Sheryl Crowe calls to stop Global Warming

Along with Global Warming activist Laurie David, Sheryl Crowe is stressing during her concert tour that we need to stop Global Warming now! Laurie
David, a noted k00...er, activist, claims there is more CO2 in the atmosphere now than at any time in the past 650,000 years.
I had to Duct Tape my head when I heard all this. Hey, Sheryl (and David, too) after you figure out how to stop Global Warming next week, can you get on some other pressing matters, too? You know, Plate Techtonics, volcanoes, hurricanes, tornados and even thunder storms are all kinda major apins in the ass, so while we're calling for ends to things, how bout calling for an end to these, too? You'll come up with solutions, I'm sure.
And Laurie David is saying there hasn't been this much CO2 in the atmosphere in 650,000 years.
"Carbon dioxide is the principal "greenhouse" gas thought to be driving global warming." (IPCC paper)
THOUGHT to be driving Global Warming? So there is no proof?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

No wonder Lance broke up with her.
Charles of Schaumburg
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Will this become Sheryl's favorite mistake?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 10:21:11 -0400, mark_digital© wrote:

I don't know, but from what I saw this morning, I bet it makes her happy...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Wlecome to the Flat Earth Society, fellas. Since you refuse to watch Gore's film, mainly or solely on the basis that he's a Democrat, you'll be right at home. Your minds are no narrow it's a wonder your ears don't chafe together.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I watched it.
--


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 15:58:09 -0500, dbu., wrote:

And youy didn't pluck out your eyes? "If thine eyes offend thee..."
No thanks.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 13:50:55 -0700, mack wrote:

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! YEAH! I get my scientific info from Al Gore, the Inventor of the Internet, the Author of Earth In The Balance, and the one who flaps his yap about conservation, etc and has a one-month energy bill that equals mine over twelve months!
No, I get my info from more reliable sources than Al Gore.
I suggest you do too:
Scientific American is a good place to start. National Geographic is also very good.
It has NOTHING to do with his being a Democrat. It has EVERYTHING to do with his being a DimWit. He poses nothing new, he just draws upon extrapolations from people like David, who also get their info second or third hand.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You know, I wish just one of you morons would get a clue about this. Al Gore did not say he created it. He said he took the initiative to create it and that is entirely true. The legislation that started the Internet was actually carried the title "Supercomputing" but it was what made very-high-speed networking common.
Without Gore, the Internet as you know it might not exist - at least not yet - and you would have to be wrong just among your family and friends instead of being wrong where the whole world can see it.
A year or two ago, Vint Cerf (and you should know that name, since you pretend to be in the IT business - unless you're just a COBOL programmer, the lowest form of computer job there is - and I have my doubts, frankly, because you're the worst-informed IT guy I've ever met and, yes, I'm comparing you to our Indian contract help) agreed that the Internet owed a lot to Al Gore.

And Al has never said we have to suffer to be green.

If you have been reading Scientific American, you certainly haven't been retaining anything you've learned.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 20:54:50 -0500, dh wrote:

Bullshit. There were PLENTY of people working on the project, Ken Olson of DEC being one, and the whole project came under the auspicies of DARPA in 1968. In fact, it was called DARPANet for a number of years. Maybe Gore thought of it all by himself, but it was already in the works.

There were others working on it as well, already well in the process by the time Gore "dreamed" it up.
He had about as much to do with the Internet as I did with the Space Shuttle.

More cover up! You can't have it both ways! Most energy as we know it is derived by turning something into heat, and that means burning something, or producing heat somehow.

Plenty. Nut I look at it at the Library, so I read what I want.
Stop trying to tell me Al Gore knows anything more that Joe Schmoe. He's been caught in so many falsehoods so many times I will *NEVER* pay any attention to the guy at all!

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Plus, as far as any credibility he had, went to ZERO when he proved by trying to manipulate the recount in Florida and proved he was just a little pissy-assed SoreLoserMan. I remember the temper tantrums he threw when the US Supreme Court said he couldn't do what he was doing. i.e. only recount Dim areas for more Dim votes.
As far as I'm concerned, that disqualifies him from any office in the land, including any he may have in his mind, such as Chief Environmentalist.
Charles of Schaumburg
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
n5hsr wrote:

Yet you voted for him, and he's now the President. Please don't be an asshole again in 2008.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
if Gore was president we would all be braying to Mecca 5x/day
On 23 Apr 2007 23:04:59 -0700, snipped-for-privacy@whoever.com wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

If Mrs Billy Bob Phony 'terrorist pardoning' Clintoon happens to win the presidency....that will happen soon after her coronation...

