GORE FACES HILL GRILLING ON 'WARMING'; QUESTIONS AWAIT FORMER VP

[AuGmENTor]

GORE FACES HILL GRILLING ON 'WARMING'; QUESTIONS AWAIT FORMER VP
Sun Mar 18 2007 20:23:00 ET

**Exclusive**

Temperatures are predicted to reach a high of only 43-degrees on Wednesday in Washington, but look for high-heat to come out of Al Gore's scheduled appearances on The Hill!

Gore is set to appear before Rep. John Dingell's [D-MI] all powerful Energy and Commerce Committee in the morning and Sen. Barbara Boxer's [D-CA] Environment and Public Works Committee in the afternoon.

Both are expected to have overflow seating, and protesters, both for and against Gore.

Gore will get a 30 minute opening and then Boxer and her republican counterpart, Sen. Inhofe, each get 15 minutes each of questioning in addition to their opening statements. Other senators will only get 5 min of Q & A.

"Democrat Dingell is a big global warming skeptic, so do not expect him to go too lightly on Gore," predicts a congressional source.

[Dingell has also invited Gore critic, Dr. Bjorn Lomborg, Adjunct Professor, Copenhagen Business School, to appear at the hearing. Lomborg is author of the book 'The Skeptical Environmentalist.' He recetly wrote: "The cacophony of screaming does not help." ]

Proposed questions for Gore, which are circulating behind-the-scenes, have been obtained by the DRUDGE REPORT -- question that could lead Gore scrambling for answers!

Mr. Gore: You have said several times that we have 10 years to act to stave off global warming. Was that 10 years from the first time you said that or 10 years from now? We just wanted to get a firm date from you that we can hold you to.

Mr. Gore: How can you continue to claim that global warming on Earth is primarily caused by mankind when other planets (Mars, Jupiter and Pluto) with no confirmed life forms and certainly no man-made industrial greenhouse gas emissions also show signs of global warming? Wouldn’t it make more sense that the sun is responsible for warming since it is the common denominator?

Mr. Gore: Joseph Romm, the executive director for the Center for Energy and Climate Solutions, has said we must build 700 large nuclear plants to stave off climate change. Where do you stand on the need for nuclear energy?

Mr. Gore: Do you think the earth is significantly overpopulated and that is a major contributor to your view of climate change. (If yes, what do you think is a sustainable population for the planet?)

Developing...

[Chana3812]

Back to this story (http://mediamatters.org/items/200703190007) | Home (http://mediamatters.org/)
http://mediamatters.org/ (http://mediamatters.org/)
http://mediamatters.org/static/images/mmfa_logo300.gif (http://mediamatters.org/)

Drudge "exclusive" on Gore questions repeated discredited theory on global warming

Summary:

On March 19, the Drudge Report, a website run by Internet gossip Matt Drudge, posted the banner headline (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2007/03/19/20070319_001834.htm) "EXCLUSIVE: GORE FACES HILL GRILLING ON 'WARMING'; QUESTIONS AWAIT FORMER VP," and purported to reveal several "[p]roposed questions" that former Vice President Al Gore will have to answer when he testifies (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-03-18-gore-signatures_N.htm) on the impact of global warming before two congressional committees on March 21. Drudge exclaimed in his "exclusive" report (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2007/03/19/20070319_003022_flash2.htm) that the questions "could lead [sic] Gore scrambling for answers!"

But one purported question is based on a theory that has been debunked by the scientific community:


How can you continue to claim that global warming on Earth is primarily caused by mankind when other planets (Mars, Jupiter and Pluto) with no confirmed life forms and certainly no man-made industrial greenhouse gas emissions also show signs of global warming? Wouldn't it make more sense that the sun is responsible for warming since it is the common denominator?

In fact, the claim that global warming on uninhabited planets suggests that global warming on the Earth is not likely caused by human activities has been dismissed by scientists. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in a report (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf) it released in February, concluded that both greenhouse gases and solar radiation are contributing to global warming. The report included a section titled "Human and Natural Drivers of Climate Change," which noted that "[c]hanges in the atmospheric abundance of greenhouse gases and aerosols, in solar radiation and in land surface properties alter the energy balance of the climate system."

