Global Warming

“Former Vice President Al Gore heads to Capitol Hill on Wednesday to push for government action on climate issues.

Gore's appearance comes less than a month after his documentary, "An Inconvenient Trurth," won an Academy Award.

Gore previewed his testimony to Congress by supporting virtues of long-term investing in a socially responsible manner, urging pension-fund executives and trustees to look beyond the impulse to reap immediate gain.

His appearance comes a day after executives of some of the country's largest electric utilities discussed the possibility of mandatory carbon emission limits to address climate change.

But they expressed concern over the potential for huge increases in the cost of electricity, depending on how such emission limits are imposed.”

“So a longer metric window does not matter?”

“Corey - the reason I ask is that you should always consider an entire system. Its like you are saying you as a human only piss, crap, sweat, and exhale. You also eat, drink, and inhale. Those inputs are somewhat important to the overall human system, don't you think?”

“my point exactly and the point of themovie you wont watch - ALL input matters, not just human input

now, about the metric window, does it not matter?”

“Everyone in the family prefers to drive the Xb.
With the five-speed its a blast and handles like a go kart.......great for mountain driving.

My boys and I are all 6'4" and its a hoot to see us pile out of the thing......like a clown car.

My sister says it looks like a "ganster mobile".”

“Nonsense. My Ford has less emissions than any of the pipsqueak toyota gas cars, including that teeny yaris. Do some research. People are so focused on gas milegage that most of them don't even know what kind of emissions their cars produce.

Not to nitpick but just cause ya had to go and pick on my stylish, sporty, and roomy Yaris...

Vehicle:
2007 Ford Focus Station WAG automatic transmission

Mileage:
27 mpg (city), 34 mpg (highway)

Distance:
12,000 miles per year

Fuel use:
393 gallons per year

Emissions:
7,689 lbs CO2 per year

Vehicle:
2007 Ford Focus FWD automatic transmission

Mileage:
27 mpg (city), 34 mpg (highway)

Distance:
12,000 miles per year

Fuel use:
393 gallons per year

Emissions:
7,689 lbs CO2 per year

Vehicle:
2007 Toyota Yaris automatic transmission

Mileage:
34 mpg (city), 39 mpg (highway)

Distance:
12,000 miles per year

Fuel use:
329 gallons per year

Emissions:
6,437 lbs CO2 per year

Even the manual transmission Focus came in higher @ 7,337 lbs of CO2 per year.

http://www.terrapass.com/road/carboncalc.php”

“My favorite gangster.

You dirty rat!!

Thank you, Nigal!
last edited: 3/21/07 9:31:41 AM”

“My favorite gangsta...


”

“HOW TO IDENTIFY A CLEANER CAR
Step 1. Print out these instructions and the "Find a Car" page of the car you are interested in and take them to the dealership.

Step 2. At the dealership, find the make and model you are looking for, with the engine size and transmission type you want. Example: Honda Insight, 3 cylinder with a manual transmission.

Step 3. Some automakers post the emissions standard (LEV, ULEV, SULEV, or ZEV) on the window sticker. If the vehicle you are looking for is a passenger car, and if you find the emissions standard on the window sticker, you have found the car you want. If you don't find it there, look under the hood for the Vehicle Emission Control Information label. This label is usually placed in front on the radiator shroud (Arrow number 1 on the picture below) but may also be found on the wheel well cover (Arrow 2), the underside of the hood (Arrow 3) or some other visible location in the engine compartment. For a passenger car, once you find the emissions standard of the version you're looking for, you're done.



Step 4. For light trucks, SUV's and vans, to be sure you're getting the vehicle you want you may also have to match the underhood label ID printed on our spec sheet. Light truck standards are more complicated, and often vary with a vehicle's weight class.”

“MarkO that is great that you find this a comforting decision. I am proud of you. But please don't tell me what I must drive "or if not I am EVIL" thats all I am saying.

LOL I was at a government "make the world safe for Bureacracy meeting" yesterday and this woman lit into me about driving a pickup. Regardless of the fact that I must carry a slew of gear in the back she felt it could all be accomplished with a 'smaller vehicle". When I asked her why she could only say,"It is better for everyone". She could not address why if I could afford the vehicle and related expenses why I could not have that freedom of choice. Well obviously she is a twit, heck most of the Task Force knows this but what is scary is that this "becuase I want you to change" is a pattern of Government Control (i.e. Socialisim) that is rising in our world. Global Warming (or the Manmade Global Warming Consensus Hysteria) is just the new home of world Socialisim.”

“See, once again, hippies hate freedom. LOL!”

“Nothing wrong with conservation it is socialism that’s evil.”

“I have always seen conservation as the proper MANAGEMENT of the resource.”

“xl400236, she maybe wrong to tell you, but have you looked at other vehicles? Its good stewardship, no?”

“Proper MANAGEMENT & PROTECTION resource.”

“I did a search on the greenest cars of 2007 and it looks like Honda and Toyota pretty much own the field.

http://www.dailyfueleconomytip.com/?p=296
http://www.greenercars.com/12green.html
http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2007/autos/0702/gallery.acee_meanest_greenest/index.html
http://autos.msn.com/advice/article.aspx?contentid=4018862”

“Corey, I carry a complete set of firefighting equipment (in various stages of smoke/soot/wet, equipment to dig out fires, equipment to check buildings. NO it would not be better, in fact I need something with a separate LOCKABLE compartment for my gear. Secondly I like the tacoma I drive, lets hear that again. I F#ing Like what I drive, gets 19 or so on th highway, is confortable for 4 to 5 adults to ride in and guess what? I can afford it.

As for stewardship, we have a balance Side A following the theories and making others happy Side B what do I like, and What can I afford....hate to tell you but I am going with B everytime.”

“I believe in stewardship and conservation but I believe in the freedom of choice at the same time.”

“Corey I've told you that I do want to watch it and have asked for an alternate link - because the one you supplied is dead. Who has the bad attitude?

Maybe it will help our discussion if we take this one point at a time. Me first.

Are you correct that the oceans are expelling large amounts of CO2 at the equator? Yes, you are correct. I completely agree with you.

Now, your turn.”

“ALL RIGHT...how did Bush Skrew that one up...who hit the "CO production switch" to high....gotta be someone successful responsible (LOL)”

“The fed-no change.”

“i cant see - does this work?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XttV2C6B8pU”

“It works. At 76 minutes I'll have to watch it at lunch tomorrow.

So you see I agree with you that the oceans do expell CO2 at the equator. I know we agree on this from our past discussion, so we can move on to the next point.

Item 2: The charts showing the CO2 levels from the ice cores show the amount of CO2 in the tiny air bubbles trapped in the ice, like the air bubbles in the ice cubes in your freezer. This is the CO2 level in the air at the time the bubble was frozen in place. Agree?”

“Tech, save your time. Just check out Channel 4's argument page.

This is a brief synopsis of the arguments made in the film. The documentary was painstakingly long. It needed to be more along the lines of 10 minutes. Especially considering most of the information presented was either garbage or flat out silly. Hey, the sun affects the weather! DUH!”

“"brief synopsis" - good wordinG

clearly conveys many of the points, details, references and illustrations were not included”

“J, I sent the link to that video to an atmospheric physicist at NASA/Goddard and that's the word he used: 'silly'.”

“Great minds think alike ;^)”

“well, that resolves it then

unfortunately other qualified scientists disagree

I have no reason to believe the weather satellite team leader scientist from NASA on the video is less credible than your NASA atmospheric physisist friend from NASA.”

“B, just curious what your beef was with the link I posted summarizing the documentary? It was the same people who made the film that made the summary. Do you feel they did themselves some sort of injustice with their own summary?”

“silent j, I thought I did a pretty thorough job listing my beefs w/ the summary.

A summary is just that. Would the scientific community be doi itself an injustice if it limited its own body of communication to the abstracts written by the authors of the peer reviewed thesesis? surly we can agree that it would.”

“Its just the differance between research and policy making...”

“Peer reviewed? That webite is for channel 4, the producers of the film. If we can't read their own summary to get an idea of what the film conveys then who's can we read? Would you walk into blockbuster and just grab a film without reading the back of a box to see what it's about? No. So why should anybody have to watch that mind numbing film if they can read the web site and see it for the garbage it is.”

“sorry, its takimg me a little while to figure who is serious and not. You clearly are not.”

“Did I miss something or do we have a bunch of new trolls that have slipped in without so much as a peep?

This site's going to hell.”

“BOOOO - YAAAAAHHHHH!”

“So who was the "weather satellite team leader scientist"? I had the same problem Tech had --- your video was gone when I went back. When I was at Goddard, the GOES Project Scientist was Dennis Chesters. Still is, last I heard. Here's his collection of favorite images & loops.

Why do we always see counter-arguments to global climate change and quotes from people who are not specialists in the field? If you were 'serious', you would be doing something more along the lines of attempting to compare the assumptions underlying various climate models instead of wasting time with a Geologist selling his book on a TV show.”

“Why do we always see counter-arguments to global climate change and quotes from people who are not specialists in the field? If you were 'serious', you would be doing something more along the lines of attempting to compare the assumptions underlying various climate models instead of wasting time with a Geologist selling his book on a TV show.”

Its clear you didnt watch it from this statement, as youve said. Funny you will feel so qualified to criticize it.

Why does this seem more like a brawl than a discussiin. If youre going to talk about it, atleast look at both sides andnot just who agrees with you already.

when did science die? (hey, the video addresses that too)”

“Science doesn't exist without money. Any more questions?”

“science doesnt exist with too much”

“A little research can find some interesting things about this silly little documentary.

The Independant

Here's an excerpt for those who don't want to click the link:

"But now the programme - and the channel - is facing a serious challenge to its own credibility after one of the most distinguished scientists that it featured said his views had been "grossly distorted" by the film, and made it clear that he believed human pollution did warm the climate. (emphasis added)

Professor Carl Wunsch, professor of physical oceanography at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology said he had been "completely misrepresented" by the programme, and "totally misled" on its content. He added that he is considering making a formal complaint."

Once again I make the statement; don't waste your time watching the film.”

“silent j you seemalmost fearful somebody will see this.

so, I take it youre equally vehemently opposed to the famous "2500" IPCC report? The is no difference.

Are you going to pubically speak out againsr it here?”

“I heard some of Algore's address to Congress today. What a simpleton. "The planet has a fever...". Jezus christ on a cracker! And how do you think you're helping that fever by flying your private jet everywhere telling everyone else to stop it?

Dick wad.”

“You mean the report that asserted global warming is in fact created by a build-up of CO² due to the burning of fossil fuels by humans? Why would I argue against it? It seems like you might not know what the report is about though. Go ahead and read the summary before we continue.

IPCC 4th Annual Assessment summary”

“Couldn't algore be charged with perjury for lying to congress.”

“Naw, he dont know he is lying....”

“well silent j, I hate to put you in this situation, but really you've brought it upon yourself.

You see, if you had not been so insistent that a summary is plenty to educTe yourself and watched (and paid attention to) the video, you would know that many scientists have claimed they were misrepresented by the IPCC report, enough to threaten filing a formal complaint.

Now, where have we heard that before?

Maybe you should watch the video before we continue and your own logic defeats you again.

so, you were asking about why you should argue against it?

Im sure we can expect your opposition to the ipcc report shortly.”

“Lumberjack is right on.”

“First things first; Hell Yeah!! Post 1000 baby!!

B: "You see, if you had not been so insistent that a summary is plenty to educTe yourself and watched (and paid attention to) the video, you would know that many scientists have claimed they were misrepresented by the IPCC report, enough to threaten filing a formal complaint."

I did watch the video. My previous posts are indicative of that.

The big point, of course, is the dissent. Oh yes, this is the best argument you can come up with? Scientists always bicker about details. The smoke and mirrors here is that you want to bring it up as if that is proof positive that global warming isn't real. That's the very problem with Carl Wunsch though is it not? He had a problem with some details about global warming, went on this falsumentary, and they construed his comments as if he was disregarding man-made global warming altogether. The difference is that scientists, such as Wunsch, will always disagree about details, methods, etc., but that does not mean they do not agree on the main point.

I believe your falsumentary had most of it's players stating they don't take money from big oil. Let's see if that pan's out.

ExxonSecrets.org

Not to mention, Philip Stott is a geographer by trade, not a climatologist, or any other professional that can speak as an expert on global warming. I'm just curious how his opinion was supposed to affect the debate here. Then there's Patrick Moore. Yes, he had a falling out with Green Peace and now that makes him an expert in weather. I love this thinking. Or maybe we should take Piers Corbyn seriously. He's not even a scientist and the acclaimed weather prediction model he touts in the film has never been open to peer review. It's hard to deny what he's saying when he won't tell anybody exactly what he's saying. Of course, let's not forget Fred Singer, the guy with the most links to oil money. After all his hoo-ha he hasn't posted a single article in a peer reviewed journal in over 20 years. Not to mention he was also a major skeptic during the CFC craze. You remember that right. It's when all of us liberal wacko's thought there was a hole in the ozone layer.

Good night sweet troll. I look forward to you ignoring my post and it's links.”