Ive been meaning to see that. What most people dont realize is that enough global warming actually will trigger an ice age which for human civilization will be much worse than the warming. I dont know if the movie covers it, but it has to do with the atlantic currents and when the ice in the north pole melts too much it introduces too much fresh water into the current.

Ive been meaning to see that. What most people dont realize is that enough global warming actually will trigger an ice age which for human civilization will be much worse than the warming. I dont know if the movie covers it, but it has to do with the atlantic currents and when the ice in the north pole melts too much it introduces too much fresh water into the current.
http://jamiegaines.com/stuff/cliff_claven2.jpg

Ive been meaning to see that. What most people dont realize is that enough global warming actually will trigger an ice age which for human civilization will be much worse than the warming. I dont know if the movie covers it, but it has to do with the atlantic currents and when the ice in the north pole melts too much it introduces too much fresh water into the current.

What I didn't realize is that the whole Greenland melting theory is actually happening, and much faster than I expected about 6 years ago when I first heard the theory. Greenland melts 3 times more than it did 3 years ago. That's crazy. If that north atlantic drift shuts down like it did in the ice age...look out. Most of Europe is at a higher latitude than Siberia. Not to mention the sea level rise. They talked about how it would rise the ocean level 20 feet. That eliminates over 100 million people in cities like Shanghi, Bejing, New Oreans, Miami, New York, SF, Calcutta, and on and on.

I always knew about the consiquences, but never realized how close we are to that happening.

I just watched "An Inconvenient Truth" last night. I think this movie is a MUST SEE. I'm sure a lot of people will not watch it because they don't like Al Gore, but that would be a huge mistake. Like him or not as a politician, he is a good speaker in this movie and a very intellegent guy. The movie is basically about Global Warming, and the statistics, graphs, pictures, etc are mind blowing really. Anyone that doesn't watch this because of Gore is basically being ignorant. I believed in global warming before seeing this, but the acceleration that is taking place even staggers the scientists studying this stuff. There is one scene were Gore talks about losing the election and how it changed his life (from running for office to focusing on helping the earth), but there really isn't any other politics involved. He doesn't refer to any party affiliations or anything.

Heck, even if you already believe it's a problem, you can learn a lot and see cool images of the earth from space, etc. There are actually a couple funny parts too.

Good review. I completely agree. Al Gore himself may do a little too much posturing in the video, but his experiences are real, the science is real, and the conclusions based on the actual data are clear and easy to draw.

What I didn't realize is that the whole Greenland melting theory is actually happening, and much faster than I expected about 6 years ago when I first heard the theory. Greenland melts 3 times more than it did 3 years ago. That's crazy. If that north atlantic drift shuts down like it did in the ice age...look out. Most of Europe is at a higher latitude than Siberia. Not to mention the sea level rise. They talked about how it would rise the ocean level 20 feet. That eliminates over 100 million people in cities like Shanghi, Bejing, New Oreans, Miami, New York, SF, Calcutta, and on and on.

I always knew about the consiquences, but never realized how close we are to that happening.

From what I saw, the next ice age would happen before the sea level ever rises 20 feet. I did a quick google and found this:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,12374,1083419,00.html

I didnt thoroughly read it, but from skimming it seems to be what I saw a special on. Sorry I dont remember exactly where... Discovery and Natl Geographic channels are on almost 24/7 in my house so I forget exact sources after a while (I just flip between the two when no notable sporting event is on). Basically the Gulf Stream and larger aspects of it keep the Earth warm but fresh water messes it all up and cools the Earth down. Ice caps melting releases fresh water into the oceans circulation. The special I saw explained how this caused the last ice age. Of course its all scientific speculation, but it was convincing to me and went along with global warming... it guess just pointed out that the warming isnt the true fear. The special eventually showed a map of the US and what would be frozen, and we would be living in Missouri at best to live like Canadians do.

The 20 foot thing was seperate from the gradual warming and ice caps melting. They showed how as the ice melts, the water cuts down thru the 100 foot thick glaciers and makes a pocket of water between the land and ice. Eventually the whole section breaks off and slides down the water pocker into the ocean. It has happened recently in Antartica (not to that extent though), and could happen again. If it did there could be enough ice to raise the water level 20 feet. But that was separate from the fresh water issue.

Splitting this off from the Movie Review thread.

One thing Gore doesn't focus on as much is the possibility that global warming would be -worse- if not for particulates -- the visible crap that gets emitted when you burn something along with the invisible greenhouse gases. In fact, he states with pride about how scientists can see the impact of a clean air act he helped pass in the ice flows. We've done a much better job of controlling visible effects of burning fossil fuels because they harm our lungs, impede our view and smell, etc. But cleaning the air of that smog and smoke gives us less sunscreen and may actually make the global warming problem worse.

