On Oct 13, 1:19 am, dxAce wrote:
RHF wrote:
On Oct 12, 10:07 pm, Ross Archer wrote:
On Oct 12, 2:16 am, "Burr" wrote:

Maybe I should have voted for the SOB!!!!

from CNN
-- Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore and the U.N.'s climate change panel
win
the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. Details soon.

While it's certainly open to debate whether global warming falls under
the purview of a peace prize, there's no question that once it's
decided that the prize goes for that, Albert Gore Jr. is deserving of
it.

The idea that global warming is liberal bias is preposterous. Global
warming is occurring, and the majority of that warming is
anthropogenic, and this is the consensus of climate scientists. None
of this is controversial in scientific circles, or at least no more
controversial than most generally-accepted theories.

Recent data suggests that warming is increasing faster than predicted
because the melting of ice is releasing additional C02 and methane
trapped under the ice from biomass frozen under the ice.

This could easily be the most serious threat that humankind has ever
faced.

So for Gore's tireless crusade to call attention to this issue, and
for his taking the initiative for creating the Internet by sponsoring
the bill that funded DARPAnet, the experimental government research
program which created the Internet, he certainly seems to be a
visionary and a strong contributor to making the world a better place.

This Gore-hatred is sick. He's a great man, and this country should
be proud of his winning this prize, not being a bunch of narrow-minded
ill-informed yahoos seeing things as liberal vs. conservative when its
really well-supported facts vs. junk Exxon science and fringe solar
theories that are not accepted.

RA,

"Climate Change" in a significant manner may in-fact be
'happening' at this Earth-Age -but- Mankind is 'want' to
have any real impact on it -except to- Adapt and Survive.

Yep, seems not long ago that the so-called-scientists were predicting global
cooling.

Now, we've a new bunch of kooks, led by a fellow who had to undergo a lot of
therapy because he lost an election. Al is mentally ill.


Fact: "With the release of the revised statement by the American
Association of Petroleum Geologists, no scientific bodies of national
or international standing are known to reject the basic findings of
human influence on recent climate."

Fact: If you disagree with most scientists, then who's the crackpot?
Sure isn't Gore. He's merely stating what most experts believe, for
the most part.

If we have most of science on one side, and a bunch of right-wing
lunatics on the other, it's pretty obvious who's wrong.

You are. Wrong.






Fact: A question which frequently arises in conveying the scientific
opinion to a broader audience is to what extent that opinion rises to
the level of a consensus. Several scientific organizations have
explicitly used the term "consensus" in their statements:

* American Association for the Advancement of Science: "The
conclusions in this statement reflect the scientific consensus
represented by, for example, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change, and the Joint National Academies' statement."[24]
* US National Academy of Science: "In the judgment of most climate
scientists, Earth's warming in recent decades has been caused
primarily by human activities that have increased the amount of
greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. ... On climate change, [the
National Academies' reports] have assessed consensus findings on the
science..."[25]
* Joint Science Academies' statement, 2005: "We recognise the
international scientific consensus of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC)."[26]
* Joint Science Academies' statement, 2001: "The work of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) represents the
consensus of the international scientific community on climate change
science. We recognise IPCC as the world's most reliable source of
information on climate change and its causes, and we endorse its
method of achieving this consensus."[27]
* American Meteorological Society: "The nature of science is such
that there is rarely total agreement among scientists. Individual
scientific statements and papers-the validity of some of which has yet
to be assessed adequately-can be exploited in the policy debate and
can leave the impression that the scientific community is sharply
divided on issues where there is, in reality, a strong scientific
consensus. ...IPCC assessment reports are prepared at approximately
five-year intervals by a large international group of experts who
represent the broad range of expertise and perspectives relevant to
the issues. The reports strive to reflect a consensus evaluation of
the results of the full body of peer-reviewed research. ... They
provide an analysis of what is known and not known, the degree of
consensus, and some indication of the degree of confidence that can be
placed on the various statements and conclusions."[28]




The idea of global cooling was never more than speculation. To equate
it, drawn the level of evidence and knowledge from the 1970's with the
vastly greater evidence (especially after global ocean-depth
temperature measurements were made in 2003) for global warming, is
just preposterous. Nothing less. It's a fact. You cannot possibly
read the facts and disagree:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scienti...climate_change

To summarize:





You're not

Ross Archer wrote:

On Oct 13, 1:19 am, dxAce wrote:
RHF wrote:
On Oct 12, 10:07 pm, Ross Archer wrote:
On Oct 12, 2:16 am, "Burr" wrote:

Maybe I should have voted for the SOB!!!!

from CNN
-- Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore and the U.N.'s climate change panel
win
the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. Details soon.

While it's certainly open to debate whether global warming falls under
the purview of a peace prize, there's no question that once it's
decided that the prize goes for that, Albert Gore Jr. is deserving of
it.

The idea that global warming is liberal bias is preposterous. Global
warming is occurring, and the majority of that warming is
anthropogenic, and this is the consensus of climate scientists. None
of this is controversial in scientific circles, or at least no more
controversial than most generally-accepted theories.

Recent data suggests that warming is increasing faster than predicted
because the melting of ice is releasing additional C02 and methane
trapped under the ice from biomass frozen under the ice.

This could easily be the most serious threat that humankind has ever
faced.

So for Gore's tireless crusade to call attention to this issue, and
for his taking the initiative for creating the Internet by sponsoring
the bill that funded DARPAnet, the experimental government research
program which created the Internet, he certainly seems to be a
visionary and a strong contributor to making the world a better place.

This Gore-hatred is sick. He's a great man, and this country should
be proud of his winning this prize, not being a bunch of narrow-minded
ill-informed yahoos seeing things as liberal vs. conservative when its
really well-supported facts vs. junk Exxon science and fringe solar
theories that are not accepted.

RA,

"Climate Change" in a significant manner may in-fact be
'happening' at this Earth-Age -but- Mankind is 'want' to
have any real impact on it -except to- Adapt and Survive.

Yep, seems not long ago that the so-called-scientists were predicting global
cooling.

Now, we've a new bunch of kooks, led by a fellow who had to undergo a lot of
therapy because he lost an election. Al is mentally ill.

Fact: "With the release of the revised statement by the American
Association of Petroleum Geologists, no scientific bodies of national
or international standing are known to reject the basic findings of
human influence on recent climate."

Fact: If you disagree with most scientists, then who's the crackpot?
Sure isn't Gore. He's merely stating what most experts believe, for
the most part.

If we have most of science on one side, and a bunch of right-wing
lunatics on the other, it's pretty obvious who's wrong.

Yep, it's you kooks!

"Ross Archer" wrote in message
ups.com...
Fact: "With the release of the revised statement by the American
Association of Petroleum Geologists, no scientific bodies of national
or international standing are known to reject the basic findings of
human influence on recent climate."

Fact: If you disagree with most scientists, then who's the crackpot?
Sure isn't Gore. He's merely stating what most experts believe, for
the most part.

If we have most of science on one side, and a bunch of right-wing
lunatics on the other, it's pretty obvious who's wrong.

You are. Wrong.

So I guess all these folks are crackpots.
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris110706a.htm

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.../18/wsun18.xml

You're obviously a disciple in the Church of GW. Open you mind man.

In article . com,
Ross Archer wrote:

On Oct 12, 2:16 am, "Burr" wrote:
Maybe I should have voted for the SOB!!!!

from CNN
-- Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore and the U.N.'s climate change panel
win
the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. Details soon.

While it's certainly open to debate whether global warming falls under
the purview of a peace prize, there's no question that once it's
decided that the prize goes for that, Albert Gore Jr. is deserving of
it.

The idea that global warming is liberal bias is preposterous. Global
warming is occurring, and the majority of that warming is
anthropogenic, and this is the consensus of climate scientists. None
of this is controversial in scientific circles, or at least no more
controversial than most generally-accepted theories.

First off there is no proof that man is responsible for climate change.

Second the liberal socialists are pushing this as an agenda against
capitalism. It's right out there in the open. The fact that you don't
get it is preposterous.

Third Nobel Peace prize committee decided to ignore their charter.

Fourth Al Gore is a nut case.

Fifth Al Gore generates more green house gas than most people.

So the Nobel Peace prize committee ignored their charter to give a prize
to a "do as I say, not as I do" liberal nut case and a cadre of useful
idiots termed as UN climate scientists.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 08:43:13 GMT, Telamon
wrote:



First off there is no proof that man is responsible for climate change.

Second the liberal socialists are pushing this as an agenda against
capitalism. It's right out there in the open. The fact that you don't
get it is preposterous.


Is there enough proof to justify an attempt to reverse the effects?

Yes and no.

A prudent society should have acted...just in case the anthropogenic
theory is valid. But I think it's way too late. Your precious
capitalism is obsolete, as you (I) are (am).

On Oct 13, 1:43 am, Telamon
wrote:
In article . com,
Ross Archer wrote:



On Oct 12, 2:16 am, "Burr" wrote:
Maybe I should have voted for the SOB!!!!

from CNN
-- Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore and the U.N.'s climate change panel
win
the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. Details soon.

