Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Gorey Truths : 25 Invonvenient Truths for Al Gore
National Review ^ | 06/22/2006 | Iain Murray

Posted on 06/22/2006 9:55:46 AM PDT by SirLinksalot







Gorey Truths
25 inconvenient truths for Al Gore.

By Iain Murray

With An Inconvenient Truth, the companion book to former Vice President Al Gore’s global-warming movie, currently number nine in Amazon sales rank, this is a good time to point out that the book, which is a largely pictorial representation of the movie’s graphical presentation, exaggerates the evidence surrounding global warming. Ironically, the former Vice President leaves out many truths that are inconvenient for his argument. Here are just 25 of them.

1. Carbon Dioxide’s Effect on Temperature. The relationship between global temperature and carbon dioxide (CO2), on which the entire scare is founded, is not linear. Every molecule of CO2 added to the atmosphere contributes less to warming than the previous one. The book’s graph on p. 66-67 is seriously misleading. Moreover, even the historical levels of CO2 shown on the graph are disputed. Evidence from plant fossil-remains suggest that there was as much CO2 in the atmosphere about 11,000 years ago as there is today.

2. Kilimanjaro. The snows of Kilimanjaro are melting not because of global warming but because of a local climate shift that began 100 years ago. The authors of a report in the International Journal of Climatology “develop a new concept for investigating the retreat of Kilimanjaro’s glaciers, based on the physical understanding of glacier–climate interactions.” They note that, “The concept considers the peculiarities of the mountain and implies that climatological processes other than air temperature control the ice recession in a direct manner. A drastic drop in atmospheric moisture at the end of the 19th century and the ensuing drier climatic conditions are likely forcing glacier retreat on Kilimanjaro.”

3. Glaciers. Glaciers around the world have been receding at around the same pace for over 100 years. Research published by the National Academy of Sciences last week indicates that the Peruvian glacier on p. 53-53 probably disappeared a few thousand years ago.

4. The Medieval Warm Period. Al Gore says that the “hockey stick” graph that shows temperatures remarkably steady for the last 1,000 years has been validated, and ridicules the concept of a “medieval warm period.” That’s not the case. Last year, a team of leading paleoclimatologists said, “When matching existing temperature reconstructions…the timeseries display a reasonably coherent picture of major climatic episodes: ‘Medieval Warm Period,’ ‘Little Ice Age’ and ‘Recent Warming.’” They go on to conclude, “So what would it mean, if the reconstructions indicate a larger…or smaller…temperature amplitude? We suggest that the former situation, i.e. enhanced variability during pre-industrial times, would result in a redistribution of weight towards the role of natural factors in forcing temperature changes, thereby relatively devaluing the impact of anthropogenic emissions and affecting future temperature predictions.”

5. The Hottest Year. Satellite temperature measurements say that 2005 wasn't the hottest year on record — 1998 was — and that temperatures have been stable since 2001 (p.73). Here’s the satellite graph:

6. Heat Waves. The summer heat wave that struck Europe in 2003 was caused by an atmospheric pressure anomaly; it had nothing to do with global warming. As the United Nations Environment Program reported in September 2003, “This extreme wheather [sic] was caused by an anti-cyclone firmly anchored over the western European land mass holding back the rain-bearing depressions that usually enter the continent from the Atlantic ocean. This situation was exceptional in the extended length of time (over 20 days) during which it conveyed very hot dry air up from south of the Mediterranean.”

7. Record Temperatures. Record temperatures — hot and cold — are set every day around the world; that’s the nature of records. Statistically, any given place will see four record high temperatures set every year. There is evidence that daytime high temperatures are staying about the same as for the last few decades, but nighttime lows are gradually rising. Global warming might be more properly called, “Global less cooling.” (On this, see Patrick J. Michaels book, Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians, and the Media.)

8. Hurricanes. There is no overall global trend of hurricane-force storms getting stronger that has anything to do with temperature. A recent study in Geophysical Research Letters found: “The data indicate a large increasing trend in tropical cyclone intensity and longevity for the North Atlantic basin and a considerable decreasing trend for the Northeast Pacific. All other basins showed small trends, and there has been no significant change in global net tropical cyclone activity. There has been a small increase in global Category 4–5 hurricanes from the period 1986–1995 to the period 1996–2005. Most of this increase is likely due to improved observational technology. These findings indicate that other important factors govern intensity and frequency of tropical cyclones besides SSTs [sea surface temperatures].”

9. Tornadoes. Records for numbers of tornadoes are set because we can now record more of the smaller tornadoes (see, for instance, the Tornado FAQ at Weather Underground).

10. European Flooding. European flooding is not new (p. 107). Similar flooding happened in 2003. Research from Michael Mudelsee and colleagues from the University of Leipzig published in Nature (Sept. 11, 2003) looked at data reaching as far back as 1021 (for the Elbe) and 1269 (for the Oder). They concluded that there is no upward trend in the incidence of extreme flooding in this region of central Europe.

11. Shrinking Lakes. Scientists investigating the disappearance of Lake Chad (p.116) found that most of it was due to human overuse of water. “The lake’s decline probably has nothing to do with global warming, report the two scientists, who based their findings on computer models and satellite imagery made available by NASA. They attribute the situation instead to human actions related to climate variation, compounded by the ever increasing demands of an expanding population” (“Shrinking African Lake Offers Lesson on Finite Resources,” National Geographic, April 26, 2001). Lake Chad is also a very shallow lake that has shrunk considerably throughout human history.

12. Polar Bears. Polar bears are not becoming endangered. A leading Canadian polar bear biologist wrote recently, “Climate change is having an effect on the west Hudson population of polar bears, but really, there is no need to panic. Of the 13 populations of polar bears in Canada, 11 are stable or increasing in number. They are not going extinct, or even appear (sic) to be affected at present.”

13. The Gulf Stream. The Gulf Stream, the ocean conveyor belt, is not at risk of shutting off in the North Atlantic (p. 150). Carl Wunsch of MIT wrote to the journal Nature in 2004 to say, “The only way to produce an ocean circulation without a Gulf Stream is either to turn off the wind system, or to stop the Earth’s rotation, or both”

14. Invasive Species. Gore’s worries about the effect of warming on species ignore evolution. With the new earlier caterpillar season in the Netherlands, an evolutionary advantage is given to birds that can hatch their eggs earlier than the rest. That’s how nature works. Also, “invasive species” naturally extend their range when climate changes. As for the pine beetle given as an example of invasive species, Rob Scagel, a forest microclimate specialist in British Columbia, said, “The MPB (mountain pine beetle) is a species native to this part of North America and is always present. The MPB epidemic started as comparatively small outbreaks and through forest management inaction got completely out of hand.”

15. Species Loss. When it comes to species loss, the figures given on p. 163 are based on extreme guesswork, as the late Julian Simon pointed out. We have documentary evidence of only just over 1,000 extinctions since 1600 (see, for instance, Bjørn Lomborg’s The Skeptical Environmentalist, p. 250).

16. Coral Reefs. Coral reefs have been around for over 500 million years. This means that they have survived through long periods with much higher temperatures and atmospheric CO2 concentrations than today.

17. Malaria and other Infectious Diseases. Leading disease scientists contend that climate change plays only a minor role in the spread of emerging infectious diseases. In “Global Warming and Malaria: A Call for Accuracy” (The Lancet, June 2004), nine leading malariologists criticized models linking global warming to increased malaria spread as “misleading” and “display[ing] a lack of knowledge” of the subject.

18. Antarctic Ice. There is controversy over whether the Antarctic ice sheet is thinning or thickening. Recent scientific studies have shown a thickening in the interior at the same time as increased melting along the coastlines. Temperatures in the interior are generally decreasing. The Antarctic Peninsula, where the Larsen-B ice shelf broke up (p. 181) is not representative of what is happening in the rest of Antarctica. Dr. Wibjörn Karlén, Professor Emeritus of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology at Stockholm University, acknowledges, “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.” According to a forthcoming report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, climate models based on anthropogenic forcing cannot explain the anomalous warming of the Antarctic Peninsula; thus, something natural is at work.

19. Greenland Climate. Greenland was warmer in the 1920s and 1930s than it is now. A recent study by Dr. Peter Chylek of the University of California, Riverside, addressed the question of whether man is directly responsible for recent warming: “An important question is to what extent can the current (1995-2005) temperature increase in Greenland coastal regions be interpreted as evidence of man-induced global warming? Although there has been a considerable temperature increase during the last decade (1995 to 2005) a similar increase and at a faster rate occurred during the early part of the 20th century (1920 to 1930) when carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases could not be a cause. The Greenland warming of 1920 to 1930 demonstrates that a high concentration of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is not a necessary condition for period of warming to arise. The observed 1995-2005 temperature increase seems to be within a natural variability of Greenland climate.” (Petr Chylek et al., Geophysical Research Letters, 13 June 2006.)

