Is Al Gore in SC ? (North: airports, manufactured, oil)

[pcamps]

Originally Posted by Geechie North

Undeniable Global Warming (washingtonpost.com)







RSS News Feeds

Top News
Editorial Page Columns
What is RSS? | All RSS Feeds




Undeniable Global Warming


[SIZE=2]"By Naomi Oreskes[/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]Sunday, December 26, 2004; Page B07 [/SIZE]
Many people have the impression that there is significant scientific disagreement about global climate change. It's time to lay that misapprehension to rest. There is a scientific consensus on the fact that Earth's climate is heating up and human activities are part of the reason. We need to stop repeating nonsense about the uncertainty of global warming and start talking seriously about the right approach to address it."

Note the date.

After IPCC, 11 scientists explain warming consensus » blog | EarthSky

Note it's Science, not Politics.

Plenty of scientists have convincing evidence that the whole thing is a hoax .
A hoax that is being used by politicians to keep the public in fear and to gain votes and for people like Gore to line their pockets.
The earth as looked after itself all through the ages and will continue to do so through the ages.

[Geechie North]

Originally Posted by pcamps

Plenty of scientists have convincing evidence that the whole thing is a hoax .
A hoax that is being used by politicians to keep the public in fear and to gain votes and for people like Gore to line their pockets.
The earth as looked after itself all through the ages and will continue to do so through the ages.

That's just not true. The few scientists who are quoted ad nauseum by Rush, etc, work for the petrochem industry.

And this is not about the earth protecting itself. It's about humans preserving the conditions needed for our species to thrive.

[pcamps]

Originally Posted by Geechie North

That's just not true. The few scientists who are quoted ad nauseum by Rush, etc, work for the petrochem industry.

And this is not about the earth protecting itself. It's about humans preserving the conditions needed for our species to thrive.

No there are plenty of scientist who Limbaugh as probably never heard of who have conclusive evidence that Global warming is a hoax.


The earth can preserve itself

[Geechie North]

Originally Posted by pcamps

No there are plenty of scientist who Limbaugh as probably never heard of who have conclusive evidence that Global warming is a hoax.


The earth can preserve itself

'

Ask the dinosaurs how that process works.

And look up the term "consensus".

[pcamps]

Here you go consensus

Thousands of scientists sign petition against global warming | Tulsa Beacon

http://digg.com/environment/Less_tha...ng_is_man_made

I think you need to ask those dinosaurs who told you global warming was an inconvenient truth, are they by any chance prehistoric Liberals ? .

[Geechie North]

Originally Posted by pcamps

Here you go consensus

Thousands of scientists sign petition against global warming | Tulsa Beacon

Less than half of published scientists believe global warming is man made

I think you need to ask those dinosaurs who told you global warming was an inconvenient truth, are they by any chance prehistoric Liberals ? .

Incomprehensible for the most part.

But to be clear re: dinosaurs :
Dinosaur - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Modern definition


Triceratops skeleton at the American Museum of Natural History in New York City.


Under phylogenetic taxonomy, dinosaurs are usually defined as the group consisting of "Triceratops, Neornithes [modern birds], their most recent common ancestor, and all descendants."[6] It has also been suggested that Dinosauria be defined with respect to the most recent common ancestor of Megalosaurus and Iguanodon, because these were two of the three genera cited by Richard Owen when he recognized the Dinosauria.[7] Both definitions result in the same set of animals being defined as dinosaurs, including theropods (mostly bipedal carnivores), sauropodomorphs (mostly large herbivorous quadrupeds with long necks and tails), ankylosaurians (armored herbivorous quadrupeds), stegosaurians (plated herbivorous quadrupeds), ceratopsians (herbivorous quadrupeds with horns and frills), and ornithopods (bipedal or quadrupedal herbivores including "duck-bills"). These definitions are written to correspond with scientific conceptions of dinosaurs that predate the modern use of phylogenetics. The continuity of meaning is intended to prevent confusion about what the term "dinosaur" means.
There is a wide consensus among paleontologists that birds are the descendants of theropod dinosaurs. Using the strict cladistical definition that all descendants of a single common ancestor must be included in a group for that group to be natural, birds would thus be dinosaurs and dinosaurs are, therefore, not extinct. Birds are classified by most paleontologists as belonging to the subgroup Maniraptora, which are coelurosaurs, which are theropods, which are saurischians, which are dinosaurs.[8]
From the point of view of cladistics, birds are dinosaurs, but in ordinary speech the word "dinosaur" does not include birds. Additionally, referring to dinosaurs that are not birds as "non-avian dinosaurs" is cumbersome. For clarity, this article will use "dinosaur" as a synonym for "non-avian dinosaur". The term "non-avian dinosaur" will be used for emphasis as needed. It is also technically correct to refer to dinosaurs as a distinct group under the older Linnaean classification system, which accepts paraphyletic taxa that exclude some descendants of a single common ancestor.

Also, re scientific consensus:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten.../306/5702/1686


The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature (3). In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations" [p. 21 in (4)].

Trust scientists on scientific issues, not corporate media from a backward state like Oklahoma, so closely tied to the oil biz..

Does the name "Imhofe" ring a bell re: this subject?

[PawleysDude]

SCBeaches wrote: Oh, I'm not confused, I assure you...

Sorry, I'm not assured. The science behind the issue is not Gore's, and he does not take credit for the scientific studies. His Nobel Peace Prize was awarded for raising awareness of what might be the most pivotal issue our generation will ever face. Try as much as you like to make it political, in the end it all boils down to the science.

Read just a little bit of the science. Getting it fed to you from the idiotbox doesn't count. Then somewhere, away from here, in the dark of the night, ask yourself "what if I'm wrong?" Even worse, what if you're wrong and as a teacher, you convince others that correcting the systemic causes of climate change is not important. Now that's frightening...

BTW, I'm not interested in "bringing it on". Meaningful debate requires that all involved are willing to consider the implications of the other side being right. Not likely that's going to happen, is it?

[SCBeaches]

Originally Posted by pcamps

Plenty of scientists have convincing evidence that the whole thing is a hoax .
A hoax that is being used by politicians to keep the public in fear and to gain votes and for people like Gore to line their pockets.
The earth as looked after itself all through the ages and will continue to do so through the ages.

Exactly.

[SCBeaches]

Originally Posted by PawleysDude

Sorry, I'm not assured. The science behind the issue is not Gore's, and he does not take credit for the scientific studies. His Nobel Peace Prize was awarded for raising awareness of what might be the most pivotal issue our generation will ever face. Try as much as you like to make it political, in the end it all boils down to the science.

Read just a little bit of the science. Getting it fed to you from the idiotbox doesn't count. Then somewhere, away from here, in the dark of the night, ask yourself "what if I'm wrong?" Even worse, what if you're wrong and as a teacher, you convince others that correcting the systemic causes of climate change is not important. Now that's frightening...

BTW, I'm not interested in "bringing it on". Meaningful debate requires that all involved are willing to consider the implications of the other side being right. Not likely that's going to happen, is it?

I am a professional and do not interject my own opinions into my lessons. My students have no idea as to my political persuasions or my feelings about Al Gore and his "global warming" theories. So, no need for fear, my friend.

.....and I made the "bring it on" statement because I knew full well what would follow if I "dared" speak against Al Gore.
For the books, I am an environmentalist and have been spearheading "Litter Drives" and "Water Clean-Up Days" since I was 9 or 10 years old. I am the first person to turn in someone for littering....I recycle, compost, reuse virtually everything, drive a Prius, etc. Yes, I do want a clean environment and encourage others to help keep it clean. However, I DO NOT buy into Al Gore's global warming theory....the earth is merely going through another warming cylcle, which it has done before....then it will cool again. Nature is cyclic and takes care of its own - even with man interfering.

[moneill]

It's not Al Gore's theory.

BUT -- I'm not sure either about the whole warming thing.

HOWEVER....I do think that technologies that make anything run more efficiently are beneficial to us all and that includes our natural resources. Note I said more efficiently -- that means all costs -- hard and soft have to be measured.


I don't think Al Gore invented the concept of efficiency either.