Wouldn't particulates absorbe the suns rays and still be in the atmosphere? What particulates are you referring to exactly? They block the sun from hitting the earth, but wouldn't they still warm the atmosphere? Warming the atmoshpere results in higher moisture content and water vapor is a green house gas itself. I haven't really studied this since meteorology class in college though.

I started a thread I didnt even start. Wheres Jick with his 'MOD POWER' lol

Wouldn't particulates absorbe the suns rays and still be in the atmosphere? What particulates are you referring to exactly? They block the sun from hitting the earth, but wouldn't they still warm the atmosphere? Warming the atmoshpere results in higher moisture content and water vapor is a green house gas itself. I haven't really studied this since meteorology class in college though.
It reflects back into space during the day.
Check out the research on global dimming:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming
The extreme case of global dimming is called:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter

The grossly oversimplified logic goes: So, the industrial revolution has led to ~30-50% more CO2 and other greenhouse gases. Why isn't it well over 100 degrees already?

So basically we are countering the effects of global warming a bit by fucking the planet even more. Thats just peachy. Thanks for the links Mxy, good reads. A little off topic, but the nuclear winter read reminded me of the Yellowstone fire in 87 or 88. I remember the sunsets were extremely red and the temp was a tiny bit cooler here according to scientists. Im sure you guys had about the same effect as your not much farther East. A simple event that illustrates how much things can mess with a climate.

For some reason Id like to point out that I am in no way a treehugger type. I recycle but thats about it. Science is just very intriguing to me... like I said I constantly watch learning type channels and subscribe to Natl Geographic magazine too.

Warming 'Likely' Man-Made, Unstoppable
By SETH BORENSTEIN

1 hour ago

PARIS - The world's leading climate scientists said global warming has begun, is "very likely" caused by man, and will be unstoppable for centuries, according to a report obtained Friday by The Associated Press.

The scientists _ using their strongest language yet on the issue _ said now that world has begun to warm, hotter temperatures and rises in sea level "would continue for centuries" no matter how much humans control their pollution. The report also linked the warming to the recent increase in stronger hurricanes.

"The observed widespread warming of the atmosphere and ocean, together with ice-mass loss, support the conclusion that it is extremely unlikely that global climate change of the past 50 years can be explained without external forcing, and very likely that is not due to known natural causes alone," said the report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change _ a group of hundreds of scientists and representatives of 113 governments.

The phrase "very likely" translates to a more than 90 percent certainty that global warming is caused by man's burning of fossil fuels. That was the strongest conclusion to date, making it nearly impossible to say natural forces are to blame.

What that means in simple language is "we have this nailed," said top U.S. climate scientist Jerry Mahlman, who originated the percentage system.

The 20-page report, which was due to be officially released later in the day, represents the most authoritative science on global warming.

The new language marked an escalation from the panel's last report in 2001, which said warming was "likely" caused by human activity. There had been speculation that the participants might try to say it is "virtually certain" man causes global warming, which translates to 99 percent certainty.

The panel predicted temperature rises of 2-11.5 degrees Fahrenheit by the year 2100. That was a wider range than in the 2001 report.

However, the panel also said its best estimate was for temperature rises of 3.2-7.1 degrees Fahrenheit. In 2001, all the panel gave was a range of 2.5-10.4 degrees Fahrenheit.

On sea levels, the report projects rises of 7-23 inches by the end of the century. An additional 3.9-7.8 inches are possible if recent, surprising melting of polar ice sheets continues.

But there is some cold comfort. Some, but not all, of the projected temperature and sea level rises are slightly lower than projected in a previous report in 2001. That is mostly due to use of more likely scenarios and would still result in dramatic effects across the globe, scientists said.

Many scientists had warned that this estimate was too cautious and said sea level rise could be closer to 3-5 feet because of ice sheet melt.

Nevertheless, scientists agreed the report is strong.

"There's no question that the powerful language is intimately linked to the more powerful science," said one of the study's many co-authors, Andrew Weaver of the University of Victoria, who spoke by phone from Canada. He said the report was based on science that is rock-solid, peer-reviewed, and consensus.

"It's very conservative. Scientists by their nature are skeptics."

The scientists wrote the report based on years of peer-reviewed research and government officials edited it with an eye toward the required unanimous approval by world governments.

In the end, there was little debate on the strength of the wording about the role of man in global warming.

The panel quickly agreed Thursday on two of the most contentious issues: attributing global warming to man-made burning of fossil fuels and connecting it to a recent increase in stronger hurricanes.

Negotiations over a third and more difficult issue _ how much the sea level is predicted to rise by 2100 _ went into the night Thursday with a deadline approaching for the report.

