Gore Refuses to Take the Pledge

_{March 22, 2007

Culture, Off Topic, Science}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

pledge

Comments

"Now if big AlÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s proposals curtail that pollution then I say 'the end justifies the means', even though the 'means' were misguided." - Joseph The problem with this is that lying or deceiving people to get them to do some good thing is cooercive and manipulative. People won't stand for it forever, and scientists and politicians who do this will eventually destroy their own credibility and the credibility of the institutions they represent.russ_{March 22, 2007
March
03
Mar
22
22
2007
08:17 PM
8
08
17
PM
PDT}

All of us should be antipollution, of course, but perhaps there are folks who do not comprehend the significance of CO2: life is carbon based and where, pray tell, does this carbon come from? From the soil? Or CO2 in the atmosphere? Paul Davies titled his book after the miracle of the fifth day: Ã¢â‚¬Å“Let the waters swarm a swarm of a soul of life [Ã—â„¢Ã–Â´Ã—Â©Ã—ÂÃ–Â°Ã—Â¨Ã–Â°Ã—Â¦Ã—â€¢Ã–Â¼ Ã—â€Ã–Â·Ã—Å¾Ã–Â¼Ã–Â·Ã—â„¢Ã–Â´Ã—Â Ã—Â©Ã—ÂÃ–Â¶Ã—Â¨Ã–Â¶Ã—Â¥ Ã—Â Ã–Â¶Ã—Â¤Ã–Â¶Ã—Â©Ã—Â Ã—â€”Ã–Â·Ã—â„¢Ã–Â¼Ã–Â¸Ã—â€].Ã¢â‚¬Â WeÃ¢â‚¬â„¢re Ã¢â‚¬Å“carbon based life formsÃ¢â‚¬Â tooÃ¢â‚¬â€the apex of the creation, we used to thinkÃ¢â‚¬â€the miracle of the sixth day! And so as we edge toward the end of this sixth millennium perhaps there will be a need for more of that element of lifeÃ¢â‚¬â€the one, pardon my mystical whim, with atomic number six.Rude_{March 22, 2007
March
03
Mar
22
22
2007
11:46 AM
11
11
46
AM
PDT}

JGuy- I understand your point. My point is and always will be anti-pollution. IOW we can't just keep dumping toxic stuff in our water, land and atmosphere. Now if big Al's proposals curtail that pollution then I say "the end justifies the means", even though the "means" were misguided. That is why I asked what will happen if we folow big Al and the climate stays warm- will we revert back to polluting? In that case the misguided "means" would be a bad thing. However in the end you are correct. We should fight pollution for a healthy populace and not because of some bogus CO2 leads to global warming sound bite. ---------------------------------- Dave- I am with you. I too say that a warmer planet (to a point of course) would be a good thing.Joseph_{March 22, 2007
March
03
Mar
22
22
2007
09:35 AM
9
09
35
AM
PDT}

The film the Global Warming Swindle so deftly defeats the argument for global warming, in my opinion, that the discussion should end with the film in every person's mind (though this is still just my opinion).. only let the doubters do futher research and let them get back with us if they find anything proportionately more counter convincing. This Global Warming scam is so transparent that one must simply wonder why a criminal investigation hasn't yet been filed and sent underway.JGuy_{March 22, 2007
March
03
Mar
22
22
2007
08:31 AM
8
08
31
AM
PDT}

Joseph... But anyway- I watched big Al talk to Congress yesterday. And I (still) agree that we should cut down on pollution. But global warming, at it's core, is ONLY about CO2. It's NOT about pollution. This is a globalist tactic we should be aware of.. dont give them the credit to associate CO2 w/ pollution, so that they can use that to justify in other peopl's minds that global warming is good b/c it is anti-pollution. No.. that's the wonrg way to see it.. anti-pollution is anti-pollution. Global warming is only anti-CO2, and it's anti-CO2 in a way that apparently one must be willing to praise a moron as a "prophet".JGuy_{March 22, 2007
March
03
Mar
22
22
2007
08:25 AM
8
08
25
AM
PDT}

Bilbo's points suck. This is all about how consensus science degenerates into ideology that is impervious to contrary data. Global warming dogma mimics evolution dogma in this regard. The aerosol explanation for global cooling was debunked unless it's a volcano doing it which can accelerate the aerosols into the stratosphere. Otherwise it's a local phenomenon that effects surface temperatures near major aerosol sources which happen to be the same places where surface temperatures are measured. Acid rain wasn't falling in Alaska but it was near major industrial centers. If warming merely triggers the release of CO2 from the oceans which then sustains the warming one should see an exponential (positive feedback driven) warming trend but the increase shown from the ice cores is linear and it is always capped. Several other planets in the solar system from Mars to Jupiter to Pluto are also experiencing "global warming". There's no manmade CO2 in those places. The satellite temperature measurements of the troposphere beginning in 1980 are exquisitely accurate and while there were some errors the errors were limited in time and degree. Those measurements have always been calibrated by radiosonde soundings and there was a short time when a transition to a new type radiosonde caused a slight error in one year and in another year there was a satellite with a slight problem. Goddard has admitted no widespread systematic errors except for those two minor discrepancies which don't substantially change anything except for two brief periods of time during the entire 25 year history of measurements. The troposphere is indeed not warming more than the surface and all the models of CO2 warming predict the troposphere should warm faster not slower. The high northern latitudes are warming much faster than the middle northern latitudes and near the equator and in the southern hemisphere there's little if any warming. The antarctic, except the pennisula which sticks out into the circumpolar trade winds, is cooling. Manmade CO2 distributes itself evenly throughout the atmosphere. We should see a more uniform effect across the globe if CO2 was the cause but it isn't. Hansen's global warming forcing factors which are almost all perfectly reflected in the latest IPCC report don't reflect one item - black carbon (soot). Hansen estimated that BC forcing is up to 0.8watts/m^2 while the IPCC report shows only 0.1watts/m^2 for this factor. 0.8 would be the most significant factor in the report outside CO2 if shown at that level. Now the thing about black carbon is it travels for thousands of kilometers from the source but no further. It concentrates on permanent snow and ice fields because as the top layer of snow melts the soot stays on the surface getting blacker and blacker. Anyone who's lived near a soot source where there's snow in the winter knows this from simple observation. I happened to grow up near a major highway where diesel trucks came through constantly year in, year out, and the snow close to the highway got absolutely gross during a melt turning the surface almost black. Black carbon desposits on permanent snow and ice fields in the high northern latitudes, within a few thousand kilometers of the major sources, is exactly where the satellites show the most egregious warming to be taking place. Measurements of earthlight reflected by the moon recently revealed a decline in the earth's total albedo of 2-3%. Any decline over 1% would be enough to significantly effect climate. Clouds, snow, and ice are the major factors effecting albedo although soot accumulation on any light colored surface will do the trick too. I also lived in southern California from 1975 to 1993 and I can assure you that any light colored objects that weren't cleaned regularly turned almost black from soot after a few years. Albedo change along with an increase in solar radiation are the real culprits driving global warming. CO2 as the driver is a manmade bogeyman. We can't do anything about how much light comes from the sun but we can do something about black soot. But the rub there is that black soot today is being generated by poorer countries that burn wood and coal to heat their homes and cook their food, use older dirty diesel engines for transporation, and don't regulate particulate emissions from industrial smokestacks. The United States cleaned up soot emissions a long time ago beginning with the Clean Air Act of 1963 and subsequent revisions making it stricter over the years. Smog in L.A. is virtually gone compared to 30 years ago. But it's not politically correct around the world to blame poor countries for northern hemisphere warming. No no no. They have to blame the United States. We in the U.S. are the bad guys. Everything that's wrong in world is our fault. The U.S. is the world's scapegoat and all the global village whackjobs like Al Gore happily climb onto that bandwagon. CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas. It's not very efficient present in only a few hundred parts per million. It's nowhere near a pollutant at those levels. But what it IS at those levels is fertilizer. Estimates range up to 15% better crop yields due to increased atmospheric CO2 in this century. Add to that recent warming in the nothern hemisphere increasing the growing season and you've got a very real, very large beneficial effect from CO2 and warming. Reverse that trend and billions will probably end up starving to death. We depend on every scrap of agricultural efficiency to feed the world as it stands now and it still isn't quite enough. Making agriculture less productive by boneheaded ideological concerns over a politcal bogeyman is a recipe for disaster. The real threat to the world is consensus science that devolves into unassailable dogma not CO2 emissions. DaveScot_{March 22, 2007
March
03
Mar
22
22
2007
08:01 AM
8
08
01
AM
PDT}

I don't know what problem Bilbo has with this particular blog entry. I admit to not reading all of DaveScot's global warming entries, but this particular one simply points out hypocrisy on the part of an evangelist. It simply shows how seriously Gore himself is taking this so-called threat to our future. He believes in global warming like teenagers who buy Che Guevara T-shirts from the local mall believe in hating capitalism.angryoldfatman_{March 22, 2007
March
03
Mar
22
22
2007
07:44 AM
7
07
44
AM
PDT}

Hey Dave, Did you know this topic has started a "blog war"? Bilbo, over on Telic Thoughts posted the following: Global warming and ID Needless to say he/ she has it pretty much all wrong. But anyway- I watched big Al talk to Congress yesterday. And I (still) agree that we should cut down on pollution. But I did like the back-n-forth between Al and one of the panel members. What I would like to know is what happens if we listen to Al, follow his advice and what is happening now continues? IOW no change comes from all the changes we make to our lives. "The planet has a fever". Yes Al. It used to have the chills. So relative to that chill the planet has a "fever".Joseph_{March 22, 2007
March
03
Mar
22
22
2007
06:16 AM
6
06
16
AM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply