Bush Greener than Gore...

[swardboy]

It just came to my attention that the Bush household in Crawford blows away Gore's Tennessee gas-guzzler. I just copied one link of many that can be googled on the subject. Highlights from my googling:
-Gore uses as much electricity in one month that powers the average American home for one year
-Gore has a zinc mine and an oil well on his property
-Bush's water and rain water systems are amazingly "green"
-Bush's house uses 1/4 the average electricity, given the size of the house
-Gore's "I buy carbon credits" to offset his footprint is just an excuse to pillage the power grid.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/421531/bushs_ranch_is_more_environmentally.html

[JohnnyMack]

-Bush's house uses 1/4 the average electricity, given the size of the house


How many days a year is it occupied?

[StoopTroup]

:pop:

[Curly Bill]

How many days a year is it occupied?

Prolly more then Gore's is, cause Gore is always flying around saving the world in his "Green Jet." :D

[StoopTroup]

Al is a God. :D ;)

http://www.jaunted.com/files/3873/Air_New_Zealands_Green_Plane.jpg

[JohnnyMack]

I thought you were talking about the Crawford ranch. Since he still lives in D.C. I would assume that the ranch isn't that busy most of the time. That's all I was saying.

[badger]

I thought you were talking about the Crawford ranch. Since he still lives in D.C. I would assume that the ranch isn't that busy most of the time. That's all I was saying.

The same argument could be made for Gore, who spends most of his time traveling... but let's not debate this too heartily. There are many leaders out there who lead by example and we see what good its done their political career.

[StoopTroup]

There is some green...but mostly I see **** brown.

Must be Texas though. :D

http://justinsomnia.org/images/prairie_chapel_ranch_crawford_texas.jpg

[tommieharris91]

This is pretty old news.

[soonerscuba]

Meh, Al and Tipper Gore work out of home and offset with carbon neutral credits, hooked up the mine that is adjacent to their property with a firm that works to make mining greener. That said, Gore and Bush both have environmentally friendly homes, they just chose a different path to get there, but don't let me spoil your denialist fun. Also, Bush believes in torture and executing the handicapped, you don't me starting a thread bitching about it.

[r5TPsooner]

Prolly more then Gore's is, cause Gore is always flying around saving the world in his "Green Jet." :D

BINGO but the liberals will tell you that he's using ethanol in that jet.:rolleyes:

[Curly Bill]

BINGO but the liberals will tell you that he's using ethanol in that jet.:rolleyes:

...that and his carbon credits...:rolleyes:

Isn't that kind of like eating a bucket of chicken all by yourself, but you offset that with a Diet Coke?

[tommieharris91]

BINGO but the liberals will tell you that he's using ethanol in that jet.:rolleyes:

Shhh... don't tell em ethanol pollutes more than gasoline does.

[soonerscuba]

...that and his carbon credits...:rolleyes:

Isn't that kind of like eating a bucket of chicken all by yourself, but you offset that with a Diet Coke?
No, it's nothing like that. Let's say you produce 1 ton of CO2 a year and you want to reduce that to 1,000 pounds without changing your lifestyle. You can buy carbon credits from a carbon low/neutral source to offset your own pollution by voluntarily subsidizing green energy. It's a proactive trade, not a reactive fix.

[r5TPsooner]

...that and his carbon credits...:rolleyes:

Isn't that kind of like eating a bucket of chicken all by yourself, but you offset that with a Diet Coke?

How bout a Coke and a salad?;)

[Curly Bill]

No, it's nothing like that. Let's say you produce 1 ton of CO2 a year and you want to reduce that to 1,000 pounds without changing your lifestyle. You can buy carbon credits from a carbon low/neutral source to offset your own pollution by voluntarily subsidizing green energy. It's a proactive trade, not a reactive fix.

I don't buy it. I understand the theory but I'd have to see proof from some non-partisan source that this stuff actually works.

