Interesting GW video by the founder of the Weather Channel

[tom502]

That is so cereal!

[sgreger1]

He looks super cerial...

[justintempler]

You like to make fun of Al Gore :roll:

I'll take Al Gore over a James Inhofe anyday

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/tVf5MzSUDuI&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed>

I'll take Al Gore over a Lord Moncktom anyday

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ne-X_vFWMlw&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed>

[sgreger1]

Oh, wait, Justin, do you mean to imply that it is somehow annoying when others label you as being a follower of someone that you are not? When someone repeatedly, oh I dunno, maybe makes fun of Glenn Beck or fox news on every post?

:roll:

[justintempler]

I'm not annoyed at all.

You don't understand the difference between being a follower of someone and sharing the same position of someone. Glenn Beck is a hell of a lot closer to your views than Al Gore is.

I'm not an Al Gore fan because he likes to over dramatize things a bit too much but I'll take the science behind him over the science behind Glenn Beck anyday.

Everytime the global warming debate comes up Al Gore is a favorite whipping boy. So how fair is it that, it's OK for you to associate my position with Gore but It's not OK for me to associate Glenn Beck with your position?

A little hypocritical wouldn't you say?

But that's OK there's no shortage of other crazy people on your side, besides Beck, you've got Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Alex Jones, Inhofe, Monckton.

[sgreger1]

Everytime the global warming debate comes up Al Gore is a favorite whipping boy. So how fair is it that, it's OK for you to associate my position with Gore but It's not OK for me to associate Glenn Beck with your position?

A little hypocritical wouldn't you say?

This is what I was trying to point out to you. Every time a political debate comes up you group me in with Glenn Beck and assume I am a dilligent follower, and then go on to attack Glenn Beck thinking that it somehow defeats me. Glenn Beck is your favorite whipping boy. So when I do it about Al Gore, you suddenly try to distance yourself from him with comments like "hes too extreme" etc. I'm just pointing out that it's the same thing you do to others, chose someone who agrees with them on a particular subject and then assign them as a follower of said person, and attack the person instead of the issue at hand.

But that's all irrelivent, I doubt most pro-global warming people, including yourself, actually think Al Gore is anything but another poltician using it for his personal gain.

[Slydel]

I believe that there is a lot of debate about GW because the science behind it is flimsy and both sides believe that there is a lot to lose if their side does not prevail.

I find it interesting that you trust science in every other area of your life but the one that you don't agree with, you have a problem with it.

NASA can get us to the moon and back but when it comes to global climate change you'd have us believe they don't have a clue what they are talking about.

I'm not going to twist your arm, believe whatever you want.

Yes, I do trust science in a lot of areas of my life, my job as a chemist relies heavily upon the science that humanity has gained from years of experimentation. Theories that are postulated can be proven. Theories based on immensely multi-variable systems are very hard to prove especially when the system is so chaotic. Correlations can be derived though, which do not prove the theory, yet show that there is a relationship. I have not denied that there is a direct correlation between CO2 and increased global temperature. You must agree though that the variance of such postulated temperature increases are so wide that it would seem to anyone that has an even minimal background in data analysis would make them somewhat skeptical. What bothers me is that people are willing to accept what the media is espousing with the majority of scientist and taking it as fact. Here is the run down of what the average US citizen is being told: 1) GW is occurring (we accept this as believable since there is data that can back it up, but some believe it is skewed because temperature readings are being affected due to urbanization) 2) Global temperature increase will cause the increase of ocean levels, true if you are sure point 1 is true-but how much will the oceans rise?. 3) Global warming and the increase in oceanic levels will wreak havoc on our planet if not reversed. I say, how the hell can that be proven? 4) Preventative action must be taken to save our planet. I say, the legislation that has been introduced would not go far enough to make a dent in reducing CO2 levels if we assume the theories are even remotely correct.

So the reduction of C02 that might occur if current proposed legislation were to be enacted will do little good but cause great harm through increased taxation and the destruction of property rights.

On a separate note: I have a sparked a debate which I am seem to be notorious. Maybe I should have remained away longer? I respect Justin and his ideas, thoughts, and beliefs. We seem to differ on so many things (I used to think that he was a forum saboteur but he has been around for too damn long. Maybe he is persistent saboteur, but I think not). Continue to disagree with him and myself. The only time that I was justified at being pissed off is when someone inferred that I was an idiot. May no one do that here. Unless PP wants to call me an idiot. Then that is ok. We try to make him feel special no matter what he might type on these pages.

