Al Gore on 'climate crisis' : 'Worse than we thought'

[melensdad]

Just seem sort of interesting given the news stories that have been coming out lately.

Al Gore on 'climate crisis' : 'Worse than we thought'
http://www.washingtontimes.com/weblo...ding-our-eyes/

By Kerry Picket on Feb. 15, 2010

In the midst of heavy snow fall all over the United States and a recent admission from global warming advocate Phil Jones that there has been no warming since 1995, former Vice-President Al Gore is sticking to his guns. In a February 12 statement, he writes on his website that the "[climate crisis] is worse than we thought."

More evidence of the climate crisis is unfolding before our eyes. The situation in the Arctic is worse than data from satellite pictures have told us:

"For scientists studying the health of Arctic sea ice, satellite observations are absolutely essential for providing the big picture. It was satellites that revealed in September 2007 a record minimum ice coverage in the region -- the result of a massive summer melt. And it was satellites that showed in 2008 and 2009 the modest recovery of late-summer Arctic ice that suggested to some that the specter of a totally ice-free polar ocean might be somewhat less imminent than feared."

Denying much, Mr. Gore? The fallout from the climate-gate emails showing University of East Anglia scientists were covering up climate science has just begun, and the former Vice-President has yet to figure that out.

[Inquartata]

And yet the voices in the carbon-neutral house, behind the solar panels and recycled plastic insulation, and from under the piles of hemp cushions, simply trilled and screamed in a sort of ecstasy: "There must be more action! Oh-h-h; there must be more action. Oh, now, now-w! Now-w-w - there must be more action! - more than ever! More than ever!"

[Slim]

Just seem sort of interesting given the news stories that have been coming out lately.

Al Gore on 'climate crisis' : 'Worse than we thought'
http://www.washingtontimes.com/weblo...ding-our-eyes/

By Kerry Picket on Feb. 15, 2010

In the midst of heavy snow fall all over the United States and a recent admission from global warming advocate Phil Jones that there has been no warming since 1995, former Vice-President Al Gore is sticking to his guns. In a February 12 statement, he writes on his website that the "[climate crisis] is worse than we thought."

More evidence of the climate crisis is unfolding before our eyes. The situation in the Arctic is worse than data from satellite pictures have told us:

"For scientists studying the health of Arctic sea ice, satellite observations are absolutely essential for providing the big picture. It was satellites that revealed in September 2007 a record minimum ice coverage in the region -- the result of a massive summer melt. And it was satellites that showed in 2008 and 2009 the modest recovery of late-summer Arctic ice that suggested to some that the specter of a totally ice-free polar ocean might be somewhat less imminent than feared."

Denying much, Mr. Gore? The fallout from the climate-gate emails showing University of East Anglia scientists were covering up climate science has just begun, and the former Vice-President has yet to figure that out.

News? You call those stories news? They're all just opinion and unsubstantiated rumors from the UK rags that no one with half a brain would ever think of listening to.

Stand by for Noodle to dump about 100 links on you in the hope of drowning out your post.

Considering Uncle Al is probably hunkered down in his basement and all he can see is the snow pile up on his window, I'm not surprised.

You troll.

[Slim]

And yet the voices in the carbon-neutral house, behind the solar panels and recycled plastic insulation, and from under the piles of hemp cushions, simply trilled and screamed in a sort of ecstasy: "There must be more action! Oh-h-h; there must be more action. Oh, now, now-w! Now-w-w - there must be more action! - more than ever! More than ever!"

Almost choked on my Guinness from laughing.

[I_luv_saber]

Hello?-hello?-hello?

Hey!-hey!-hey!

There's an echo in here!-in here!-in here!

[melensdad]

And now a legal challenge to the EPA's ruling that CO2 is a hazard.

http://newsmax.com/InsideCover/US-Te...2/16/id/350002

Tuesday, 16 Feb 2010 01:13 PM


Gov. Rick Perry and other top Texas officials on Tuesday announced a legal challenge to the federal government's finding that greenhouse gases are dangerous to people, claiming the ruling was based on flawed science.

The EPA in December issued an "endangerment" finding about carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, setting the stage for future rules restricting such emissions.

Texas, which leads the nation in greenhouse gas emissions and is frequently at odds with the EPA, announced it has asked a federal appeals court to review the endangerment finding. The state also asked the EPA to reconsider it. EPA officials in Washington didn't immediately return a call seeking comment.

"The EPA's misguided plan paints a big target on the backs of Texas agriculture and energy producers and the hundreds of thousands of Texans they employ," Perry said. "This legal action is being taken to protect the Texas economy and the jobs that go with it, as well as defend Texas' freedom to continue our successful environmental strategies free from federal overreach."

The announcement was met with swift criticism from environmental activists who've long felt Perry's decisions are based on his ties to the heavy industry groups that support him. Texas has more oil refineries, chemical plants and coal-fired power plants than any other state.

"Not only is it legally unsound, it puts Texas on the side of the 1950s economy, against the clean energy economy of the future," said Jim Marston, Texas regional director of the Environmental Defense Fund.

"Global warming is the greatest environmental threat facing Texas and the planet and Gov. Perry's obstructionism puts the state at great risk," said Luke Metzger of Environment Texas.

Perry, Attorney General Greg Abbott and Agriculture Commissioner Todd Staples appeared at the Austin announcement, saying the state has a strong record of improving air quality by cutting emissions without federal intervention.[/QUOTE]

[Slim]

Hello?-hello?-hello?

Hey!-hey!-hey!

There's an echo in here!-in here!-in here!

Its from the collective free space between the ears of those blindly following Uncle Al down the green highway to higher taxes, more regulations and bigger gubment.

[Slim]

And now a legal challenge to the EPA's ruling that CO2 is a hazard.

http://newsmax.com/InsideCover/US-Te...2/16/id/350002

Tuesday, 16 Feb 2010 01:13 PM


Gov. Rick Perry and other top Texas officials on Tuesday announced a legal challenge to the federal government's finding that greenhouse gases are dangerous to people, claiming the ruling was based on flawed science.

The EPA in December issued an "endangerment" finding about carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, setting the stage for future rules restricting such emissions.

Texas, which leads the nation in greenhouse gas emissions and is frequently at odds with the EPA, announced it has asked a federal appeals court to review the endangerment finding. The state also asked the EPA to reconsider it. EPA officials in Washington didn't immediately return a call seeking comment.

"The EPA's misguided plan paints a big target on the backs of Texas agriculture and energy producers and the hundreds of thousands of Texans they employ," Perry said. "This legal action is being taken to protect the Texas economy and the jobs that go with it, as well as defend Texas' freedom to continue our successful environmental strategies free from federal overreach."

The announcement was met with swift criticism from environmental activists who've long felt Perry's decisions are based on his ties to the heavy industry groups that support him. Texas has more oil refineries, chemical plants and coal-fired power plants than any other state.

"Not only is it legally unsound, it puts Texas on the side of the 1950s economy, against the clean energy economy of the future," said Jim Marston, Texas regional director of the Environmental Defense Fund.

"Global warming is the greatest environmental threat facing Texas and the planet and Gov. Perry's obstructionism puts the state at great risk," said Luke Metzger of Environment Texas.

Perry, Attorney General Greg Abbott and Agriculture Commissioner Todd Staples appeared at the Austin announcement, saying the state has a strong record of improving air quality by cutting emissions without federal intervention.

[/QUOTE]

I **heart** Texas.

[I_luv_saber]

Its from the collective free space between the ears of those blindly following Uncle Al down the green highway to higher taxes, more regulations and bigger gubment.

Ah okay, thanks, I wasn't sure.

[kalivor]

Did any of you click through to the Time article from the Washington Times "Water Cooler" blog?

http://www.time.com/time/health/arti...956932,00.html

Arctic ice is thinner than predicted from satellite imagery. This should be seen as worrying.

"Climategate" should impact the reputations of the scientists involved. It does not invalidate observations made by other scientists.

This is a published observation from a scientist being reported -- not a politician being a windbag (or producing a documentary). Dismissing it with a "Denying much, Mr. Gore?" does nothing.

You should feel free to personally investigate the ice in the Arctic and report back, though. I'll wait.

[Bayou Bum]

Did any of you click through to the Time article from the Washington Times "Water Cooler" blog?

http://www.time.com/time/health/arti...956932,00.html

Arctic ice is thinner than predicted from satellite imagery. This should be seen as worrying.

"Climategate" should impact the reputations of the scientists involved. It does not invalidate observations made by other scientists.

This is a published observation from a scientist being reported -- not a politician being a windbag (or producing a documentary). Dismissing it with a "Denying much, Mr. Gore?" does nothing.

You should feel free to personally investigate the ice in the Arctic and report back, though. I'll wait.

Quoting David Barber who said that the Arctic sea ice would be totally gone by 2015 and the North Pole would be ice free by 2008 = Major Fail!

[kalivor]

Quoting David Barber who said that the Arctic sea ice would be totally gone by 2015 and the North Pole would be ice free by 2008 = Major Fail!

Ah, so a previous mistake in a model means that a new observation is without merit, in your eyes.

No mistakes permitted. Ever.

Does that apply to both sides of the debate, or only the side you disagree with?

[Slim]

Ah, so a previous mistake in a model means that a new observation is without merit, in your eyes.

No mistakes permitted. Ever.

Does that apply to both sides of the debate, or only the side you disagree with?

Pretty big "oops". Who's to say he isn't wrong again? Why not be a little skeptical?

[kalivor]

Pretty big "oops". Who's to say he isn't wrong again? Why not be a little skeptical?

Because he's not modelling? Because he went out there to verify satellite observations (and the interpretations thereof), and was surprised to find that they were inaccurate?

Last time, he had a theory. He created a model based on that theory. The model had predictions, as a scientific model should.

Those predictions were inaccurate, so the model is not accurate and discarded. This is science. Pretty standard science at that.

The model being disproved puts the scientist back at the drawing board -- collecting more observations in an attempt to develop an accurate model. This is one of those observations -- it is not a prediction.

Should it be verified? Yes. This is a normal part of the scientific process. His observations may turn out to be broadly true, or they might be restricted to a certain area. There may be inaccuracies.

Should it be doubted because a previous model by the same scientist was not accurate? No. This isn't like the previous error, where he got something wrong (which is hardly rare, when developing scientific models).

There is nothing to suggest that he is a person who invents observations out of thin air.

[Guided by Wire]

That liberal snake pit the Pentagon still thinks that climate change is pretty serious:
Pentagon Considers Climate Change a National Security Threat (Feb 8, 2010)

Why not be a little skeptical?

Because the stakes are too high.

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/apr2...7-04-16-05.asp

"People are saying they want to be perfectly convinced about climate science projections," General Sullivan said. "But speaking as a soldier, we never have 100 percent certainty. If you wait until you have 100 percent certainty, something bad is going to happen on the battlefield."

[Bayou Bum]

That liberal snake pit the Pentagon still thinks that climate change is pretty serious:

I agree. If Obama keeps trying to make US citizens subjects of the United Nations, there could be violence. He has already started with his Executive Order 12425. Next is climate change along with the few taxpaying citizens of the US paying UN income taxes also.

[keith]

Does that apply to both sides of the debate, or only the side you disagree with?

I think that has been demonstrated. Skepticism applies equally, credulity only to those opinions that match your existing prejudices.

Lets face it, it's a simpler world were everything proves you were right all along .

[CvilleFencer]

I agree. If Obama keeps trying to make US citizens subjects of the United Nations, there could be violence.

Whah? Ignoring the obvious WTF citizens of the United Nations thing, why are the most right of the right wing so willing to advocate terrorism and violence against those that disagree with them? Not trying to throw hand grenades here. I have heard this "We left our guns at home... this time" stuff from the fundamentalist and ultra right both in person and in media time and again.

Now IME the folks who say this are quick to couch it in "I never advocated it, and you try to silence the critics of (insert derogatory rhetoric) and their (insert ridiculously dire predictions) policies by calling them terrorists. All I did is point out that some true brave patriots may feel the need to take up arms against (repeat snips of above)". But seriously, wink wink nudge nudge type crap aside... Explain to me please how a group the espouses patriotism and christian values also is so quick to threaten violence and political terrorism against our country?

[keith]

Whah? Ignoring the obvious WTF citizens of the United Nations thing, why are the most right of the right wing so willing to advocate terrorism and violence against those that disagree with them? Not trying to throw hand grenades here. I have heard this "We left our guns at home... this time" stuff from the fundamentalist and ultra right both in person and in media time and again.

Well I suppose they reckon that "We left our rational arguments at home ... this time" is kind of obvious.

[Slim]

Whah? Ignoring the obvious WTF citizens of the United Nations thing, why are the most right of the right wing so willing to advocate terrorism and violence against those that disagree with them? Not trying to throw hand grenades here. I have heard this "We left our guns at home... this time" stuff from the fundamentalist and ultra right both in person and in media time and again.

Most? In person? Time and time again?

Stop hanging out at KKK meetings. You're perspectives may change.