• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Questions for Al Gore

Cal

Well-known member
http://patriotpost.us/news/questions.asp
Questions for Al Gore
By Dr. Roy Spencer
25 May 2006

Gore's Inconvenient Truth....

Dear Mr. Gore:

I have just seen your new movie, "An Inconvenient Truth," about the threat that global warming presents to humanity. I think you did a very good job of explaining global warming theory, and your presentation was effective. Please convey my compliments to your good friend, Laurie David, for a job well done.

As a climate scientist myself -- you might remember me...I'm the one you mistook for your "good friend," UK scientist Phil Jones during my congressional testimony some years back -- I have a few questions that occurred to me while watching the movie.

1) Why did you make it look like hurricanes, tornadoes, wildfires, floods, droughts, and ice calving off of glaciers and falling into the ocean, are only recent phenomena associated with global warming? You surely know that hurricane experts have been warning congress for many years that the natural cycle in hurricanes would return some day, and that our built-up coastlines were ripe for a disaster (like Katrina, which you highlighted in the movie). And as long as snow continues to fall on glaciers, they will continue to flow downhill toward the sea. Yet you made it look like these things wouldn't happen if it weren't for global warming. Also, since there are virtually no measures of severe weather showing a recent increase, I assume those graphs you showed actually represented damage increases, which are well known to be simply due to greater population and wealth. Is that right?

2) Why did you make it sound like all scientists agree that climate change is manmade and not natural? You mentioned a recent literature review study that supposedly found no peer-reviewed articles that attributed climate change to natural causes (a non-repeatable study which has since been refuted....I have a number of such articles in my office!) You also mentioned how important it is to listen to scientists when they warn us, yet surely you know that almost all past scientific predictions of gloom and doom have been wrong. How can we trust scientists' predictions now?

3) I know you still must feel bad about the last presidential election being stolen from you, but why did you have to make fun of Republican presidents (Reagan; both Bushes) for their views on global warming? The points you made in the movie might have had wider appeal if you did not alienate so many moviegoers in this manner.

4) Your presentation showing the past 650,000 years of atmospheric temperature and carbon dioxide reconstructions from ice cores was very effective. But I assume you know that some scientists view the CO2 increases as the result of, rather than the cause of, past temperature increases. It seems unlikely that CO2 variations have been the dominant cause of climate change for hundreds of thousands of years. And now that there is a new source of carbon dioxide emissions (people), those old relationships are probably not valid anymore. Why did you give no hint of these alternative views?

5) When you recounted your 6-year-old son's tragic accident that nearly killed him, I thought that you were going to make the point that, if you had lived in a poor country like China or India, your son would have probably died. But then you later held up these countries as model examples for their low greenhouse gas emissions, without mentioning that the only reason their emissions were so low was because people in those countries are so poor. I'm confused...do you really want us to live like the poor people in India and China?

6) There seems to be a lot of recent concern that more polar bears are drowning these days because of disappearing sea ice. I assume you know that polar bears have always migrated to land in late summer when sea ice naturally melts back, and then return to the ice when it re-freezes. Also, if this was really happening, why did the movie have to use a computer generated animation of the poor polar bear swimming around looking for ice? Haven't there been any actual observations of this happening? Also, temperature measurements in the arctic suggest that it was just as warm there in the 1930's...before most greenhouse gas emissions. Don't you ever wonder whether sea ice concentrations back then were low, too?

7) Why did you make it sound like simply signing on to the Kyoto Protocol to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions would be such a big step forward, when we already know it will have no measurable effect on global temperatures anyway? And even though it represents such a small emission reduction, the economic pain Kyoto causes means that almost no developed country will be meeting its emission reductions commitments under that treaty, as we are now witnessing in Europe.

8) At the end of the movie, you made it sound like we can mostly fix the global warming problem by conserving energy... you even claimed we can reduce our carbon emissions to zero. But I'm sure you know that this will only be possible with major technological advancements, including a probable return to nuclear power as an energy source. Why did you not mention this need for technological advancement and nuclear power? It is because that would support the current (Republican) Administration's view?

