Global Warming

[EnragedParrot]

Lol. Foxfyre, you know that isn't what I said. Get back to me when you're ready to have a serious discussion. I'm not going to waste my time responding to your trollish remarks.

[Bailey Faye]

I don't know that I believe in any of the "science" supporting the global warming theory. If it were the case, than those that are most supportive of the "theory" are the very ones that contribute to the damage to our world the most. Nobel Peace Prize? Give me a break. Al Gore made a documentary that he "acted" in. He doesn't obviously believe in his own "theory".


Al Gore’s Personal Energy Use Is His Own “Inconvenient Truth”
Gore’s home uses more than 20 times the national average

Last night, Al Gore’s global-warming documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, collected an Oscar for best documentary feature, but the Tennessee Center for Policy Research has found that Gore deserves a gold statue for hypocrisy.

Gore’s mansion, located in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville, consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, according to the Nashville Electric Service (NES).

In his documentary, the former Vice President calls on Americans to conserve energy by reducing electricity consumption at home.

The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWh—more than 20 times the national average.

Last August alone, Gore burned through 22,619 kWh—guzzling more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year. As a result of his energy consumption, Gore’s average monthly electric bill topped $1,359.

Since the release of An Inconvenient Truth, Gore’s energy consumption has increased from an average of 16,200 kWh per month in 2005, to 18,400 kWh per month in 2006.

Gore’s extravagant energy use does not stop at his electric bill. Natural gas bills for Gore’s mansion and guest house averaged $1,080 per month last year.

“As the spokesman of choice for the global warming movement, Al Gore has to be willing to walk the walk, not just talk the talk, when it comes to home energy use,” said Tennessee Center for Policy Research President Drew Johnson.

In total, Gore paid nearly $30,000 in combined electricity and natural gas bills for his Nashville estate in 2006.


###

­­­­­­­­­­
The Tennessee Center for Policy Research is an independent, nonprofit and nonpartisan research organization committed to achieving a freer, more prosperous Tennessee through free market policy solutions.

[Foxfyre]

Quote by: EnragedParrot Lol. Foxfyre, you know that isn't what I said. Get back to me when you're ready to have a serious discussion. I'm not going to waste my time responding to your trollish remarks.

If that isn't what you intended to say, my best advice is to not say it.

[Foxfyre]

Quote by: Bailey Faye I don't know that I believe in any of the "science" supporting the global warming theory. If it were the case, than those that are most supportive of the "theory" are the very ones that contribute to the damage to our world the most. Nobel Peace Prize? Give me a break. Al Gore made a documentary that he "acted" in. He doesn't obviously believe in his own "theory". Al Gore’s Personal Energy Use Is His Own “Inconvenient Truth” Gore’s home uses more than 20 times the national average Last night, Al Gore’s global-warming documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, collected an Oscar for best documentary feature, but the Tennessee Center for Policy Research has found that Gore deserves a gold statue for hypocrisy. Gore’s mansion, located in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville, consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, according to the Nashville Electric Service (NES). In his documentary, the former Vice President calls on Americans to conserve energy by reducing electricity consumption at home. The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWh—more than 20 times the national average. Last August alone, Gore burned through 22,619 kWh—guzzling more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year. As a result of his energy consumption, Gore’s average monthly electric bill topped $1,359. Since the release of An Inconvenient Truth, Gore’s energy consumption has increased from an average of 16,200 kWh per month in 2005, to 18,400 kWh per month in 2006. Gore’s extravagant energy use does not stop at his electric bill. Natural gas bills for Gore’s mansion and guest house averaged $1,080 per month last year. “As the spokesman of choice for the global warming movement, Al Gore has to be willing to walk the walk, not just talk the talk, when it comes to home energy use,” said Tennessee Center for Policy Research President Drew Johnson. In total, Gore paid nearly $30,000 in combined electricity and natural gas bills for his Nashville estate in 2006. ### ­­­­­­­­­­ The Tennessee Center for Policy Research is an independent, nonprofit and nonpartisan research organization committed to achieving a freer, more prosperous Tennessee through free market policy solutions.

