studies of global warming in antarctica, where there are no airports. Ask him for his scholarly opinion on those studies, please.

In fact, give me his/her email address. I dare you.

He was a a lead forecaster for the National Weather Service in Litle Rock. What was I assuming I just ask if there was another Perme you were talking about. As for the glacier matter maybe you should re-read what you said. You did not say El Nino was a global warming phenomenon let me qoute you"Atmospheric circulation change was due in part because of el nino, which I bolded in the quote in my previous post. Several scientist argue that el nino is a global warming phenomenon." There is a big difference between El Nino being a global warming phenomenon and several scientist argue that el nino is a global warming phenomenon.

The following is from British Antarctic Survey. which has spent the last 60 years studing the Antarctic. "Reliable year-round measurements of Antarctic sea ice extent are only available from the 1970s, when satellite observations first became available. Unlike in the Arctic, where there has been a significant decline in observed sea ice extent over this period, there has been little change in the overall extent of Antarctic sea ice. However, at a regional scale, sea ice cover has declined substantially in the seas to the west of the Antarctic Peninsula but loss of ice here has been compensated by increased ice cover in other parts of the Antarctic." I bring this up because you quoted Gore on this subject. You said he talked about west Antarctic sea ice but you said nothing about the increase in ice cover in other parts of Antarctic.

As for the future of Antarctic their statement follows: "If we make assumptions about how greenhouse gas emissions are likely to change, we can use climate models to predict how Antarctic climate may change over the coming century. Models predict a warming of a few degrees celsius over much of continental Antarctica. However, as mean temperatures over most of the continent are well below freezing, even this warming will not greatly increase loss of ice from the continent through melting. Indeed, increases in snowfall resulting from a warmer atmosphere (which can hold more water vapour) may actually thicken the Antarctic ice sheets."

No one knows what will happen. Computer models can only give you results from the information given. No one knows what will happen. No one knows how much CO2 will be produced in the future. You can predict future weather, you can come up with possibilities but If they come true remains to be seen.

Grow up I can't remember the last time somebody dared me to do anything. But I guess that goes with you age. At you age I thought I knew it all too. When you become 40 you will look back and say " If I only knew then what I know now." My last words to you on this subject: Not all that a talking head has to say is true.