Mr. Gore, I think we can both agree that if it was relatively easy for mankind to stop emitting so much carbon dioxide, that we should do so. You are a very smart person, so I can't understand why you left so many important points unmentioned, and you made it sound so easy.

I wish you well in these efforts, and I hope that humanity will make the right choices based upon all of the information we have on the subject of global warming. I agree with you that global warming is indeed a "moral issue," and if we are to avoid doing more harm than good with misguided governmental policies, we will need more politicians to be educated on the issue.

Your "Good Friend,"

Dr. Roy W. Spencer

Dr. Roy Spencer is a principal research scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville and the U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA's Aqua satellite. In the past, he has served as Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama. ??Dr. Spencer is the recipient of NASA's Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement and the American Meteorological Society's Special Award for his satellite-based temperature monitoring work. He is the author of numerous scientific articles that have appeared in Science, Nature, Journal of Climate, Monthly Weather Review, Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology, Journal of Climate and Applied Meteorology, Remote Sensing Reviews, Advances in Space Research, and Climatic Change. Dr. Spencer received his Ph.D. in Meteorology from the University of Wisconsin in 1981.
 

Brad S

Well-known member
So, global warming would be the religion of the left? Or should we ignore any thuth raised by Coulter because someone wimpered that she is mean?
 

Econ101

Well-known member
If global warming is true, it should not be considered a religion, as you put it Brad. It is just another thing we have to deal with.

Like the eminant SS crisis, both problems can be diffused to some degree with effort planning and sacrifice now.

Can we decrease our carbon footprint now? Our economy is so dependent on the free release of carbon, I don't see how. How do we get China to do it?

I don't think blaming it on cattle pooping out on the range is the solution.
 

nonothing

Well-known member
Global Warming




The cause is oceans heating, not greenhouse gases.

Global warming is another place in science where motives have overridden the evidence, as occurred with relativity, fluoride and prions.

Everything in the atmosphere is a greenhouse gas including water vapor which is a hundred times more prevalent than carbon dioxide. People are given the false impression that it's all about CO2.

The atmosphere is only 0.04% carbon dioxide, of which only 3% stems from human activity. Therefore, human activity cannot create global warming stemming from carbon dioxide.

The amount of CO2 presently in the air absorbs nearly all available radiation at its peaks of 2.7, 4.3 and 15 µM; so more CO2 cannot absorb more radiation. External Link

The oceans regulate CO2 in the atmosphere to the minutest detail, as indicated by an El Nino in the Pacific Ocean, which causes CO2 measurements in the air to increase, and then they renormalize when the El Nino disappears. External Link

The oceans are heating up, and the atmosphere is not. The result is polar ice caps melting and increased rainfall. This points to a hot spot in the earth's core heating the oceans, not human activity.
Nature Study
Same at Greenland
Ice Age Theory.

Seventeen thousand scientists signed a petition saying humans producing carbon dioxide is not the cause of global warming. External Link


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary

Global warming is occurring due to oceans heating, not greenhouse gases. The oceans are heating due to hot spots rotating in the earth's core, which is the cause of ice ages.

Oceans regulate the amount of CO2 in the air, as indicated by the chemistry and the stability over time at extremely low levels. Otherwise there would a large amount in the air, and it would fluctuate drastically (like smog does).

Principles of chemistry indicate that regulation by oceans must be absolute. CO2 disolving in water establishes an equilibrium. Equilibrium means absolute regulation.

Production and sequestration of CO2 are totally irrelevant, because they do not regulate. They would leave excessive and highly varied amounts in the air, if oceans were not regulating.

Main Points

The effect of so-called greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide is extremely minuscule.

1) Only 3% of the CO2 in the air results from human activity.

2) CO2 is already aborbing all available radiation at its peaks of 2.7, 4.3 and 15 µM; so more CO2 does not absorb more.

3) The atmosphere is heated by conduction and convection from the surface, but propagandist imply that only radiation is involved.

4) The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is not determined by production, because it is regulated by the oceans. Cold oceans absorbs more, and warm oceans release more back into the atmosphere.

5) The 30% increase in atmospheric CO2 over the past century indicates oceans heating (due to other causes), and it is too minuscule to be relevant. It is an indicator, not cause, of oceans heating.

6) Air has a much lower heat capacity than water, which means oceans can heat the air, but the air cannot significantly heat the oceans.

7) Water in the air is a greenhouse gas which swamps the others. It is about a hundred times more prevalent than CO2 in clear air, and much more significant on a cloudy day.

8) When el Nino heats the Pacific, CO2 increases in the atmosphere; and after El Nino, it normalizes. It wouldn't normalize if oceans were not reabsorbing the CO2. And if oceans can reabsorb that CO2, they can absorb any other CO2.

9) Global warming has been continuous for about 20,000 years, as always occurs between ice ages, not just the past 150 years which propagandists refer to.

10) Plants need more CO2 to grow on. Their growth increases substantially when more CO2 is provided. The oceans had to be large to aquify the planet, but then they absorbed too much CO2 for good plant growth.




http://nov55.com/gbwm.html
 

Cal

Well-known member
Poor Al, global warming is so easy for him to believe, but evidence against Saddam just doesn't seem possible.
 

Brad S

Well-known member
Econ, the reason I say global warming is the religion of the left (to steal/extrapolate from Ann Coulter's real point that got over shadowed by her badspeak) because there is no proof of greenhouse/global warming that all the left believes in. That ain't science that's religion.


Social Security's continued existance IS the real crisis. Tax me 15% and give me enough money back to buy catfood (to eat). That's the plan? Let me invest 5% and I'll retire rich and young - ofcourse if everyone became investors, there wouldn't be many still supporting that socialist crap of the Democrats.
 

Cal

Well-known member
Had to ad this bit from Boortz:

Monday , June 26, 2006

GLOBAL WARMING

It looks like global warming is quickly moving to front and center as the big story right now. Magazines, newspapers, movies, television ... all full of specials on the grave threat to all mankind posed by the horrible global warming that is consuming our planet even as we speak. I read one column over the weekend warning the Wall Street financiers of New York City to become really involved in the global warming menace because, after all, their precious Wall Street will be under water within 40 years if they don't.

Since the media is relentlessly harping on the global warming theme, we're going to go ahead at the Boortz show and do our homework. We'll read as much as the available material as we can get our hands on, and will make sure that we get information from scientists who actually work in this field and who do not work for the government. Those of you who listen to the show know that I'm skeptical of this whole global warming frenzy .. but I'll try to keep an open mind here.

In the meantime ... here are just a few little factoids for you to play around with, factoids that cause me to doubt that whatever global warming we're experiencing can be blamed on the actions of man.

The sun is hotter. Period. This fact cannot be denied. The sun is going through a lengthy period of increased activity that causes it to radiate more heat into space. Is it really that hard to believe that a hotter sun would lead to a hotter earth?
Our polar ice caps are melting? Sure looks like it. But .. the polar ice caps on Mars are melting also. So, are we to believe that this is caused by man on the Earth but by the hotter sun on Mars?
And while we're talking about ice caps melting, it's worth noting that the ice pack in the heart of Antarctica is actually getting thicker!
Scientific data clearly shows that the Earth has undergone warming and cooling cycles for millions of years. Why, all of a sudden, does a warming cycle just have to be caused by the actions of man?
Scientists who work on government grants are more inclined to blame global warming on the actions of man than are scientists who do not depend on continued government (political) funding.
And just how much warmer has our atmosphere become in the last 100 years? One degree. That's it. Just one degree.
Many of the people who are so involved in promoting the man-made global warming theme are people who are also involved in anti-capitalist movements. So, what is their true goal? Do they want to solve the global warming problem, or do they want to cripple the capitalist systems they so hate?
The U.S. Senate snubbed the Kyoto treaty by a vote of 99-0. This was during the Clinton years! What did these 99 senators know about the Kyoto Accords that we don't know?
Speaking of the Kyoto accords, they would severely impact the U.S. economy, but would leave China absolutely alone! China has one of the fastest growing economies in the world. Since a huge number of Kyoto proponents can also be called anti-American, could this cause you to wonder what the true goal of Kyoto is?
And just how many years ago was it that these very same scientists were warming us about the earth getting cooler?
 

Latest posts

Top