"Vegetables, which are much lighter than turkeys and therefore more efficient to ship, are an excellent feast." said Lindy Hellman-Jones, a dietary specialist at Newhall Clinic. "But if people must eat turkeys, which is pretty gross, there are steps they can take to save the planet. If everyone would turn their ovens down from 350 to 345, it would be like taking 1 million cars off the road."

----

Hey, lady, maybe people think nothing but vegetables for a feast is pretty gross.

Doh...too early in the morning for me.

Does this mean that Al Gore will be foregoing his Thanksgiving and Christmas dinner?

Also, I think this lady failed to take into account the turkeys that are gone now. They won't be breathing the air, eating precious food to survive and farting/shitting anymore.

Are we just getting silly or what? File this next to using one piece of toilet paper to wipe one's ass.

I didn't catch it until after I first posted. Look at the source.

AWWW...Pirate...you spoiled the fun!

Good. Who likes cold weather?

Urgent Report Update: The amount of methane released from holiday revellers after feasting on turkeys increases global warming by .5 degrees during the holiday season.

From CoF's non-joke article:"...choosing tofurkey over turkey means you're likely to come out ahead on the environmental scorecard"

...but behind on the taste and satisfaction scorecard...
I think I'll stick with my real turkey this year...

"If everyone would turn their ovens down from 350 to 345, it would be like taking 1 million cars off the road."

Cracks me up everytime I read it!

If everyone would turn their ovens down from 350 to 345, it would be like taking 1 million cars off the road.

Guess she's never had to cook with my old Gaffers and Sattler oven.

Holiday Feasts Increase Global Warming

Hmmm, this poses a real Thanksgiving dilemma.

Should I just send my frozen turkey to Al Gore then?

And the person that wrote that is a f*****g wack job. If you think people are f*****g up the planet, why don't you gather up a couple billion and kill them. Then everything will be fine again or are you one of thoes that think the woley mamouth was killed off by the caveman.

is it because of all that methane I produce after eating several pounds of turkey, mashed taters and gravy?

EXCUUUUUUSE ME!

Global Warming: A Convenient Lie


by Andrew G. Marshall

Global Research, March 15, 2007

First off, it is very important to address the fact that Earth is not the only planet to be experiencing climate change in our solar system currently. In fact, many astronomers have announced that Pluto has been experiencing global warming, and suggested that it is a seasonal event, just like how Earth's seasons change as the various hemispheres alter their inclination to the Sun. We must remember that it is the Sun that determines our seasons, and thusly has a greater impact upon the climate than we could ever even try to achieve. In May of 2006, a report came forward revealing that a massive hurricane-like storm that occurred on Jupiter may be caused by climate change occurring on the planet, which is expected to raise its temperatures by 10 degrees. National Geographic News reported that a simultaneous rising in temperature on both Mars and Earth suggest that climate change is indeed a natural phenomenon as opposed to being man-made. The report further explains how NASA has reported that Mars' carbon dioxide ice caps have been melting for a few years now. Sound familiar? An astronomical observatory in Russia declared that, "the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun". They further point out that both Mars and Earth have, throughout their histories, experienced periodic ice ages as climate changes in a continuous fashion. NASA has also been observing massive storms on Saturn, which indicate a climate change occurring on that planet as well. NASA's Hubble Space Telescope has also been recording massive climate changes on Neptune's largest moon, Triton. Triton, whose surface was once made up of frozen nitrogen, is now turning into gas. The Associated Press has reported that satellites that measure the temperature of sunlight have been recording an increase in the sun's temperature, meaning that the sun itself is warming up. Even the London Telegraph reported in 2004 that global warming was due to the sun being hotter than it has ever been in the past 1,000 years. They cited this information from research conducted by German and Swiss scientists who claim that it is increasing radiation from the sun that is resulting in our current climate change.

You've got to be kidding me! What next, the frenzy of unwrapping Christmas (oops did I say Christmas!?!?...I mean PC Holiday gifts)creates such a commotion that affects global warming and hastens our demise! What a crock! They need to put global warming on the NYSE i need to invest in this fraud (oops again.. I mean profit making gig)!

How absurd, as if we wouldn't eat something else instead.

Population has always been the central issue.

Temperature increases of up to 0.2 degrees over the next 100 years can be directly attributable to this spike."
ROTFLMAO at this idiot. By opening his mouth, this fool is contributing to "global warming". If its anything American, its bad. Sew this clowns mouth shut. After beating his ass a few times with an axe handle.

They need to put global warming on the NYSE i need to invest in this fraud (oops again.. I mean profit making gig)!

Posted by michael067 at 2007-11-21 05:15 PM |


They already have. Follow Uncle Al. GE is involved too. You don't think they remain by standing on the sidelines, do you?
Buttering both sides of the bread gaurantees full flavor.

A bit of Halliburton, A bit of GE and a Bit of CAG.

Naaaaa..kri... Algore wouldn't try to make a buck off this. He is a noble man, you shouldn't accuse him of that.

OK,
File this one under liberal guilt. Sorry, I can't bring myself to give a shit. There are many more legitimate climate concerns than this

Guess we should celebrate nothing - only cry for our impending doom...

Personally I wish those who are so upset with our country and world would 'off' themselves so that those of us celebrating can continue to celebrate for a few more years: an offset (sort of like planting trees).

Now that I think of it (ref previous posting), these same type of persons are quite often the hate America crowd (we bad), yet they also want to allow the illegals (majority of those good Catholics who celebrate Christmas). To please these libs let's allow and 'offset' for each who 'offs' themselves - let's allow an illegal to legally immigrate here to replace that person! yes, Yes, YES.

oops. I almost took it seriously until I saw the source.

*beathing a sigh of relief and wiping brow*

is it because of all that methane I produce after eating several pounds of turkey, mashed taters and gravy?

EXCUUUUUUSE ME!

FF fer D-Boy's excellent Steve Martin imitation.

Also any tater reference is usually given an extra spud-point oddly enuff.

Tofurkey? The Hell wif THAT!

Can you stuff a Tofurkey like you can with a real turkey?

Spud is stuffing fiend!

First the Turkey gets stuffed wif it then Spud does.

Is like recycling!

Very green!

Be Well.

quite a few comments about a site that prides itself on being "The Standard of Excellence in Pseudojournalism"

just shows we have a lot of dumb right wingers here

If you think people are f*****g up the planet, why don't you gather up a couple billion and kill them. Then everything will be fine again or are you one of thoes that think the woley mamouth was killed off by the caveman.

Posted by Sniper at 2007-11-21 04:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

I think Bush must be reading your posts.

He's well past 100,000 with his Iraqi Attacky (TM) and according to him, he doesn't want to end with such low numbers.

Does this mean that Al Gore will be foregoing his Thanksgiving and Christmas dinner?

Posted by ride_on at 2007-11-21 10:23 AM | Reply

No. Algore instead will purchase a turkey offset.

That means some poor fucker in Uganda, and his family, have to eat rice with their rice, with rice on the side. If they want more they get rice. No pork or chicken for those godam brown people.

Plus, Algore owns the rice dealer where he buys the offset. So, he's buying it from himself.

Just like a Catholic in the Middle Ages buying an Indulgence to keep himself out of hell

Posted by vernon at 2007-11-21 09:40 PM

If all that is true, Algore would make a pretty good Republican.

LOL. Fuck off.

Oh, oh...does this look at all suspicious to anyone???

"Al Gore no longer needs to make claims about creating the Internet, because the former Vice President deserves much of the credit for creating an entire new industry--the global warming business.

And like the energy barons of an earlier age, Mr. Gore has the chance to achieve enormous wealth after being named last week as a new partner at the famously successful venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins. No fewer than three of his new colleagues sit on the Forbes list of wealthiest Americans. If Mr. Gore can develop market-based solutions to environmental challenges, we will cheer the well-deserved riches flowing his way. On the other hand, if he monetizes his Nobel Peace Prize by securing permanent government subsidies for nonmarket science projects, he'll have earned a different judgment.

There's no shortage of new capital pouring into alternative energy projects these days. According to the National Venture Capital Association, "clean tech" start-ups attracted more than $800 million in venture capital last quarter, a new record. What's not clear is whether these are fundamentally energy ventures or political ventures. The Manhattan Institute's Peter Huber, a former engineering professor at MIT, exaggerates only slightly when he says that "Basically, 'alternative' means stuff that nobody actually uses." If that turns out to be true, then alternative energy companies could struggle for market share without government assistance.
Those doubts exist even for the companies backed by Kleiner Perkins. After making more than a dozen "green tech" investments, Kleiner is still waiting for its first exit. According to a Kleiner spokeswoman, many companies in its portfolio are "in stealth mode." The firm will "neither name nor comment on them." So it's impossible to determine precisely how much the Kleiner-backed firms will benefit from either current federal subsidies, or new provisions that are part of the House and Senate versions of the stalled energy bill. But we do have some hints.