20. Sea Level Rise. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change does not forecast sea-level rises of “18 to 20 feet.” Rather, it says, “We project a sea level rise of 0.09 to 0.88 m for 1990 to 2100, with a central value of 0.48 m. The central value gives an average rate of 2.2 to 4.4 times the rate over the 20th century...It is now widely agreed that major loss of grounded ice and accelerated sea level rise are very unlikely during the 21st century.” Al Gore’s suggestions of much more are therefore extremely alarmist.

21. Population. Al Gore worries about population growth; Gore does not suggest a solution. Fertility in the developed world is stable or decreasing. The plain fact is that we are not going to reduce population back down to 2 billion or fewer in the foreseeable future. In the meantime, the population in the developing world requires a significant increase in its standard of living to reduce the threats of premature and infant mortality, disease, and hunger. In The Undercover Economist, Tim Harford writes, “If we are honest, then, the argument that trade leads to economic growth, which leads to climate change, leads us then to a stark conclusion: we should cut our trade links to make sure that the Chinese, Indians and Africans stay poor. The question is whether any environmental catastrophe, even severe climate change, could possibly inflict the same terrible human cost as keeping three or four billion people in poverty. To ask that question is to answer it.”

22. Energy Generation. A specific example of this is Gore’s acknowledgement that 30 percent of global CO2 emissions come from wood fires used for cooking (p. 227). If we introduced affordable, coal-fired power generation into South Asia and Africa we could reduce this considerably and save over 1.6 million lives a year. This is the sort of solution that Gore does not even consider.

23. Carbon-Emissions Trading. The European Carbon Exchange Market, touted as “effective” on p. 252, has crashed.

24. The “Scientific Consensus.” On the supposed “scientific consensus”: Dr. Naomi Oreskes, of the University of California, San Diego, (p. 262) did not examine a “large random sample” of scientific articles. She got her search terms wrong and thought she was looking at all the articles when in fact she was looking at only 928 out of about 12,000 articles on “climate change.” Dr. Benny Peiser, of Liverpool John Moores University in England, was unable to replicate her study. He says, “As I have stressed repeatedly, the whole data set includes only 13 abstracts (~1%) that explicitly endorse what Oreskes has called the ‘consensus view.’ In fact, the vast majority of abstracts does (sic) not mention anthropogenic climate change. Moreover — and despite attempts to deny this fact — a handful of abstracts actually questions the view that human activities are the main driving force of ‘the observed warming over the last 50 years.’” In addition, a recent survey of scientists following the same methodology as one published in 1996 found that about 30 percent of scientists disagreed to some extent or another with the contention that “climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes.” Less than 10 percent “strongly agreed” with the statement. Details of both the survey and the failed attempt to replicate the Oreskes study can be found here.

25. Economic Costs. Even if the study Gore cites is right (p. 280-281), the United States will still emit massive amounts of CO2 after all the measures it outlines have been realized. Getting emissions down to the paltry levels needed to stabilize CO2 in the atmosphere would require, in Gore’s own words, “a wrenching transformation” of our way of life. This cannot be done easily or without significant cost. The Kyoto Protocol, which Gore enthusiastically supports, would avert less than a tenth of a degree of warming in the next fifty years and would cost up to $400 billion a year to the U.S. All of the current proposals in Congress would cost the economy significant amounts, making us all poorer, with all that that entails for human health and welfare, while doing nothing to stop global warming.

Finally, Gore quotes Winston Churchill (p. 100) — but he should read what Churchill said when he was asked what qualities a politician requires: “The ability to foretell what is going to happen tomorrow, next week, next month and next year. And to have the ability afterwards to explain why it didn't happen.”

—Iain Murray is a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.


National Review Online - http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YmFiZDAyMWFhMGIxNTgwNGIyMjVkZjQ4OGFiZjFlNjc=


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Editorial; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: globalwarming; gore; gorey; inconvenienttruth; nuketheleft

1 posted on 06/22/2006 9:55:52 AM PDT by SirLinksalot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot

Bump.


2 posted on 06/22/2006 9:59:39 AM PDT by T. Buzzard Trueblood ("No one cried when Clinton spied." -Crosslake)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #3 Removed by Moderator

To: SirLinksalot

Bumpity-bump-bump!


4 posted on 06/22/2006 10:05:31 AM PDT by talleyman (Kerry & the Surrender-Donkey Treasoncrats - trashing the troops for 40 years.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot
I have a very serious question for the scientists among us.

I know a contingent of people who want us to figure out how to use water and solar power to create fuel. (That is seriously simplified and paraphrased description, but gets the point across.)

Leaving aside feasibility arguments, I am trying to figure out how they can believe something like that would not "upset" earth's balance. I mean, if we are pumping the waste into the air and depleting water sources, wouldn't that cause the earth to get messed up?

It just seems like environmentalists are completely devoted to this balance idea, but negate potential side effects from ANY wide spread use of any fuel. Does someone have a short explanation of why this wouldn't upset "earth's balance" and explain to me exactly when that balance was perfect??

Ok, back to read the article.
5 posted on 06/22/2006 10:07:21 AM PDT by pollyannaish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot
Gorey . . I like the word.
6 posted on 06/22/2006 10:08:45 AM PDT by ChadGore (VISUALIZE 62,041,268 Bush fans. We Vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ChadGore

I'm just glad we chopped down all the jungles to make room for the rain forests.

Global Warming is a hoax and it's morphing because we aren't seeing it. Now, it's Human Caused Global Weather Change. What malarky and if you are buying this crap, you're an idiot.

Demand they get rid of the politics in science and prove their case or laugh at them as the charletans they are.

We'll suffer more from the destruction of science and logic than from a few melting ice cubes.


7 posted on 06/22/2006 10:12:11 AM PDT by Joe_October (Saddam supported Terrorists. Al Qaeda are Terrorists. I can't find the link.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot

I Predict globul warming will intensify in the next 4 months,then drop off to a managable level after Nov 2nd only to return worse than ever mid summer of 2008.....


8 posted on 06/22/2006 10:14:41 AM PDT by Minnesoootan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot
A specific example of this is Gore’s acknowledgement that 30 percent of global CO2 emissions come from wood fires used for cooking (p. 227).

Which has zero net effect on CO2 content in the atmosphere.

All the CO2 released to the atmosphere when wood either burns or decays was taken out of the atmosphere when the tree grew.

9 posted on 06/22/2006 10:15:37 AM PDT by DuncanWaring (The Lord uses the good ones; the bad ones use the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Minnesoootan

Nov 7th I meant,I was using false data....;-)


10 posted on 06/22/2006 10:17:17 AM PDT by Minnesoootan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot

Thank you.


11 posted on 06/22/2006 10:20:46 AM PDT by Robert A. Cook, PE (I can only donate monthly, but Hillary's ABBCNNBCBS continue to lie every day!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot

bookmark for later


12 posted on 06/22/2006 10:20:46 AM PDT by TX Bluebonnet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ChadGore; SirLinksalot
Gorey . . I like the word.

It made me think of the late artist/author Edward Gorey...


13 posted on 06/22/2006 10:22:17 AM PDT by Constitution Day (Down with Half-Assery!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Andrewksu

Ping


14 posted on 06/22/2006 10:24:57 AM PDT by centurion316 (Democrats - Al Qaida's Best Friends)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot

CO2 Bump


15 posted on 06/22/2006 10:25:43 AM PDT by jonno
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot

BIG BTTT!!


16 posted on 06/22/2006 10:27:00 AM PDT by alwaysontheright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Minnesoootan

LOL - from the Land-O-Lakes.

Happy summer solstice!


17 posted on 06/22/2006 10:27:35 AM PDT by jonno
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot
In fact, the vast majority of abstracts does (sic) not mention . . .

No "(sic)" needed. The grammar is correct. "The vast majority ... does not ..."

18 posted on 06/22/2006 10:28:32 AM PDT by Tanniker Smith (I didn't know she was a liberal when I married her.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot

bump


19 posted on 06/22/2006 10:28:45 AM PDT by true_blue_texican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot

26. There is no global wqrming...sorry Algore


20 posted on 06/22/2006 10:29:58 AM PDT by chainsaw (We are going to take things away from you-H. Clinton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pollyannaish
The first idea you need to drop is that there is any such thing as a "balance of nature." The earth has never been a static place and never will be. Nature reacts to perturbations and goes on from where it is.