[mdklatt]

The obfuscation of the Bush administration on climate change policy has resulted in brazillions of tons of unnecessary CO2 emissions, and will result in brazillions of future tons, but let's focus on his house vs. Al Gore's house instead. :rolleyes:

[Curly Bill]

The obfuscation of the Bush administration on climate change policy has resulted in brazillions of tons of unnecessary CO2 emissions, and will result in brazillions of future tons, but let's focus on his house vs. Al Gore's house instead. :rolleyes:

We have to start somewhere. :D

[soonersn20xx]

The obfuscation of the Bush administration on climate change policy has resulted in brazillions of tons of unnecessary CO2 emissions, and will result in brazillions of future tons, but let's focus on his house vs. Al Gore's house instead. :rolleyes:
How dare you try to bring this topic down out of the carbon polluted skies. :P

[Curly Bill]

The obfuscation of the Bush administration on climate change policy has resulted in brazillions of tons of unnecessary CO2 emissions, and will result in brazillions of future tons, but let's focus on his house vs. Al Gore's house instead. :rolleyes:

Do you not see it as a problem though that the "leader" of the global warming movement uses 20 times the power in his house then the average home? Does that not take away from his message?

...and I know about the carbon credit stuff, but do you think the averge American buys into that?

[soonersn20xx]

Gore has done a great service by at least bringing the subject of global warming to everyone's attention.

We have failed to properly address the problem though, the ethanol idea needs to be scrapped immediately. It has caused a rippling effect in the economy on food prices and hasn't resolved our dependence on oil. And this carbon credit BS stuff...........very stupid indeed.

(I bet Curlybill is thinking right now, I guess this guy isn't a flaming libbo after all)

[Curly Bill]

Gore has done a great service by at least bringing the subject of global warming to everyone's attention.

We have failed to properly address the problem though, the ethanol idea needs to be scrapped immediately. It has caused a rippling effect in the economy on food prices and hasn't resolved our dependence on oil. And this carbon credit BS stuff...........very stupid indeed.

(I bet Curlybill is thinking right now, I guess this guy isn't a flaming libbo after all)

I'm agreeing with this, but when you say we haven't properly addressed the problem, I think part of the reason is that when the leading deliverer of the global warming message uses 20 times the power of the American home, that people have tuned out some of that message for that reason.

[soonersn20xx]

I'm agreeing with this, but when you say we haven't properly addressed the problem, I think part of the reason is that when the leading deliverer of the global warming message uses 20 times the power of the American home, that people have tuned out some of that message for that reason.

So when a preacher fails to live by the Bible, does that cause you to believe any less in God?

[mdklatt]

Gore has done a great service by at least bringing the subject of global warming to everyone's attention.

I think he's done more of a disservice by being Viagara for right-winger hate hard-ons. All that seething rage somehow allows them to equate "I hate Al Gore" with "CO2 isn't really a greenhouse gas". Personal emotion is truthier than physics.



And this carbon credit BS stuff...........very stupid indeed.


How so?

[Curly Bill]

So when a preacher fails to live by the Bible, does that cause you to believe any less in God?

No, but it makes me believe less in organized religion.

[Bourbon St Sooner]

The obfuscation of the Bush administration on climate change policy has resulted in brazillions of tons of unnecessary CO2 emissions, and will result in brazillions of future tons, but let's focus on his house vs. Al Gore's house instead. :rolleyes:


Yes, because if the US would have ratified the Kyoto treaty (not that it would have ever passed the Senate) and gone on to ignore it like the rest of the treaty signers have, the world would be so much better off.

[mdklatt]

people have tuned out some of that message for that reason

The reason people have tuned the message out is because it's something they don't want to hear. Most people will give more credence to an isolated study linking red wine to a reduction in heart disease than the thousands of studies that show that alcohol consumption is bad for you. The IPCC reports are based on mountains of peer-reviewed research that support global warming from hundreds of lines of evidence, but denialists are perfectly willing to latch on to any random crackpot argument against global warming.

[Curly Bill]

The reason people have tuned the message out is because it's something they don't want to hear. Most people will give more credence to an isolated study linking red wine to a reduction in heart disease than the thousands of studies that show that alcohol consumption is bad for you. The IPCC reports are based on mountains of peer-reviewed research that support global warming from hundreds of lines of evidence, but denialists are perfectly willing to latch on to any random crackpot argument against global warming.

Agree with your first sentence, second one too for that matter, and I don't question that the earth is getting warmer. I'm not sure how much we have to do with that, or how much we can do to manage it though.

I still think it's a problem when the person who's taken perhaps the leadership position against global warming uses 20 times the power in his home as I do, and flies around the world with regularity.

[mdklatt]

Yes, because if the US would have ratified the Kyoto treaty (not that it would have ever passed the Senate) and gone on to ignore it like the rest of the treaty signers have, the world would be so much better off.

What about opposition to higher CAFE standards? Opposition to supporting alternative energy? This administration hasn't met an idea to reduce oil consumption that it wasn't against. Oil prices are too high? No need to use less--drill for more! Oil will never run out, and air pollution smells like baby kisses.

Let's not forget the administration's distortion and censorship of science that tells them things they don't want to hear. Climate change, abstinence-only education, on and on and on. LA LA LA LA LA! We can't hear you, Mr. Scientist!

[tommieharris91]

So when a preacher fails to live by the Bible, does that cause you to believe any less in God?

That's what turns off a lot of people from religion.

[Curly Bill]

That's what turns off a lot of people from religion.

My usual statement when peeps ask me about going to church...

I tell them I'll start when the people that do go live better lives then me, act better then me, and cuss less then me.

...and I'm not perfect so they could do it, but too many times I don't see it.

[BudSooner]

I just flushed a couple of carbon credits down the ****ter, with help from the plunger...your welcome.

[StoopTroup]

Don't be so hypocritical by letting hypocrites ruin your relationships.

[mdklatt]

I'm not sure how much we have to do with that, or how much we can do to manage it though.

The people who know more about it than you, or me, or anybody else are very sure that we have almost everything to do with it. But I know, lets ignore them and listen to Michael Crichton and Glen "Oxygen Thief" Beck.




I still think it's a problem when the person who's taken perhaps the leadership position against global warming uses 20 times the power in his home as I do, and flies around the world with regularity.

Why is it always about Al Gore? Every single skeptic/denialist argument will eventually mention Al Gore. It's the Godwin Law of global warming.

[Curly Bill]

The people who know more about it than you, or me, or anybody else are very sure that we have almost everything to do with it. But I know, lets ignore them and listen to Michael Crichton and Glen "Oxygen Thief" Beck.

The earth has warmed before without help from us. I think it's a legitimate question to ask if the same thing isn't happening this time too, or if we are partly to blame, how much are we to blame.



Why is always about Al Gore? Every single skeptic/denialist argument will eventually incorporate Al Gore. It's the Godwin Law of global warming.

I'm just saying if Gore is the leader of the movement, or at least the public face of it, does it not hurt the movement for him to use so much more power and fuel then the average person but then wants to "preach" to us about conserving?

[Curly Bill]

Why is it always about Al Gore?

I would say that to a large degree Al Gore has made it about Al Gore.

[Bourbon St Sooner]

What about opposition to higher CAFE standards? Opposition to supporting alternative energy? This administration hasn't met an idea to reduce oil consumption that it wasn't against. Oil prices are too high? No need to use less--drill for more! Oil will never run out, and air pollution smells like baby kisses.

Let's not forget the administration's distortion and censorship of science that tells them things they don't want to hear. Climate change, abstinence-only education, on and on and on. LA LA LA LA LA! We can't hear Mr. Scientist!

Hang on, don't you libs blame Bush for the high oil prices. In that case, you should praise him for his green policies since $120 oil has done more for conservation than any of the feel good jawboning done at Kyoto or Durbin or wherever the hell these great collaborative conferences have been held.

Oh that's right, $120 oil hits you in the pocketbook too and you're just interested in regulating other people's behavior. Like Al Gore and his private jet. Hey, Al have you ever heard of video conference? Also, if you have to be there, there's probably a commercial flight going to the same place as your private jet.

[soonersn20xx]

Character assassination is easier to do rather than to blunt facts, so beat up Al Gore instead. Call Michael Moore a kook rather than address the facts in his movie Fahrenheit 911. And now let's run ads with Obama's face next to Britney and Paris....................are you starting to see a pattern here?

Everything is political now, and the sliming and smearing of those you oppose seems to have no borders of decorum anymore.

[mdklatt]

The earth has warmed before without help from us. I think it's a legitimate question to ask if the same thing isn't happening this time too, or if we are partly to blame, how much are we to blame.


It is a legitimate question, but what makes you think it hasn't already been asked and answered? It has been. There are no known natural causes that can explain the degree and speed of warming that we are experiencing. On the other hand, the observed warming is a very good match to the projected warming based on the observed increase in CO2. Man-made CO2.

[Curly Bill]

Character assassination is easier to do rather than to blunt facts, so beat up Al Gore instead. Call Michael Moore a kook rather than address the facts in his movie Fahrenheit 911. And now let's run ads with Obama's face next to Britney and Paris....................are you starting to see a pattern here?

Everything is political now, and the sliming and smearing of those you oppose seems to have no borders of decorum anymore.

Michael Moore? Michael Moore?

I'll grant Gore a little credibility, I might even grant Brack a little credibility, but Michael Moore? That is laughable.

[JohnnyMack]

Rs & Ds are both equally to blame for our current situation in regards to our dependence on fossil fuels.

[Curly Bill]

It is a legitimate question, but what makes you think it hasn't already been asked and answered? It has been. There are no known natural causes that can explain the degree and speed of warming that we are experiencing. On the other hand, the observed warming is a very good match to the projected warming based on the observed increase in CO2. Man-made CO2.

To your liking maybe, to mine and many others maybe not?

[soonerscuba]

People don't have an issue with the science (unless you are connected to Shell's thinktank), they have an issue with the moderate lifestyle change (god forbid I get rid of the Excursion and put in a CFL, I'm American, damn it) they realize they need to make when they finally escape their denial a face the truth that has mountains of peer-reviewed evidence that proves evil AL GORE right.

To quote the Dude "you're not wrong, you're just an *******", same concept applies to Al Gore, if you you're so inclined to think that Al Gore=atmospheric science.

[mdklatt]

Oh that's right, $120 oil hits you in the pocketbook too


Not really.



you're just interested in regulating other people's behavior

Behavior that effects me--like producing pollution--yes.

[mdklatt]

To your liking maybe, to mine and many others maybe not?

I'm going to call your bluff. What would be enough evidence for your liking?

[mdklatt]

Rs & Ds are both equally to blame for our current situation in regards to our dependence on fossil fuels.

Absolutely.

For the record, I'm not a "lib", I'm anti-pubz because they're the dip****s that have been screwing things up for the last 7+ years. When the libz where in charge I was anti-libz (but at the time I mistook that for being a pub).

[Curly Bill]

I'm going to call your bluff. What would be enough evidence for your liking?

What's the old saying: I'll know it when I see it. I really don't know what the exact amount of evidence would need to be to totally convince me. I'm just not so certain as you that all the evidence points the direction you want it to. When you say the question of whether man is responsible for global warming has been asked and answered...well, says who? I mean besides the people that want to believe that.

[mdklatt]

What's the old saying: I'll know it when I see it. I really don't know what the exact amount of evidence would need to be to totally convince me. I'm just not so certain as you that all the evidence points the direction you want it to.

Why would I or anybody else want global warming to be real? It's already hot enough in this damn state.

:rolleyes:





When you say the question of whether man is responsible for global warming has been asked and answered...well, says who? I mean besides the people that want to believe that.

The people [i]that know more about it than anybody else "believe" that. Because that's what the evidence shows.

Let me turn that around. Why are you so quick to believe the people that have a vested interest in this not being real? The main spewers of denialist FUD are think tanks like the Heartland Institute and the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Guess who funds these places to a large extent? The fossil fuel industry. Want to guess why? Now just because they're funded by fossil fuel money isn't a reason to reject their research, but it is a pretty good indicator of why their research is so demonstrably wrong.

Do you know what HI and CEI were doing in the 90s? Trying to convince people that "the science isn't settled" that smoking is bad for you. Guess who funded them back then? They are corporate shills.

[Curly Bill]

The people that know more about it than anybody else "believe" that. Because that's what the evidence shows.

So...there are no unbiased scientist/experts on the opposite side? Last I heard it was not unanimous for the global warmers, so who's right, that's what I'm saying. The way you put it there's absolutely no question about it, I'm saying I don't think it's unanimous yet.

[Curly Bill]

...and I don't necessarily believe those that say global warming is not real. I'm just not 100% convinced that it's been decided either way, like you seem to be.

I'm sort of like an undecided voter, but your side has to do more to win me over, as I'm skeptical of the Gore acolytes.

[soonerscuba]

My gut tells me those scientists are wrong.

[tommieharris91]

So...there are no unbiased scientist/experts on the opposite side? Last I heard it was not unanimous for the global warmers, so who's right, that's what I'm saying. The way you put it there's absolutely no question about it, I'm saying I don't think it's unanimous yet.
It's not unanimous, but the majority certainly say global warming is real.

[Curly Bill]

It's not unanimous, but the majority certainly say global warming is real.

That's probably true.

I am willing to admit that we are in a period of warming, I am not as of yet convinced that we are totally responsible, or if we are partly responsible to what degree.

[JohnnyMack]

The scientists are right, the earth is warming. They are also right that we are contributing to the warming. What no scientist is able to produce is the smoking gun that this wouldn't have happened without us.

[mdklatt]

So...there are no unbiased scientist/experts on the opposite side?

There are barely any experts of any kind on the opposite side (but see below). There are a lot of denialists who think they are experts because they have some background in math and physics, but I have as much business designing a bridge as some engineer does doing meteorology even though we were in the same math and physics classes for 3 years.

Then there are all the denialist "modeling experts". They are invariably economists, and their critiques are invariably based on statistical models because that's the only kind of model you can do in social science. But climate models are physical models, not statistical models. Oops!

Then there is a large assortment of people who have no expertise whatsoever, some of whom lie about their credentials altogether. I'm not talking about the public, I'm talking about people putting themselves out as some kind of expert on the subject. Many of them work for one or more denialist think tanks. Some profit in other ways from being a skeptic for hire--Michael Crichton, I'm looking at you. If Climate of Fear is to be taken as fact, then so is The DaVinci Code.

Let me present to you the case of Spencer and Christy (S+C). These two guys are denialist golden boys, because they actually do legitimate research when they're not shilling for ExxonMobil and company. They are at Roll Tide-Huntsville, and do work with satellite data. Back in the day, they published some research that seemed to bolster the denialist cause. It seems that, based on the satellite data, atmospheric temperatures were not behaving as expected. Some others pointed out a flaw in the S+C paper, S+C acknowledged their mistake and published corrected data, life moved on, that's how science is supposed to work. However, when S+C have their denialist hats on, they still pimp the uncorrected data. Why? (That's a rhetorical question.) For more of Spencer's antics, see this (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/how-to-cook-a-graph-in-three-easy-lessons/langswitch_lang/in).




Last I heard it was not unanimous for the global warmers, so who's right, that's what I'm saying. The way you put it there's absolutely no question about it, I'm saying I don't think it's unanimous yet.

Scientific consensus does not mean unanimity. That's an impossible standard--which of course is why the denialists keep bringing it up. Moving the goalposts prolongs the debate and keeps the cash flowing to their clients for as long as possible, which of course is their MO.

Denialist goalpost moving:

1) There is no warming.

2) Maybe there is warming, but it's natural.

3) It might be caused by CO2, but we can't be sure.

3) Maybe warming is a good thing.

4) Why should we try to stop global warming when India and China won't play ball?

5) Even if wanted to do something about it, it's going to wreck the economy.

The current State of Denial is some combination of 4 and 5, but 1-5 are all fair game depending on the situation--even though they are largely mutually exclusive.

If the denialists want to claim victory, all they need to is come up with an explanation that fits the data better than the AGW theory. To do this, they need to do two things:

1) Explain why (and show their work) CO2 isn't acting like the greenhouse gas we know it is. This is mostly a lost cause, because the physics of CO2 as a greenhouse gas were enumerated more than a century ago, and have been repeatedly verified since then.

2) Find another explanation (a specific physical mechanism, not the "natural causes" hand waving) that does explain the warming.

[mdklatt]

What no scientist is able to produce is the smoking gun that this wouldn't have happened without us.

The only way to get climate models to reproduce the observed warming is to introduce man-made forcing via greenhouse gases. Take away the CO2, and the climate follows those "natural causes" denialists love to talk about out.

[swardboy]

http://www.petitionproject.org/gwdatabase/Heading_Text_06.png

31,072 American scientists have signed this petition,
including 9,021 with PhDs

http://www.petitionproject.org/gwdatabase/Teller_Card_100dpi.jpg

For information about this project, click on the appropriate box below.

http://www.petitionproject.org/gwdatabase/Button_01_Home.png (http://www.petitionproject.org/gwdatabase/GWPP/Home_Page.html)

http://www.petitionproject.org/gwdatabase/Button_02_Review_Article.png (http://www.petitionproject.org/gwdatabase/GWPP/Review_Article.html)

http://www.petitionproject.org/gwdatabase/Button_03_Seitz_Letter.png (http://www.petitionproject.org/gwdatabase/GWPP/Seitz_Letter.html)

http://www.petitionproject.org/gwdatabase/Button_04_Signers_By_State.png (http://www.petitionproject.org/gwdatabase/Signers_BY_State.html)

http://www.petitionproject.org/gwdatabase/Button_05_Signers_By_Last_Name.png (http://www.petitionproject.org/gwdatabase/Signers_By_Last_Name.php)

http://www.petitionproject.org/gwdatabase/Button_06_Purpose_Of_Petition.png (http://www.petitionproject.org/gwdatabase/GWPP/Purpose_Of_Petition.html)

http://www.petitionproject.org/gwdatabase/Button_07_How_Petition_Circulated.png (http://www.petitionproject.org/gwdatabase/GWPP/How_Petition_Is_Circulated.html)

http://www.petitionproject.org/gwdatabase/Button_08_Instructions_For_Signing_Petition.png (http://www.petitionproject.org/gwdatabase/GWPP/Instructions_For_Signing_Petition.html)

http://www.petitionproject.org/gwdatabase/Button_09_Qualifications_Of_Signers.png (http://www.petitionproject.org/gwdatabase/GWPP/Qualifications_Of_Signers.html)

http://www.petitionproject.org/gwdatabase/Button_10_Frequently_Asked_Questions.png (http://www.petitionproject.org/gwdatabase/GWPP/Frequently_Asked_Questions.html)

[mdklatt]

I'm sort of like an undecided voter, but your side has to do more to win me over, as I'm skeptical of the Gore acolytes.

Screw Al Gore. This has nothing to do with Al Gore. Al Gore is not the evidence for global warming. Al Gore did not do the research. All he did was put together some PowerPoint slides. Global warming would still be with us even if An Inconvenient Truth was never made. Global warming due to CO2 was first put forth as a possibility more than 100 years ago before Al Gore was born:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius#Greenhouse_effect_as_cause_for_ic e_ages



Arrhenius estimated that halving of CO2 would decrease temperatures by 4 - 5 °C and a doubling of CO2 would cause a temperature rise of 5 - 6 degrees Celsius [1]or 7 - 11 degrees Fahrenheit. Recent (2007) estimates from IPCC say this value (the Climate sensitivity) is likely to be between 2 and 4.5 degrees. What is remarkable is that Arrhenius came so close to the most recent IPCC estimate. Arrhenius expected CO2 levels to rise at a rate given by emissions in his time. Since then, industrial carbon dioxide levels have risen at a much faster rate: Arrhenius expected CO2 doubling to take about 3000 years; it is now predicted to take about a century.

[mdklatt]

...

An online petition??? :D

[soonerscuba]

...
Heh. You didn't google that "organization", did you?

[mdklatt]

The current list of 31,072 petition signers includes...2,240 MD and DVM

Hey doc, when you're finished cutting off that dog's balls could tell me your opinion of global warming?

[mdklatt]

Heh. You didn't google that "organization", did you?

Oh lordy, that's the infamous "Oregon Petition (http://www.sourcewatch.org/wiki.phtml?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_M edicine#Case_Study:_The_Oregon_Petition)".

Physics? Data? Who needs that ****...we've got a petition!

[soonerscuba]

Oh lordy, that's the infamous "Oregon Petition (http://www.sourcewatch.org/wiki.phtml?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_M edicine#Case_Study:_The_Oregon_Petition)".

Physics? Data? Who needs that ****...we've got a petition!
If it looks like it came for NAS, it must be credible! Look at the font!

[Fraggle145]

klatt I think you and I have had this discussion numerous times with people on the board when the IPCC was coming out...

You forgot to mention the common denialist trick of shortening the x-axis on their "data" to present trends that dont exist.

[mdklatt]

Having your cake...


There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate.

And eating it, too....



Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

Keep moving the goalposts like that and security is going to pepper spray you.

[mdklatt]

You forgot to mention the common denialist trick of shortening the x-axis on their "data" to present trends that dont exist.

Or stopping in 1998 or some other convenient year because your correlation diverges after that. Or changing the scale on your x- or y-axis. Or making up stuff altogether.

[JohnnyMack]

The only way to get climate models to reproduce the observed warming is to introduce man-made forcing via greenhouse gases. Take away the CO2, and the climate follows those "natural causes" denialists love to talk about out.

So never ever in the multiple billion year history of this spinning rock has a climate shift similar to the one we're currently experiencing happened?

[r5TPsooner]

Character assassination is easier to do rather than to blunt facts, so beat up Al Gore instead. Call Michael Moore a kook rather than address the facts in his movie Fahrenheit 911. And now let's run ads with Obama's face next to Britney and Paris....................are you starting to see a pattern here?

Everything is political now, and the sliming and smearing of those you oppose seems to have no borders of decorum anymore.


Michael Moore hates America more than the radical Islamic followers do.

[swardboy]

nm

[mdklatt]

So never ever in the multiple billion year history of this spinning rock has a climate shift similar to the one we're currently experiencing happened?

This is a strawman argument. Even if there has been (it's my understanding that there hasn't been), that doesn't invalidate fact basic science behind CO2 as the culprit for this warming.

There is no known natural climate forcing that explains the observed rise in temperatures in the past 100 years. If it really is the sun, for example, why is the warming signal seen mostly as an increase in nighttime lows instead of daytime highs?

[swardboy]

Adm Nelson, Capt Cook Shiplogs Debunk Global Warming (Tlgrph) (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2496902/Lord-Nelson-and-Captain-Cooks-shiplogs-question-climate-change-theories.html)


Go (http://www.furl.net/url/12878385/forward)

Description

Here is something interesting - Admiral Nelson and Captain Cook kept extensive ship logs that suggested global warming is not an entirely manmade phenomenon. These treasures from the past debunk quite a bit of nonsense going strong today.

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

I am just hoping that hole in the O-zone layer breaks soon, because that was going to cause MASSIVE cooling( i.e. another ice age) but if we combine both of them at the same time, we can get Global Moderateness!!!

[mdklatt]

http://www.furl.net/item/36213806

The strawman, watch him burn!!

[r5TPsooner]

Global warming, heh. What a ****ing farce1!

[soonerscuba]

http://www.furl.net/item/36213806
Did you know there are ship logs that talk about the mountains of gold, tropical paradise, and full accounts and classifications diverse parrot populations in Connecticut? Forgive me if I don't take logs from 400 years ago as a revelation.

[mdklatt]

Forgive me if I don't logs from 400 years ago as a revelation.

I hear those goalposts moving again.

Old: Temperature data from 100 years are unreliable. There's no proof that the earth is warming.

New: Temperature from 400 years ago show that it was warmer back then. It's proof that the earth isn't warming!

[Fraggle145]

So never ever in the multiple billion year history of this spinning rock has a climate shift similar to the one we're currently experiencing happened?

No.

[mdklatt]

Adm Nelson, Capt Cook Shiplogs Debunk Global Warming (Tlgrph) (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2496902/Lord-Nelson-and-Captain-Cooks-shiplogs-question-climate-change-theories.html)



"British archives contain more than 100,000 Royal Navy logbooks from around 1670 to 1850 alone," Mr Wheeler said. "They are a stunning resource. Global warming is a reality, but our data shows climate science is complex. It is wrong to take particular events and link them to carbon dioxide emissions. These records will give us a much clearer picture of what is really happening."



Key words: "particular events". Climate is not about events, it is about trends. One hurricane is not climate change. One heat wave is not climate change. This (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080116114150.htm) is climate change:



The eight warmest years in the GISS record have all occurred since 1998, and the 14 warmest years in the record have all occurred since 1990.