tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post4454674682837698309..comments2024-03-19T07:14:00.087-05:00Comments on Althouse: I'm going to watch "An Inconvenient Truth."Ann Althousehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01630636239933008807noreply@blogger.comBlogger155125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-9920769954272623612007-03-25T18:38:00.000-05:002007-03-25T18:38:00.000-05:00Unlike the Ad Hominem attacks on this thread (and ...Unlike the Ad Hominem attacks on this thread (and Ann asks why "The film weaves Al Gore's biography into the scientific lesson. What was the point of all that?" Your own commenters just answered the question.).<BR/><BR/>Instead of all of the sideshow misdirection offered by the unqualified lurkers here, you might want to read an extensive, cited, and inclusive discussion of climate science here: <A HREF="http://www.realclimate.org/" REL="nofollow">Real Climate</A>.<BR/><BR/>It answers many of the questions that skeptics pose, complete with references and data. It debunks many of the sacred-cow counter-propaganda being pushed in the comments. The authors are climate scientists, but they are pretty good at explaining the important points of the science without misrepresentation or watering them down (they won't endlessly rehash the same misdirection if you refuse to understand them or wilfully misstate what they say). Don't go to the website if you just want to blindly hold onto your ideology--which is what I suspect most of these ad hominem attacks on ex-Senator Gore is really about anyway.Doc Marahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07545489565402563432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-74440679175872368962007-03-24T22:00:00.000-05:002007-03-24T22:00:00.000-05:00Thank you for watching An Inconvenient Truth.Now I...Thank you for watching <I>An Inconvenient Truth.</I><BR/><BR/>Now I don't have to.Chip Ahoyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12597726289890879627noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-6078031157459242912007-03-24T00:49:00.000-05:002007-03-24T00:49:00.000-05:00I wonder if that might be legal speech, if crafted...<I>I wonder if that might be legal speech, if crafted as a protest against the requirement of the approval voiceover.</I><BR/><BR/>Interesting point. I'm hoping that alot of amatuers from both sides of the aisle flood the net with YouTube ads that defy McCain-Feingold.Fenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16734571593963330215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-20725440243393448782007-03-23T21:26:00.000-05:002007-03-23T21:26:00.000-05:00Oh yeah, I'd forgotten about that law because I've...Oh yeah, I'd forgotten about that law because I've not watched TV during an election cycle in so long. Well, that makes sense then, I guess.<BR/><BR/>What someone will do is make a highly inflammatory ad, and then grab a "I'm Candidate X and I approved this message" sound bite and append it to the end, put it on YouTube and then sit back and watch the fireworks.<BR/><BR/>I wonder if that might be legal speech, if crafted as a protest against the requirement of the approval voiceover.MadisonManhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01212179466758420208noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-6328091233231159662007-03-23T20:33:00.000-05:002007-03-23T20:33:00.000-05:00Does it really matter if the person who made it wo...<I>Does it really matter if the person who made it works for B.O. or not (I'm guessing there could be a law?)</I><BR/><BR/>If it was found that the Obama campaign was involved in the ad's creation then that would, I believe, violate that dippy law that requires "My name is _____, and I endorse this ad" at the end of every political ad.<BR/><BR/>Odds of the Obama campaign being directly involved, though, are in my opinion pretty low.Revenanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11374515200055384226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-44071572704403043622007-03-23T20:14:00.000-05:002007-03-23T20:14:00.000-05:00AJ: I used to have a sense of humor, then Bush wa...AJ: I used to have a sense of humor, then Bush was re-elected.<BR/><BR/>On another topic, why was so much energy expended in finding out who made the (most excellent) anti-Hillary ad that's a rip-off (homage?) to 1984? Does it really matter if the person who made it works for B.O. or not (I'm guessing there could be a law?) If only I were uber-creative, I'd make a nice political ad for You-Tube, put it out there, and let the speculation fly.MadisonManhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01212179466758420208noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-27041156720672168002007-03-23T20:00:00.000-05:002007-03-23T20:00:00.000-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Randyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03071928294799081845noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-21122563174245615362007-03-23T17:23:00.000-05:002007-03-23T17:23:00.000-05:00It seems like a lot of ice, but it's been cold the...It seems like a lot of ice, but it's been cold there for quite a long while, so absent any conflicting data, I'm willing to accept an estimate of up to 2 miles thick, averaging less than half that over the glacier/ice shelf... The quantity of water tied up in frozen form on the surface of the planet is probably one of the least controversial aspects of this "issue".<BR/><BR/>BTW, I challenge you to prove there <I>aren't</I> flying saucers imbedded in that ice.<BR/><BR/>(Also, if monkeys flew out of Al Gore's butt, they <B>could</B> fly to the South Pole and melt <I>all</I> the snow and ice with their flying monkey emissions and raise sea levels by <I>more than 100 feet</I>! Immediate action to avert this urgent crisis is called for by up to 58% of the voices in my head.)Hazy Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15205671948883857573noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-31208763684930989662007-03-23T16:44:00.000-05:002007-03-23T16:44:00.000-05:00Madison Man:Do you have any sense of humor?Madison Man:<BR/><BR/>Do you have any sense of humor?I'm Full of Souphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00241724007440718575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-85534146993103533132007-03-23T16:19:00.000-05:002007-03-23T16:19:00.000-05:00So the heavy ice may be sinking the earth's surfac...<I>So the heavy ice may be sinking the earth's surface.</I><BR/><BR/>Ice is heavy. The Earth's surface around the Great Lakes is still rebounding from the last Ice Age.MadisonManhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01212179466758420208noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-55968803847553714102007-03-23T16:11:00.000-05:002007-03-23T16:11:00.000-05:00Hazy Dave said:"Greenland's ice sheet covers about...Hazy Dave said:<BR/><BR/>"Greenland's ice sheet covers about 2/3 of a million square miles. I don't know how thick it is, but its weight has evidently sunk the interior of the island by up to 1000 feet below sea level. "<BR/><BR/>So the heavy ice may be sinking the earth's surface. Well then, global warming may actually be saving us from a calamity where the thick ice sinks so far it came out on the other side of the planet. Even Republicans would agree that wouldn't be good :). <BR/><BR/>And Edjumacted, I thought the same thing as you did. I looked at Antartica on Wikipedia and saw it had big high mountains but the alarmists seemed to be assuming it was 100% ice and not partly land mass topped by some ice.I'm Full of Souphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00241724007440718575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-24452470114688740572007-03-23T16:08:00.000-05:002007-03-23T16:08:00.000-05:00So why should you believe Gore when Gahrie and Rev...<I>So why should you believe Gore when Gahrie and Revenant and so many people here with lawyerly credentials will tell you that he lied about Love Story?</I><BR/><BR/>Er... what? I'm not a lawyer and I have NO idea what Al Gore has to do with Love Story. I just noted that I don't like documentaries because film is too manipulative for nonfiction.Revenanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11374515200055384226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-65450476231651450822007-03-23T15:14:00.000-05:002007-03-23T15:14:00.000-05:00Hazy Dave, I appreciate the info, but doesn't that...Hazy Dave, I appreciate the info, but doesn't that even make the claim of 10,000 feet of ice even more ridiculous? I was assuming a half mile of water depth, not a 1,000 feet.<BR/><BR/>I can by a couple of thousand feet of ice, but even an average of 4,000 seems padded for immoral purposes.An Edjamikated Redneckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09881476802902468670noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-65856554800327552292007-03-23T15:11:00.000-05:002007-03-23T15:11:00.000-05:00It's fair to pay a percentage of your income as ta...It's fair to pay a percentage of your income as taxes and rich people pay far more taxes and still have more left over because taxes aren't causing a global crisis.<BR/><BR/>If we're really looking at a man-made global warming crisis it's the total amount of CO2 that needs to be reduced. This silly idea that no one has to reduce their lifestyle, just be frugal about the energy you use could be looked at this way...<BR/><BR/>Suppose I get richer.<BR/><BR/>I have a house and kids and use a certain amount of energy and I can take energy saving measures (which will help my bills, so good idea) and reduce the energy we use.<BR/><BR/>But suppose I get richer.<BR/><BR/>Suppose I finally finish a book and turn around in a daze to find out that I'm the next Rowlings? And I think, cool beans! And I buy the ancestral farm and put a nice house on it. It's in Minnesota so even if I'm not there I can't let it freeze. And Costa Rica rocked! So I buy a house in Costa Rica and that has to be kept up while I'm not there, too. And, this house is okay, but if I've got funds I'm going to buy a different one, have one built, and it's going to be bigger, even if not by much (never did see the point of a huge house... more to clean) and I can follow Bush's example and make each of these houses as efficient as possible.<BR/><BR/>My CO2 out put is still going to go up. The fact that I have money excuses that in what way? What if everyone got rich? What if standards of living go up all over the world? <BR/><BR/>Total CO2 production will not go down, it will go way way up.<BR/><BR/>It all depends on keeping the standard of living down for most people. It has to. Unless those with higher standards of living actually *really* reduce their *real* CO2 output down to something that could be considered their "share" of it, someone else is going to have to do the conserving *for them*.Synovahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01311191981918160095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-60954913240555350322007-03-23T15:02:00.000-05:002007-03-23T15:02:00.000-05:00RogerA:that might explain the photo found here:htt...RogerA:<BR/><BR/>that might explain the photo found here:<BR/><BR/>http://gorenetwork.ning.com/photo/photo/show?id=448544:Photo:2004chickelithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10773887469972534979noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-17888232390152504652007-03-23T14:43:00.000-05:002007-03-23T14:43:00.000-05:00daw9857us said:"he's buying a lot of "calorie offs...daw9857us said:<BR/><BR/>"he's buying a lot of "calorie offsets" as well"<BR/><BR/>No, he's just practicing a new personal form of carbon sequestration. Of course, the tough sell will be Hollywood.chickelithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10773887469972534979noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-12898337585200919152007-03-23T14:39:00.000-05:002007-03-23T14:39:00.000-05:00chickenlittle: And it shouldn't if the people of N...chickenlittle: <I>And it shouldn't if the people of New Orleans really care enough. But the events of Katrina have me wondering if they really do.</I> <BR/><BR/>I have to agree. Not only is it unwise to rebuild in a flood plain, but to entrust such a colossal effort to a community that prides itself on its corruption [Big Easy] seems foolish. You don't reinforce failure.Fenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16734571593963330215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-50054958111973733312007-03-23T14:31:00.000-05:002007-03-23T14:31:00.000-05:00So we don't really need to gut our lifesyle, just ...So we don't really need to gut our lifesyle, just cut waste.<BR/><BR/>And that will account for the 90% reduction in CO2 output that Gore told Congress we needed just a few days ago...<BR/><BR/>Wait, I think Al Gore's speech to Congress may have contradicted what you claim Al Gore wants us to do...<BR/><BR/>"Gore advised lawmakers to cut carbon dioxide and other warming gases 90 percent by 2050 to avoid a crisis." http://localnewsleader.com/jackson/stories/index.php?action=fullnews&id=83749<BR/><BR/>Doesn't a 90% cut affect your lifestyle just a smidge?<BR/><BR/>"Being 'green' means being cleaner and leaner-- but this does not have to mean any kind of a reduction in lifestyle."<BR/><BR/>Ok, fine. Show me how to cut 90% of my CO2 production without a lifestyle reduction. Or admit that you're the one spouting crap that doesn't match even Al Gore's recommendations.<BR/><BR/>Exactly how much electricity will this country have with a 90% cut in warming gases? How many cars? How do you not see a recommended 90% and anything but a huge lifestyle change for all America?gekkobearhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10794924457852881025noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-63081704194584660632007-03-23T14:27:00.000-05:002007-03-23T14:27:00.000-05:00Speaking of Gore's "carbon offsets", did anyone se...Speaking of Gore's "carbon offsets", did anyone see the video of Gore's testimony yesterday? It looks like he's buying a lot of "calorie offsets" as well. I suspect that somewhere in Africa there's a whole village starving on Gore's behalf.Dave in SoCalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05194043868104389040noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-3884612351124373952007-03-23T14:04:00.001-05:002007-03-23T14:04:00.001-05:00I haven't found a convenient time to see the the m...I haven't found a convenient time to see the the movie, but has AG put on even moore weight since?<BR/><BR/>Just wondering!chickelithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10773887469972534979noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-49468942292938912052007-03-23T14:04:00.000-05:002007-03-23T14:04:00.000-05:00Hey, Edjamikated, I believe the Antarctic ice shel...Hey, Edjamikated, I believe the Antarctic ice shelf in question is primarily resting on seabottom where it's not on the continent itself, so <I>well more than 10%</I> is above sea level. Even hdhouse knows that a tumbler of scotch won't overflow when the <I>floating</I> ice in it melts, which is why they talk of polar bears, rather than Miami residents, drowning from the predicted melting of the Arctic icecap.<BR/><BR/>Greenland's ice sheet covers about 2/3 of a million square miles. I don't know how thick it is, but its weight has evidently sunk the interior of the island by up to 1000 feet below sea level. Not that I believe everything I read on Wikipedia...Hazy Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15205671948883857573noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-87174827811761522182007-03-23T13:43:00.000-05:002007-03-23T13:43:00.000-05:00Elizabeth said:"Well, let me just stand up and sho...Elizabeth said:<BR/><BR/>"Well, let me just stand up and shout, really loudly, that that's just not acceptable. And it doesn't have to happen."<BR/><BR/>And it shouldn't if the people of New Orleans really care enough. But the events of Katrina have me wondering if they really do. <BR/>"Ask only what your country can do for you..."chickelithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10773887469972534979noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-78141691223079212222007-03-23T13:09:00.000-05:002007-03-23T13:09:00.000-05:00One more issue everyone is avoiding. Why is nobody...One more issue everyone is avoiding. Why is nobody questioning Al Gore's blatant, and quite extreme, conflict of interest between his preaching and businesses? Gore's proposals stand to make him billions and nobody sees a problem with that?Joehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04450897654318345683noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-2125117699863438082007-03-23T13:07:00.000-05:002007-03-23T13:07:00.000-05:00MadisonMan said... Joe, the proper place to ref...<I>MadisonMan said...<BR/><BR/> Joe, the proper place to refute an article is not a website. If the paper is going to be refuted (I like that word better than discredited), I'll rather read about it in a journal, where the views have been vetted by more than one person.</I><BR/><BR/>Now you're getting a tad hypocritical. You made a reference to an article that's been widely discredited. I posted a link to one article discussing this--the article wasn't just an op-ed piece, but a reference to a published paper.<BR/><BR/>Years ago Noam Chomsky came up with his theories of linguistics. His ideas were so dominate, for a relatively long time it was difficult for anyone to publish a dissenting paper. This same type of thing happened with Mayan research in the mid-20th century and Egyptian research earlier. Back in the 1800s, the theory of ether was so prevalent, those disagreeing with it were simply shut out. Same thing happened with eugenics in the early 20th century (and, to a smaller extent, scurvy.)<BR/><BR/>The point is that while the scientific process is the best method we have of discovering the truth about us and our environment, it is still far from perfect. It is made even more imperfect when the scientific method is not being followed and you add a strong dose of demagogery.<BR/><BR/>It is critical to point out that many of the conclusions of catastrophic anthropologic global warmists is they are using highly flawed models which can't even predict the past, yet are claimed to predict the future.<BR/><BR/>A second, critical point, is the saying there are lies, damn lies and statistics. Perverting statistics is precisely what Mann did to product the infamous Hockey Stick graph. It's the same with the alleged Hurricane intensity study MadisonMan referenced.<BR/><BR/>Has the earth warmed over the past hundred years? Yes, but not by much, especially if you factor in the margin of error. Did it cool from about 1945 to 1978? Yes. Did it warm again from 1978 to 1998? Yes. Has is stagnated since? Yes. Has the earth experienced periods where it has been much warmer in the past twelve thousand years? Yes. And we're all still alive.<BR/><BR/>That aside, I still go back to my basic question that I've been asking since we were heading into a new ice age--what is the correct temperature of the earth? (I would guess that nobody would nominate the Paleocene era or the Younger Dryas.)<BR/><BR/>And what about all those plate tectonics? Good God, that's going cause chaos with national borders.Joehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04450897654318345683noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-20044054043869952442007-03-23T12:27:00.000-05:002007-03-23T12:27:00.000-05:00Here is a good debunking of a lot of the peer-revi...Here is a good debunking of a lot of the peer-reviewed "science" behind Global Warming:<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/05/nosplit/nwarm05.xml" REL="nofollow">Climate chaos? Don't believe it</A> <BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2006/11/05/warm-refs.pdf" REL="nofollow">(supporting data)</A> <BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/12/nclim12.xml" REL="nofollow">Wrong problem, wrong solution</A> <BR/><BR/>And no, the author is not on the payroll of the oil industry.Dave in SoCalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05194043868104389040noreply@blogger.com