Of the portfolio companies acknowledged publicly by Kleiner, at least two, Altra and Mascoma, are involved in the production of ethanol, which is already heavily subsidized and would get more subsidies in the House bill and higher mandates in the Senate version. A third firm in the portfolio, Amyris Biotechnologies, is developing a biofuel that will provide "more energy than ethanol," according to its Web site, and should be just as eligible for government set-asides."

Who woulda ever thunk it???

"Two portfolio companies in the solar energy field, Miasole and Ausra, should benefit if a House provision requiring investor-owned utilities to generate 15% of their power from wind, solar or geothermal sources becomes law. The same is true for Altarock Energy, a Kleiner-backed geothermal company. Lux Research analyst Ying Wu reports that "company valuations will take a pretty big hit" in Miasole's market segment if Washington turns off the subsidy spigot.

To put it another way, Kleiner's "risk-taking" here isn't all economic. When everything is going according to plan, do venture capitalists normally turn to a politician/filmmaker to help them cash out of engineering firms?

Nope, but then again alternative energy has never fit the usual venture model. Jack Biddle, co-founder of Novak Biddle Venture Partners, says there's a reason few start-up companies try to build commercial jetliners. "Large, complex systems with slow deployment cycles do not play to venture's strengths. The whole idea with venture-backed companies is speed, speed, speed." Mr. Biddle says the size and complexity of energy systems "make 787s look like tinker toys. You need lots of capital, lots of time, lots of people."

Mr. Gore seems to grasp the scale of the challenge, and the need for government help, telling Fortune magazine, "What we are going to have to put in place is a combination of the Manhattan Project, the Apollo Project and the Marshall Plan, and scale it globally." That's the kind of "green" vision that will require a lot of greenbacks.
We'll be as happy as the Sierra Club if one or more of these new technologies turns out to solve the secrets of cheap, efficient energy. But we recall the same technological promises being made in the 1970s, the last time the feds poured subsidies into alternative fuels.

Which leads us to suspect that maybe Mr. Gore has been hired by Kleiner Perkins for more than his technological knowhow, investment acumen, or global vision. His new partners may have hired him for the more prosaic task of getting 60 Senate votes to keep those taxpayer greenbacks coming."
From the WSJ

"Hint: You can use inches."

Hint: I already used ppm.

You can use a minimal education.

Nitrogen doesn't block infrared.

Methane (1859-1970s) - LINKS -
In 1859 John Tyndall, intrigued by the recently discovered ice ages, took to studying how gases may block heat radiation. Since the work of Joseph Fourier in the 1820s, scientists had understood that the atmosphere might hold in the Earth's heat. The conventional view nevertheless was that gases were entirely transparent. Tyndall tried that out in his laboratory and confirmed it for the main atmospheric gases, oxygen and nitrogen, as well as hydrogen. He was ready to quit when he thought to try another gas that happened to be right at hand in his laboratory: coal-gas. This was a fuel used for lighting (and Bunsen burners), produced industrially by heating coal. It consisted of carbon monoxide (CO) mixed with a bit of the hydrocarbon methane (CH4) and more complex gases. Tyndall found that for heat rays, the gas was as opaque as a plank of wood. Thus the industrial revolution, intruding into Tyndall's laboratory in the form of a gas-jet, declared its significance for the planet's heat balance.


Full discussion in
CO2 greenhouse
Largely out of simple curiosity about geochemical cycles involving minor carbon and hydrogen compounds, in the 1960s and 1970s, scientists cataloged a variety of sources for methane in the atmosphere. It turned out that emissions from biological sources outranked mineral sources. Especially important were bacteria, producing the methane ("swamp gas") that bubbles up in wetlands. That included humanity's countless rice paddies.(3)

Even if Al Gore was lying about global warming just to create an atmosphere within which he could become fabulously wealthy it still wouldn't be nearly as evil as creating wars for profit.
Funny to me that the same folks who condemn Gore for his efforts to combat global warming generally cheer on the neocon scum who conduct war for profit.

right wingers said smoking not harmful, that was wrong

right wingers said PCB's won't harm you, that was wrong

right wingers said asbestos is not dangerous, that was wrong

right wingers said cadmium wot't harm you, that was wrong

and with that track record they say glogal warming is a hoax in support they point to editorials and right wing rants, yet can't provide a single piece of "peer reviewed" scientific research while there are countless "peer reviewed" papers available to support Gore's position"

please start writing an excuse to your grandkids on why you ignored the science, so when they asked you why you will have a good reason for your ignorance!

What do they call it when you get the "man-made global warming" religion? Evangelicals call getting their religion "being saved"... We need to come up with something for the religion of man-made global warming. Hmmmm, how does "being Gored" sound?

People who have been "Gored" have the same religious furvor as those who have been saved. As I read through the posts they very much resemble those in a thread where someone is trying to prove God and the others are trying to dis-prove God. If you believe in one side or the other then you believe in their arguments.

Funny how we all need some cause to believe in, whether it is God, or global warming.

sawdust,
where is the science behind your view, if you got it that is?

They won't be breathing the air, eating precious food to survive and farting/shitting anymore.

Posted by ride_on at 2007-11-21 10:23 AM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e



as donner already said......its not the turkey you eat....its the turkeys who eat....

just think of the belching and farting and other noises if we all finished eating at the same time.
now that could be a problem......
until about an hour or so afterwards.....
and then there would be a raucas sound of which we have never heard before.......
one big snore as all of us men were on our couches and all snoring..........

damn.....I CANT WAIT.......

Naaaaa..kri... Algore wouldn't try to make a buck off this. He is a noble man, you shouldn't accuse him of that.

Posted by Sniper at 2007-11-21 06:


he has already made over 100 million and stands to make MANY TIMES more than that...

and again.....I am not doubting a problem but I prefer to keep looking into it and not call the matter over..

the prof of climatology from the U of winnipeg said just the other day that the ice used in some of these studies.....has ALREADY BEGUN TO REFREEZE....

and I also have two questions...

what caused the earlier ice ages to come to an end....which made the ice melt then?????


and why isnt china in the sights of these people...last night on tv a guy said that they open two plants EVERY WEEK.....and they have or are about to pass us on every bad list of emmissions????

where is the science behind your view, if you got it that is?

Posted by onna

It is the same place where your science is to prove man has caused global warming.

"It is the same place where your science is to prove man has caused global warming."

www.realclimate.org is one, www.epa.gov is another, the there is IPCC

your only source is Rush

why don't you give a link to peer reviewed research, probably because you don't know what peer reviewed means, go ahead show me you intelligence

why do righties refuse to show the science that supports their view? is that because there is no science?

if there is, I would be willing to read it.

Onna...if you're waiting for an answer that will meet with your satisfaction, perhaps you should use some of that left-over turkey to pack a big lunch. You're going to be awhile. They'll astroturf you with paid-pundant hit pieces and unpublished swill from any corporate lab rat with impressive sounding credentials; but at the end of the day, there will be nothing in your in-box that was ever submitted for peer review or that any decent junior high science teacher couldn't debunk.

And it's no surprise to me how some of you good little goose steppers got so easily suckered into an obviously satirical piece. You partisan twerps really do have no shame.

"if there is, I would be willing to read it."

Posted by onna

One for the revolutionaries:

1784 Benjamin Franklin, "Meteorological Imaginations and Conjectures (Paper Read 1784)." Memoirs of the Literary and Philosophical Society of Manchester 2nd ed., 1789: 373-77.

Here's one for the water vaporheads:

1863 John Tyndall, "On the Relation of Radiant Heat to Aqueous Vapor." Philosophical Magazine ser. 4, 26: 30-54.

And one for Ray:

1824 Joseph Fourier, "Remarques Gnrales Sur Les Tempratures Du Globe Terrestre Et Des Espaces Plantaires." Annales de Chemie et de Physique 27: 136-67.

And who could forget:

1941 G.S. Callendar, "Infra-Red Absorption by Carbon Dioxide, with Special Reference to Atmospheric Radiation." Quarterly J. Royal Meteorological Society 67: 263-75.

Ah the 70's ...

1970 Akio Arakawa, "Numerical Simulation of Large-Scale Atmospheric Motions." In Numerical Solution of Field Problems in Continuum Physics (SIAM-AMS Conference) Vol. 2, pp. 24-40. Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society.

