Al Gore's Tennessee Home Wasting Electricity

[ImWithStupid]

.

 

[RoyalOrleans]

A funny thing happened on the way to saving the world's poor from the ravages of global warming.

Global Warming and the Poor: Why India and China don’t care much about climate change.

 

[ImWithStupid]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ul3d5vpCz5I]YouTube - Crowder Interviews Filmmakers of "Not Evil Just Wrong"[/ame]

 

[Anna Perenna]

A funny thing happened on the way to saving the world's poor from the ravages of global warming.

Global Warming and the Poor: Why India and China don’t care much about climate change.

India (much like other developing countries) is still in the early stages of 'enjoying the spoils' of the mass-consumerism based lifestyle of Western capitalism - brands are becoming really popular, and so on.

Developing countries still have a relatively small carbon footprint, but if they don't bypass the Western mass-consumerism lifestyle and head straight into an ecologically sound economic system (where sustainability is made a priority, waste is managed and eco-factors are included in monetary measures, etc), the levels of climate change are actually going to be far worse than already predicted.

It is estimated that China builds one coal power station a week. When you add that scary fact to the billion or so people in India clamouring to buy Hummers, you can only weep for the future.

Copenhagen Sprint | Not Stupid | Ready to change history?

 

[hugo]

If the global warmers are right we are in big trouble as I see no possibility of an international agreement that will lead to any effective reduction in CO2 emissions. Not unless the west ignores the starving children of India and boycotts Indian goods. Of course, nuclear winter could offset global warming.

 

[timesjoke]

It is all just a new way to make money, there is no man caused global warming, certain people like Al Gore have made millions off of 'selling' this farce to the gullible. The data is clear, Co2 follows temperatures, not the other way around.


Now we are running the scam on the global level, if you ask me this is the closest thing to a true world government than anything else where these kinds of treaties will take away the rights of individual Countries to rule themselves and instead let huge companies who make the products and consulting groups run everything.


Interesting that every politician pushing these changes have close ties to the companies who will make the most money, take GE for example who jumped in bed with Obama and even handed their television networks over to him.

 

[timesjoke]

Interesting that the crowder video has been removed, it is even gone from the pjtv site, you see it listed but you can't play it......I wonder what that is about?

edit:

I got it to work on the pjtv site but it is still removed from youtube.

 

[Anna Perenna]

It is all just a new way to make money, there is no man caused global warming, certain people like Al Gore have made millions off of 'selling' this farce to the gullible. The data is clear, Co2 follows temperatures, not the other way around.

Now we are running the scam on the global level, if you ask me this is the closest thing to a true world government than anything else where these kinds of treaties will take away the rights of individual Countries to rule themselves and instead let huge companies who make the products and consulting groups run everything.

Interesting that every politician pushing these changes have close ties to the companies who will make the most money, take GE for example who jumped in bed with Obama and even handed their television networks over to him.

Get with the times, joke. Your argument is years old, irrelevant, and wrong.

We now need to be debating:

• 
  [ ]the pros and cons of the ACES/Waxman-Markey bill
  [ ]how to reach emissions targets
  [ ]the implications/outcomes of the UN climate change conference in Copenhagen next month
  [ ]how the US will keep up with/surpass Europe and China in the "race" to be a world leader in renewable energy technology
  [ ]how Australia is going to survive economically in a world that will soon have no requirement for its resources; and how we are going to get our government to increase our paltry emissions-reduction target (perhaps this bullet is only relevant to me, but you get the point)

Hope that helps you.

 

[timesjoke]

Get with reality Anna, there is no such thing as man caused global warming.

It is a business/political machine, nothing more.

 

[hugo]

Evidence of a Warming Earth - The Woods Hole Research Center

Look at the first chart on this site (an Al Gore approved site) and notice that the temperature peaks before the CO2 levels peak. This seems to indicate that rising temperature is the cause of rising CO2 levels rather than vice versa. Now, I guess I am in the middle of the road here. CO2 is a green house gas, that is a scientific fact. So unless mankind is also producing pollutants that also cool the earth some manmade global warming seems highly probable. I am not convinced that warming is going to produce catastrophic consequences. The first graph showing the seemingly steady relationship between CO2 levels and the Earth's temperature before the industrial revolution cannot, IMO, prove that mankind caused rises in the CO2 level will lead to similar increases in temperature, due to the fact the temperature peaks before the CO2 level does.

Personally. I think nuclear winter could balance out global warming. Sadly, the same liberals who want to tax us to avoid global warming bitch when you start talking about nuking Iran or N. Korea or France or California.

 

[ImWithStupid]

Evidence of a Warming Earth - The Woods Hole Research Center

Look at the first chart on this site (an Al Gore approved site) and notice that the temperature peaks before the CO2 levels peak. This seems to indicate that rising temperature is the cause of rising CO2 levels rather than vice versa. Now, I guess I am in the middle of the road here. CO2 is a green house gas, that is a scientific fact. So unless mankind is also producing pollutants that also cool the earth some manmade global warming seems highly probable. I am not convinced that warming is going to produce catastrophic consequences. The first graph showing the seemingly steady relationship between CO2 levels and the Earth's temperature before the industrial revolution cannot, IMO, prove that mankind caused rises in the CO2 level will lead to similar increases in temperature, due to the fact the temperature peaks before the CO2 level does.

Personally. I think nuclear winter could balance out global warming. Sadly, the same liberals who want to tax us to avoid global warming bitch when you start talking about nuking Iran or N. Korea or France or California.

I know it's a long thread, but you're about 108 posts behind...

http://Off Topic Forum.com/on-topic...see-home-wasting-electricity-3.html#post60700

 

[timesjoke]

Temperature will change how the oceans hold/release co2. That is why we see more co2 after temperatures rise and it declines after temperatures decline:

View attachment 1989

Now in this chart we see how temperatures go up, then co2 goes up and stays up.

There appears to be a good correlation between the two but what happens if we compare other factors to temperature increases?

View attachment 1990

We see a closer correlation with solar activity than we do co2......but we have something else to look at:

View attachment 1991

Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) are combined to average together and compared to temperatures and again, we see a much closer match than with co2.

It?s a simple experiment; compare the trends by running an R2 correlation on the different data sets. The result is a coefficient of determination that tells you how well the trend curves match. When the correlation is 1.0, you have a perfect match between two curves. The lower the number, the lower the trend correlation.

View attachment 1992

Co2 has a very low trend correlation.


This is all shown in more detail here:
Warming Trend: PDO And Solar Correlate Better Than CO2 Watts Up With That?

 

[ImWithStupid]

Higher temps also increase the area that co2 producing plants can grow, which then increases the natural release of co2 into the atmosphere.

 

[Anna Perenna]

Since 2001, the UN-led Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has held the position:

An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system. There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities​

Since 2001, 32 national science academies have come together to issue joint declarations confirming anthropogenic global warming, and urging the nations of the world to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases.

In 2006, the world's largest general scientific society, the American Association for the Advancement of Science adopted an official statement on climate change:

"The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society. The pace of change and the evidence of harm have increased markedly over the last five years. The time to control greenhouse gas emissions is now."​

And since 2007, no scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion.

What.the.fu(k.is.wrong.with.you.people?

 

[hugo]

I know it's a long thread, but you're about 108 posts behind...

http://Off Topic Forum.com/on-topic...see-home-wasting-electricity-3.html#post60700

I guess, Anna., you need to post something that convinces me that manmade global warming is a real threat. Something more than mere opinions. even though they come from experts.I do have an open mind on ythe issue. The nations of the Earth have worked together before to close the hole in the ozone level. Your first job is to convince those who are on the fence that global warming is a real threat, unless you try a dual argument:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/o...l=1&adxnnlx=1258716086-6AP9Hz6wl54FJKEdXGPUnQ

When you include the economic argument that declining oil supplies and a world growing in population and wealth will require alternative energy sources your case gets stronger. I have no doubt that an environment cpntaining 5% CO2 would not be real great for mankind. There is no doubt alternative energy sources will be needed in the not to distant future. Convince your fellow lefties nuclear ain;t a bad option right now.

 

[timesjoke]

Anna, I know you don't like me and this will most likely add to it but please try to discuss things with an open mind and not just believe the hype created by those people spouting pure political agendas.


First let me deal with your UN point:

The UN IPCC Summary was created by 52 purely burcratic 'scientists' who worked directly for the UN and had zero climate experience. The peer review they claim to have conducted was actually ignored. One of these reviewers was Dr Madhav Khandekar who complained that his concerns were ignored from the first draft and never addressed. Even John Coleman (Weather Channel founder) has come out and said the political movement needs to change because all the science supporting human caused global warming is very bad.

Read this:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report

A few interesting points made:

Israel: Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem has authored almost 70 peer-reviewed studies and won several awards. ?First, temperature changes, as well as rates of temperature changes (both increase and decrease) of magnitudes similar to that reported by IPCC to have occurred since the Industrial revolution (about 0.8C in 150 years or even 0.4C in the last 35 years) have occurred in Earth's climatic history. There's nothing special about the recent rise!?

Russia: Russian scientist Dr. Oleg Sorochtin of the Institute of Oceanology at the Russian Academy of Sciences has authored more than 300 studies, nine books, and a 2006 paper titled ?The Evolution and the Prediction of Global Climate Changes on Earth.? ?Even if the concentration of ?greenhouse gases? double man would not perceive the temperature impact,? Sorochtin wrote.

Netherlands: Atmospheric scientist Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, a scientific pioneer in the development of numerical weather prediction and former director of research at The Netherlands' Royal National Meteorological Institute, and an internationally recognized expert in atmospheric boundary layer processes, ?I find the Doomsday picture Al Gore is painting ? a six-meter sea level rise, fifteen times the IPCC number ? entirely without merit,? Tennekes wrote. ?I protest vigorously the idea that the climate reacts like a home heating system to a changed setting of the thermostat: just turn the dial, and the desired temperature will soon be reached."

Canada: IPCC 2007 Expert Reviewer Madhav Khandekar, a Ph.D meteorologist, a scientist with the Natural Resources Stewardship Project who has over 45 years experience in climatology, meteorology and oceanography, and who has published nearly 100 papers, reports, book reviews and a book on Ocean Wave Analysis and Modeling: ?To my dismay, IPCC authors ignored all my comments and suggestions for major changes in the FOD (First Order Draft) and sent me the SOD (Second Order Draft) with essentially the same text as the FOD. None of the authors of the chapter bothered to directly communicate with me (or with other expert reviewers with whom I communicate on a regular basis) on many issues that were raised in my review. This is not an acceptable scientific review process.?

USA: Dr. David Wojick is a UN IPCC expert reviewer, who earned his PhD in Philosophy of Science and co-founded the Department of Engineering and Public Policy at Carnegie-Mellon University: ?In point of fact, the hypothesis that solar variability and not human activity is warming the oceans goes a long way to explain the puzzling idea that the Earth's surface may be warming while the atmosphere is not. The GHG (greenhouse gas) hypothesis does not do this.? Wojick added: ?The public is not well served by this constant drumbeat of false alarms fed by computer models manipulated by advocates.?

.

Why are temperatures so erratic when co2 rise is steady? Common sense would dictate that they are not connected. Let's look at the South Pole temperatures:

.

 

[timesjoke]

In 2006, the world's largest general scientific society, the American Association for the Advancement of Science adopted an official statement on climate change:

"The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society. The pace of change and the evidence of harm have increased markedly over the last five years. The time to control greenhouse gas emissions is now."​

I decided to look into some of the people involved in the American Association for the Advancement of Science and my first look discovered AAAS President (at the time of the report you mention)John Holdren. This guy is now Obama's Science Czar. He wrote a book where he supported some radical stuff.

In his book "Ecoscience":
? Women could be forced to abort their pregnancies, whether they wanted to or not;
? The population at large could be sterilized by infertility drugs intentionally put into the nation's drinking water or in food;
? Single mothers and teen mothers should have their babies seized from them against their will and given away to other couples to raise;
? People who "contribute to social deterioration" (i.e. undesirables) "can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility" -- in other words, be compelled to have abortions or be sterilized.
? A transnational "Planetary Regime" should assume control of the global economy and also dictate the most intimate details of Americans' lives -- using an armed international


Not only is he clearly attached to politics, but he is also the kind of scientist who I would not trust to run a study on melting ice if the result of his mind are the kinds of things we see in "Ecoscience".


The current President of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, is Dr. Peter C. Agre, also someone directly tied to Obama and politics and an official advisor to the President.



When you look closely at the main contributers and members, you see a long list of political and business connections that stand to gain a lot of power, and money off of the man caused global warming lie.

http://www.aaas.org/publications/annual_report/2008/aaas_ann_rpt_08l_contributors.pdf

As I keep saying, follow the money and power behind those you see supporting this bad science and you will see corruption.

 

[timesjoke]

While I was at it I looked up this Mark Diesendorf that Anna keeps talking about as a respected expert in climate change:

He spent ten years as a math geek in the CSIRO working mostly on wind power and electricity projects. He has worked as a professor and been involved in "ecological economics" (looks to me that is where he got exposed to the money connected to an eco movement). After 2004 his primary work is as a Lecturer primarily in the fields of energy, transportation and economics.

During his career Diesendorf has worked on many boards and government studies and has a long list of political connections.

In his book "Climate Action:A Campaign Manual for Greenhouse Solutions" Diesendorf directly instructs people how to force the political agenda connected to man caused global warming.


This man is not an expert on climate, he sells lots of books and seems to be a professional Lecturer making money speaking on environmental issues just like Al Gore.


He does have a science background but it is not in this field while there are true scientists like Madhav Khandekar who have directly worked in the climate field for over 45 years who say man caused global warming has not been proven.

 

[ImWithStupid]

Ooops!!

Do hacked e-mails show global-warming fraud?

posted at 8:48 am on November 20, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly

Controversy has exploded onto the Internet after a major global-warming advocacy center in the UK had its e-mail system hacked and the data published on line. The director of the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit confirmed that the e-mails are genuine ? and Australian publication Investigate and the Australian Herald-Sun report that those e-mails expose a conspiracy to hide detrimental information from the public that argues against global warming (via Watt?s Up With That)

Hot Air Blog Archive Do hacked e-mails show global-warming fraud?


More about this here...

Climate Depot

 

[ImWithStupid]

Al Gore is a lying windbag...

CONAN O'BRIEN, HOST: Now, what about ... you talk in the book about geothermal energy...
​

AL GORE, NOBEL LAUREATE: Yeah, yeah.
​

O'BRIEN: ...and that is, as I understand it, using the heat that's generated from the core of the earth ...

GORE: Yeah.

O'BRIEN: ...to create energy, and it sounds to me like an evil plan by Lex Luthor to defeat Superman. Can you, can you tell me, is this a viable solution, geothermal energy?

GORE: It definitely is, and it's a relatively new one. People think about geothermal energy - when they think about it at all - in terms of the hot water bubbling up in some places, but two kilometers or so down in most places there are these incredibly hot rocks, 'cause the interior of the earth is extremely hot, several million degrees, and the crust of the earth is hot ...
​

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ns_4pzfOSTc&feature=player_embedded"]YouTube - There is only one goddess Gaia and Al Gore is her prophet[/ame]

The geothermal gradient is usually quoted as 25-50 degrees Celsius per mile of depth in normal terrain (not, e.g., in the crater of Kilauea). Two kilometers down, therefore, (that's a mile and a quarter if you're not as science-y as Al) you'll have an average gain of 30-60 degrees - exploitable for things like home heatingView attachment 1993, though not hot enough to make a nice pot of tea. The temperature at the earth's core, 4,000 miles down, is usually quoted as 5,000 degrees Celsius, though these guys claim it's much less, while some contrarian geophysicists have posted claims up to 9,000 degrees. The temperature at the surface of the Sun is around 6,000 degrees Celsius, while at the center, where nuclear fusion is going on bigtime, things get up over 10 million degrees.

If the temperature anywhere inside the earth was "several million degrees," we'd be a star.

Al Gore: Earth's Interior 'Extremely Hot, Several Million Degrees' | NewsBusters.org


This is the idiot that the global warming alarmist have hitched their cart to.
​