The only thing with which I disagree in the article is the de-emphasis placed upon aggressive introduced species. It's a real problem. I probably see three to five new weeds PER YEAR. No extant system can reasonably expect to accommodate such rapid change without damage to its constituents any more than we can integrate tens of millions of illegals and expect to retain our existing culture.

21 posted on 06/22/2006 10:30:09 AM PDT by Carry_Okie (There are people in power who are truly evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot

bump


22 posted on 06/22/2006 10:30:22 AM PDT by swmobuffalo (The only good terrorist is a dead terrorist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]



Bookmarking for reference point.
23 posted on 06/22/2006 10:31:03 AM PDT by RandallFlagg (Roll your own cigarettes! You'll save $$$ and smoke less!(Magnetic bumper stickers-click my name)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DuncanWaring
All the CO2 released to the atmosphere when wood either burns or decays was taken out of the atmosphere when the tree grew.

Right. So putting it back into the atmosphere by any means other than the natural order of nature would have a positive effect, not a net zero effect.

Net zero means that trees are sucking up that CO2 and hanging onto it. Burning them prevents that second part from happening.

24 posted on 06/22/2006 10:32:09 AM PDT by Tanniker Smith (I didn't know she was a liberal when I married her.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

Thanks for the reply.

IMO, the entire balance issue is fallacious to begin with. My question is how to point out to these people that their fantasy of a fuel source that doesn't "upset the balance" is just that. A complete and utter fantasy.

It drives me crazy, because when you are dealing with a completely false premise, there is so much to debunk, it is nearly impossible in a conversation.

Kind of like dealing with Liberals in general, I suppose. LOL.


25 posted on 06/22/2006 10:34:34 AM PDT by pollyannaish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot

Now let's not go spoiling Gore's campaign film. He is so proud of it. :)


26 posted on 06/22/2006 10:34:38 AM PDT by P-40 (Al Qaeda was working in Iraq. They were just undocumented.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Minnesoootan
I Predict globul warming will intensify in the next 4 months,then drop off to a managable level after Nov 2nd only to return worse than ever mid summer of 2008.....

Finally, a global warming prediction that I'm willing to accept. I think this one is right on the money.

27 posted on 06/22/2006 10:36:09 AM PDT by Bob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Tanniker Smith
Net zero means that trees are sucking up that CO2 and hanging onto it.

No, if the trees are sucking up the CO2 and hanging on to it, that's a decrease in atmospheric CO2.

The overall cycle returns to "net zero" when the wood burns or rots.

28 posted on 06/22/2006 10:36:12 AM PDT by DuncanWaring (The Lord uses the good ones; the bad ones use the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot

Take a look at the chart here of global temperatures over the last 425,000 years. Even to my non-scientific eye, it looks like a cycle to me.
http://www.seed.slb.com/en/scictr/watch/climate_change/change.htm


29 posted on 06/22/2006 10:41:51 AM PDT by hophead ("Enjoy Every Sandwich")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DuncanWaring
Okay, what exactly is you're definition of NET ZERO???

If there is a natural cycle wherein growing trees suck up CO2 and dying trees release it, then overall there is a NET ZERO effect on the CO2 levels.

If you chop down the trees and burn them and disrupt the cycle, then you are having a positive effect on the cycle. (Enviro-whackos will call it a negative effect on the environment, naturally.)

We're arguing perspective. Like the guy jogging at 5mph on the top of top travelling 60 mph. If you're on the train, has going 5 mph. If you're on the ground, he's going 65 mph.

TS

30 posted on 06/22/2006 10:44:15 AM PDT by Tanniker Smith (I didn't know she was a liberal when I married her.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: pollyannaish
It drives me crazy, because when you are dealing with a completely false premise, there is so much to debunk, it is nearly impossible in a conversation.

Not really. Just go to the philosophical roots and cut out their legs. Then propose a serious alternative. That's what I did.

31 posted on 06/22/2006 10:57:42 AM PDT by Carry_Okie (The environment is too complex and too important to manage by central planning.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Tanniker Smith
If there is a natural cycle wherein growing trees suck up CO2 and dying trees release it, then overall there is a NET ZERO effect on the CO2 levels.

