“Al Gore is so full of shit he has to light a match when he talks.”

I heard that joke today from some comedian, but I don’t know who the hell it was, but it was funny.

What’s not funny, yet not at all shocking to those of us who are not yet convinced that “the science is settled” on man-made global warming, is the discovery of the “Climategate” emails.  Do you homework on this one kids, because the next power grab  this administration will try to ram down our throats will be cap & trade.

Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of “Anthropogenic Global Warming.”

Media Ignores Climategate Even as NASA is dragged into the scandal

Hiding Evidence of Global Cooling

Inhofe will call for investigation of “Climategate”

Interesting

What ever happened to Global Warming?

More

I saw this reader comment and thought it mirrored my own opinion on the Al Gore Show well:  “There are several problems with the current approach to global warming: First, is the general lack of recognition that climate change has been a constant part of the planet’s history for the last 4.5 billion years and is not a recent phenomenon. Second, is the view that data for a couple of hundred years is climate data instead of aggregated weather data– if you want climate data take a look over several hundred thousand years, at a minimum; if not several million years. What you will discover is that this current warming trend is not remarkable, but a fairly ordinary inter-glacial climatic event, much like the four that preceded it — not the warmest or the coolest. Third, look at the reality of greenhouse gases. CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas and only about 1% as effective a greenhouse gas as the much more common water vapor.”

Advertisements

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

One response to ““Al Gore is so full of shit he has to light a match when he talks.”

  1. “Climategate” started out when there appeared on the Internet a collection of e-mails of a group of climatologists who work in the University of East Anglia in England. These documents reveal that some climatologists of international preeminence have manipulated the data of their investigations and have strongly tried to discredit climatologists who are not convinced that the increasing quantities of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere are the cause of global warming.

    It is true that a majority of the scientists who study climatic tendencies in our atmosphere have arrived at the conclusion that the world’s climate is changing, and they have convinced a group of politicians, some of whom are politically powerful, of the truth of their conclusions.

    A minority, however, is skeptical. Some believe that recent data that suggest that the average temperature of the atmosphere is going up can be explained by natural variations in solar radiation and that global warming is a temporary phenomenon. Others believe that the historical evidence indicating that the temperature of the atmosphere is going up at a dangerous rate is simply not reliable.

    Such lacks of agreement are common in the sciences. They are reduced and eventually eliminated with the accumulation of new evidence and of more refined theories or even by completely new ones. Such debates can persist for a period of decades. Academics often throw invective at one another in these debates. But typically this does not mean much.

    But the case of climate change is different. If the evidence indicates that global warming is progressive, is caused principally by our industrial processes, and will probably cause disastrous changes in our atmosphere before the end of the twenty-first century, then we do not have the time to verify precisely if this evidence is reliable. Such a process would be a question of many years of new investigations. And if the alarmist climatologists are right, such a delay would be tragic for all humanity.

    The difficulty is that economic and climatologic systems are very complicated. They are not like celestial mechanics, which involves only the interaction of gravity and centrifugal force, and efforts to construct computerized models to describe these complicated systems simply cannot include all the factors that are influential in the evolution of these complicated systems.

    All this does not necessarily indicate that the alarmist climatologists are not right. But it really means that if global warming is occurring, we cannot know exactly what will be the average temperature of our atmosphere in the year 2100 and what will be the average sea level of the world’s ocean in that year.

    It also means that we cannot be confident that efforts by the industrialized countries to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere will have a significant influence on the evolution of the world’s climate.

    Alas, the reduction of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere would be very costly and would greatly change the lives of all the inhabitants of our planet–with the possibility (perhaps even the probability!) that all these efforts will be completely useless.

    Harleigh Kyson Jr.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s