That has been one of the pieces of the puzzle that keep me wondering about all this. I don't see ANY of the so-called scientific gurus on the pro-AGW side living a lifestyle that suggests they are in any way concerned about human related global warming. So it seems quite reasonable to conclude that they are a) the world's greatest idiots or b) the world's greatest opportunists or c) the world's greatest hypocrites or they are d) the world's greats liars and/or intentional deceivers.

At any rate, Al Gore in particular is raking in mega bucks by all this jetting around the world trying to scare people into buying into his poorly supported scientific claims. The sad thing is that so many are buying into it.

I am going to need a lot more credible witness than him to convince me.

[xyzer]

The figures used in previous global climate studies may have been rigged? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/11/25/nbook125.xml

Weren't we assured that global climate had been growing warmer?

The scare over global warming, and our politicians' response to it, is becoming ever more bizarre. On the one hand we have the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change coming up with yet another of its notoriously politicised reports, hyping up the scare by claiming that world surface temperatures have been higher in 11 of the past 12 years (1995-2006) than ever previously recorded.

This carefully ignores the latest US satellite figures showing temperatures having fallen since 1998, declining in 2007 to a 1983 level - not to mention the newly revised figures for US surface temperatures showing that the 1930s had four of the 10 warmest years of the past century, with the hottest year of all being not 1998, as was previously claimed, but

Even the press is begining to catch on to the thrilling news that they have previously hyped out of proportion.The politicians are really looking like ignorant shills..

[EnragedParrot]

Quote by: Foxfyre If that isn't what you intended to say, my best advice is to not say it.

I said exactly what I meant.

[EnragedParrot]

Quote by: xyzer The figures used in previous global climate studies may have been rigged? Christopher Booker: Planet-saving madness - Telegraph Weren't we assured that global climate had been growing warmer? Even the press is begining to catch on to the thrilling news that they have previously hyped out of proportion.The politicians are really looking like ignorant shills..

Your link's broken. but it doesn't matter, the article has been popping up all over the web today.

The first mistake is their claim that satellite data shows that temperatures have fallen since 1998, when that quite obviously isn't the case. Here's the trend calculated from the MSU satellite data for the past nine years:



It's quite clearly positive.

The second mistake is their insinuation that 1998 is no longer the hottest year on record. As you can clearly see in the below graph, 1998 is the hottest year globally,followed by 2005 and 2007 (2007 isn't shown on the graph).



It's true that 1934 is, according to the GISTEMP analysis, the hottest year on record for the continental US. But this has little effect on the global trend.

[rmnunez]

I don't think there's enough data in the first chart to draw that trend line.

Given the claim of a correlation between atmospheric CO2 and temperature change, since pollution has accelerated, I'd expect to see acceleration in temperature change too.

[B1NKS]

Just because two things are happening at the same time doesn't mean they're connected.

Furthermore, the Earth has gone through warming and cooling phases long before the advent of industrialization, let alone humanity.

[EnragedParrot]

Quote by: rmnunez I don't think there's enough data in the first chart to draw that trend line.

There isn't. At least, there isn't enough data to draw any meaningful trend from. That's why the "temperatures stopped going up in 1998" argument is usually met with ridicule. However, I just thought I'd point out that not only is the temperature trend since 1998 meaningless, it's positive. Which means the article's argument is flat out wrong no matter how you slice it.

[EnragedParrot]

Quote by: B1NKS Just because two things are happening at the same time doesn't mean they're connected. Furthermore, the Earth has gone through warming and cooling phases long before the advent of industrialization, let alone humanity.

Both of those points are true. How are they meaningful to the discussion of anthropogenic climate change?

[B1NKS]

-There is no proof that rising emissions and rising average temperatures are connected. Just because they are happening at the same time is not proof. Assuming that they are connected is a big assumption, and making policies on assumptions is foolish.

-Furthermore, those rising temperatures can be caused by many more things than just a simplistic explanation of emissions; the Earth goes through weather cycles, the Earth's orbit can change, there might be solar activity, etc. Again, it is wrong to make policy on big assumptions like the one that emissions are causing temperature increases.

[Foxfyre]

Quote by: B1NKS -There is no proof that rising emissions and rising average temperatures are connected. Just because they are happening at the same time is not proof. Assuming that they are connected is a big assumption, and making policies on assumptions is foolish. -Furthermore, those rising temperatures can be caused by many more things than just a simplistic explanation of emissions; the Earth goes through weather cycles, the Earth's orbit can change, there might be solar activity, etc. Again, it is wrong to make policy on big assumptions like the one that emissions are causing temperature increases.

The one aspect I see argued more and more often lately--one that is pretty well ignored by the pro-AGW proponents including their science gurus--is that many of these models are based on data collected in the USA and other highly developed countries because that's where the instrumentation to collect it is concentrated. What the models do not show, however, is the alterations in the places surrounding the measuring devices. Measurements taken in an area that has been converted from forest or prairie to agricultural purposes will show significant changes in mean temperatures and CO2 levels. Areas that are converted from agricultural or unusued land to residential or commercial or industrial areas will show even more dramatic changes.

In other words, some, if not many or most, of the more dramatic changes in mean temperatures, etc. are very likely to be due to this kind of phenomenon as well as normal fluctuations rather than due to any significant anthropogenic cause.

[B1NKS]

It's a bit off topic, but I saw a report in the news a while ago about how one website actually obtained information on where each ground temperature measuring station was located (it used to be public knowledge), and would find many critical errors with each station.

For example, one measuring device was located only a couple feet above the asphalt of an urban parking lot.

[Foxfyre]

Quote by: B1NKS It's a bit off topic, but I saw a report in the news a while ago about how one website actually obtained information on where each ground temperature measuring station was located (it used to be public knowledge), and would find many critical errors with each station. For example, one measuring device was located only a couple feet above the asphalt of an urban parking lot.

That's not off topic at all. I think it was on this thread--I'm not certain--that I mentioned the wide variations of temperature readings between the weatherunderground reporting stations in our area. When somebody went out to check on this, they found some instruments near air conditioning equipment, dryer vents, unshaded, placed at improper distance above the ground, and other anomalies. If we are getting similarly 'corrupted' readings fed into the scientific models, its no wonder that sensible scientists without an agenda are finding the results to be suspect.

[B1NKS]

Finally, I found someone who agrees with me on something! Hooray! :)

Indeed, the ground temperature statistics are not always reliable for a variety of reasons. I would imagine that readings from atmospheric balloons might be more accurate, or might show a different trend, but I'm no expert. I'm just a little skeptical, that's all.

[Bailey Faye]

The earth has been here for how many billions of years? Who are we to think that we are so powerful that we could destroy such a huge and wonderful planet? As warming and cooling trends have happened in the past, the earth will eventually find a way to cool itself off. If we are damaging her and her atmosphere, mother nature will take care of the problem...us. The natural disasters will continue to increase in severity and so on and so forth making earth uninhabitable to us. This of course will not happen in our lifetime, but it will happen!

[rmnunez]

The World Tourism Organization (a UN Agency) expressed concern the adverse effects of climate change are and will be most harshly felt in their most important segments; beaches and ski slopes.

[B1NKS]

I think we can destroy all life on the planet and severely effect our climate, at least temporarily, if we wanted to, with thousands of nuclear bomb detonations, for example.

Yet it seems to me that the current gradual warming trends (about a couple degrees over a couple hundred years), are if anything the result of macro-climactic or cosmic forces far beyond our control. Still, I believe we will adapt.

[rmnunez]

Regarding that photo of the "Stranded Polar Bears"

YouTube - Another Global Warming Hoax exposed