While critics call the panel overly alarmist, it is by nature relatively cautious because it relies on hundreds of scientists, including skeptics.

"I hope that policymakers will be quite convinced by this message," said Riibeta Abeta, a delegate whose island nation Kiribati is threatened by rising seas. "The purpose is to get them moving."

The Chinese delegation was resistant to strong wording on global warming, said Barbados delegate Leonard Fields and others. China has increasingly turned to fossil fuels for its huge and growing energy needs.

The U.S. government delegation was not one of the more vocal groups in the debate over whether warming is man-made, said officials from other countries. And several attendees credited the head of the panel session, Susan Solomon, a top U.S. government climate scientist, with pushing through the agreement so quickly.

The Bush administration acknowledges that global warming is man-made and a problem that must be dealt with, Bush science adviser John Marburger has said. However, Bush continues to reject mandatory limits on so-called "greenhouse" gases.

But this is more than just a U.S. issue.

"What you're trying to do is get the whole planet under the proverbial tent in how to deal with this, not just the rich countries," Mahlman said Thursday. "I think we're in a different kind of game now."

The panel, created by the United Nations in 1988, releases its assessments every five or six years _ although scientists have been observing aspects of climate change since as far back as the 1960s. The reports are released in phases _ this is the first of four this year.

The next report is due in April and will discuss the effects of global warming. But that issue was touched upon in the current document.

The report says that global warming has made stronger hurricanes, including those on the Atlantic Ocean, such as Hurricane Katrina.

The report said that an increase in hurricane and tropical cyclone strength since 1970 "more likely than not" can be attributed to man-made global warming. The scientists said global warming's connection varies with storms in different parts of the world, but that the storms that strike the Americas are global warming-influenced.

That's a contrast from the 2001 which said there was not enough evidence to make such a conclusion. And it conflicts with a November 2006 statement by the World Meteorological Organization, which helped found the IPCC. The meteorological group said it could not link past stronger storms to global warming.

Fields _ of Barbados, a country in the path of many hurricanes _ said the new wording was "very important." He noted that insurance companies _ which look to science to calculate storm risk _ "watch the language, too."

___

Associated Press Writer Angela Charlton contributed to this report.

Saying "there is nothing that can be done about it now" pretty much gives the green light to change nothing.

Bush smiles.

Note to self: sell beach front condo . . .

Note to self: Contact "North Pole Real Estate Company".

How come Michigan doesn't get any global warming? Its going to be ridiculously cold this weekend.

How come Michigan doesn't get any global warming? Its going to be ridiculously cold this weekend.
midwest. it effects the coasts first.

Could this be the cause of the strange weather?

Some weird weather in Europe, Canada is pretty mild.

Korea was pretty warm as well, next day it snowed

There have always been weird weather patterns. I still don't buy global warming.

There have always been weird weather patterns. I still don't buy global warming.

I hope you are joking. If not, you better watch that video.

"I still don't buy global warming"
Saddam Husein caused 9/11, and had WMD's dammit!
We WON the Vietnam War!
That "Holocaust" thing? Bullshit.
Baseball-The National Past Time.
I mean, come on, it's cold in Michigan right now! How can we possibly have "Global Warming"?

Note to self: Contact "North Pole Real Estate Company".

Note to self: Create North Pole Real Estate Company. [smilie=llama_banan:

All you need to know about global warming was in "An Inconvient Truth".
http://movies.peekvid.com/s4055/

Note to self: Contact e-ray about a great idea.

Global warming kinda falls into the God/UFO's/WMDs categories.

Can't say either way.

or if the earth is round. who knows?

I dont think you can say global warming is questionable. You can say that global weather patterns have always fluctuated over billions of years and this warming would have happened with or without human influence... but it is pretty factual that fossil fuels and aerosols and others have contributed. I do agree though that the Earth might have been due to warm anyway. The Sahara used to be a rainforest, and that disappeared well before humans were around so maybe we dont deserve all the blame.

Weather/climate changes have occured in the past, but (this is me speaking, I've read it somewhere) I don't believe that the changes have been this drastic this fast. There's been a noticeable change throughout the past decade when climate changes normally take a very long time.

I dont think you can say global warming is questionable. You can say that global weather patterns have always fluctuated over billions of years and this warming would have happened with or without human influence... but it is pretty factual that fossil fuels and aerosols and others have contributed. I do agree though that the Earth might have been due to warm anyway. The Sahara used to be a rainforest, and that disappeared well before humans were around so maybe we dont deserve all the blame.

Closer to my point. Global warming? Yes, Global cooling? At times, yes. Where are we in the history of the Earth? I don't know.