Soils can sequester carbon for millenia, but the real sink is when those soils get washed into the ocean and consumed by dynoflagellates, which then sink and form deposits of calcium carbonate.

32 posted on 06/22/2006 10:59:53 AM PDT by Carry_Okie (The environment is too complex and too important to manage by central planning.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

Thank YOU! Your book I assume?

I will check it out.


33 posted on 06/22/2006 11:03:05 AM PDT by pollyannaish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Tanniker Smith
If the wood is burned, the only difference is that the CO2 returns to the atmosphere earlier.

Each carbon atom in the cellulose ultimately combines with two oxygen atoms to form CO2. Whether it happens slowly or quickly you end up with the same net effect.

34 posted on 06/22/2006 11:05:37 AM PDT by DuncanWaring (The Lord uses the good ones; the bad ones use the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

"...consumed by dynoflagellates"


Who you callin a dynoflagellates?????


35 posted on 06/22/2006 11:22:51 AM PDT by hophead ("Enjoy Every Sandwich")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot
21. Population. Al Gore worries about population growth; Gore does not suggest a solution.

This fact infuriates me: Al Gore has 4 children! There is nothing more stressful on the Earth, with unlimited future compound damage, than making multiple copies of yourself. He's behaving like there's going to be a technological solution to climate control and that global warming is just another doomsday cult.

36 posted on 06/22/2006 11:34:04 AM PDT by Reeses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bob
Finally, a global warming prediction that I'm willing to accept. I think this one is right on the money.

I think you may have forgotten the opposite trend that occurs over the same time interval in the Southern Hemisphere.

37 posted on 06/22/2006 11:59:14 AM PDT by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: hophead
Who you callin a dynoflagellates?????

Foraminifera.

38 posted on 06/22/2006 12:04:33 PM PDT by Carry_Okie (There are people in power who are truly evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: cogitator
I think you may have forgotten the opposite trend that occurs over the same time interval in the Southern Hemisphere.

I don't think that the climate effects of our election cycles propogate into the Southern Hemisphere. :=)

39 posted on 06/22/2006 12:16:13 PM PDT by Bob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Tanniker Smith; DuncanWaring
Okay, what exactly is you're definition of NET ZERO???

Net Zero = Al Gore

40 posted on 06/22/2006 1:10:53 PM PDT by PsyOp (Fear, not kindness, restrains the wicked Metus improbos compescit, non clementia. Syrus, Maxims.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

Yea, well you are a reticulopodia!!!


41 posted on 06/22/2006 1:25:53 PM PDT by hophead ("Enjoy Every Sandwich")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: All

It amuses me when one of the left's pet politically scientific theories stomps all over another one. For example, claiming that global warming is causing the extinction of species vitiates their dearly held theory of evolution, namely that species are capable of adapting to changing environmental conditions. Given enough time, I believe that, one by one, the theories themselves will become extinct from all of the warming gaused by the gases their touts contribute to the atmosphere.


42 posted on 06/22/2006 1:34:06 PM PDT by DPMD (dpmd)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: hophead
Yea, well you are a reticulopodia!!!

And you are having too much fun. :-)

43 posted on 06/22/2006 1:40:01 PM PDT by Carry_Okie (There are people in power who are truly evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: PsyOp

No, al-Gore is a Gross Zero.


44 posted on 06/22/2006 1:53:46 PM PDT by DuncanWaring (The Lord uses the good ones; the bad ones use the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot

bttt


45 posted on 06/22/2006 1:55:42 PM PDT by petercooper (Attention Libs: Please remove "Haven't gotten Zarqawi" from your DimocRAT talking points.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot
Bump for brilliance
46 posted on 06/22/2006 2:01:54 PM PDT by Hegewisch Dupa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pollyannaish

"....I know a contingent of people who want us to figure out how to use water and solar power to create fuel..."

Trees have been doing this nicely for a couple of hundred million years. Tell your friends to plant trees.

Coal, by the way, is the result of solar power and water creating fuel...so is peat....


47 posted on 06/22/2006 4:25:54 PM PDT by Renfield (If Gene Tracy was the entertainment at your senior prom, YOU might be a redneck...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot

Bookmark/bump


48 posted on 06/22/2006 5:35:32 PM PDT by TenthAmendmentChampion (Pray for our President and for our heroes in Iraq and Afghanistan, and around the world!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson