Beam me to Planet Gore !
Posted on 09/12/2008 7:47:31 AM PDT by bharrin742
In the second interview with Charlie Gibson, focusing on energy and "climate change", Governor Palin is great on ANWR. Indicating her differences with McCain. Thanks Governor.
However, she is wavering on the "global warming" issue, however not totally with McCain yet. Why can't she:
1) Indicate that the climate is always naturally either warming or cooling, regardless of man's activity. And since 1998, the temperature is on a downward trend! Even the die-hards have stopped calling it Global Warming, and now refer to it as "climate change", faced with the evidence.
2) Assuming global warming is occurring, is CO2 the primary cause to the effect? I've seen charts that indicate a lagging trend. Also, water vapor is the most prevelent "greenhouse gas", by far.
3) Assuming CO2 is the primary cause, is man the cause. If this is true, why do tests indicate that CO2 levels rise and fall, prior to the advent of nasty "industry"?
4) Is "global warming/climate change" "bad"? I'm not convinced that we have been faced with more, and greater severity of hurricanes in the recent past, than historically. It's amazing how anything that appears to be a negative as far as humans is concerned is blamed on Global Warming. I just don't beleive that is the case. Artic ice melting away. No, its not. Polar Bears imperiled/endangered, no they are not (Palin has filed a suit against the US Government on the EPA action on Polar Bears).
5) If it is bad, could we do anything about it, even if we wanted to. Any proposed solution appears to have drawbacks, either from an environmental standpoint (those funny looking light bulbs), an economic standpoint (cap and trade, an economic disaster, which will just make the government more powerful, and our economy much weaker), or both (Ethanol!).
My conclusion is the pollution is a significant "local" issue, that must be attended to, however I have not drank the "global warming/climate change" "kool aid" yet?
Welcome to FR!
Why didn’t she say something different? Because she is the VP nominee and the Presidential nominee makes the policy, remember? McCain got the nomination with his platform; it would be inconceivable that Sarah Palin would then go on record as being different in a material way from her BOSS’s position.
Sheese. Some people.
Well done!! nice homepage also!
Sniff
She can’t come out with a position that is in opposition to McCain’s. What she can do is hedge enough to appear to be more or less alligned with him. And maybe she IS more or less alligned with him. There is no doubt that the climate changes. The controversy is along the lines of what causes this and what, if anything, can or should be done about it.
Not only did he misunderestimate McCain — he also underestimated the Hillary voters, women, the bitter gun owners who cling to religion and apparently young voters. He thought he could sew this up with a colisieum full of liberals in Colorado..... Then came McCain’s VP pick. It’s been downhill ever since.
Sorry - posted this to the wrong thread.
She did come out in opposition to McCain’s position on drilling in Anwar. She also said she is “working on him” to get him to change his mind.
To paraphrase that great philospher Inigo Montoya, “You keep using talking about Sarah Palin’s position on Global warming. I do not think it means what you think it means. ...”
ABSTRACT:
"Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is the product of oceanic respiration due to the well-known but under-appreciated solubility pump. Carbon dioxide rises out of warm ocean waters where it is added to the atmosphere. There it is mixed with residual and accidental CO2, and circulated, to be absorbed into the sink of the cold ocean waters. Next the thermohaline circulation carries the CO2-rich sea water deep into the ocean. A millennium later it appears at the surface in warm waters, saturated by lower pressure and higher temperature, to be exhausted back into the atmosphere. Throughout the past 420 millennia, comprising four interglacial periods, the Vostok record of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is imprinted with, and fully characterized by, the physics of the solubility of CO2 in water, along with the lag in the deep ocean circulation.
Notwithstanding that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, atmospheric carbon dioxide has neither caused nor amplified global temperature increases. Increased carbon dioxide has been an effect of global warming, not a cause. Technically, carbon dioxide is a lagging proxy for ocean temperatures. When global temperature, and along with it, ocean temperature rises, the physics of solubility causes atmospheric CO2 to increase.
If increases in carbon dioxide, or any other greenhouse gas, could have in turn raised global temperatures, the positive feedback would have been catastrophic. While the conditions for such a catastrophe were present in the Vostok record from natural causes, the runaway event did not occur. Carbon dioxide does not accumulate in the atmosphere."
http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2006/10/co2_acquittal.html
_______________________________________________________________
The graph above represents temperature and CO2 levels over the past 400,000 years. It is the same exact data Al Gore and the rest of the man-made global warmers refer to. The blue line is temps, the red CO2 levels. The deep valleys represent 4 separate glaciation periods. Now look very carefully at the relationship between temps and CO2 levels (the present is on the right hand side of the graph) and keep in mind that Gore claims this data is the 'proof' that CO2 has warmed the earth in the past. But does the data indeed show this? Nope. In fact, rising CO2 levels all throughout this 400,000-year period actually lagged behind temperature increases ...by an average of 800 years! So it couldn't have been CO2 that got Earth out of these past glaciations. Yet Gore dishonestly and continually claims otherwise. Furthermore, the subsequent CO2 level increases due to dissolved CO2 being released from warming oceans, never did lead to additional warming, the so-called "run-away greenhouse effect" that Al Gore and his friends keep warning us about. In short, there is little if any evidence that CO2 had once led to increased warming during the past 400,000 years. -ETL
_______________________________________________________________
"The above chart shows the range of global temperature through the last 500 million years. There is no statistical correlation between the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere through the last 500 million years and the temperature record in this interval. In fact, one of the highest levels of carbon dioxide concentration occurred during a major ice age that occurred about 450 million years ago [Myr]. Carbon dioxide concentrations at that time were about 15 times higher than at present." [also see 180 million years ago, same thing happened]:
http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=010405M
_______________________________________________________________
So, greenhouse [effect] is all about carbon dioxide, right?
Wrong. The most important players on the greenhouse stage are water vapor and clouds. Carbon dioxide has been increased to about 0.038% of the atmosphere (possibly from about 0.028% pre-Industrial Revolution) while water in its various forms ranges from 0% to 4% of the atmosphere and its properties vary by what form it is in and even at what altitude it is found in the atmosphere.
In simple terms the bulk of Earth's greenhouse effect is due to water vapor by virtue of its abundance. Water accounts for about 90% of the Earth's greenhouse effect -- perhaps 70% is due to water vapor and about 20% due to clouds (mostly water droplets), some estimates put water as high as 95% of Earth's total tropospheric greenhouse effect (e.g., Freidenreich and Ramaswamy, 'Solar Radiation Absorption by Carbon Dioxide, Overlap with Water, and a Parameterization for General Circulation Models,' Journal of Geophysical Research 98 (1993):7255-7264).
The remaining portion comes from carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane, ozone and miscellaneous other 'minor greenhouse gases.' As an example of the relative importance of water it should be noted that changes in the relative humidity on the order of 1.3-4% are equivalent to the effect of doubling CO2.
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/
_______________________________________________________________
Water Vapor Rules the Greenhouse System
Water vapor constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect (4). Interestingly, many 'facts and figures' regarding global warming completely ignore the powerful effects of water vapor in the greenhouse system, carelessly (perhaps, deliberately) overstating human impacts as much as 20-fold.
Water vapor is 99.999% of natural origin. Other atmospheric greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and miscellaneous other gases (CFC's, etc.), are also mostly of natural origin (except for the latter, which is mostly anthropogenic).
Human activities contribute slightly to greenhouse gas concentrations through farming, manufacturing, power generation, and transportation. However, these emissions are so dwarfed in comparison to emissions from natural sources we can do nothing about, that even the most costly efforts to limit human emissions would have a very small-- perhaps undetectable-- effect on global climate.
Come on, get a grip! She's still the VP candidate and has to necessarily toe McCain's line to get elected.
Is Sarah Palin a member of the Council on Foreign Relations? Tune in this evening to ABC World News. If Charlie doesn’t lighten up, it may well be the last time I watch ABC.
Interesting...
Perhaps someone is posing. Trolling in deep waters. Chumming.
To contend with public opinion today and be elected to any higher office, it is necessary to at least acknowledge the possibility of global warming - and certainly to indicate a continuing concern for the environment as well as energy production.
These are not unreasonble positions. Most of the population hold them.
In truth, there are reputable scientists on both sides of the global warming question.
Don’t look now, but my last post was severely edited, and not by me!
Well that didn’t take long, did it? SP is no more the savior for conservatives than Obama is for liberals. They’re all just politicians, folks. They say what they need to say to get elected.
If it makes you feel good to think any of them really intend to follow through with their promises, then enjoy your happy days now. After every election, the promises turn out to be the same old hot air.
Maybe. Maybe not. - Between “The One We’ve Been Waiting For”, Obama’s, “promises” of arugula in every pot and what I’m hearing from JM & SP, there’s no contest as to what my choice is. I’ll choose hope in the things I believe in, not total gullibility.
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.