Weather/climate changes have occured in the past, but (this is me speaking, I've read it somewhere) I don't believe that the changes have been this drastic this fast. There's been a noticeable change throughout the past decade when climate changes normally take a very long time.


A couple hundred years ago the area of England and Northern Europe were struck with a mini ice age that lasted a few decades. It was sudden, and messed the region up pretty good.

We are at the point in the histroy of the Earth when we have a direct effect on it.
And we are not using that power wisely.

We are at the point in the histroy of the Earth when we have a direct effect on it.
And we are not using that power wisely.

Zips first serious post. :applause:

Yeah, well, just don't get greedy.

The "denial logic" goes: Meterologists with satellites and acres of computing power, so commanding in social stature that their opinions are now presented by Weather Channel babes instead of the farmer's astrology almanac, just fucked up on 4-7" of snow hitting SE Michigan a couple days ago. So, why should we rely on their long-term predictions? The weather is perceived as mercurial and unpredictable to mythological extremes, and generally presented in a light and fluffy kind of way. Why buy into this global holocaust shit without a hurricane at the doorstep?

There's all sorts of rational counterarguments, but there's lifetimes of inertia and so-called "common sense" to overcome.

And no, I haven't ever made a serious post.

Closer to my point. Global warming? Yes, Global cooling? At times, yes. Where are we in the history of the Earth? I don't know.

Yes, there are fluctuations and yes there are natural ice ages/cooling periods. However, if you watch the movie you will see them chart the fluctuations in the past and chart the current ones. It's not even close. The temperature rise is like 10 times greater than the past changes. most of the numbers cannot even be placed on the charts they are so staggering. If you think this is natural you are fooling yourself. My co-worker is a staunch Bush supporter and even he was floored by the movie.

I can't pull up the articles I've read but it seems to me for every point one side makes the other has a counterpoint, and on it goes. I haven't read as much as many of you have apparently, but every time I do read one side I try to read the other side too. Doing that stops me from being able to say yea or ney.

What does being a Bush supporter or opposer have to do with this issue?
If we break it down politically, its not like the Dems have much to stand on for taking action.

There's lots of fuzzy obfuscation that happens by both the "pro" and "anti" global warming crowd, as is true with every major bit of science that gets "sided". There's scientists who'll spend lifetimes coming up with all sorts of cockamamie reasons to prove "speculative" positions, not even for material gain, but just to validate some position they took a long time ago. Heaven forbid that they might ever be <gasp> WRONG, especially on something they spent years on! There's still scientists in Utah who keep beating the drums for cold fusion. They could turn out to be right in the end, but I don't have Mr. Fusion in my DeLorean jussst yet. Throw in the monied interests and you end up with science being more about "selling" than about the accumulation and presenting of impartial conclusions. A hypothesis doesn't have to be right. Lots of hypotheses that people spend a lot of time on are wrong. It doesn't mean it wasn't worth the effort, that the work might some day come to help in unexpected ways. Sometimes, until you do the work, you never know.

Where I think it's gonna get interesting is the intersection of the "clean air" and "global warming" crowd, generally inhabited at the extremes by the same bunch of eco-warriors. There's a growing amount of evidence that suggests that a lot of our clean air activities, besides doing good things, may serve to accelerate the pace of global warming, and be less of a good thing.

I can't pull up the articles I've read but it seems to me for every point one side makes the other has a counterpoint, and on it goes. I haven't read as much as many of you have apparently, but every time I do read one side I try to read the other side too. Doing that stops me from being able to say yea or ney.

What does being a Bush supporter or opposer have to do with this issue?
If we break it down politically, its not like the Dems have much to stand on for taking action.
It's not a political issue (at least it shouldn't be), but people do form opinions based on their party offiliation. I know several people that won't watch the film because they are republicans. I think that is silly. I'd like to know as much info as I can, regardless of the party I might support.

Yes, there are valid opinions to both sides of course. Nobody knows for sure whether the Earth will naturally correct the warming trend or not. If the ice caps melt some, there is more water, more water vapor, water vapor is a green house gas, but clouds reduce incoming sunlight as well. Sure, there are natural feedback mechanisms in the Earth. I majored in Geography and Earth Science, so I do know a few things about the issue (though I'm no expert for sure). The problem is that we might not be able to survive the natural mechanisms.

I'd like to read the non-global warming stuff myself, so if you do find some please post them. I'm curious whether they feel the Earth is not really warming, or if they just feel things will correct themselves over time. They are very different issues. I find it hard to debate the warming happening, since they have the temp readings. Whether or not we'll detroy the Earth is the real debate. I don't think we'll destroy the Earth totally, but it could be drastically altered for sure.

This article kind of skips across the top....meaning not hard hitting but says enough for me to dig deeper. Then I dig deeper and its partly what UMax said above your post...Scientists work hard to prove things, I'm just admitting I'm not smart enough to decifer point/counter point on this issue or who's bullshiting who? Or maybe they(either side) aren't trying to bullshit, hopefully they truly(sp?) believe what they're saying.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6548

btw the article does accept the earth has warmed, if I read it correctly. So I'm not saying the earth isn't getting warmer, its just the rest of stuff I'm not sure about...did we cause it? How much of it did we cause? is it out of whack? does the Earth have a way of dealing with it? etc...

Tahoe do you feel pollution, smoggy skies of cali, and other wastes caused by human civilization have no effect on the planet?

It's not a political issue (at least it shouldn't be), but people do form opinions based on their party offiliation.


Not trying to pick a fight here, but some peeps do, hopefully the majority don't. Hopefully some have genuine feelings on issues and find the party/candidates that best reflect their feelings.

When I'm deciding on who to vote for I prioritize the issues then find the candidate that best reflects my feelings at the top of my priority list.

Nothing too earth-shattering there, I just wish peeps would stop letting parties decide how and what to think. Nothing wrong with following either party if that is how you feel, but that to me, is almost weird that someone could go lock-step with either piece of shit parties. Lord I appologize for calling our parties pieces of shit...kind of.

Tahoe do you feel pollution, smoggy skies of cali, and other wastes caused by human civilization have no effect on the planet?

Sure, if they go unchecked. Luckily, recycling programs have taken hold big time out here. I build houses. I go to the dump (sometimes) and its pretty amazing the seperation that takes place right at the deliver point. Waste on conveyers, wood to woodchips, paper goes here, plastic there. So we are mitigating our effect.

California has some pretty tough smog requirements. I have to have my cars and trucks smogges every other. For the amount of cars we have here, we do alright. It would be a good thing if the rest of the world buys into this.

This article kind of skips across the top....meaning not hard hitting but says enough for me to dig deeper. Then I dig deeper and its partly what UMax said above your post...Scientists work hard to prove things, I'm just admitting I'm not smart enough to decifer point/counter point on this issue or who's bullshiting who? Or maybe they(either side) aren't trying to bullshit, hopefully they truly(sp?) believe what they're saying.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6548

btw the article does accept the earth has warmed, if I read it correctly. So I'm not saying the earth isn't getting warmer, its just the rest of stuff I'm not sure about...did we cause it? How much of it did we cause? is it out of whack? does the Earth have a way of dealing with it? etc...
They way some of that stuff is worded in that article is fishy. Take this part for example:


Around the world, in Antarctica, for the last few decades, average temperatures across the continent have been going down. Snowfall has increased, resulting in more continental ice. In fact, every modern computer simulation of 21st century climate has Antarctica continuing to accrete ice.

Why say "around the world, in Antartica"? Those are contradictory. Are we talking about the world, or just Antartica? It then says temps on there have gone down. Probably true, but ice melt does not happen there from air temp. the air only reaches a high of 41 degrees F there. Warm water causes the ice melt, not air temps. Snowfall may have increased, but what do they mean by "more ice"? every snowfall creates more ice. But is the net ice still positive or not? the article doesn't say. It could be melting faster than it's forming and the snow still results in "more ice" being formed. I don't know what they meant and what they didn't mean. i do know that in the movie they show sattelite images of the ice and you can see large chunks of the ice breaking off.

"Around the world, in Antartica" LOL that is pretty odd choice of words. Seems like someone would have caught that...and someone just did.

Tahoe do you feel pollution, smoggy skies of cali, and other wastes caused by human civilization have no effect on the planet?

Gutz <---sets trap
Tahoe <--- snared

Trip to TerrorDome forthcoming 8 Ball?

Signs point to yes.
Without a doubt.
As I see it, yes.
You may rely on it.
It is decidedly so.
Better not tell you now.
Yes - definitely.
It is certain.
Most likely.
Outlook good.

"Around the world, in Antartica" LOL that is pretty odd choice of words. Seems like someone would have caught that...and someone just did.

BTW, other sources have suggested there is more ice mass than before. I'm not sure which side of that is true. I suspect large portions ARE breaking off and the ice mass IS increasing. However, it has been proven that the temps are increasing. The higher temps are resulting in the permafrost line moving closer to the north pole and houses, pipe lines, trees that were once in the permafrost are no longer there. Who knows how much destruction that could have on the forests of Canada if that happens rapidly (don't know if it would or not).

tahoe i hate to break the news to you. but your sky line still looks like dog shit. [smilie=peepwall.gi:

tahoe i hate to break the news to you. but your sky line still looks like dog shit. [smilie=peepwall.gi:

No it doesn't. Your's does though.

Truth is I don't know wtf you're talking about.

No it doesn't. Your's does though.

Truth is I don't know wtf you're talking about.
then why the mean reply if you dont know? how george bush of you.:mccosky:

then why the mean reply if you dont know? how george bush of you.:mccosky:

I just took a SWAG. Your sky line is really ok.

I forgot to listen to Rush Limbaugh Monday after the Oscars. I figured he was going to explode because Al Gore won a couple Oscars. Did anyone listen? You can admit it, it's OK.
I listen, as a Liberal Democrat, to find out what he and his peeps are putting out there. I will have to admit Rush is entertaining.
Anyway, I did catch a little bit on Tuesday, and sure enough, he was reading some research paper that called the Conservation movement the "new religion", said European children are scared to sleep because of Global Warming, and read from some paper on Global Warming (I'm sure put out by the best reasearch team on the staff of Exxon Oil Co), which basically called any research leading to the conclusion that Global Warming is happening a veritable hoax.
Now, I'm one wha hasn't read "the science". I just think it makes sense: Yes, we seem to be coming out of an ice age; but, with about a billion cars on the road, with factories spewing out shit for nearly 100 years now, with mankind making chemicals and waste products that nature doens't know how to handle, it just seems like there would be major problems resulting.
Do I do my part? The only thing I do is that my family has two cars (not Ve-HICKles), one a newer chevy cavalier, and the other a Nissan Altima.
I don't water my lawn, don't fertilize it, and do the recycling bit with the cans and glass.

I'm amused by the recent Gore smear. Gore pays 30-40% extra for "green power", and runs a business out of his home. Some Republican "think tank", probably in cahoots with a Tennessee newspaper, is "surprised" that Gore's power bills are high, that he should practice what he preaches. I'm not sure what's more scary to the wingnuts -- global warming or Gore running in 2008.

I caught that yesterday while at lunch at "jack & Mary's". They were all orgasmic over Al Gore's house using up "so much" energy. Then Rush talked about "Green Credits" that were given out at the Oscars. Everyone who attended got 100,000 lbs of pollution credits as a gift. Ol Rushie was ballistic.
By the way, if you're keeping score at home, for lunch yesterday I had the "Citrus Chicken Salad"

Gore is better than most of the pussies the Dems have running. He govern from the middle like Clinton did.

Gore's a better journalist than he is a politician, and I think that has a lot to do with his success as a global warming evangelist.

On a local note, these nimrods are at it again, asking leading questions to Michigan residents to extract answers they like:

http://www.40mpg.org/getinf/022807release.cfm

Duh! Everyone wants better gas mileage. But, it's political suicide to tax the oil and let supply and demand take its course. Instead, they want to stick it to auto companies to the near-exclusion of all else, even when only about half the oil we consume is converted to gasoline. Funny -- our government doesn't seem to have any problem forking over many billions to the airlines, even when they account for over 12% of our oil usage. Hell, they don't have any problem in supporting Big Oil to the tune of a trillion dollars in war costs. So of course, it's Michigan that's fucking us with anti-global warming policies. <grumble>

I read somewhere today (may have been the local paper) that the caps and glaciers are melting at an unbelievable rate, faster than Gore's statisticians predicted in An Inconvenient Truth.

What comes first: Ice Age in Europe or America or the demolition of Florida via sea levels?

It's so fast they are considering putting Polar Bears on the endangered list (or threatened list, I can't remember) because they will run out of ice to live on soon.

This is perhaps the best summary of the Climategate crap that I've read:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091212/ap_on_sc/climate_e_mails

LONDON – E-mails stolen from climate scientists show they stonewalled skeptics and discussed hiding data — but the messages don't support claims that the science of global warming was faked, according to an exhaustive review by The Associated Press.

The 1,073 e-mails examined by the AP show that scientists harbored private doubts, however slight and fleeting, even as they told the world they were certain about climate change. However, the exchanges don't undercut the vast body of evidence showing the world is warming because of man-made greenhouse gas emissions.

The scientists were keenly aware of how their work would be viewed and used, and, just like politicians, went to great pains to shape their message. Sometimes, they sounded more like schoolyard taunts than scientific tenets.

The scientists were so convinced by their own science and so driven by a cause "that unless you're with them, you're against them," said Mark Frankel, director of scientific freedom, responsibility and law at the American Association for the Advancement of Science. He also reviewed the communications.

Frankel saw "no evidence of falsification or fabrication of data, although concerns could be raised about some instances of very 'generous interpretations.'"

