Gore's Inconvenient 9/11 Truth

[Roscoe]

A Cloudy Mystery

August 2007

By Alan Caruba

There’s a reason why one should be extremely wary of the computer models that are cited by the endless doomsday predictions of Al Gore, the UN’s International Panel on Climate Change, and all the other advocates of "global warming."

The reason is clouds. Computer models simply cannot provide for the constant variability of clouds, so they ignore them.

In a July issue of The Economist there was an article, "Grey-Sky thinking" subtitled, "Without understanding clouds, understanding the climate is hard. And clouds are the least understood part of the atmosphere." Since the increasingly rabid claims of Earth’s destruction from rising temperatures depend on computer modeling, how can they be regarded as accurate if they must largely exempt or deliberately manipulate the impact of clouds?

How can you make predictions, whether it’s a week or a decade from now, if you haven’t a clue why clouds do what they do?

Tim Garrett, a research meteorologist at the University of Utah, with refreshing candor has said, "We really do not know what’s going on. There are so many basic unanswered questions on how they (clouds) work." And that is never mentioned in the great "global warming" debate, one we are continuously told is "decided" and upon which there is a vast scientific "consensus."

This is particularly significant because clouds act to both cool and warm the Earth. It is widely believed that high clouds can reflect solar radiation away from the planet, but they can also serve to trap heat in the atmosphere. New studies, however, have given some cause to reconsider this. Moreover, cloud droplets can last for less than a second while whole clouds can live out their lives in minutes or days. There is no way to integrate such massive, constant change into a computer model that divides the world into boxes up to sixty miles on a side, so they mostly do not.

Finish your assignment: http://www.anxietycenter.com/climate/main.htm

[RAZOR]

The only thing that Gore is onto is wanting to make big goverment bigger. The solution to the all his enviromental probems, is goverment. I wonder what he would say was the cause the cause of earth warming in the middle ages, 8th thru 12th century when there were vineyards in England?.
Read some of articles of Richard Lindzen.who is a Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, he certainly doesn't agree with Gore, on his chicken little view of global warming. Also as Professor Lindzen points out their is a unified effort to shut down anyone that has an opposing opinion to Gore and his cronies.

[backafter20]

I'd like to put in a plug for Michael Crighton's book, State of Fear. It's 600 pages, but you can't put it down, and it reads very quickly. It's a work of fiction based on extensively researched scientific data, all on the whole global warming issue, and gives what is probably an accurate assessment of what is really going on. Factual graphics and data at the end are extremely compelling. A good read for those who are so inclined...

[BigGuy]

My response to a email being sent around:

I'm not sure I would pass this on as fact as a quick Internet search shows this information is Very questionable.

When this email says"He points out that of the 500+
scientific studies done on global warming, the percentage that do not
support these conclusions is 0%."

And in less than a Minute I came up with information to the contrary, like this "More than 100 noted scientists, including the former president of the National Academy of Sciences, signed the 1995 Leipzig Declaration stating that costly actions undertaken to reduce greenhouse emissions are not justified by the available scientific evidence."

The information following was the shortest to cut and paste, there are many other articles and educational papers to review. I think this email information does American citizens a disservice, much of the information seems to be pushed by countries with a vested interest in hobbling this country. But then again, because it comes from Al "I invented the Internet" Gore it must be true?!
Take care, Jon

the following is from a quick Google I did of the Internet on Global Warming (there were hundreds of articles and papers that do NOT back Gores assertions:

January 22, 1998
No Evidence for Global Warming
by Edwin J. Feulner, Ph.D.
Welcome to the bizarre world of "global warming."

Late last year, the Clinton administration sent negotiators to Kyoto, Japan, with no scientific proof of "global warming" or that human activity is causing it. The negotiators submitted proposals for curbing U.S. "greenhouse gas" emissions that, according to a study by WEFA Inc., a widely respected economic forecaster, would result in energy price increases of between 50 percent and 200 percent over the next 25 years. Electricity prices could rise from 40 percent to 50 percent, according to the WEFA forecast, and the price of gasoline by 70 cents per gallon. That translates to an increase in the average family's annual electric bill of more than $250, and in the annual cost of gasoline of $200.

But that was just the beginning.

U.S. negotiators then backed down from this preposterous negotiating position, and agreed to even greater emissions reductions than they sought when the talks began—from a reduction in greenhouse gases to 1990 levels to 7 percent below 1990 levels. Add that 7 percent to the 27 percent increase in greenhouse gas emissions that will occur over the next few decades without the treaty, and it turns out U.S. negotiators actually called for a reduction of about 34 percent in the level of U.S. emissions.

All this to combat a "global warming" crisis that can't be verified by the scientific community. Extensive polling has revealed nothing like the kind of consensus the administration is claiming for the idea that the world is facing a global-warming catastrophe or that human activity is responsible. More than 100 noted scientists, including the former president of the National Academy of Sciences, signed the 1995 Leipzig Declaration stating that costly actions undertaken to reduce greenhouse emissions are not justified by the available scientific evidence.

Even the scientist who first warned Vice President Al Gore about global warming, Roger Revelle, wrote shortly before his death: "The scientific basis for greenhouse warming is too uncertain to justify drastic action at this time." Responsible environmentalism is one thing—but don't you think we ought to be sure this thing is happening before we make a huge economic sacrifice for it?

Few Americans understand what's really going on. Hint: The conservative revolution has robbed liberals of a vehicle for expanding the size and power of government. But a long-term environmental crisis, even one manufactured by alarmists, could change that.

The global-warming scenario provides advocates of big government with an excuse for tapping into the lifeline of the U.S. economy for the foreseeable future. Better yet, the current president will be long gone before most of the belt-tightening begins to pinch.

The U.S. Senate should shut this one down before it goes any further.



THIS is the original email I received Advertising AL Gore movie that I took issue with:

In a message dated 3/20/2007 4:04:33 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, cibrz2000@yahoo.com writes:
Note: forwarded message attached.
__________________________________________________ __________________________________


“An Inconvenient Truth”

Al Gore is traveling the world with the courage of his convictions and
with conviction in his heart to show everyone what is happening to our
beloved home, earth.

His film is excellent and I am committed to help spread the word about
global warming in honor of the effect of this film on me. If you have
not watched it yet, please do, and if you have invite folks over and
watch it again, enjoy an evening of deep, invigorating, and enlivening
discussion, and then make a commitment yourself

Some have called it apocalyptic, but the real possibilities are backed
by years of scientific investigation. He points out that of the 500+
scientific studies done on global warming, the percentage that do not
support these conclusions is 0%.

He is testifying before congress tomorrow and taking postcards from
everyone who signs in support of attending to the global warming issue.
Please take a moment to lend your support.

I thank you.

Holly

“Thank you for helping me take this crucial message to Congress.

On March 21st, I'm going to hand-deliver your messages on television
when I testify at Congressional hearings on global warming.

This is an incredible opportunity to show Congress the energy behind
this issue. I need your help to really make it count. Can you commit to
getting 10 of your friends to sign a message to Congress before March
21st?

To get your friends involved in our effort, please forward them this
note or direct them to:

http://www.algore.com/cards.html

Thank you,
-Al Gore

[Wes Tausend]

Originally Posted by BigGuy

My response to a email being sent around:

I'm not sure I would pass this on as fact as a quick Internet search shows this information is Very questionable.

When this email says"He points out that of the 500+
scientific studies done on global warming, the percentage that do not
support these conclusions is 0%."

And in less than a Minute I came up with information to the contrary, like this "More than 100 noted scientists, including the former president of the National Academy of Sciences, signed the 1995 Leipzig Declaration stating that costly actions undertaken to reduce greenhouse emissions are not justified by the available scientific evidence."

The information following was the shortest to cut and paste, there are many other articles and educational papers to review. I think this email information does American citizens a disservice, much of the information seems to be pushed by countries with a vested interest in hobbling this country. But then again, because it comes from Al "I invented the Internet" Gore it must be true?!
Take care, Jon

the following is from a quick Google I did of the Internet on Global Warming (there were hundreds of articles and papers that do NOT back Gores assertions:

January 22, 1998
No Evidence for Global Warming
by Edwin J. Feulner, Ph.D.
Welcome to the bizarre world of "global warming."

Late last year, the Clinton administration sent negotiators to Kyoto, Japan, with no scientific proof of "global warming" or that human activity is causing it. The negotiators submitted proposals for curbing U.S. "greenhouse gas" emissions that, according to a study by WEFA Inc., a widely respected economic forecaster, would result in energy price increases of between 50 percent and 200 percent over the next 25 years. Electricity prices could rise from 40 percent to 50 percent, according to the WEFA forecast, and the price of gasoline by 70 cents per gallon. That translates to an increase in the average family's annual electric bill of more than $250, and in the annual cost of gasoline of $200.

But that was just the beginning.

U.S. negotiators then backed down from this preposterous negotiating position, and agreed to even greater emissions reductions than they sought when the talks began—from a reduction in greenhouse gases to 1990 levels to 7 percent below 1990 levels. Add that 7 percent to the 27 percent increase in greenhouse gas emissions that will occur over the next few decades without the treaty, and it turns out U.S. negotiators actually called for a reduction of about 34 percent in the level of U.S. emissions.

All this to combat a "global warming" crisis that can't be verified by the scientific community. Extensive polling has revealed nothing like the kind of consensus the administration is claiming for the idea that the world is facing a global-warming catastrophe or that human activity is responsible. More than 100 noted scientists, including the former president of the National Academy of Sciences, signed the 1995 Leipzig Declaration stating that costly actions undertaken to reduce greenhouse emissions are not justified by the available scientific evidence.

Even the scientist who first warned Vice President Al Gore about global warming, Roger Revelle, wrote shortly before his death: "The scientific basis for greenhouse warming is too uncertain to justify drastic action at this time." Responsible environmentalism is one thing—but don't you think we ought to be sure this thing is happening before we make a huge economic sacrifice for it?

Few Americans understand what's really going on. Hint: The conservative revolution has robbed liberals of a vehicle for expanding the size and power of government. But a long-term environmental crisis, even one manufactured by alarmists, could change that.

The global-warming scenario provides advocates of big government with an excuse for tapping into the lifeline of the U.S. economy for the foreseeable future. Better yet, the current president will be long gone before most of the belt-tightening begins to pinch.

The U.S. Senate should shut this one down before it goes any further.



THIS is the original email I received Advertising AL Gore movie that I took issue with:

In a message dated 3/20/2007 4:04:33 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, cibrz2000@yahoo.com writes:
Note: forwarded message attached.
__________________________________________________ __________________________________


“An Inconvenient Truth”

Al Gore is traveling the world with the courage of his convictions and
with conviction in his heart to show everyone what is happening to our
beloved home, earth.

His film is excellent and I am committed to help spread the word about
global warming in honor of the effect of this film on me. If you have
not watched it yet, please do, and if you have invite folks over and
watch it again, enjoy an evening of deep, invigorating, and enlivening
discussion, and then make a commitment yourself

Some have called it apocalyptic, but the real possibilities are backed
by years of scientific investigation. He points out that of the 500+
scientific studies done on global warming, the percentage that do not
support these conclusions is 0%.

He is testifying before congress tomorrow and taking postcards from
everyone who signs in support of attending to the global warming issue.
Please take a moment to lend your support.

I thank you.

Holly

“Thank you for helping me take this crucial message to Congress.

On March 21st, I'm going to hand-deliver your messages on television
when I testify at Congressional hearings on global warming.

This is an incredible opportunity to show Congress the energy behind
this issue. I need your help to really make it count. Can you commit to
getting 10 of your friends to sign a message to Congress before March
21st?

To get your friends involved in our effort, please forward them this
note or direct them to:

http://www.algore.com/cards.html

Thank you,
-Al Gore

================================================== =======\

Jon,

Thanks.

This aptly illustrates the problem. Many are not comprehending what they'e reading. It must be like JC with the high IQ says.

Late last year, the Clinton administration sent negotiators to Kyoto, Japan...
Electricity prices could rise from 40 percent to 50 percent, according to the WEFA forecast, and the price of gasoline by 70 cents per gallon...

Gas is already past this increase and we can expect about another $1/gal every couple years. Clinton hasn't been in office for nearly 8 years.

It's a new world. We'd better have far more government control in the future and far less corporate control. Especially fossil fuel mega-corporations where we can't even vote public policy.

Imagine, "I'm from the corporation and I'm here to help you". Right.



...

[Wes Tausend]

...



First the killer temperatures due to extra warm weather ...and now this on top of it:

( http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21491206/?GT1=10450 )

Criminy...

...

[427 S/O]

Here ya' go.....

The lesson? It is difficult to predict the hurricane activity. Bill Grey used his hypotheses about decadal cycles. Advocates of the global warming theory have used their universally dark picture of the future to make similar predictions. All of them were spectacularly wrong. I don't know whether the hurricane science can ever become predictive, reliable, and quantitative, but it is clear that their field is not yet there now.

You should also notice how the discussions about possible links between the hurricanes and the CO2 emissions dramatically evaporated. Whenever record cold temperatures are broken somewhere, the global warming apologists immediately tell you that you are not allowed to talk about them because it is just weather.

Last year when we happened to see many hurricanes which - you might think - are also just weather, they would be speculating about the links between the hurricane intensity and the CO2 emissions. Some of the slightly more honest ones wouldn't directly argue that these two things are linked because there is clearly no evidence - but they still wanted you to think about this possible link.

That's the most efficient way to create myths: if you induce the atmosphere in which the laymen start to invent these irrational relationships themselves, you're the winner.

In 2006, with the hurricane rate plummeting by 70 percent from 2005, they no longer invite you to think about such links because such a reasoning could have the opposite effect than they want: it could lead to you think that our activity is actually making things safer with time instead of more dangerous because the hurricanes are disappearing as we pump record amounts of CO2 into air. Needless to say, neither of these two conclusions can be supported by any existing statistically significant data or reliable theories.

The global warming theory with its possible impact on the hurricanes or anything else you can think about is just a new example of an old, pre-historical form of religion. Ten thousand years ago, people would be afraid of many things and they would invent irrational links between them and gods who were responsible for them but they didn't yet know how to look at all these phenomena without bias, how to eliminate wrong hypotheses, and how make scientifically justifiable conclusions.

Unfortunately, Marx was qualitatively right in this case: the history resembles a spiral. The believers in these very primitive forms of religion have the same logic as their counterparts who lived 10,000 years ago but they have much more powerful tools to cause damage which could be a reason to be concerned.

And that's the memo.

Posted by Lumo, and I don't know if that's his first or last name.