[valis]

and let's not forget that the last mini ice age corresponded with an unusually quiet few years for sunspot activity.....definitely not coincidence, as those assist in the mass coronal ejections that tend to bombard our planet with extra radiation.

hadn't heard that about the iron dust, tom....thanks for the fodder.....

[person]

Call me old fashioned but isn't the point of having a thread labeled solved mean there's bean some kind of agreement or decision made on it or its contents? Why is this thread still going?

[LANMaster]

Originally Posted by person

Call me old fashioned but isn't the point of having a thread labeled solved mean there's bean some kind of agreement or decision made on it or its contents? Why is this thread still going?

Because it is not solved to the satisfaction of most.




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 solo 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.

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...

[person]

Originally Posted by LANMaster

Because it is not solved to the satisfaction of most.




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 solo 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.

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...

Then why even bother labeling solved, that title means little in these threads it seems!

[valis]

Originally Posted by person

Then why even bother labeling solved, that title means little in these threads it seems!

why does it bother you so much? Let the little things slide, blood pressure will love you for it.

Lan: Did you see that special on global warming on the history channel last night? Rather interesting.

[person]

Originally Posted by valis

why does it bother you so much? Let the little things slide, blood pressure will love you for it.

Lan: Did you see that special on global warming on the history channel last night? Rather interesting.

Aren't I allowed to inquire about something I find odd without getting the usual why do you care from people? I don't care that much, I just think it's weird to label something solved when it's apparently not. Now I'll get on with my life somehow even though this is the case.

[compushlep]

U.S. disagrees at G8 Climate meeting
Mon, Mar. 19, 2007
LINK


Hmmm ... why is that not surprising?
In the meeting of the Group of 8+5 countries the vote result was 12 for and 1 against, U.S. being THE only hold out!


... But hold on a sec!
That's where the title is misleading (a tad). For if you read the whole article there are many points to consider. The U.S. did agree on most of the main issues, it fell in line with everybody else on these (L. Johnson is the U.S. EPA Admin, head of his country’s delegation):

Johnson [U.S.] told ministers “explicitly” that he supported consensus on issues including the scientific evidence for climate change, the need to develop technology to combat it, the need for industrialized countries to mobilize a variety of tools, the need to take measures to adapt to climate change, and the need to act to avoid deforestation.

Overall a positive development, IMO. What did they disagree on? The fact that Al Gore is fat!! ....
(kidding ... read it for yourself )

[LANMaster]

Some criticize Gore's profits from toxic mining

CARTHAGE, Tenn. - Al Gore has profited from zinc mining that has released millions of pounds of potentially toxic substances near his farmstead, but there is no evidence the mine has caused serious damage to the environment in the area or threatened the health of his neighbors.

Two massive white mountains of leftover rock waste are evidence of three decades of mining that earned Gore more than $500,000 in royalty payments for the mineral rights to his property.

New owners plan to start mining again later this year, after nearly four years of inactivity. In addition to bringing 250 much-needed jobs to rural Middle Tennessee, mine owners will resume paying royalties to some residents who, like Gore, own land adjacent to the mine and lease access to the zinc under their property.

Gore has yet to be approached by the new owner, Strategic Resource Acquisition, said his spokeswoman Kalee Kreider, and he and wife, Tipper, have not decided whether they will renew their lease. It was terminated when the mine closed in 2003.

More

[person]

Originally Posted by LANMaster

Some criticize Gore's profits from toxic mining





More

I know you're a conservative but couldn't you find a better picture?

[sy2]

Johnson [U.S.] told ministers “explicitly” that he supported consensus on issues including the scientific evidence for climate change, the need to develop technology to combat it, the need for industrialized countries to mobilize a variety of tools, the need to take measures to adapt to climate change, and the need to act to avoid deforestation.

Has anyone really argued against that, even in this thread? I'm genuinely not sure, haven't read this whole massive thing, but I thought that the only point of contention was the degree to which humans are directly affecting the temperature increase.

[LANMaster]

Originally Posted by sy2

Has anyone really argued against that, even in this thread? I'm genuinely not sure, haven't read this whole massive thing, but I thought that the only point of contention was the degree to which humans are directly affecting the temperature increase.

Spot on.

[LANMaster]

Originally Posted by person

I know you're a conservative but couldn't you find a better picture?

It's the one that came with the story at the link.

[person]

What's the main debate here? Is it that global warming is a myth or that it isn't but also isn't being caused by humans? There's way too many posts to read!

[LANMaster]

Originally Posted by person

What's the main debate here? Is it that global warming is a myth or that it isn't but also isn't being caused by humans? There's way too many posts to read!

There are 3 key debates, as I see it, in this thread.

1. That global wearming is significantly impacted by mankind
2. That the problem is as serious as is being reported
3. That human lifestyle change will impact the global warming trend
4. That global warming is a naturally occuring phenomenon which is cyclical
5. That the hysteria generated by GW proponents is primarily political in nature

1. 3-4% of all emission come from man. The other 96-97% are natural emissions.
Insignificant, when one considers that a single medium sized volcanic eruption emits more greenhouse gasses than humanity has in total since the automobile was invented.
(previous links posted in this thread)

2. Considering that global warming can also be attributed to natural weather cycles and sun variances, it is logical to make the case that the cycle will again shift back to a cooling trend ..... all by itself.

3. Some of the crazy proposals for dealing with global warming sounds like they could be more damaging to the environment than the warming.

How crazy?

There's the man-made "volcano" that shoots gigatons of sulfur high into the air. The space "sun shade" made of trillions of little reflectors between Earth and sun, slightly lowering the planet's temperature.

The forest of ugly artificial "trees" that suck carbon dioxide out of the air. And the "Geritol solution" in which iron dust is dumped into the ocean.

4. The changes in the radiant variable of the sun had been in a state of increase for the past decade and can account for much of the warming trend

5. Al Gore, and his legions of leftist Gore-Worshippers. I rest my case.

[person]

Originally Posted by LANMaster

There are 3 key debates, as I see it, in this thread.

1. That global wearming is significantly impacted by mankind
2. That the problem is as serious as is being reported
3. That human lifestyle change will impact the global warming trend
4. That global warming is a naturally occuring phenomenon which is cyclical
5. That the hysteria generated by GW proponents is primarily political in nature

1. 3-4% of all emission come from man. The other 96-97% are natural emissions.
Insignificant, when one considers that a single medium sized volcanic eruption emits more greenhouse gasses than humanity has in total since the automobile was invented.
(previous links posted in this thread)

2. Considering that global warming can also be attributed to natural weather cycles and sun variances, it is logical to make the case that the cycle will again shift back to a cooling trend ..... all by itself.

3. Some of the crazy proposals for dealing with global warming sounds like they could be more damaging to the environment than the warming.

How crazy?

There's the man-made "volcano" that shoots gigatons of sulfur high into the air. The space "sun shade" made of trillions of little reflectors between Earth and sun, slightly lowering the planet's temperature.

The forest of ugly artificial "trees" that suck carbon dioxide out of the air. And the "Geritol solution" in which iron dust is dumped into the ocean.

4. The changes in the radiant variable of the sun had been in a state of increase for the past decade and can account for much of the warming trend

5. Al Gore, and his legions of leftist Gore-Worshippers. I rest my case.

Well I was only asking for the first bit it's clear where you stand here. I was gonna post in this forum but it seems a bit like an endless circle, each side are not likely to change their mind. So thanks for the info and see ya. By the way you just can't stand Al Gore can you?