Great article on Gore's "The Inconvenient Truth"

[H20cooled]

I found this @ LINK (http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm)


Scientists respond to Gore's warnings of climate catastrophe
"The Inconvenient Truth" is indeed inconvenient to alarmists
By Tom Harris
Monday, June 12, 2006

"Scientists have an independent obligation to respect and present the truth as they see it," Al Gore sensibly asserts in his film "An Inconvenient Truth", showing at Cumberland 4 Cinemas in Toronto since Jun 2. With that outlook in mind, what do world climate experts actually think about the science of his movie?

Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia gives what, for many Canadians, is a surprising assessment: "Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."

But surely Carter is merely part of what most people regard as a tiny cadre of "climate change skeptics" who disagree with the "vast majority of scientists" Gore cites?

No; Carter is one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant global climate change. "Climate experts" is the operative term here. Why? Because what Gore's "majority of scientists" think is immaterial when only a very small fraction of them actually work in the climate field.

Even among that fraction, many focus their studies on the impacts of climate change; biologists, for example, who study everything from insects to polar bears to poison ivy. "While many are highly skilled researchers, they generally do not have special knowledge about the causes of global climate change," explains former University of Winnipeg climatology professor Dr. Tim Ball. "They usually can tell us only about the effects of changes in the local environment where they conduct their studies."

This is highly valuable knowledge, but doesn't make them climate change cause experts, only climate impact experts.

So we have a smaller fraction.

But it becomes smaller still. Among experts who actually examine the causes of change on a global scale, many concentrate their research on designing and enhancing computer models of hypothetical futures. "These models have been consistently wrong in all their scenarios," asserts Ball. "Since modelers concede computer outputs are not "predictions" but are in fact merely scenarios, they are negligent in letting policy-makers and the public think they are actually making forecasts."

We should listen most to scientists who use real data to try to understand what nature is actually telling us about the causes and extent of global climate change. In this relatively small community, there is no consensus, despite what Gore and others would suggest.

Here is a small sample of the side of the debate we almost never hear:

Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years." Patterson asked the committee, "On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"

Patterson concluded his testimony by explaining what his research and "hundreds of other studies" reveal: on all time scales, there is very good correlation between Earth's temperature and natural celestial phenomena such changes in the brightness of the Sun.

Dr. Boris Winterhalter, former marine researcher at the Geological Survey of Finland and professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, takes apart Gore's dramatic display of Antarctic glaciers collapsing into the sea. "The breaking glacier wall is a normally occurring phenomenon which is due to the normal advance of a glacier," says Winterhalter. "In Antarctica the temperature is low enough to prohibit melting of the ice front, so if the ice is grounded, it has to break off in beautiful ice cascades. If the water is deep enough icebergs will form."

Dr. Wibjörn Karlén, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden, admits, "Some small areas in the Antarctic Peninsula have broken up recently, just like it has done back in time. The temperature in this part of Antarctica has increased recently, probably because of a small change in the position of the low pressure systems."

But Karlén clarifies that the 'mass balance' of Antarctica is positive - more snow is accumulating than melting off. As a result, Ball explains, there is an increase in the 'calving' of icebergs as the ice dome of Antarctica is growing and flowing to the oceans. When Greenland and Antarctica are assessed together, "their mass balance is considered to possibly increase the sea level by 0.03 mm/year - not much of an effect," Karlén concludes.

The Antarctica has survived warm and cold events over millions of years. A meltdown is simply not a realistic scenario in the foreseeable future.

Gore tells us in the film, "Starting in 1970, there was a precipitous drop-off in the amount and extent and thickness of the Arctic ice cap." This is misleading, according to Ball: "The survey that Gore cites was a single transect across one part of the Arctic basin in the month of October during the 1960s when we were in the middle of the cooling period. The 1990 runs were done in the warmer month of September, using a wholly different technology."

Karlén explains that a paper published in 2003 by University of Alaska professor Igor Polyakov shows that, the region of the Arctic where rising temperature is supposedly endangering polar bears showed fluctuations since 1940 but no overall temperature rise. "For several published records it is a decrease for the last 50 years," says Karlén

Dr. Dick Morgan, former advisor to the World Meteorological Organization and climatology researcher at University of Exeter, U.K. gives the details, "There has been some decrease in ice thickness in the Canadian Arctic over the past 30 years but no melt down. The Canadian Ice Service records show that from 1971-1981 there was average, to above average, ice thickness. From 1981-1982 there was a sharp decrease of 15% but there was a quick recovery to average, to slightly above average, values from 1983-1995. A sharp drop of 30% occurred again 1996-1998 and since then there has been a steady increase to reach near normal conditions since 2001."

Concerning Gore's beliefs about worldwide warming, Morgan points out that, in addition to the cooling in the NW Atlantic, massive areas of cooling are found in the North and South Pacific Ocean; the whole of the Amazon Valley; the north coast of South America and the Caribbean; the eastern Mediterranean, Black Sea, Caucasus and Red Sea; New Zealand and even the Ganges Valley in India. Morgan explains, "Had the IPCC used the standard parameter for climate change (the 30 year average) and used an equal area projection, instead of the Mercator (which doubled the area of warming in Alaska, Siberia and the Antarctic Ocean) warming and cooling would have been almost in balance."

Gore's point that 200 cities and towns in the American West set all time high temperature records is also misleading according to Dr. Roy Spencer, Principal Research Scientist at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. "It is not unusual for some locations, out of the thousands of cities and towns in the U.S., to set all-time records," he says. "The actual data shows that overall, recent temperatures in the U.S. were not unusual."

Carter does not pull his punches about Gore's activism, "The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science."

In April sixty of the world's leading experts in the field asked Prime Minister Harper to order a thorough public review of the science of climate change, something that has never happened in Canada. Considering what's at stake - either the end of civilization, if you believe Gore, or a waste of billions of dollars, if you believe his opponents - it seems like a reasonable request.

[drock59]

I found this article "interesting."

[H20cooled]

Great, interesting, what’s the dif...

It makes you think and realize that maybe we are being lied to by someone or a group of someone’s with an agenda. They don't care if what they say is true or not, but when you have TONs of money it’s easy to confuse a lot of people into think that it’s true and that ALL scientists agree...

[drock59]

I dont think anyone is silly enough to believe that all scientists think the same way.


t makes you think and realize that maybe we are being lied to by someone or a group of someone’s with an agenda.

....um ya, this is always the case in politics. Do you not think the someones in power now do not have an agenda?


They don't care if what they say is true or not

hmmmm, i dont agree.


easy to confuse a lot of people into think that it’s true

This reminds me of something else besides global warming.



Im not trying to say I agree one way or another here, im saying there is something going on and it needs a further look.

[H20cooled]

They don't care if what they say is true or not


hmmmm, i dont agree.
I honestly believe that some people get so hung up on their cause that they choose to ignore the truth or something that contradicts their cause.

Case in point; The other day I was listening to a talk radio show and there was a lady on there arguing for her cause (stop all smoking in bars, etc..). The host of the show would ask her a question and the only thing she could say was the same line about how 2nd hand smoke is bad, bad ,bad. She wouldn't listen to any other proof, study, or argument that went against her cause, she was just completely sold on the cause and that it was right, period. It was really sad and she ended up sounding like a complete brain washed fool...

[drock59]

I understand where you are coming from...

We all know second hand smoke is bad. Thousands of non smokers die every year from lung cancer. It doesnt take a scientist or a study to tell me that smoking bars and restaraunts is a bad idea. Not to mention "studies" usually show results that are favorable to the person/company/government who funded the study.

The same can be said for Global warming. THe earth is warming and many say, it is due to CO2. Stats can be twisted so many different ways its hard to tell what is going on. It just doesnt make any sense to me why we shouldnt investigate further.

Moreover, we all know that our dependance on oil is not a good thing. Why shouldnt we try to reinvent ourselves(U.S) with some sort of new fuel,technology,energy? If we tried to lower CO2 emissons by developing alternatives, I do not see how it could hurt. Would it not invigor our economy and reinstate our prominence in the world? This is really why I dont understand the big hoopla about the global warming issue.


Take it with a grain of salt....

[H20cooled]

I'm an ex-smoker so I'm the worst about people smoking around me or my family. But I don't really want to argue that whole thing. It was just really sad to listen to the lady that was SO hung up on her cause that even scientific evidence was not going to change her from spewing out the same thing over and over again. It was really quite sad and I think she actually did more harm to her cause then good.

I agree with investaging it further and I still think we should make an effort to control the emmisions.

I would love to see an alternative fuel source or multiple ones, competion is always a good thing. It would also be nice to get away from depending on getting our oil supply from countries that want to KILL us and see our way of life destroyed.

[drock59]

scientific evidence was not going to change her from spewing out the same thing over and over again.

This is my point. I dont need any scientific evidence to tell me that smoking is bad, along with second hand smoke. I am failing to see your point here.



I agree with investaging it further and I still think we should make an effort to control the emmisions.

I would love to see an alternative fuel source or multiple ones, competion is always a good thing. It would also be nice to get away from depending on getting our oil supply from countries that want to KILL us and see our way of life destroyed.


so why not go with the global warming thing. Nothing but good things will come from it? Am i beating a dead horse here?

[H20cooled]

This is my point. I dont need any scientific evidence to tell me that smoking is bad, along with second hand smoke. I am failing to see your point here.

My point is this; when someone is SO obsessed with their cause (whether its smoking, global warming, or etc.) that they can no longer see anything else or even have a discusion then they no longer care that what they believe is true or false. Its all about the cause.

And I don't agree with you that "we" all know that 2nd hand smoke is bad for us. I think there has been a LOT of misleading studies done that make us believe this. As I said I personly hate it, and I stay away from places were people smoke. But I also believe that if most of the people in a bar smoke and you know there is smoking there then you should avoid it and let the people smoke there if they want. Banning it straight across the board because someone "feels" that its bad is wrong and we don't need to take more rights away from the people and give it to the government.



so why not go with the global warming thing. Nothing but good things will come from it? Am i beating a dead horse here?

I don't agree with this mentality at all, basically you are saying lets just lead people on with this whole global warming BS so we can force them to do what we think is right. This is my belief and I have NO right to force that on someone else, if they want to drive a HUGE Hummer then who am I to say they cannot especially if its not hurting the environment. The alternative fuel thing needs to come from us wanting to get away from the middle east countries not from us thinking the we are destroying the world even though we are not.

[drock59]

I totally agree with your first statement.


And I don't agree with you that "we" all know that 2nd hand smoke is bad for us. I think there has been a LOT of misleading studies done that make us believe this. As I said I personly hate it, and I stay away from places were people smoke. But I also believe that if most of the people in a bar smoke and you know there is smoking there then you should avoid it and let the people smoke there if they want. Banning it straight across the board because someone "feels" that its bad is wrong and we don't need to take more rights away from the people and give it to the government.

However, the above quote is just outright rediculous. You are telling me that you dont think smoking/2nd hand smoke kills people and causes a plethora of health problems?


someone "feels" that its bad

There are lots and lots of scientists that do not feel smoking is bad, they know it is bad becuase they have studied its effects. Im not trying to be rude but this is just totally rediculous.


I feel you are being a bit silly. Do you think that all living things on earth share it? Do we breathe air, eat food, drink water, etc? So you are saying that polluting the Earth is OK as long as it doesnt interfere with your life(HumV). That is the problem....this is a sellfish point of view. You wont take action unless it effects your own life.


Even if half of climatologists thought global warming was not happening, wouldnt that be worth a second look. Seems like more than half of scientists feel global warming IS happeing.


global warming BS so we can force them to do what we think is right

What is the conspiracy theory on what the left is trying to do with global warming. I would really like to hear.


when someone is SO obsessed with their cause (whether its smoking, global warming, or etc.) that they can no longer see anything else or even have a discusion then they no longer care that what they believe is true or false. Its all about the cause.

Seems like you are the one obsessed that global warming is not happeing when it is clear that the majority of science points to the fact that CO2 is impacting climate.

Again, not trying to be rude and I am enjoying this discussion.

[H20cooled]

I totally agree with your first statement.



However, the above quote is just outright rediculous. You are telling me that you dont think smoking/2nd hand smoke kills people and causes a plethora of health problems?

I'm not saying one way or another about it being bad, I just don't think that has been enough studies done to point one way. There has been a lot of feelings about it though. I'm reserving my opinion until there is good proof. If you want to know my person view, I believe that it is bad for people and child, but this is completely based on a feeling and not on facts. Therefore I choose to go to places that are no smoking, but I don't feel that no one has a right to smoke in a place that is for smokers.

But lets stop talking about smoking, I really didn't want to discuss it I was just using it as an example.





There are lots and lots of scientists that do not feel smoking is bad, they know it is bad becuase they have studied its effects. Im not trying to be rude but this is just totally rediculous.

There have also been studies that show it does not cause health issues.



I feel you are being a bit silly. Do you think that all living things on earth share it? Do we breathe air, eat food, drink water, etc? So you are saying that polluting the Earth is OK as long as it doesnt interfere with your life(HumV). That is the problem....this is a sellfish point of view. You wont take action unless it effects your own life.

No I feel that we all need to do our part to not pollute the earth. But until there is proof that the HumV is hurting the earth who am I to stop someone from driving one. I don't think this is a selfish view, I think that we all need to take responsiblity to do our part, whether that is a beach clean up, or taking the bus, or selling the HumV.



Even if half of climatologists thought global warming was not happening, wouldnt that be worth a second look. Seems like more than half of scientists feel global warming IS happeing.

I agree there needs to be some REAL research done without some political hollywood moron pushing it. When I read articles like the one I posted that says climatologists are afraid to speak out against the global warming machine, then you realize how much pressure there is to hide the facts.



What is the conspiracy theory on what the left is trying to do with global warming. I would really like to hear.

I have no idea, I didn't realize there was one, I'm not a big conspiracy theory buff. I do think there is a push by people like Gore to make us believe that Global warming is a FACT and that all cars are BAD.



Seems like you are the one obsessed that global warming is not happeing when it is clear that the majority of science points to the fact that CO2 is impacting climate.

Not obsessed at all, I just want to know the facts and not have them covered up by lies and miss information.

I have one question for you. Can you tell me if global warming is happening because of CO2 and humans. What happened to the last ice age if we were not around then?




Again, not trying to be rude and I am enjoying this discussion.

I am too, I'm trying not to take anything personally...

[drock59]

There have also been studies that show it does not cause health issues.

Of course there has. Do you think there are many big issues out there that have studies only showing one side? I dont think so.


No I feel that we all need to do our part to not pollute the earth. But until there is proof that the HumV is hurting the earth who am I to stop someone from driving one. I don't think this is a selfish view, I think that we all need to take responsiblity to do our part, whether that is a beach clean up, or taking the bus, or selling the HumV

YOu are contradicting yourself. If we wait until there is conclusive evidence one way or another, it may be too late.....it may not be. So what do we do? We use the majority of evidence that we can find and take action. What doest he majority of evidence point to right now?



I agree there needs to be some REAL research done without some political hollywood moron pushing it. When I read articles like the one I posted that says climatologists are afraid to speak out against the global warming machine, then you realize how much pressure there is to hide the facts.

I dont think that there is a great deal of pressure. People do studies and publish what they find unless they are funded by someone with an agenda. What kind of pressure? TO defend their results? Scientists should feel pressure to perform quality experiments. If they do there job correctly there should be little room for fights like the global warming deal. And do you realy think people are out there locking data away in a closet that shows global warming isnt real?


Gore to make us believe that Global warming is a FACT and that all cars are BAD

Gore is done with his political career, what agenda does he have for doing this? IF you are talking about facts then we are going to debate this forever. There are lots of "facts" that were around 60 years ago that have been proven wrong and vice versa. So if you are looking for facts you may be looking a while.

Nobody thinks all cars are bad. Cars are good they just need to be improved. :)


lies and miss information.

Where are you getting this stuff? WHo is miss informing? Who? What? When? Where? How?


Can you tell me if global warming is happening because of CO2 and humans.

I believe it is happing because of CO2 and due in part to human activity. This is all based off of what I have read and I am not going to say that I am 100 percent sure I am right....but I am convinced. From all the stories I have read, both sides of the story for that matter, the arguments supporting global warming due to CO2/humans strikes me as more correct and lagitamate. I dont disagree that critics of global warming have some good points, I just think there is more evidence in favor.


What happened to the last ice age if we were not around then?
I dont know, i wasnt around. :)

[H20cooled]

YOu are contradicting yourself. If we wait until there is conclusive evidence one way or another, it may be too late.....it may not be. So what do we do? We use the majority of evidence that we can find and take action. What doest he majority of evidence point to right now? I personaly have NOT seen a majority of evidence pointing towards US creating global warming, so I guess I'm on the wait side. But I still feel that we should do our best to not pullute our environment. If that contradictory then so be...




I dont think that there is a great deal of pressure. People do studies and publish what they find unless they are funded by someone with an agenda. What kind of pressure? TO defend their results? Scientists should feel pressure to perform quality experiments. If they do there job correctly there should be little room for fights like the global warming deal. And do you realy think people are out there locking data away in a closet that shows global warming isnt real? I think there is a lot of pressure from hollywood and some politicians to push the Global warming issues. I think scientist are also influenced by peer pressure too, also its not very PC to come out against global warming.




Gore is done with his political career, what agenda does he have for doing this? IF you are talking about facts then we are going to debate this forever. There are lots of "facts" that were around 60 years ago that have been proven wrong and vice versa. So if you are looking for facts you may be looking a while. I disagree that he is done, matter of fact I would argue the opposite of that. Read here! (http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=2069724&page=1)




I dont know, i wasnt around. :)
Exactly and thats the problem, what if this whole Global warming trend is just a completly normal thing that happens every XXXX amount of years...

[drock59]

what if this whole Global warming trend is just a completly normal thing that happens every XXXX amount of years...


Do you honestly believe that this kind of thing, if it is "normal", happens every XXX amount of years?

You talk about facts but then you talk about what ifs? What if its not a normal trend? What if we are on a path to disaster? What if nothing happens? What if the monkey penguin flies backward at midnight?

I can see you are stuck in your way of thinking and that is fine,maybe im stuck in mine. I just dont understand how if it is a fact that we are dumping a bunch of junk into the air, that it can be a good thing in any way shape or form. If it takes something like Global Warming to act as a catalyst for change, fine by me, regardless of its truthiness.


http://movies.crooksandliars.com/This-Week-Al-Gore.wmv

[H20cooled]

Do you honestly believe that this kind of thing, if it is "normal", happens every XXX amount of years?

You talk about facts but then you talk about what ifs? What if its not a normal trend? What if we are on a path to disaster? What if nothing happens? What if the monkey penguin flies backward at midnight?

I can see you are stuck in your way of thinking and that is fine,maybe im stuck in mine. I just dont understand how if it is a fact that we are dumping a bunch of junk into the air, that it can be a good thing in any way shape or form. If it takes something like Global Warming to act as a catalyst for change, fine by me, regardless of its truthiness.


http://movies.crooksandliars.com/This-Week-Al-Gore.wmv

Tell me this. Why would you not believe that it is a normal thing for us to have warming every XXXX amount of years? Do you really think that we are so POWERFULL to change the whole climate of the planet? I don't, I think that natural changes happen with and without our help and that there is nothing we can do it change it. I think the Earth is a very powerful and can handle most of the stuff thrown at it, but that's not saying we need to test that theory and see if its true.

Yeah I'm stuck in my way of think just like you are.

As for talking about facts and then what ifs. Are you saying that the iceage from the past is not a fact? Because everything I see points to past iceages and then huge warming. I mean there used to be an ocean in Utah, what happened to it? How about global warming????

[drock59]

Do you really think that we are so POWERFULL to change the whole climate of the planet? I don't, I think that natural changes happen with and without our help and that there is nothing we can do it change it.

I do know that if we were to pump methane at the same rate into the air, you would see the effects of global warming much, much sooner. I am honestly amazed that you disrespect the Earth enough to say that it can handle anything we throw at it. I am again trying not to be rude but that statement just seems uneducated. You dont think it would be possible to change the climate if we tried?

I am done arguing but I am honestly amazed by that last statement. I guess we shall see what happens.

[H20cooled]

I have no disrespect for the Earth matter of fact its the opposite, I think the planet if very strong and powerful. And NO I do not believe we effect the climate that much, I think the planet would and will continue with or without us. I do think that you are confused though, I'm not saying we should just go ahead and thrash it because its strong. I do everything that I can to protect it and not add to problems.

I think this argument has gotten out of control and I'm tired of the insults. You believe the way you do and I will continue to believe the way I do. I'm not going to address your rude comment about uneducated because the only thing I can think of to say back is also rude.

You’ve bought into the whole thing hook line and sinker and there is no changing your mind or other realities, so I concede....

[drock59]

You’ve bought into the whole thing hook line and sinker and there is no changing your mind or other realities, so I concede....

I havnt bought anything. Its a matter of one side of the story outweighing the other.....by far.

[H20cooled]

But that it is TOTALLY your "feelings"; and it does NOT seem to be the opinion of REAL scientists. You go on believing everything that AL Gore and the other "experts" tell you; I'll stick with the facts...

[drock59]

Please enlighten me and show me some facts from credible sources.....

[Theron]

I hate to get in the middle of this but...

I am also not convinced that we (humans) have had a significant effect on global warming.

Is global warming bad? If it wasn't for gloabal warming then we would still be in an ice age.

The earth is always changing from warm and cold periods. And like Rich said it has happend without us around. There are so many things that affect the earths temperature. The slightest change in the suns output would change our temperatures.

Theron

[drock59]

I agree with the things you said, but I happen to think we are effecting the rate and severity of climate change.

[H20cooled]

drock59,
The article I started this thread with gave pretty compelling evidence to the contrary. I honestly don't have the time to dig around all over the place looking for more. I think I've said my piece and I'm really done arguing with you.

Rich

[drock59]

im not trying to argue. The first article is ONE article. I am just trying to get your perspective on this.

[H20cooled]

I've read a few others, it was a while ago so I have no idea if they are even around anymore.

[H20cooled]

Can you show me an article that explains why the Earth had iceages and then global warming in the past when NO humans were on the planet?

[drock59]

touche`, Im done. :)

[SeanF]

Doesn't Al Gore still think he won the election? I have seen other programs on the discovery channel that take up both sides of the global warming debate. I would have to agree that I don't think that we have a big enough impact by the production of exhaust to impact the world. If we produce more CO2 then plants and algaes will grow better thus balancing the planet again. Everyone use to talk about the hole in the ozone layer at the poles being caused by greenhouse gasses. Does anyone know why you don't hear much about that anymore? Because it is not scientifically accepted as the truth anymore. Scientists have discovered that we are on the verge of a magnetic pole swap and the weakening of the magnetic fields at the poles are what is causing the hole. It is just like the theory that we are running out of oil. This is bs also. We may be starting to deplete our easiest to process oil but Canada has what they call oil sand that is said to have enough oil in just the one place to support the worlds oil needs for well over 100 years. Studies don't get paid for by people that don't have agendas. Why would someone offer funding for a study if they didn't have something to gain from it. The great thing about this country is the ability to disagree with other people at least in a peaceful manner.

On the smoking issue I believe that each individual business owner should be able to make the decision on whether to allow people to smoke in their business. The government sticks it's nose in to many places where it doesn't belong. I am betting a quarter of our tax money could be saved if we didn't have to enforce stupid laws that should be each individuals decision.

I am quite glad that we have not had a Democrat as president in the last couple of elections. Clinton had done in the economy and it was on a severe downturn that would have only gotten worse if Gore was in office. Not to mention that the terrorists would have laughed at us as we took the Clinton approach to things and just launched some cruise missiles at them.

Don't even get me started on the last loser that the Democratic party nominated. John Kerry completely lacks a backbone. This man saw all of the same intellegence and voted to give the president authority to commit troops and was proud of it until a point in time that it became unpopular and now he is against the war.

I don't agree with everything that George Bush does but I know that he is doing what he truly believes is the right thing for the country whether it is popular or not. There has to be something said for the fact that we have not been attacked since 9/11. We have to take a much more proactive role in the world today. People will come to kill us if we do not kill them first and that takes a leader that is willing to do what is right to keep us safe even if it is not popular.

I will get off of my soap box now.

[drock59]

...and now we have opened a can of worms much larger than the global warming issue. Anyone want to jump in here? Anyone?

[H20cooled]

I'm not going into the political debate now. But I do agree with Sean on the Global warming, Ozone, and smoking debate.

I had totally forgot about all of the Ozone stuff, you never hear anything about it. I guess the Ozone must be all healed now, or maybe it was never really a problem... hmm makes you think maybe global warming will go the same way as the ozone and magicly disapear...

I watched a show on the Discovery channel last night about the magnetic poles and how they are changing something like 5 miles every year. They said this can have a huge effect of climate and a lot of other things.

As for the smoking, its exactly as I was trying to say. This should be up to the business and not something else for the government to control. We have enough government control as it is, do we really need them in this too. People have a right to choose where they work and where they go, no one is making you go into a bar with smoking. If you don't like it go to another bar or ask the owner to change to non-smoking. If there is enough demand I'm sure they would do that.

[drock59]

Great point about the ozone layer, I will have to look into it.

As far as smoking, it seems to me that illness/death related to
tobacco causes a huge loss in cashola for health care, insurance costs,
taxes collected and productivity. The Tobacco issue is another
can of worms. Nicotine is AS, if not more addicting, than many illegal
drugs and yet the government allows tobacco to be legal and say,
opium, to be illegal.

The amount of money lost on tobacco users must be huge. Therefore,
why not get rid of it in bars or public places? Im surprise some employee
of a establishment that allows smoking has not been sued over this.

Would anyone be less happy if they have to go to a bar/lounge/restaraunt
and not have to inhale smoke? How inconvienient is it to go outside and smoke or
have a smoking room? It just seems like a good idea, not to mention that I
do not think governments would crack down super hard anyway.

[H20cooled]

Would anyone be less happy if they have to go to a bar/lounge/restaraunt
and not have to inhale smoke? How inconvienient is it to go outside and smoke or
have a smoking room? It just seems like a good idea, not to mention that I
do not think governments would crack down super hard anyway.

I think smokers would be unhappy. How would you like it if someone said that you cannot drink Coke in a resturant or bar because they think its bad? Until there is solid proof that the 2nd hand smoke is bad, its really the same thing as you drinking a glass of Coke. Just cause you or I don't like it doesn't make it wrong. Why do you think the smoker should have to go outside to smoke, maybe the non-smoker should be the one going outside for fresh air.

Like I've said before I hate smoking, I hate the way it smells on my clothes and therefore I choose to stay away from it. But I don't think the government needs to tell people where they can and cannot smoke, atleast where public business are concerned. As Sean said let the business decide on there own, they will do what the majority wants because of the $$$.

[drock59]

Everyone use to talk about the hole in the ozone layer at the poles being caused by greenhouse gasses

Chloro flourocarbons(CFC's) were the cause. The Montreal Protocal was passed in 1987 inwhich 27 countries vowed to reduce their CFC emissions becuase of the dramatic effect it had on the ozone molecule, O3. The U.S went from dumping 300K tons of CFC's into the air, down to nearly 0 by 1996. The other nations involved with the Montreal Protocol showed a similar pattern. Hence, no more CFC's, no more increasing of the hole in the ozone layer. In fact it is slowly repairing itself and I suspect that is why you dont hear about it anymore. Its not exciting news.

SeanF
algaes will grow better
Have you heard of a red tide? Massive algea blooms are not good.




And as far as secondhand smoke goes:
http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=35422
http://www.cancer.org/docroot/PED/content/PED_10_2X_Environmental_Tobacco_Smoke-Clean_Indoor_Air.asp


Im going to stand on my soapbox for a moment....


he is doing what he truly believes is the right thing for the country whether it is popular or not.

Isnt the president supposed to work for the people? If he is doing something unpopular, seems that the people dont want him to be doing it. Stubborness is rarely a good quality, and especially not in a president. The presidents father was smart enough to not go all the way to Baghdad for a reason and that reason is the quagmire that we are currently an active member of.


Clinton had done in the economy and it was on a severe downturn that would have only gotten worse if Gore was in office.

It always comes back to Clinton....I wonder what people will say when a Democrat gets elected in 08 and the economy does well again? You will say it was becuase of the foundation that Bush laid. :)


saw all of the same intellegence and voted to give the president authority to commit troops and was proud of it

Nearly everyone in Congress voted for the war....why? Becuase the president painted a picture that was scary as hell. Turns out it was all BS.... I do not think you can really play that card anymore. (nutty)



People will come to kill us if we do not kill them first

So why havnt we invaded/bombed Iran or North Korea. They seem to pose an ACTUAL threat to our nation, more so that Iraq ever did/will.

[drock59]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060627/ts_nm/smoking_dc_7

[H20cooled]

I tried REALLy hard to resist replying back to you on these but I could so here goes my opinion...


Isnt the president supposed to work for the people? If he is doing something unpopular, seems that the people dont want him to be doing it. Stubborness is rarely a good quality, and especially not in a president. The presidents father was smart enough to not go all the way to Baghdad for a reason and that reason is the quagmire that we are currently an active member of.
Do you honestly believe that the vast majority of people believe we should have gone to war? I think there is a small and very noisy group that feels that way (a lot seem to be in the northwest for some reason), but I think the general public feels differently.

Personly I see nothing wrong with choosing to go to war with Iraq, but I disagree with the way the war is being fought. They are treating it like a Police action instead of a war, and I think that's why we are having the troop deaths that we are. We have an Airforce for a reason use them...



Nearly everyone in Congress voted for the war....why? Becuase the president painted a picture that was scary as hell. Turns out it was all BS.... I do not think you can really play that card anymore. (nutty)
What was BS? The WMD's? Well we now know they were true, so I'm not sure what you are reffering to. The reason that the war was voted for was because they realized that Iraq was a threat and had to be stopped.



So why havnt we invaded/bombed Iran or North Korea. They seem to pose an ACTUAL threat to our nation, more so that Iraq ever did/will.

There is a HUGE difference between a war with Iraq and one with North Korea, I think they are smart enough to realize that a political solution with them is better then a war. Because it would be very nasty with a LOT of deaths on both side. Iran is also another one that a political solution is better then a war. Just cause someone is a threat doesn't mean we always attack them, I think they try to solve it politicly first and then resort to an attack

[drock59]

The WMD's? Well we now know they were true, so I'm not sure what you are reffering to Are you saying that they found WMD's?


Do you honestly believe that the vast majority of people believe we should have gone to war? I think there is a small and very noisy group that feels that way (a lot seem to be in the northwest for some reason), but I think the general public feels differently.


Please elaborate, I dont think I am understanding you.



Personly I see nothing wrong with choosing to go to war with Iraq, but I disagree with the way the war is being fought

I agree with the last half of your statement. Why dont you see anything wrong with going to war with Iraq. They had zero capability to attack us and no connection to 9/11.


they realized that Iraq was a threat and had to be stopped

Who is "they" and what was the actual threat?


HUGE difference between a war with Iraq and one with North Korea, I think they are smart enough to realize that a political solution with them is better then a war. Because it would be very nasty with a LOT of deaths on both side

You didnt answer how they are diffrent situations, all you said was that there is a "huge" difference. N. Korea actually HAS nukes and another nut job for a leader. How is fundamentally different than the Iraq case? How many deaths is "a lot?" How many US soldier or Iraqi civiliationi deaths is enough for you to consider it not worth it to fight this war?


Looking forward to hearing back.

[H20cooled]

Are you saying that they found WMD's?

Yep! Check out these areticles:

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200606/NAT20060621e.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html
http://www.mediaresearch.org/press/2006/press20060623.asp



Please elaborate, I dont think I am understanding you.
I think you are under the impression that all of the country feels that the war was wrong and that we shouldn't have gone. I think its actually the opposite of that. I think that there is a very vocal minority that feel that way, but the silent mass do not.




I agree with the last half of your statement. Why dont you see anything wrong with going to war with Iraq. They had zero capability to attack us and no connection to 9/11.
I don't see anything wrong with going to war with Iraq, but I think there were better uses for our military then Iraq at this time. But that's not saying that the Iraq people aren't better off without Saddam.



Who is "they" and what was the actual threat?
The "they" was the governerment people that voted for the war and continue to vote NOT to pull out of Iraq. As to the threat, I'm not sure if they (Iraq) were a threat to us or not, but then again I don't have the inside info that the government officalls have.



You didnt answer how they are diffrent situations, all you said was that there is a "huge" difference. N. Korea actually HAS nukes and another nut job for a leader. How is fundamentally different than the Iraq case? How many deaths is "a lot?" How many US soldier or Iraqi civiliationi deaths is enough for you to consider it not worth it to fight this war?
Its a different situation because you have to choose who you attack and access the threat situation. If we were to go to war with N. Korea it would be HUGE with tons of causilties and possiblely nuclear. No one wants that. Don't you think that if it could be solved with talks that's better then war?

From what I understand the people of Iran love the US, if we were to go to war against them it would cause all of those supporters to turn on us. So, its a situation were talks are better then war.

As for Iraq, I think they had exhausted the talk situation, NATO and the US had told Saddam many times to stop with the WMD's and he refused. So, there comes a point were an attack is the only situation.

How many deaths are a LOT, if we went to war with N Korea it would be in the 100, 000's. Is that enough for you. I hate to see our soldiers dieing, that is why I said that I do not like the way the war is being fought, I think they are being to soft over there this is a war not a police action treat it that way. As for the civilains I think our military is doing an amazing job of not attacking them. Now there own people are another story, they (Iraq terrorists) continue to kill tons of there own people.

[drock59]

Hook, line and sinker...I feel a littel bit bad for you just now that you posted those articles from the nut job Santorum.
The weapons they found were fifteen years old/pre gulf war weapons that were virtually harmless and leftover from their war with Iran. Your stories are rediculous.

Please watch this with an open mind: http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Countdown_Santorum-WMD.wmv

Remember these:
Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard, and VX nerve agent…. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought
significant quantities of uranium from Africa.
- George W. Bush, State of the Union Address, Jan. 28, 2003

We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south, and north somewhat.
- Donald Rumsfeld, ABC interview, March 30, 2003

You remember when Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons....They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two [the labs were later judged to not contain any such weapons, that they most likely were used for weather balloons]. And we'll find more weapons as time goes on, But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong. We found them.
- George W. Bush, remarks to reporters, May 31, 2003



I think you are under the impression that all of the country feels that the war was wrong and that we shouldn't have gone. I think its actually the opposite of that. I think that there is a very vocal minority that feel that way, but the silent mass do not

http://www.newsobserver.com/114/story/455590.html

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/06/16/iraq.poll/

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/06/12/iraq.poll/
Check out the poll pdf in the above article

http://www.columbusdispatch.com/national-story.php?story=dispatch/2006/06/29/20060629-A3-00.html

http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

http://poll.gallup.com/content/default.aspx?ci=23494 This would lead me to believe most americans are not happy with the way G.W is handling things, both foreign and domestic.

http://english.people.com.cn/200606/28/eng20060628_277931.html


I don't see anything wrong with going to war with Iraq, but I think there were better uses for our military then Iraq at this time. But that's not saying that the Iraq people aren't better off without Saddam.

Please elaborate on better uses.... maybe fininshing the job in Afganistan or finding Osama Bin Laden? I honestly dont know if the Iraqi people are better off without Sadaam at this point. Granted the guy was a lunatic and evil, but the people were relatively free and had relatively decent lives compared to what they have now. I still think Sadaam had to go but I think we could have done it at much cleaner/better.



The "they" was the governerment people that voted for the war and continue to vote NOT to pull out of Iraq. As to the threat, I'm not sure if they (Iraq) were a threat to us or not, but then again I don't have the inside info that the government officalls have.

The reason "they" voted for the war is becuase Congresspeople were given false intelligence and lead to believe Iraq was an iminent nuclear threat to the American people. It turns out they "cooked" the inteligence to make it look much worse than it actually was. Remember Collin Powell's speech to the UN? People voted not to pull out becuase they had faith in the Commander in Cheif and responsibility to hold that faith as long as they could. When it became aparent that the Pres. was/is not doing anywhwere near a good job in Iraq, some people began to speak out. How is this bad? Our governement runs on people speaking up and talking about what they believe is right, not by blindly following a leader who is on the wrong track.


HUGE with tons of causilties and possiblely nuclear

I heard this once before just before we invaded Iraq. Regardless, thousands of people are being starved in North Korea each year becuase their crazy leader wants to build a huge arsenal. Its insane.


From what I understand the people of Iran love the US, if we were to go to war against them it would cause all of those supporters to turn on us. So, its a situation were talks are better then war.

I disagree, I think it would be easy to topple their government BECAUSE the people love the U.S. The citizens of Iran want a different government. I would not be suprised if there were some clandestine type operations going on there, trying to stir up a revolt or something.


As for Iraq, I think they had exhausted the talk situation, NATO and the US had told Saddam many times to stop with the WMD's and he refused. So, there comes a point were an attack is the only situation.

"they" told you that they had exhausted talks. In fact the pres could have gone back to the UN a couple more times. The U.S told Sadaam to stop doing something that he wasnt doing....WMD's. Weapons inspectors befor and after found nothing that would be considered and iminent threat to the U.S. I dont think there ever reached a point where attacking Iraq was the ONLY solution. Nothing I can do about that though.


if we went to war with N Korea it would be in the 100, 000's

Where did you get this number?????


Now there own people are another story, they (Iraq terrorists) continue to kill tons of there own people

This is a very complex issue....The fighting and killing between Sunni and ****e is one thing. Iraqi terroists are another. Where did Abu Musab Al Zarquari come from? Not Iraq....I think the majority of "terrorists" in Iraq are not Iraqi civilians at all. They are fighters that came to Iraq for the Jihad. Like I said, this is a complex issue and I am not going to claim that I know enough about it so I may be wrong.

[rude944]

I have to disagree with some of these statements. I don't think that the Iraqi people are "better off" without Saddam. That's a big statement, I realize, but my logic is this: We've done worse things for these people by making their country more unstable and contributed to more death and destruction by removing Saddam. Ever notice that we don't report on the numbers of civilian death in Iraq since our occupation? I have heard numbers that approach 100k, and I am not going to research this, but there are other ramifications of this war that are not being reported on. Humanitarian issues are a byproduct that comes to mind. How many people die simply because the instability of this country, due in part to our occupation, contributes to the supply of necessary medicine and potable drinking water, for instance (my sociology classes are talking here).
Further, we have concentrated our efforts on terrorism in Iraq, where other obvious state supporters of terrorism (Syria, who harbors Hamas leaders for starters) are left alone. The idea that we would destabilize the Taliban in Afganistan to root out Osama is a similar arguement to the one I am making. So was Iraq a good target? I say no.
I am going to further critisize the Fox news and the Rupert Murdoch reports on WMD's. I read them and don't feel that the credibility of these reports are sufficient to support claims of WMD's. This was such a small blip on the radar of rationality, that there must be a reason that these are not being cited a credibile threat. The Iraq rationality for WMD's was yellowcake (nuclear materials) coming from Niger, not degrated nerve gasses from the pre gulf war. This has been determined to be an exaggeration of poor intelligence due in part to spin from Cheney, not based in fact whatsoever.

Back to global warming...

I saw the film, and I am a born sceptic. But here's the facts: The last 10 years have had the highest concentration of the hottest years on record. This cannot be disputed. There is a coorelation between co2 levels and warming global temps. This cannot be disputed. We have higher levels of co2 in our atmosphere than at any time on this planet. This cannot be disputed.

What's the problem in recognizing this?

[H20cooled]

Back to global warming...

I saw the film, and I am a born sceptic. But here's the facts: The last 10 years have had the highest concentration of the hottest years on record. This cannot be disputed. There is a coorelation between co2 levels and warming global temps. This cannot be disputed. We have higher levels of co2 in our atmosphere than at any time on this planet. This cannot be disputed.

What's the problem in recognizing this?

I'm done with the war talk, I agree to disagree at this point; I just don't have the time to put into that arguement...

As for Global warming:
Then I will still go back to my question. What caused all of the previous global warming events that brought the Earth out of the Ice ages? We (humans) we not there to create it so what did? I'm not discounting that it (global warming) isn't happening; I'm just questioning the cause of it. I think much of the so called "facts" are based on theories and speculation and not on actual data. Also a LOT of the scientist that are making the statements are not even climatologists then so they are basing this on there limited group of study. Before I go believing the my car is destroying the planet I won’t to know why the same thing (global warming) has happened over 7 times in the past...

[drock59]

I'm done with the war talk, I agree to disagree at this point; I just don't have the time to put into that arguement...

Or the research aparently. Did you even watch the video clip?


Also a LOT of the scientist that are making the statements are not even climatologists then so they are basing this on there limited group of study. Before I go believing the my car is destroying the planet I won’t to know why the same thing (global warming) has happened over 7 times in the past...

You are saying that only climatologists can contribute to the study of global warming. NO chemists, geologists or biologist allowed!!!!


I think much of the so called "facts" are based on theories and speculation and not on actual data.

This sounds an awful lot like that talking head....whats his name.....oh ya.... Bill O'Reily. Please tell me why the vast MAJORITY of scientists believe this is happening but you wont? Why is there so much consensus on this issue UNLIKE nearly every other isse that has ever been discussed. Why do you refute the FACT that CO2 cuases warming? Why wont you understand that we are dumping more CO2 into the air then EVER on the order of 700 billion tons!!! How do ice cores drilled in the antarctic that show that we now have the highest concentrations, by FAR, of CO2 in the air in the last 650,000 years and that we have had the warmest 10 years ever, not even begin to sway your thoughts on the issue. Simply baffling to me.

Go see the movie and dont simply toss the facts out like trash because you dont believe something this bad could be happening. The fact is, global warming is occuring and we are significantly contributing, if not, cuasing it.

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=2126704&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312

Rude944, well said.

[H20cooled]

Or the research aparently. Did you even watch the video clip?


Can you tell me WHY you have to be rude about this? I'm trying very hard to keep this to a civil discussion and then you have to go and insult me and make this a personal attack. I refuse to discuss this with you anymore and I will not LOWER myself down to your insulting and rude level. I have a lot better things to do then waste my time with you...

[rude944]

Here is what actual data suggests. You'll just have to trust me, Rich.

So imagine it's not your cars tailpipe, but the collective emissions of all our tailpipes and the billions of metric tons of CO2 from industrial pollution that has grown exponentially since the dawn of the industrial ago over the last 150 years. It's a function of the population and economic growth. Then take into account all the destruction of the forests (don't discount the burning of them to clear land either) that would have removed the CO2 from our atmosphere and we start to arrive at a place that in Reefworld would would call "accumulated detritus". The solution here is that as reef keepers, we perform water changes.

There just ain't no RO/DI for our atmosphere.

[H20cooled]

Seth,
That was good, :-)

The question still is what caused the global warming in the past though when Humans were not here to cause it?

Also if it really is the collective emissions of industrial pollution. How do we solve this? In the US we have made HUGE strives to clean up industrial pollution and we are one of the best countries around. China is now the major contributor to industrial pollution, but we don't see them trying at all to fix this...

[drock59]

Yo H20, excuse my rudeness, it was uncalled for.


The question still is what caused the global warming in the past though when Humans were not here to cause it?

I dont think anyone is saying that global warming doesnt happen as a natural cycle. I am saying that global warming is happening at a much faster rate and more intensely than the natural cycles due to human input.


In the US we have made HUGE strives to clean up industrial pollution and we are one of the best countries around.

Could you point me toward some evidence. I am very interested. It seems that we are better than a lot of developing countries, but that isnt really saying much. please elaborate.


China is now the major contributor to industrial pollution, but we don't see them trying at all to fix this
herein is the problem. None of the major pollution players are willing to take the first steps to minimize or reduce this problem. Why should China try and fix the problem when we are not? Why should anyone else. The U.S is supposed to be a leader in the world and it is this belief that makes me think we should be the ones to take first actions toward combating this problem. Thoughts?

A big proportion of pollution comes from cars. WHy cant we be the leader in fuel economy? We are at the bottom of the barell. Japan has set super high levels of fuel efficiency...something along the lines of 45mpg. I just dont understand why our country couldnt do the same.


How do we solve this?

Million dollar question, but I feel it starts with the old saying of, think globally and act locally. Meaning do simple things to reduce pollution.....recycle, compact flourescent lightbulb, energy efficient homes, energy efficient appliances, buy cars with better fuel economy, etc. These are simple things that everyone can do. Whats crazy is that they will save you money in the long run, but so few people do them.

[rude944]

Yeah, we (the US) are missing out on the Kyoto protocol, which drives co2 down.

[drock59]

Kyoto protocol is a huge deal! However, even though our national government has not adopted it many states and or cities have.

[H20cooled]

Here is another "Interesting" acrticle from the Wall Street Journal.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008597

[drock59]

Good article...it states my view on the subject clearly.

"The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability.


there is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition.

Ive seen this on some other issues in the last six years.....hmmmm.

[H20cooled]

I think this sums it up pretty well:

"First, nonscientists generally do not want to bother with understanding the science. Claims of consensus relieve policy types, environmental advocates and politicians of any need to do so. Such claims also serve to intimidate the public and even scientists--especially those outside the area of climate dynamics. Secondly, given that the question of human attribution largely cannot be resolved, its use in promoting visions of disaster constitutes nothing so much as a bait-and-switch scam. That is an inauspicious beginning to what Mr. Gore claims is not a political issue but a "moral" crusade."

[drock59]

If its a bait and switch what is the real issue? Why would "they" be trying to scare us into thinking global warming is due to us? What is Al Gore trying to get out of it?

[Lowman]

If its a bait and switch what is the real issue? Why would "they" be trying to scare us into thinking global warming is due to us? What is Al Gore trying to get out of it?

A run for Prez in '08??

[H20cooled]

A run for Prez in '08??
Yeah that kind of been my thought.

[drock59]

I havnt seen hide nor hair of Al Gore hinting at a run in '08. Anybody have any evidence yet? Just curious.

[Piero]

thanks for the link Drock.

[andy]

Jimmy Carter recently endorsed him (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/02/24/amid_oscar_buzz_for_gore_backers_talk_political_en core/), in spite of him not being a candidate. I read some rumors that if things look right in September he might enter the race.

[drock59]

September seems a bit late....interesting.