While it's certainly open to debate whether global warming falls under
the purview of a peace prize, there's no question that once it's
decided that the prize goes for that, Albert Gore Jr. is deserving of
it.

The idea that global warming is liberal bias is preposterous. Global
warming is occurring, and the majority of that warming is
anthropogenic, and this is the consensus of climate scientists. None
of this is controversial in scientific circles, or at least no more
controversial than most generally-accepted theories.

First off there is no proof that man is responsible for climate change.

There is *overwhelming* scientific evidence to this effect. Where
have you been?

I'm sorry for being so blunt, but your statement is completely
contrary to fact.

Second the liberal socialists are pushing this as an agenda against
capitalism. It's right out there in the open. The fact that you don't
get it is preposterous.

Third Nobel Peace prize committee decided to ignore their charter.

Fourth Al Gore is a nut case.

Fifth Al Gore generates more green house gas than most people.

So the Nobel Peace prize committee ignored their charter to give a prize
to a "do as I say, not as I do" liberal nut case and a cadre of useful
idiots termed as UN climate scientists.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

In article . com,
Ross Archer wrote:

On Oct 13, 1:43 am, Telamon
wrote:
In article . com,
Ross Archer wrote:



On Oct 12, 2:16 am, "Burr" wrote:
Maybe I should have voted for the SOB!!!!

from CNN
-- Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore and the U.N.'s climate change
panel
win
the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. Details soon.

While it's certainly open to debate whether global warming falls under
the purview of a peace prize, there's no question that once it's
decided that the prize goes for that, Albert Gore Jr. is deserving of
it.

The idea that global warming is liberal bias is preposterous. Global
warming is occurring, and the majority of that warming is
anthropogenic, and this is the consensus of climate scientists. None
of this is controversial in scientific circles, or at least no more
controversial than most generally-accepted theories.

First off there is no proof that man is responsible for climate change.

There is *overwhelming* scientific evidence to this effect. Where
have you been?

I'm sorry for being so blunt, but your statement is completely
contrary to fact.

You don't know what you are talking about. There is no evidence. Get a
clue, mans contribution is insignificant compared to the processes in
nature that add and subtract the CO2 levels.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

Yesterday, I read somewhere on the internet the Ozone Hole is back to
normal again.I think that is what I read.
cuhulin

On Oct 19, 9:19 pm, Telamon
wrote:
In article . com,
Ross Archer wrote:





On Oct 13, 1:43 am, Telamon
wrote:
In article . com,
Ross Archer wrote:

On Oct 12, 2:16 am, "Burr" wrote:
Maybe I should have voted for the SOB!!!!

from CNN
-- Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore and the U.N.'s climate change
panel
win
the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. Details soon.

While it's certainly open to debate whether global warming falls under
the purview of a peace prize, there's no question that once it's
decided that the prize goes for that, Albert Gore Jr. is deserving of
it.

The idea that global warming is liberal bias is preposterous. Global
warming is occurring, and the majority of that warming is
anthropogenic, and this is the consensus of climate scientists. None
of this is controversial in scientific circles, or at least no more
controversial than most generally-accepted theories.

First off there is no proof that man is responsible for climate change.

There is *overwhelming* scientific evidence to this effect. Where
have you been?

I'm sorry for being so blunt, but your statement is completely
contrary to fact.

You don't know what you are talking about. There is no evidence. Get a
clue, mans contribution is insignificant compared to the processes in
nature that add and subtract the CO2 levels.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

What Next . . .

My Carbon Footprint Is Bigger Than : Your Carbon Footprint !

On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 04:19:46 GMT, Telamon
wrote:

In article . com,
Ross Archer wrote:

On Oct 13, 1:43 am, Telamon
wrote:
In article . com,
Ross Archer wrote:



On Oct 12, 2:16 am, "Burr" wrote:
Maybe I should have voted for the SOB!!!!

from CNN
-- Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore and the U.N.'s climate change
panel
win
the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. Details soon.

While it's certainly open to debate whether global warming falls under
the purview of a peace prize, there's no question that once it's
decided that the prize goes for that, Albert Gore Jr. is deserving of
it.

The idea that global warming is liberal bias is preposterous. Global
warming is occurring, and the majority of that warming is
anthropogenic, and this is the consensus of climate scientists. None
of this is controversial in scientific circles, or at least no more
controversial than most generally-accepted theories.

First off there is no proof that man is responsible for climate change.

There is *overwhelming* scientific evidence to this effect. Where
have you been?

I'm sorry for being so blunt, but your statement is completely
contrary to fact.

You don't know what you are talking about. There is no evidence. Get a
clue, mans contribution is insignificant compared to the processes in
nature that add and subtract the CO2 levels.

Where is the excess carbon dioxide coming from?