The claim that the sun -- rather than human activities -- is responsible for global warming has been trumpeted (http://mediamatters.org/items/200703020010) by nationally syndicated columnist John McCaslin (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.tmsfeatures.com/tmsfeatures/byline.jsp?custid=67&bylineid=147), who wrote in his March 2 Washington Times column (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.washtimes.com/national/20070301-113624-1893r.htm) that a February 28 National Geographic News article "cites 2005 data" showing similar warming trends on Earth and Mars as "evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun." In fact, the National Geographic News article, to which Drudge linked (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2007/03/02/20070302_145205.htm), did not itself assert the existence of evidence that "changes in the sun" are largely responsible for global warming -- as McCaslin suggested -- but rather reported on "one scientist's controversial theory." The article first quoted "Colin Wilson, a planetary physicist at England's Oxford University" saying that the claim that the sun is largely responsible for global warming is "completely at odds with the mainstream scientific opinion" and that it "contradict[s] the extensive evidence presented in the most recent IPCC report." The article added that "[t]he conventional theory is that climate changes on Mars can be explained primarily by small alterations in the planet's orbit and tilt, not by changes in the sun" and that "most scientists think it is pure coincidence that both planets are between ice ages right now." The article further reported that "the biggest stumbling block in" the theory is the "dismissal of the greenhouse effect," and quoted Amato Evan, a climate scientist at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, who said that "without the greenhouse effect there would be very little, if any, life on Earth, since our planet would pretty much be a big ball of ice."

Rush Limbaugh (http://mediamatters.org/issues_topics/people/rushlimbaugh) made a similar claim (http://mediamatters.org/items/200509230005) on September 21, 2005, selectively reading on his nationally syndicated radio show from a year-old article (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/07/18/wsun18.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/07/18/ixnewstop.html) to falsely suggest that a 2004 study by the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.mps.mpg.de/en/projekte/sun-climate/) found that an increase in solar brightness is the sole cause of global warming. In fact, the article, which appeared in the London Telegraph on July 18, 2004, specifically noted that the study's lead author did not believe increased solar brightness was responsible for the dramatic rise in global temperatures over the past 20 years; according to the parent organization of the group that conducted the study, solar brightness "plays only a minor role in the current global warming."

Drudge also noted that Rep. John Dingell (D-MI), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, invited (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://energycommerce.house.gov/membios/schedule.shtml) Bjørn Lomborg to "appear at the hearing." As Media Matters for America has noted (http://mediamatters.org/items/200605190003#20060522-1), Lomborg is an associate professor of statistics in the Department of Political Science at the University of Aarhus in Denmark. In his book, The Skeptical Environmentalist (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.cambridge.org/us/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=0521010683) (Cambridge University Press, 2001), Lomborg purported to conduct a "non-partisan analysis" of environmental data in the hope of offering the public and policymakers a guide for "clear-headed prioritization of resources to tackle real, not imagined, problems." His conclusion was that the concerns of scientists regarding the world's environmental problems -- including global warming -- are overblown. But in January 2002, Scientific American (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000F3D47-C6D2-1CEB-93F6809EC5880000) ran a series of articles (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000F3D47-C6D2-1CEB-93F6809EC5880000) from four well-known environmental specialists who lambasted (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2002/03/04/MN77449.DTL) Lomborg's book for "egregious distortions," "elementary blunders of quantitative manipulation and presentation that no self-respecting statistician ought to commit," and sections that they said were "poorly researched and ... rife with careless mistakes."

As Media Matters has previously noted (http://mediamatters.org/items/200701030005), ABC News political director Mark Halperin has claimed (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=2514276&page=1) that Drudge "can influence the news like Walter Cronkite did" and said that "f Drudge has a siren up, people know it's something they have to look at." Halperin's book, The Way to Win: Taking the White House in 2008 (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.randomhouse.com/catalog/display.pperl?isbn=9781400064472) (Random House, 2006), which he co-wrote with Politico Editor-in-Chief John F. Harris, includes a chapter titled: "How Matt Drudge Rules Our World."

[i]"Matt Drudge is a Moron" - Chana :)

[beltman713]

That's always their game. "It's 20 degrees outside, where's your global warming now?"

They just never seem to get it. It's not about the current temperature outside your house, it's about the overall temperature around the world, the average. If a dumbass like me can understand it, anyone can.

[Chana3812]

Right wing nuts -- getting "stupider" everyday :)

[AuGmENTor]

That's always their game. "It's 20 degrees outside, where's your global warming now?"

They just never seem to get it. It's not about the current temperature outside your house, it's about the overall temperature around the world, the average. If a dumbass like me can understand it, anyone can.I understand just fine. I just don't believe it is human related. we are at the end of a 10,000 year long ice age. This is just the cycle completeing itself. How do you account for spikes in greehouse gasses that occurred millions of years ago resulting in concentrations higher than those found today, when there were no humans?

[Eckolaker]

In my research, it appears such spikes may have increased 6% due to human inhabitance. So if the earths temp rises 1 degree, we account for .06 of that 1 degree.

[BuckShot]

...we are at the end of a 10,000 year long ice age. This is just the cycle completeing itself. How do you account for spikes in greehouse gasses that occurred millions of years ago resulting in concentrations higher than those found today, when there were no humans?You are referring to natural cycles that occur over hundreds of thousands of years.

Climate changes of the past, unlike today, have been initiated by variations in the Earth's orbit and other minor atmospheric shifts. Such variations have triggered CO2 feedback mechanisms in the oceans, causing prolonged warming and cooling periods. The scientific community, including the IPCC, has fully taken into account these natural cycles, and ruled them out as a cause of the warming trend we are currently experiencing.

Natural cycles do not explain the sudden and rapid correlating increases in CO2 and temperature we see today, because, as many climate skeptics are quick to point out, it takes hundreds of years for natural warming cycles to trigger ocean degassing. Furthermore, it has been scientifically proven, using isotopic analysis, that the CO2 presently being emitted into the atmosphere is not from the ocean, but is rather due to the burning of fossil fuels and other human activities.

[BuckShot]

In my research, it appears such spikes may have increased 6% due to human inhabitance. So if the earths temp rises 1 degree, we account for .06 of that 1 degree.Well, I'm sorry to say this, but your "research" is dead wrong.

According to your so-called research (http://yourbbsucks.com/forum/showpost.php?p=77960&postcount=16), "only the sun has the ability to effect global temperature," "humans attribute only 6% to global warming," and "global mean temperature at the beginning of industrial revolution was hotter than it is now." You have even claimed that the IPCC backs up these absurd statements, but as I pointed out in this thread (http://yourbbsucks.com/forum/showthread.php?t=14806&page=1&pp=10), you're full of it.

[AuGmENTor]

Furthermore, it has been scientifically proven, using isotopic analysis, that the CO2 presently being emitted into the atmosphere is not from the ocean, but is rather due to the burning of fossil fuels and other human activities. Really, a I watched the global warming comittee on CSPAN, and the scientists there would not commit to that particular fact. They were unwilling to lock down on an actual percentage caused by man vs. natural cycle. This was part of coverage that went on during the week of february 5-10th. Looked to me like some comittee or another debating the issue.

[Eckolaker]

Well, I'm sorry to say this, but your "research" is dead wrong.

According to your so-called research (http://yourbbsucks.com/forum/showpost.php?p=77960&postcount=16), "only the sun has the ability to effect global temperature," "humans attribute only 6% to global warming," and "global mean temperature at the beginning of industrial revolution was hotter than it is now." You have even claimed that the IPCC backs up these absurd statements, but as I pointed out in this thread (http://yourbbsucks.com/forum/showthread.php?t=14806&page=1&pp=10), you're full of it.


No you didn't.

You linked a bunch of biased articles, heresay speculation, and newly presented theories to explain away the sun being the common denominator in planetary warming trend.

Your graphs seem to follow a pattern, none of which fluctuate at the onset of the American Industrial Revolution anyway. Not to mention that even the ICPP admits that some of their current graphs are based on old out of date research and data.

I don't buy the NWO hype.

[AuGmENTor]

No you didn't.

You linked a bunch of biased articles, heresay speculation, and newly presented theories to explain away the sun being the common denominator in planetary warming trend.

Your graphs seem to follow a pattern, none of which fluctuate at the onset of the American Industrial Revolution anyway. Not to mention that even the ICPP admits that some of their current graphs are based on old out of date research and data.

I don't buy the NWO hype.TESTIFY Brotha! (seriously though....)

[Eckolaker]

It all comes down to this. The NWO crowd is going to say we need to put caps on our emissions and consumption. The will start enacting laws that effect you as an individual. They will attempt to limit travel by claiming it will cut down on overall emissions. They will start telling us how much electricity we can use out our homes. They will tell us where we can buy food, and what food we can buy based on how much energy it takes to produce. (insert synthetic food here) They will then begin with population control.

Meanwhile the global elite will still be living it up in their private jets, and strecth limosines. Eating whatever foods they want, flaunting the wealth and stature.

Global Warming is the catalyst for all of this. What a better way to control the globe then with a fear that can be understood by everyone.

amirite?

[BuckShot]

Really, a I watched the global warming comittee on CSPAN, and the scientists there would not commit to that particular fact. They were unwilling to lock down on an actual percentage caused by man vs. natural cycle.What are you talking about!?

From the IPCC (http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf):
"The global increases in carbon dioxide concentration are due primarily to fossil fuel use and land-use change [by humans], while those of methane and nitrous oxide are primarily due to agriculture."
As I have pointed out several times now, the scientific community has thoroughly evaluated this issue. Trust me, climatologists are well aware of the planet's natural cycles and they have always taken such cycles into consideration when conducting their research. You aren't exposing anything.

Read the IPCC report...or read a book on climate...or simply conduct a basic internet search. The argument you are presenting has been deconstructed time and time again using numerous methods.

For example, CO2 burned from fossil fuels contains different isotopes then CO2 released from the ocean, therefore by analyzing the isotopes of CO2 being emitted into the atmosphere, scientists are able to determine their source (http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-58/iss-5/p16a.html). Do you understand?

The oceans are absorbing carbon, not giving it off.
No you didn't.This is what you said exactly (http://yourbbsucks.com/forum/showpost.php?p=77960&postcount=16):
"Only the sun has the ability to effect global temperature. The U.N report everyone is quoting states this. They also state that humans attribute only 6% to global warming."
Nowhere in the IPCC report do they make any such statements. In fact, as I noted on the previous thread, they say the complete opposite (http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf).
You linked a bunch of biased articles, heresay speculation, and newly presented theories to explain away the sun being the common denominator in planetary warming trend.No, I linked to the report that you cited.
Your graphs seem to follow a pattern, none of which fluctuate at the onset of the American Industrial Revolution anyway.On the contrary...


http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Img/100896/0026316.gif



http://www.mongabay.com/images/external/2005/2005-11-27_co2A.jpg


This is exactly what you said (http://yourbbsucks.com/forum/showpost.php?p=77960&postcount=16):
"We are all aware that the global mean temperature at the beginning of industrial revolutiuon was hotter then it is now, right?"
Like I said: No, we are not.

[AuGmENTor]

As I have pointed out several times now, the scientific community has thoroughly evaluated this issue. Trust me, climatologists are well aware of the planet's natural cycles and they have always taken such cycles into consideration when conducting their research. You aren't exposing anything. Yeah, but then again, who the hell ARE you exactly, that I would put any validity at all behind statements you make? OOOOO You can make a flow chart? Color me impressed. You've been here for 12 days nearest I can tell. I must have missed the post that listed your credentials. Here's a thought. You can believe whatever the hell you want. So long as you understand that whatever the rest of society does, is what I have a right to do as well. All of this aside, what is your global answer to this problem?

[AuGmENTor]

It all comes down to this. The NWO crowd is going to say we need to put caps on our emissions and consumption. The will start enacting laws that effect you as an individual. They will attempt to limit travel by claiming it will cut down on overall emissions. They will start telling us how much electricity we can use out our homes. They will tell us where we can buy food, and what food we can buy based on how much energy it takes to produce. (insert synthetic food here) They will then begin with population control.

Meanwhile the global elite will still be living it up in their private jets, and strecth limosines. Eating whatever foods they want, flaunting the wealth and stature.

Global Warming is the catalyst for all of this. What a better way to control the globe then with a fear that can be understood by everyone.

amirite?I at least understand you man. What I want to know is why is bucky pushin his agenda so HARD? So I will turn off my lights? So that ppl like Al-the hypocrite -Gore can own four mansions? and fly private jets? He'll have to sell it a bit better than this.

[BuckShot]

Yeah, but then again, who the hell ARE you exactly, that I would put any validity at all behind statements you make? Chill out, friend. You don't have to take my word for anything. All this information is readily available to the public, much of it on the internet.
OOOOO You can make a flow chart?The graphs are based on widely accepted figures. I did not make them.
You've been here for 12 days nearest I can tell. I must have missed the post that listed your credentials.I wasn't aware that anybody here had scientific credentials, yourself included. This is why I provided a link (http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-58/iss-5/p16a.html) to somebody who does.

The burden of proof now lies with you.

If you're going to contradict widely understood and well-documented scientific facts, you should be expected to explain why.
Here's a thought. You can believe whatever the hell you want. So long as you understand that whatever the rest of society does, is what I have a right to do as well.Just because we have differing opinions, does not mean we should be afraid of debating. That is how we learn.
All of this aside, what is your global answer to this problem?Localize communities and economies, increase self-sufficiency, increase energy efficiency, reduce consumption, reduce waste...you know, the basic New World Order agenda.

[AuGmENTor]

Just because we have differing opinions, does not mean we should be afraid of debating. That is how we learn.

About this you are absolutely correct. I apologize if I jumped you a bit. I had an experience in here that kinda soured me on the whole point of view you share with the person I am speaking of. And yet here I am, guilty of the same thing. *hangs head in shame*



Localize communities and economies, increase self-sufficiency, increase energy efficiency, reduce consumption, reduce waste...you know, the basic New World Order agenda. LOL, okay, point taken. But most of the people pushing this are the type who want ME to stop consuming, while they take limos to accept awards at ceremonies that are blatantly consumer driven. IMO if you got rid of all THAT shit, we'd be alot better off. I'll go ya one better. If you really want to save some rescorces, eliminate the production of ALL TV shows/ movies. What would you guess the resulting surplus would be? hate ALL forms of media with the exception of The Simpsons and radio. It is all pointless spending for the sheep to entertain themselves.

[Eckolaker]

A wow! A graph that shows the use of Fossil fuels has gone up in North America since the industrial revolution. Brilliant!

I never once disagreed with anyone that suggest our planet is warming up. My point is that we have little effect on it.

The graph you showed on page one shows a correlation of about 800 years after temperatures rise CO2 levels do, and about 800 years after temperatures fall, so does CO2 levels. How does that explain that CO2 emissions are the main cause for global mean temperature rises?

High school Chemistry teaches us that our atmosphere can absorb more CO2 when the temperature is higher.

For the record Volanic activity accounts for billions of tons of carbon emissions each year, or each time we have an eruption somewhere.

[AuGmENTor]

A wow! A graph that shows the use of Fossil fuels has gone up in North America since the industrial revolution. Brilliant!

I never once disagreed with anyone that suggest our planet is warming up. My point is that we have little effect on it.

The graph you showed on page one shows a correlation of about 800 years after temperatures rise CO2 levels do, and about 800 years after temperatures fall, so does CO2 levels. How does that explain that CO2 emissions are the main cause for global mean temperature rises?

High school Chemistry teaches us that our atmosphere can absorb more CO2 when the temperature is higher.

For the record Volanic activity accounts for billions of tons of carbon emissions each year, or each time we have an eruption somewhere.You'll have to get him dood. I tapped out due to lack of intelligence. Just ask Chana! I'll be over here cheering for ya though!
:ban1: :ban1: :ban1: :ban1: :ban1: :ban1: :ban1: :ban1: :ban1:

[Eckolaker]

Further more, CO2 is a horrible Greenhouse gas, all things considered. NO2 or CH4, and even plain water vapor perform far better as a greenhouse gas then CO2.

Interesting read on water vapor as a green house gas.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=142

[BuckShot]

A wow! A graph that shows the use of Fossil fuels has gone up in North America since the industrial revolution. Brilliant!

I never once disagreed with anyone that suggest our planet is warming up. My point is that we have little effect on it.You said (http://yourbbsucks.com/forum/showpost.php?p=78172&postcount=10), "Your graphs seem to follow a pattern, none of which fluctuate at the onset of the American Industrial Revolution anyway." You were wrong. That was my point.
The graph you showed on page one shows a correlation of about 800 years after temperatures rise CO2 levels do, and about 800 years after temperatures fall, so does CO2 levels. How does that explain that CO2 emissions are the main cause for global mean temperature rises?I will repeat: natural CO2 emissions (from oceans, volcanoes, etc...) do not trigger global climate changes and nobody in the scientific community has ever claimed that they do.

During natural climate cycles, variations in the Earth's orbit and other minor atmospheric shifts initiate the warming, eventually triggering ocean degassing and other positive feedback mechanisms that cause long-term periods of prolonged climate change.

The CO2 released from the ocean perpetuates the natural warming cycles, it does not trigger them. Climatologists are well aware of this.

The present global warming trend is different from natural cycles of the past. Increases in atmospheric CO2 content are directly coinciding with the increases in average global temperature (as opposed to following the temperature increases by hundreds of years). The explanation for this is simple: the CO2 is being released by humans, not by the oceans. Nonetheless, it contributes to warming just the same. Get it?
For the record Volanic activity accounts for billions of tons of carbon emissions each year, or each time we have an eruption somewhere.From "Global warming myths and lies (http://www.energybulletin.net/25622.html)":
"Volcanic activity is 0.02 to 0.05 Giga-tons/year (http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig3-1.htm). [Note: 1 Peta-gram (PgC) = 1 Gigaton (Gt)] Humans produce 8 Gt/yr (http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/1/26/0299/33391) (and climbing). Volcanoes elicit a far more dominating cooling (http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/gsfc/service/gallery/fact_sheets/earthsci/volcano.htm) effect due to atmospheric dispersal of particulates and sulfur dioxide. In addition, there has been no recent increase in volcanic activity – and the volcanic activity we have seen (http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/2005/05_11_10.html) has actually slowed global warming."

Further more, CO2 is a horrible Greenhouse gas, all things considered. NO2 or CH4, and even plain water vapor perform far better as a greenhouse gas then CO2.

Interesting read on water vapor as a green house gas.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=142Explain why this was interesting to you.

[Chana3812]

this is a great thread ... lots of thoughtful and well-researched discussion !!

thanks Aug for starting this post

I think factories that pollute the air should be closely watched, etc. cars should be made to use less carbon fuel, we need to learn to recycle, we should continue to ban products that hurt the ozone (this is nothing new) and the next administration should AT THE VERY LEAST encourage citizens to conserve - - -

It's too bad that the "Conservatives" don't know how to conserve - wasteful, free-spending, war-mongers!!!!!!!!

[AuGmENTor]

http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=259542253407130

Solar Eclipse Of The Facts
INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY

Posted 3/23/2007

Environmentalism: The same day that Al Gore lectured Congress about man-made global warming, NASA made a startling announcement: The sun is hotter and more active than thought.

NASA detailed new observations of solar explosions from a powerful space telescope that recently beamed back X-ray images of the sun's outermost layer. Scientists expected to see a calm region but instead saw a bubbling mass of swaying and arching spikes, some more than 5,000 miles long . The tangled magnetic fields dump energy back into the corona, causing huge temperature flares.

The sunspot intensity shocked NASA astronomers, who held the press conference in Washington as Gore testified nearby that the planet has a 'fever' caused by carbon-spewing humans. Of course, the media were too busy genuflecting before The Goracle on the Hill to cover the NASA news.

'If your baby has a fever, you go to the doctor,' Gore intoned. 'If the doctor says you need to intervene, you take action.'

Yes, action such as 'completely eliminating the internal combustion engine' and riding bicycles, taxing factories into bankruptcy and building windmills. In short, creating a 'carbon-free economy' and impoverishing everyone in the process.

But what if the doctor has misdiagnosed the cause of the fever? What if the remedy Gore is prescribing is dead wrong?

He and the rest of the greenhouse gasbags won't even entertain the simplest explanation for global warming. Like a solar eclipse, they've blotted out debate on the sun's factor, despite growing evidence to support it.

As we have pointed out, global temps closely track solar cycles as measured by sunspot intensity. The Danish Meteorological Institute first reported the correlation in a study going back centuries. Historic data reveal that whenever the sun heated up, the earth heated up, and vice versa.

The sun causes global warming? What a concept!

But Gore shamelessly buried the inconvenient truth of the study in the footnotes of his book. If he acknowledged the sun's role in global warming, how could he justify taxing industry and launching his massive wealth-transfer scheme?

Here's another fact he won't talk about on his way to a Nobel Prize: Mars is also warming. NASA says ice caps near that planet's south pole are melting. A growing number of scientists say solar irradiance is heating both Mars and Earth simultaneously.

And here's another inconvenient fact: The sun's radiation has increased by 0.5% per decade since the late 1970s, while carbon output has waxed and waned with global recessions. If warming were caused by carbon output, you'd expect to see temps fall in slumps and rise in booms along with carbon output. Data show no such link.

The Hoover Institution ran the numbers. 'The effects of solar activity and volcanoes were impossible to miss. Temperatures fluctuated exactly as expected, and the pattern was so clear that, statistically, the odds of the correlation existing by chance were less than 1 in 100,' according to a study earlier this decade by Hoover fellow Bruce Berkowitz.

'Yet try as we might,' the study added, 'we simply could not find any relationship between industrial activity, energy consumption, and changes in global temperatures. We tried adjusting for delayed effects. We tried adjusting for cumulative effects. Nothing — the relationship wasn't there.'

The study concluded that even if you completely shut down factories and power plants — as Gore recommends — 'there would not be much effect on temperatures.'

Ouch, so much for that theory. If the planet has a 'fever,' it more than likely got it from the sun, not furnaces and engines.

[Chana3812]

Oy Fucking Vey - that is an editorial ... riddled with errors

[AuGmENTor]

But I guess instead of listing them... We are supposed to take you at your word? Spoken as a true Lib!

[Chana3812]

Seems like BuckShot provided some well-researched information - do I need to repeat it all again.

You are just like a True Con(man). Throw out some shit - hope it sticks to the wall - and that the sheep will follow without questions.

I'm Liberal and Fucking Proud of It. I hope that this Earth is still here for my kids and their kids .....Unlike conmen, who want to wage war and blow the fuck out of every place they go. I HATE WAR, especially when it's unnecessary. I dislike polluters of the environment, too.

Bottom line.... why can't we just take care of each other and our Mother Earth? Is that such a bad idea???

[somebigguy]

Looks like the age old method Problem/Reaction/Solution is once again working beautifully for the Corporate elite.

Here comes the dollar per gallon carbon tax:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2007/260307Trilateral.htm

Anyone here actually believe that every extra dollar per gallon we spend will actually be put towards cleaning up the environment. Has the government ever treated our tax dollars with responsibility or respect in the past?

Once again, big business wins, and average Joe loses. And why? Because once again everyone believed what the corporate controlled media and politicians told them.

[beltman713]

I understand just fine. I just don't believe it is human related. we are at the end of a 10,000 year long ice age. This is just the cycle completeing itself. How do you account for spikes in greehouse gasses that occurred millions of years ago resulting in concentrations higher than those found today, when there were no humans?
I wasn't talking about you dude.

[AuGmENTor]

wow, that is sooo three days ago. i thought you were. My apologies.

[AuGmENTor]

I'm Liberal and Fucking Proud of It. I hope that this Earth is still here for my kids and their kids .....Unlike conmen, who want to wage war and blow the fuck out of every place they go. I HATE WAR, especially when it's unnecessary. I dislike polluters of the environment, too. Anyone who lables themselves one or the other, IMO is an idiot. I have some things I am liberal about. And I have some things that I am conservative about. Anything other than that is a blind approach to your perception of the world. I am not conning anyone here. LEAST of all you. I merely give my opinion on how I feel about the topics discussed. Our views are never going to be aligned, with Bush and CO. hanging that is. I mst give you that you are a pretty brutal Lib at the very least...

[Chana3812]

Bottom line.... why can't we just take care of each other and our Mother Earth? Is that such a bad idea??? Yep, sounds pretty butal :blah1: