Forecaster Blasts Gore on Global Warming

[Al_Masetti]

The facts remain that human activity HAS changed the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere significantly, and that CO2 can be easily shown to act like glass does in a greenhouse. You have to prove (or at least explain) where that extra EM radiation is going if you want to claim the increased CO2 is not affecting the global climate.

The pro life attitude should be one of being responsible and making sensible efforts to limit the harm predicted for the poor of the world. Surely ?

The fact remains that climatology is far more complex than most debaters believe.

The fact is that there a lag between temperature increases and CO2 concentration. In other words, the temperature increase CAUSES CO2 increases. NOT the other way around.

The computer models are disasters. That is why the IPCC policy folks keep changing their reports every couple of years.

There are new discoveries almost daily of natural phenomena that impact the earth’s climate. For example, there are new discoveries of under-ocean volcanic activity. There are new MYSTERIES … 85% of the gravitational energy cannot be explained at this time… the scientists call it emanating from “dark matter”.

The earth is actually gaining mass and energy. Thousands of tons of rock and water enter the earth daily from meteorites and bits of comets.

The Catholic Church has been saving, collecting and indexing meteorites for centuries and we can finally start chemically analyzing them.

The sun’s energy is not fully understood. We do know there are cycles of solar energy; and we know this from the actual physical evidence:

…when the sun reaches a maximum (solar max), it heats up the atmosphere and the atmosphere expands. And when the atmosphere expands, it causes satellites to prematurely re-enter the atmosphere.

(There are many other “adverse” effects from the sun’s variations, as well.)

We know this. It cannot happen unless the sun’s radiated energy varies substantially.

 

[vern_humphrey]

By going all electric, with the use of nuclear generated electricity, [add two or three additional reactors to every existing electric generating plant], we could drop the price of oil back down to $10 per barrel down from the present price of $70.

We also could develop much more natural gas from domestic sources. AND we could manufacture gas from coal. Easy to do.

Of course, the liberals have created numerous political obstructions to reducing our dependence on foreign oil.

It’s the strangest thing – I see people railing at us for producing too much “greenhouse gasses.” And when we try to reduce “greenhouse gas” emissions by building more nuclear plants, those same people stop us.

How odd.

 

[Al_Masetti]

It’s the strangest thing – I see people railing at us for producing too much “greenhouse gasses.” And when we try to reduce “greenhouse gas” emissions by building more nuclear plants, those same people stop us.

How odd.

“They” , i.e., the folks making the rules … want to do the controlling. They want to have power over others … to decide what others should do and not do.

BUT, owing to the tyranny of numbers, there are negative consequences to creating so many rules and regulations. So … some “simple” rule about changing the spacing on pipe hangars may cause humongous cost overruns or time delays on a power plant construction.

Or lumping together rules for burning hard coal and soft coal, which have totally different burning characteristics.

Or, inventing some new species of bird or rat and falsely declaring it as an endangered species.

But “they” don’t care because making up all these increasingly complex rules gives “them” the power.

 

[vern_humphrey]

“They” , i.e., the folks making the rules … want to do the controlling. They want to have power over others … to decide what others should do and not do.

BUT, owing to the tyranny of numbers, there are negative consequences to creating so many rules and regulations. So … some “simple” rule about changing the spacing on pipe hangars may cause humongous cost overruns or time delays on a power plant construction.

Or lumping together rules for burning hard coal and soft coal, which have totally different burning characteristics.

Or, inventing some new species of bird or rat and falsely declaring it as an endangered species.

But “they” don’t care because making up all these increasingly complex rules gives “them” the power.

You may not have noticed this, but there are people who are smarter, better and, well . . . holier than the rest of us. Their mission is to save us from ourselves, and they don’t have to produce any evidence – they have reached antinomianism. When the rest of us don’t accept their pronouncments at face value, they naturally become angry and denounce us for the ignorant hillbillies we are.

Some of these people post here.

 

[Al_Masetti]

You may not have noticed this, but there are people who are smarter, better and, well . . . holier than the rest of us. Their mission is to save us from ourselves, and they don’t have to produce any evidence – they have reached antinomianism. When the rest of us don’t accept their pronouncments at face value, they naturally become angry and denounce us for the ignorant hillbillies we are.

Some of these people post here.

Vern, you are only the third person I have ever encountered who has accurately used the word “antinomianism” in a sentence.



[The other two people are Gary North (who does amazing writing on biblical economics) and me.]

 

[catholicbuckeye]

I know that climate has changed over the centuries. After all, Greenland (currently under a glacier) was once a place where grapes grew. Back in the 18th century, the Thames used to freeze almost every winter. I think we are in a period where the earth is warming. But Algore and others like him seem to place ALL the blame on mankind’s activities.

Meanwhile he and his wife have 3 homes, jet all over the place and solemly tell me (one small home, one small car, have never flown in my life) that I must do MY part. Other than beating my dirty clothes clean on a rock by the river, I don’t know what else I could do.

Exactly!!! Right now I am looking out at Lake Erie, the smallest of the Great Lakes, caused by melting glaciers 10,000 years ago (blink of an eye compared to 4 1/2 bil yr old earth) - the earth has had several ice ages and warming periods. Should we try to lower pollutants and improve the environment? Ofcourse. Should we be hysterical about anything Al Gore says or take him serious in the least? No.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Vern, you are only the third person I have ever encountered who has accurately used the word “antinomianism” in a sentence.



[The other two people are Gary North (who does amazing writing on biblical economics) and me.]

How about Clintonian antinomianism?

 

[vern_humphrey]

A friend of mine from New Mexico writes:

In the Sandia Mountains, which rise on the eastern edge of Albuquerque, there are black bears. Like all bears, these animals hibernate during the winter, and emerge in spring. They’re coming out of hibernation right about now.

Usually they emerge in March and April.

Lemme see…with global warming, spring should come earlier, right? So I guess May is earlier than March and April…

 

[Al_Masetti]

This came by email today; thought I would share it with you all:

Algore has a favorite scientist. It is Tom Wigley of the National Center for Science Research.

Algore asked him a pointed question- Al got an answer he didn’t expect. You should always know the answer of public questions.

Algore asked Tom “What if all developed nations would comply with the Kyoto emission requirements?”

Wigley said that, at best, the earth’s temperaturewould lower 7/100 of a degree Celsius in 50 years. You read it right 0.07 degrees in 50 years.

And, how much would that 7/100 cost America? $300 billion annually. That’s $15 trillion over the 50 years. And remember, the world’s biggest polluters (China, India, and Brazil- I thought it was Pakistan not Brazil) are exempt from Kyoto.

 

[vern_humphrey]

This came by email today; thought I would share it with you all:

Algore has a favorite scientist. It is Tom Wigley of the National Center for Science Research.

Algore asked him a pointed question- Al got an answer he didn’t expect. You should always know the answer of public questions.

Algore asked Tom “What if all developed nations would comply with the Kyoto emission requirements?”

Wigley said that, at best, the earth’s temperaturewould lower 7/100 of a degree Celsius in 50 years. You read it right 0.07 degrees in 50 years.

And, how much would that 7/100 cost America? $300 billion annually. That’s $15 trillion over the 50 years. And remember, the world’s biggest polluters (China, India, and Brazil- I thought it was Pakistan not Brazil) are exempt from Kyoto.

Ah, but the United States will pay most of the cost – so our friends from the rest of the world consider it cheap at the price.

 

[simonadams]

It may have passed you by but the world’s politicians took a step last week that will dominate national and international priorities for decades to come. More than 100 nations, including the US and China, agreed the third report this year from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which lays out timetables for reducing emissions of greenhouse gases and the ways to achieve the necessary cuts. The consequences of inaction are so dire that, barring utter cynicism on the part of governments, we can expect to be heading for a low-carbon future.

The report, like its two predecessors, has a clear, authoritative message. If we choose to, it says, we can stabilise global temperature at about 2.8 °C above pre-industrial levels. To achieve this we must cut carbon dioxide emissions by up to 60 per cent relative to levels in 2000 - and do so before 2050. There is no room for delay. To hit this target means that CO2 levels will have to have peaked by 2020 at the latest, which gives us just 13 years to reverse the present growth in emissions.

The good news is that to achieve such a change would slow annual growth of GDP by something like 0.12 percentage points, a cost that many economists consider trivial (see “Price of action”).

From this weeks New Scientist editorial → newscientist.com/channel/opinion/mg19426032.900-editorial-global-warming–now-for-the-hard-part.html

Also → Price of climate action ‘negligible’

 

[vern_humphrey]

From this weeks New Scientist editorial → newscientist.com/channel/opinion/mg19426032.900-editorial-global-warming–now-for-the-hard-part.html

Also → Price of climate action ‘negligible’

The report, like its two predecessors, has a clear, authoritative message. If we choose to, it says, we can stabilise global temperature at about 2.8 °C above pre-industrial levels. To achieve this we must cut carbon dioxide emissions by up to 60 per cent relative to levels in 2000 - and do so before 2050.

So by cutting CO2 emissions by 60% (dirt cheap!) we can put the world back into the Little Ice Age?

 

[Jeffrey]

LOL then that’d just start a whole new group of committees to ‘study’ the ‘problem’

So by cutting CO2 emissions by 60% (dirt cheap!) we can put the world back into the Little Ice Age?

 

[vern_humphrey]

LOL then that’d just start a whole new group of committees to ‘study’ the ‘problem’

I’m reminded of a sergeant who worked for me – he was teaching a class on Nuclear, Biological and Chemical warfare and asked one young soldier, “What would you do if you came across a soldier who had no mask, was drooling and twitching, and had pin-point pupils?”

The young trooper correctly answered, “Put his mask on him and give him atropine.”

And then the sergeant asked, “What would you do if you came across a soldier who had a mask, was dry-mouthed and still, and had dilated pupils?”

The kid pondered and said, “Pull off his mask on him and give him some nerve gas?”

 

[Al_Masetti]

So by cutting CO2 emissions by 60% (dirt cheap!) we can put the world back into the Little Ice Age?

Yeah, Vern, but you didn’t read the small print. 60% of the American people have to hold their breaths … permanently.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Yeah, Vern, but you didn’t read the small print. 60% of the American people have to hold their breaths … permanently.

Is Al Gore going to set the example for us?

 

[Jeffrey]

And no farting LOL!

Yeah, Vern, but you didn’t read the small print. 60% of the American people have to hold their breaths … permanently.

 

[vern_humphrey]

And no farting LOL!

My wife decided we needed a new bed, so she bought a king size with a “memory foam” mattress.

I’m telling you, it’s embarassing when you get into bed and the mattress says, “Hey! I remember you! Don’t be doin’ what you did last night!”

 

[Seagirt]

I know. I’ve read the studies about warming on Mars too. Some scientists think that the sun is the main force driving the warming/cooling of the earth (and mars).

I have no doubt that mankind does exert some influence, and I believe we must be good stewards of the earth and its resources, but too many people associated with global warming movement seem to be gaia worshippers. And they want us little people to give up our small comforts while they keep their houses and private jets.

Right on , Ms. Biblio, Al Gore is not a scientist-- he’s a front man for the Academic Left who like to tell everyone what to do. CHINA is one of the most polluted nations on the planet- and now they all want SUV’s. What doesn’t Al Gore go talk to the chinese?