--


Scott in Florida



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
BeerSpill doesn't realize it's a matter of life and death. If Heil Hillary is elected, you can just about say goodbye to the American Republic. She wants vengance on those who didn't allow Bill to pump through her Hillary Healthcare in 1993 and who oppose him and her even now. There will be blood in the streets.
I DO intend to be an ASSHOLE, as you put it, and vote Republican in 2008 if I don't live in Crook county.
It will be a COLD DAY in HELL AFTER the CUBS win the WORLD SERIES 2 years in a row before I think of voting for the modern iteration of the CPUSA that is labeled the DemonCrapic Party.
Good luck Mr Gorsky.
Charles of Schaumburg.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 20:54:50 -0500, dh wrote:

Transcript: Vice President Gore on CNN's 'Late Edition'
BLITZER: I want to get to some of the substance of domestic and international issues in a minute, but let's just wrap up a little bit of the politics right now.
Why should Democrats, looking at the Democratic nomination process, support you instead of Bill Bradley, a friend of yours, a former colleague in the Senate? What do you have to bring to this that he doesn't necessarily bring to this process?
GORE: Well, I will be offering -- I'll be offering my vision when my campaign begins. And it will be comprehensive and sweeping. And I hope that it will be compelling enough to draw people toward it. I feel that it will be.
But it will emerge from my dialogue with the American people. I've traveled to every part of this country during the last six years.
During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet.
This is a direct quote from his interview with Wolf Blitzer when he ran for President. Note: "I took the initiative for creating the Internet"
Gore was a Congressman in the 80's. The "Internet" was already well on it's way but the time he took the 'initiative' to create it. There was already a GUI and a 'web browser' by that time.
Maybe he lobbied in Congress to *EXPAND* it, but it was already well in place between colleges, industry and the government by that time.
Look up the history of Ethernet and IP addressing. It was around long before Gore 'dreamed it up'.
And, whatever happened to the story about him tossing it off his roomate in College who went on to run with Al Gore's 'ball'?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Let's face it, Gore is a legend in his own mind. He's probably still mad at the American People for not electing the likes of his sorry a$$ in 2000. Remember the near-temper tantrum he threw? I half expected him when the Supreme Court finally put an end to his sneaky 'partial' recount, for him to stomp up and down on national TV and yell "No, no, no, no! I've earned it. I deserve it. It's mine!" like a little pouty 2 year old. And this ball-knocker wants to be POTUS? He isn't mature enough to be dogcatcher.
Never forget. Forget is what the Dims hope we do, so they can bamboozle us again with the same old stuff on a different day.
Charles of Schaumburg
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Really? You seem more like the person with the political agenda. Open you mind to the opinions of others first, WBMA
mike
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." See also: The Gods must be laughing A sample of experts' comments about the science of "An Inconvenient Truth":
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. Wibjorn Karlen, 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 Karlen 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," Karln 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."
Karlen 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 Karln
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.
You can also search many other paleoclimatologist sites and read more of the same debunking of "The Inconvenient Truth," junk science.
mike
wrote in message

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Hachiroku ハチロク wrote:

A favorite tactics of right wingers is to nitpick about nothing. BTW gravity is thought to be the primary cause of the planets orbiting around the sun.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 09:34:22 -0700, larry moe 'n curly wrote:

I beleive that has been proven. The above quote came from a link on David's web site. So, there isn't any real *proof* that CO2 is causing Global Warming? Then why all the fuss?
The whole thing is, the people spouting off about all this present it as though it is, *definitely* that CO2 is causing Global Warming, when in fact there is no empirical data to back up this 'fact'.
I have presented, over and over again, periods in the Earth's history where the climate has warmed all by itself, many many times with NO HELP from Humans at all. Why is that such a hard concept to grasp?
I have also presented links to other sites that have shown in the past that CO2 level have risen, again with NO HELP from Humans at all. These appear to be normal cycles the Earth goes through, all by itself, and will probably contine to go through until the end of time. I have also presented that, based on Geologic Histiry, the Earth is *DUE* for another period of warming, most likely to be followed by a Deep Freeze. The evidence is there. It's just that at this particular point in time that it is coinciding with the Industrailization of the world.
Does this mean that Man, and the increase in CO2 is not having an effect on the climate? (Look back through the posts...I have *NEVER* said this isn't a possibility). May well be. But there are other factors to consider that the Alarmists don't seem to want to include in their spewage. With them, it's just The End Of The World As We Know It.
...and I feel fine...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.