Climate Change Alarmists Caught Lying Again

US of Americans no longer need maps as the fine nation of Taiwan produces high quality navigation systems for our Hummers and Cadillacs.

 

But those have different colors at different scales, right?

What ever happen to good old made-in-the-US-of-Americans scale invariant maps?!

 

Perhaps we need data from South Africa and the Iraq so we can help the Asian countries with global warming.

 

Perhaps we should have maps everywhere like such as.

 

Yes you could. And I also recently made a similar claim defending Stephen F. Hayes, author of "The Connection: How Al Qaeda's connection with Saddam Hussein has endangered America". We all know that there was no connection between Hussein and Al Qaeda, but that doesn't mean he was lying. It could have been an honest mistake based on what appeared to be the facts at the time. It's simply ridiculous to assume that every single claim that turns out to be untrue was a calculated lie. It's especially convenient to take this stance when those who made the claim just happen to have very different views than you do. People do make honest mistakes. Personally, I try to apply that to both conservatives and liberals despite my liberal leanings.

But personally, I think your stance is ridiculous. What exactly do you suppose somebody like Al Gore has to gain from the world going green? What do the scientists of the world (who, incidentally, are in nearly unanimous agreement that global warming exists, is man-made and will only worsen if we do not adjust) have to gain from it?

It's not like say, claiming that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction, invading that country on that false premise, taking over the oil production of that country and handing out gigantic no bid contracts to your buddies at Haliburton to rebuild that country after you blew it up.

 

which is why we should educate south africans and iraqis

 

i actually do. its 1/100th right now bc not much money is invested in solar power as opposed to nuclear power.

this is a quote from a feasibility study done by students at the harvard business school. they build a solar array on top of their building.

"The system, which produces about 45 Megawatt Hours of power annually, provides Shad Hall with between 15 and 25 percent of its electricity each day. More importantly, Cook said, it reduces the emission of about 75,000 pounds of carbon dioxide—the equivalent of removing 220 cars from the road—each year."

from: http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=349105

remember that this is in boston. not as sunny as new mexico, nevada, arizona, and utah. they can get 20% of their electricity need for free!

Here is another quote from a solar power web site. "Another perspective is that roughly 100 square miles of solar panels placed in the southwestern U.S. could power the country."

from: http://www.solar4power.com/solar-power-basics.html

now i dont know if 100 square miles can realistically power the entire US, but a very very conservative estimate could be 20-30%. that 20-30% could translate to BILLIONS of dollars in savings with no negative impact to the environment!

so what's the hold up?

 

seriously?

the man is a politician. politicians often manipulate fear to assume and maintain power. al gore has gotten tons of positive attention...he's repaired his image...in large part because of his work in this area.

i'm not suggesting by this post that global warming isn't happening...or that it's not man-made. i have no idea if that's happening.

 

when was the last time al gore ran for office

 

he's a lifelong politician. it's all he's known. it's the only job he's ever had. he's the face of this cause in the US.

 

1) Completely incorrect, as can be seen from the global data. 2005 is still the warmest year on Earth in the history of recording temperature.
2) That is a complete twist of the data, and again focuses only on the US America. You are taking the "top 10" approach, popular in Glamour magazine, to examine over 100 years of data. It would be like examining someone's complete cardiac health based on their top 10 ever highest heart rates. On average, is the US temperature getting warmer? Well, yes. Perhap you expect complex systems to behave in a linear fashion. That must lead to great success in your financial work.
3) Is that the task? Fact: CO2 is a compound which is unusually good at absorbing solar energy. I don't know about environmentalists, but scientists would say "temperatures are rising. CO2 can only exacerbate this trend. Less CO2 output will certainly slow the trend." That is not arguable. I think it is a stunning coincidence that temperatures starting rising after the industrial revolution (see "hockey stick" data), but I would never be one to say "I know humans caused this effect for sure." That would be laughable. I would say "We ain't helping and we're making it worse, for sure."
4) Don't care, bigtexxx.
5) ECACK will have all the staying power of LibQaeda, the term you "coined" when you mistakenly read the label of your chest nair while posting.

WARM DAY to you!

 

i hate that i always find myself arguing the contrarian viewpoint in these threads. i'm all for finding alternate energy sources. i'm all for recycling. i'm all for being better stewards of this planet...for its own sake without a "sky is falling" story to support it.

but how long have we been keeping recorded temperature? since the late 1800s'? let's assume we have even as much as 200 years of data to draw from. how old is the earth again??? saying that 2005 is the warmest year in the past 200 years and trying to draw global conclusions for that seems funny to me.

 

2007 years

everybody knows that

 

Max,
I think Al believes it through and through. That's not to guarantee he's correct. He's as authentic as a rubber nickel, in his delivery, I know. But I think he believes what he's saying on climate. It gets ratcheted up and mistrusted because it happens to intersect with some of his political views.

By the way, please know that the global data is striking and that we are getting warmer. Global temps, ocean levels, the earth's albedo (how white it is from space, due to ice coverage)... all changing pretty remarkably.
I make no claim as to absolute human cause, but we do know that human activity can only have contributed to the trend and will continue to do so.

NewYorker, your solar data seems crazy to me. danny317's numbers jibe with the physics of today's photovoltaics, if that matters. Like him, I wouldn't claim a 100x100 mile solar array is feasible right now, but your reduction of "all of New Mexico" to a "drop in the bucket" is false, unless you meant an enormous drop in a tiny bucket.

Okay, I've said more than enough here. Skepticism is healthy, always. Finding a needle of data and clinging to it to argue against a planet's worth of data is just foolish though.

 

hey, it's summer. people suppose get horny.

 

LMAO! (whoops. okay, that's my last post here. ahem.)

 

okay, i don't understand the criticism or skeptism. why does he need to repair his image, he should've been president

 

people look at environmentalists as quacks, its not a cause that will make you popular