[sgreger1]

I say, the legislation that has been introduced would not go far enough to make a dent in reducing CO2 levels if we assume the theories are even remotely correct.

Exactly. Assuming the theories are correct, what is being proposed? Will it fix the problem? Regardless if AGW is happening, just giving in without question is not healthy, especially when the proposed measures to combat it will have a negative effect on the economy during time of recession, and also further strip us of property rights.

[justintempler]

The problem is you guys spend too much time listening to the talking heads and not enough time watching the actual science.

People like John Coleman use their credentials to spread disinformation and anyone that doesn't want to face facts eats it up.

case in point.

You guys talk about governement waste and about the governemnet being secretive.

http://www.allgov.com/ViewNews/In_Re...entists_100106

In Reverse of Bush Policy, CIA to Share Data with Scientists
Wednesday, January 06, 2010
Leading scientists from academia, industry and government are now gaining access to information on climate change that’s collected by spy agencies. The data, which includes high resolution images taken from intelligence satellites, is helping researchers better understand changes happening to the earth as a result of global warming, such as melting ice at the poles and expanding deserts. The CIA, led by Director Leon Panetta, is running the collaborative effort that shares classified information with about 60 scientists, and the National Reconnaissance Office, which operates the nation’s fleet of spy satellites, is providing much of the data.

The program is not something new. From 1992 to 2001 Medea (Measurements of Earth Data for Environmental Analysis) shared intelligence information with scientists—until President George W. Bush shut it down. Former Vice President Al Gore is credited with helping restart the collaboration by urging Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, to convince the CIA and others it was time to bring Medea back to life.

The resources are there, the photos already exist, this is data that can be shared without NASA having to waste millions of dollars to lauch satellites to duplicate information that already exists. There is no diversion of resources. This is about information sharing. And what do the nut jobs do with it?

Turn into a conspiracy of course......

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010...change-cia.php

Hannity, Ever Wrong, Says CIA Is Diverting Resources For Climate Change
by Daniel Kessler, San Francisco, California on 01. 6.10

Did you know that the CIA is distracted by climate change and is diverting resources on global warming that should be spent on counter terrorism? It's true. Ask Sean Hannity and ExxonMobil. Said Hannity last night on his TV program: "The CIA director redirects manpower to monitor climate change, but is it all the cost -- at the cost of our security, your security, your family's security? "[i]n the wake of the attempted Christmas Day terror attack, you would think the spies at the CIA, that they would have their hands full securing America. But, believe it or not, assets at Langley are being used for other projects."

Where did Hannity get his info. From National Center for Public Policy Research (NCPPR), sponsored by Exxon, that's where. In a press release, they said, "As terrorists continue to infiltrate America, the Obama Administration is tasking some of our nation's most elite intelligence-gathering agencies to divert their resources to environmental scientists researching global warming."


Sadly for Hannity, the intelligence community says that the information sharing has no impact at all on counter-terorrism efforts. In a New York Times article, officials said:

The monitoring program has little or no impact on regular intelligence gathering, federal officials said, but instead releases secret information already collected or takes advantage of opportunities to record environmental data when classified sensors are otherwise idle or passing over wilderness.

$ Exxon -> $ National Center for Public Policy Research -> $ Hannity -> You



Follow the money.

[justintempler]

I'm surpised no one has said..

"Look how cold it is across the USA right now, global warming is a hoax"

Only the first part is right, and over Russia too. But we're not talking USA Climate change. Look at the Arctic and Europe.





http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2010/010510.html

[justintempler]

I say, the legislation that has been introduced would not go far enough to make a dent in reducing CO2 levels if we assume the theories are even remotely correct.

Exactly. Assuming the theories are correct, what is being proposed? Will it fix the problem? Regardless if AGW is happening, just giving in without question is not healthy, especially when the proposed measures to combat it will have a negative effect on the economy during time of recession, and also further strip us of property rights.

So the billion dollars a month that we ship overseas to pay for oil is good for the American Dollar?

What are going to do when the Chinese economy keeps growing and they have our dollars to outbid us on the price of oil?

Then...... we'll start to develop green technolgy jobs?

Oh that's right we won't need to, cuz China will already have beat us to the punch.

Population China 1,335,120,000
Population India 1,175,240,000
Population USA 308,313,000

What you going to do say "pretty please China can we have of our dollars back so we can buy some oil.." :roll:

[justintempler]

We seem to differ on so many things (I used to think that he was a forum saboteur but he has been around for too damn long. Maybe he is persistent saboteur, but I think not).

Some people spend hours playing video games....
Debating on the internet is my video game. :wink:

I've had a lot of practice debating fundamentalist Christian creationists on YouTube. :lol: :lol: :lol:

[justintempler]

Everytime the global warming debate comes up Al Gore is a favorite whipping boy. So how fair is it that, it's OK for you to associate my position with Gore but It's not OK for me to associate Glenn Beck with your position?

A little hypocritical wouldn't you say?

This is what I was trying to point out to you. Every time a political debate comes up you group me in with Glenn Beck and assume I am a dilligent follower, and then go on to attack Glenn Beck thinking that it somehow defeats me. Glenn Beck is your favorite whipping boy. So when I do it about Al Gore, you suddenly try to distance yourself from him with comments like "hes too extreme" etc. I'm just pointing out that it's the same thing you do to others, chose someone who agrees with them on a particular subject and then assign them as a follower of said person, and attack the person instead of the issue at hand.

But that's all irrelivent, I doubt most pro-global warming people, including yourself, actually think Al Gore is anything but another poltician using it for his personal gain.

suddenly distance myself??????

http://www.snuson.com/posting.php?mode=quote&p=114168

texasmade,
Yes some of global warming happens because of natural cycles but 6 billion people burning fossil fuels has accelerated it.

Governments have to deal with the consequences, How about New Orleans, do you spend billions more on canals, pumps, dykes? Do you build that multibillion dollar ice cutter for the artic if there is no ice? Do you spend billions building a water pipeline for Las Vegas to deliver water from mountain snowfall runoff that isn't there? How about pest control affecting our food crops? How about the spread of disease under a changing climate?

RRK,
No I haven't. that's human nature though, it happens on both sides. I've seen plenty of lies and deceit from the deniers, it wouldn't surprise me the "other" side is guilty of some of it too. I'm not a big fan of Al Gore but that doesn't change the underlying facts.

When NOAA and NASA change their minds about global warming I'll be happy to follow along. Until then I'll let the professionals handle it. 8)

At least your being fair, because both sides do lie, like always. But my only question is they tried to tie a warming trend to Co2 emissions, yet in recent years CO2 emissions have raised while warming has slowed. So you can no longer draw a corolation between the two. They don't have accurate enough climate models to predict the future yet. In the past they claimed there was global cooling, then they said global warming will destroy us in 50 years, then now they are saying that GW has stopped and will probbaly col for 30 years then resume. They don't have accurate enough predictions for me to trust them enough to impose taxes etc to fix it.

Its just another sell out to corporations like always.

sgreger1,

I'm not backing away from Al Gore, I support the science that backs him up minus his scare tactics of presenting the worst case scenarios.

So fill me in. Where is the science behind your position or are you just basing your opinions on the fear of the unknown?

You keep repeating talking points like the global cooling crap, or talking about CO2 rising while warming has slowed....
You're not getting these from scientists, they're coming from talking heads like Beck.

If you have some secret source for this information please share it.

[justintempler]

Here's another one of your washed up "global warming is a conspiracy experts"

He was the "deep throat character" in the Jesse Ventura - Conspiracy Theory - Global Warming show you guys were all excited about a few weeks ago.

He's one of the kooks that was preaching about global cooling that you guys point at when you try to discredit the real scientists.


Dr. Tim Ball, Historical Climatologist: On the real danger for Canada, global cooling"

And now all of a sudden he's your expert to prove global warming is a hoax.
..... and if by some chance global warming is really really happening, no worries, he actually thinks global warming is good.

Warmer is better: Junk Science Week

He's bought and paid for by big oil

5 January 10
Hilarious Conspiracy Movie Features Lesser Canadian Denier
Tags: Desmogblog, Richard Littlemore
Tim Ball "on the outskirts of civilization"

A Jesse Ventura conspiracy theory video, warning that "global warming is a plot by a powerful cabal out to extort, tax and control you and every one of us," features an incompetently disguised Dr. Timothy Ball playing the part of a scientist who is hiding "on the outskirts of civilization" in fear for his life.

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Rao4eyJXOWk&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed>

The video is a production of "Tru TV" - some YouTube wannabe - and it begins with some spooky looking West Coast weather and a ditzy researcher saying, "I admit, I'm worried. Once we're on the other side, I'll be out of cell phone range."

Scary! Except she is quite clearly riding a BC Ferry through the high-priced real estate of the Canadian Gulf Islands on her way to Tim Ball's hometown of Victoria, B.C. She was likely in more danger - and about the same distance from "civilization" - while trying to get her manicure kit through customs in the Vancouver airport.

For the record, and contrary to the video voiceover, Tim Ball has never stood "at the top of his field," unless purjering on behalf of Calgary oil and gas companies turns out to be a scientific specialty.

For most viewers, Ventura's breathless theorizing is fall-down funny, except for the risk that some people might take the buffoonery seriously. But portraying Tim Ball as some towering academic who is cowering out of the limelight is incredibly dishonest, especially when you can Google Ball on YouTube and find that even two weeks earlier, he was grabbing the chance to promote himself as an esteemed denier of record.

If Jesse "The Body" Ventura has something to say, he might try making his point without the phony melodrama. Otherwise, like Ball, he comes off as just another washed up hack, trying to leverage the fake controversy about climate change to get attention.

http://www.desmogblog.com/hilarious-...anadian-denier



I'm going to take a break from this subject for awhile and let some of this stuff sink in................

[sgreger1]

The problem is you guys spend too much time listening to the talking heads and not enough time watching the actual science.

People like John Coleman use their credentials to spread disinformation and anyone that doesn't want to face facts eats it up.

case in point.

You guys talk about governement waste and about the governemnet being secretive.

http://www.allgov.com/ViewNews/In_Re...entists_100106

In Reverse of Bush Policy, CIA to Share Data with Scientists
Wednesday, January 06, 2010
Leading scientists from academia, industry and government are now gaining access to information on climate change that’s collected by spy agencies. The data, which includes high resolution images taken from intelligence satellites, is helping researchers better understand changes happening to the earth as a result of global warming, such as melting ice at the poles and expanding deserts. The CIA, led by Director Leon Panetta, is running the collaborative effort that shares classified information with about 60 scientists, and the National Reconnaissance Office, which operates the nation’s fleet of spy satellites, is providing much of the data.

The program is not something new. From 1992 to 2001 Medea (Measurements of Earth Data for Environmental Analysis) shared intelligence information with scientists—until President George W. Bush shut it down. Former Vice President Al Gore is credited with helping restart the collaboration by urging Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, to convince the CIA and others it was time to bring Medea back to life.

The resources are there, the photos already exist, this is data that can be shared without NASA having to waste millions of dollars to lauch satellites to duplicate information that already exists. There is no diversion of resources. This is about information sharing. And what do the nut jobs do with it?

Turn into a conspiracy of course......

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010...change-cia.php

Hannity, Ever Wrong, Says CIA Is Diverting Resources For Climate Change
by Daniel Kessler, San Francisco, California on 01. 6.10

Did you know that the CIA is distracted by climate change and is diverting resources on global warming that should be spent on counter terrorism? It's true. Ask Sean Hannity and ExxonMobil. Said Hannity last night on his TV program: "The CIA director redirects manpower to monitor climate change, but is it all the cost -- at the cost of our security, your security, your family's security? "[i]n the wake of the attempted Christmas Day terror attack, you would think the spies at the CIA, that they would have their hands full securing America. But, believe it or not, assets at Langley are being used for other projects."

Where did Hannity get his info. From National Center for Public Policy Research (NCPPR), sponsored by Exxon, that's where. In a press release, they said, "As terrorists continue to infiltrate America, the Obama Administration is tasking some of our nation's most elite intelligence-gathering agencies to divert their resources to environmental scientists researching global warming."


Sadly for Hannity, the intelligence community says that the information sharing has no impact at all on counter-terorrism efforts. In a New York Times article, officials said:

The monitoring program has little or no impact on regular intelligence gathering, federal officials said, but instead releases secret information already collected or takes advantage of opportunities to record environmental data when classified sensors are otherwise idle or passing over wilderness.

$ Exxon -> $ National Center for Public Policy Research -> $ Hannity -> You



Follow the money.

I have no problem with the CIA collaborating with scientists, that's what they should be doing. It doesn't take any energy from their regular duty as all they'r really doing is giving them access to stuff, not helping them collaborate and prove global warming using agency resources, just declassifying some of their sattelite data. Not a big deal.