Some e-mails expressed doubts about the quality of individual temperature records or why models and data didn't quite match. Part of this is the normal give-and-take of research, but skeptics challenged how reliable certain data was.

The e-mails were stolen from the computer network server of the climate research unit at the University of East Anglia in southeast England, an influential source of climate science, and were posted online last month. The university shut down the server and contacted the police.

The AP studied all the e-mails for context, with five reporters reading and rereading them — about 1 million words in total.

One of the most disturbing elements suggests an effort to avoid sharing scientific data with critics skeptical of global warming. It is not clear if any data was destroyed; two U.S. researchers denied it.

The e-mails show that several mainstream scientists repeatedly suggested keeping their research materials away from opponents who sought it under American and British public records law. It raises a science ethics question because free access to data is important so others can repeat experiments as part of the scientific method. The University of East Anglia is investigating the blocking of information requests.

"I believe none of us should submit to these 'requests,'" declared the university's Keith Briffa. The center's chief, Phil Jones, wrote: "Data is covered by all the agreements we sign with people, so I will be hiding behind them."

When one skeptic kept filing FOI requests, Jones, who didn't return AP requests for comment, told another scientist, Michael Mann: "You can delete this attachment if you want. Keep this quiet also, but this is the person who is putting FOI requests for all e-mails Keith (Briffa) and Tim (Osborn) have written."

Mann, a researcher at Penn State University, told The Associated Press: "I didn't delete any e-mails as Phil asked me to. I don't believe anybody else did."

The e-mails also show how professional attacks turned very personal. When former London financial trader Douglas J. Keenan combed through the data used in a 1990 research paper Jones had co-authored, Keenan claimed to have found evidence of fakery by Jones' co-author. Keenan threatened to have the FBI arrest University at Albany scientist Wei-Chyung Wang for fraud. (A university investigation later cleared him of any wrongdoing.)

"I do now wish I'd never sent them the data after their FOIA request!" Jones wrote in June 2007.

In another case after initially balking on releasing data to a skeptic because it was already public, Lawrence Livermore National Lab scientist Ben Santer wrote that he then opted to release everything the skeptic wanted — and more. Santer said in a telephone interview that he and others are inundated by frivolous requests from skeptics that are designed to "tie-up government-funded scientists."

The e-mails also showed a stunning disdain for global warming skeptics.

One scientist practically celebrates the news of the death of one critic, saying, "In an odd way this is cheering news!" Another bemoans that the only way to deal with skeptics is "continuing to publish quality work in quality journals (or calling in a Mafia hit.)" And a third scientist said the next time he sees a certain skeptic at a scientific meeting, "I'll be tempted to beat the crap out of him. Very tempted."

And they compared contrarians to communist-baiting Sen. Joseph McCarthy and Somali pirates. They also called them out-and-out frauds.

Santer, who received death threats after his work on climate change in 1996, said Thursday: "I'm not surprised that things are said in the heat of the moment between professional colleagues. These things are taken out of context."

When the journal, Climate Research, published a skeptical study, Penn State scientist Mann discussed retribution this way: "Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal."

That skeptical study turned out to be partly funded by the American Petroleum Institute.

The most provocative e-mails are usually about one aspect of climate science: research from a decade ago that studied how warm or cold it was centuries ago through analysis of tree rings, ice cores and glacial melt. And most of those e-mails, which stretch from 1996 to last month, are from about a handful of scientists in dozens of e-mails.

Still, such research has been a key element in measuring climate change over long periods.

As part of the AP review, summaries of the e-mails that raised issues from the potential manipulation of data to intensely personal attacks were sent to seven experts in research ethics, climate science and science policy.

"This is normal science politics, but on the extreme end, though still within bounds," said Dan Sarewitz, a science policy professor at Arizona State University. "We talk about science as this pure ideal and the scientific method as if it is something out of a cookbook, but research is a social and human activity full of all the failings of society and humans, and this reality gets totally magnified by the high political stakes here."

In the past three weeks since the e-mails were posted, longtime opponents of mainstream climate science have repeatedly quoted excerpts of about a dozen e-mails. Republican congressmen and former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin have called for either independent investigations, a delay in U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regulation of greenhouse gases or outright boycotts of the Copenhagen international climate talks. They cited a "culture of corruption" that the e-mails appeared to show.

That is not what the AP found. There were signs of trying to present the data as convincingly as possible.

One e-mail that skeptics have been citing often since the messages were posted online is from Jones. He says: "I've just completed Mike's (Mann) trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (from 1981 onward) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."

Jones was referring to tree ring data that indicated temperatures after the 1950s weren't as warm as scientists had determined.

The "trick" that Jones said he was borrowing from Mann was to add the real temperatures, not what the tree rings showed. And the decline he talked of hiding was not in real temperatures, but in the tree ring data which was misleading, Mann explained.

Sometimes the data didn't line up as perfectly as scientists wanted.

David Rind told colleagues about inconsistent figures in the work for a giant international report: "As this continuing exchange has clarified, what's in Chapter 6 is inconsistent with what is in Chapter 2 (and Chapter 9 is caught in the middle!). Worse yet, we've managed to make global warming go away! (Maybe it really is that easy...:)."

But in the end, global warming didn't go away, according to the vast body of research over the years.

None of the e-mails flagged by the AP and sent to three climate scientists viewed as moderates in the field changed their view that global warming is man-made and a threat. Nor did it alter their support of the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which some of the scientists helped write.

"My overall interpretation of the scientific basis for (man-made) global warming is unaltered by the contents of these e-mails," said Gabriel Vecchi, a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration scientist.

Gerald North, a climate scientist at Texas A&M University, headed a National Academy of Sciences study that looked at — and upheld as valid — Mann's earlier studies that found the 1990s were the hottest years in centuries.

"In my opinion the meaning is much more innocent than might be perceived by others taken out of context. Much of this is overblown," North said.

Mann contends he always has been upfront about uncertainties, pointing to the title of his 1999 study: "Northern Hemisphere Temperatures During the Past Millennium: Inferences, Uncertainties and Limitations."

Several scientists found themselves tailoring their figures or retooling their arguments to answer online arguments — even as they claimed not to care what was being posted to the Internet

"I don't read the blogs that regularly," Jonathan Overpeck of the University of Arizona wrote in 2005. "But I guess the skeptics are making hay of their (sic) being a global warm (sic) event around 1450AD."

One person singled out for criticism in the e-mails is Steve McIntyre, who maintains Climate Audit. The blog focuses on statistical issues with scientists' attempts to recreate the climate in ancient times.

"We find that the authors are overreaching in the conclusions that they're trying to draw from the data that they have," McIntyre said in a telephone interview.

McIntyre, 62, of Toronto, was trained in math and economics and says he is "substantially retired" from the mineral exploration industry, which produces greenhouse gases.

Some e-mails said McIntyre's attempts to get original data from scientists are frivolous and meant more for harassment than doing good science. There are allegations that he would distort and misuse data given to him.

McIntyre disagreed with how he is portrayed. "Everything that I've done in this, I've done in good faith," he said.

He also said he has avoided editorializing on the leaked e-mails. "Anything I say," he said, "is liable to be piling on."

The skeptics started the name-calling said Mann, who called McIntyre a "bozo," a "fraud" and a "moron" in various e-mails.

"We're human," Mann said. "We've been under attack unfairly by these people who have been attempting to dismiss us as frauds as liars."

The AP is mentioned several times in the e-mails, usually in reference to a published story. One scientist says his remarks were reported with "a bit of journalistic license" and "I would have rephrased or re-expressed some of what was written if I had seen it before it was released." The archive also includes a request from an AP reporter, one of the writers of this story, for reaction to a study, a standard step for journalists seeking quotes for their stories.

tl'dr global warming is a liberal hoax contrived to raise your taxes

If Motown stopped farting all the time, global warming would be a thing of the past.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/concern-as-china-clamps-down-on-rare-earth-exports-1855387.html

Guess it's time to raid China, right?

Global warming = Bullshit

Global warming = Bullshit
Please explain glacial retreat, then.

Glacial retreat = Bullshit.

Next?

Glaciers are Dems.

Next?

Glacier was one of my favourite wrestlers in WCW.

Next?

Tebow will fix it when he graduates

#68 was solid.

That's the 'old TBeau' right there.

Please explain glacial retreat, then.

They're French!

I was closest what do I win?

Expired phone card.

Expired phone card = Bullshit

Please explain glacial retreat, then.
Moisture Depletion
Topographical Erosion
Atmospheric Wind Shifts
Bad Data, or narrow scope of data.
(IE measuring one areas retreat and ignoring equal advances in another)

And my favorite explanation of all.
Seasonal Changes.

When it comes to ice on this planet, people seem to forget that what melts in warm seasons comes back in cold seasons....
yeah, ice melts in summer, holy shit. Did you know it also comes back?

<-- this guy worries about pollution more than water vapor and Co2, because he's not fucking retarded. Grow trees if it scares you all so much.


:dismissed:

<-- this guy worries about pollution more than water vapor and Co2, because he's not fucking retarded. Grow trees if it scares you all so much.


:dismissed:

I believe grass and algae consume CO2 the fastest. CO2 parallels with pretty directly with biomass production (which means the faster the plant grows the more CO2 it consumes). Grasses and algae grow "like weeds".