1970 Anders ngstrm, "Apparent Solar Constant Variations and Their Relation to the Variability of Atmospheric Transmission." Tellus 22(2): 205-18.

1970 Bert Bolin, "The Carbon Cycle." Scientific American, Sept., pp. 125-32.

1970 Wallace S. Broecker and Jan van Donk, "Insolation Changes, Ice Volumes and the O18 Record in Deep-Sea Cores." Reviews of Geophysics and Space Physics 8: 169-98.

1970 Reid A. Bryson, et al., "The Character of Late-Glacial and Postglacial Climatic Changes (Symposium, 1968)." In Pleistocene and Recent Environments of the Central Great Plains (University of Kansas Department of Geology, Special Publication), edited by Wakefield Dort, Jr. and J. Knox Jones, Jr., Vol. 3, pp. 53-74. Lawrence, Kan.: University of Kansas Press.

1970 Reid A. Bryson and Wayne M. Wendland, "Climatic Effects of Atmospheric Pollution." In Global Effects of Environmental Pollution, edited by S. F. Singer, pp. 130-38. New York: Springer-Verlag.

1970 William E. Cobb and Howard J. Wells, "The Electrical Conductivity of Ocean Air and Its Correlation to Global Atmospheric Pollution." J. Atmospheric Sciences 27: 814-19.

1970 Paul J. Crutzen, "The Influence of Nitrogen Oxides on the Atmospheric Ozone Content." Quarterly J. Royal Meteorological Society 96: 320-25.

1970 C.N. Davies, "Editorial." J. Aerosol Science 1: 1.

1970 Paul R. Ehrlich, and Anne H. Ehrlich. Population, Resources, Environment: Issues in Human Ecology. San Francisco: Freeman.

1970 E. Eliasen, et al., On a Numerical Method for Integration of the Hydrodynamical Equations with a Spectral Representation of the Horizontal Fields. Copenhagen: Institut for Teoretisk Meteorologi, Kbenhavns Universitet.

1970 Samuel Epstein, et al., "Antarctic Ice Sheet: Stable Isotope Analyses of Byrd Station Cores and Interhemispheric Climatic Implications." Science 168: 1570-72.

1970 Frank Graham, Jr., Since Silent Spring. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

1970 J.S.A. Green, "Transfer Properties of the Large Scale Eddies and the General Circulation of the Atmosphere." Quarterly J. Royal Meteorological Society 96: 157-85.

1970 Peter V. Hobbs, et al., "Cloud Condensation Nuclei from Industrial Sources and Their Apparent Influence on Precipitation in Washington State." J. Atmospheric Sciences 27: 81-89.

1970 S.J. Johnsen, et al., "Climatic Oscillations 1200-2000 A.D." Nature 227: 482-83.

1970 Kirill Ya. Kondratyev and G.A. Nikolsky, "Solar Radiation and Solar Activity." Quarterly J. Royal Meteorological Society 96: 509-22.

1970 Imre Lakatos, "Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes." In Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, edited by Imre Lakatos and Alan Musgrave, pp. 91-196. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

1970 Hubert H. Lamb, "Volcanic Dust in the Atmosphere; with a Chronology and Assessment of Its Meteorological Significance." Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London A266: 425-533.

1970 Hubert H. Lamb and Alastair Woodroffe, "Atmospheric Circulation During the Last Ice Age." Quaternary Research 1: 29-58.

1970 Helmut E. Landsberg, "Man-Made Climatic Changes." Science 170: 1265-74.

1970 Edward N. Lorenz, "Climate Change as a Mathematical Problem." J. Applied Meteorology 9: 325-29.

1970 J.H. Mercer and C. Emiliani, "Antarctic Ice and Interglacial High Sea Levels (Exchange of Letters)." Science 168: 1605-06.

1970 J. Murray Mitchell, Jr., "A Preliminary Evaluation of Atmospheric Pollution as a Cause of the Global Temperature Fluctuation of the Past Century." In Global Effects of Environmental Pollution, edited by S. Fred Singer, pp. 139-55. New York: Springer-Verlag.

1970 S.A. Orszag, "Transform Method for Calculation of Vector-Coupled Sums: Application to the Spectral Form of the Vorticity Equation." J. Atmospheric Sciences 27: 890-95.

1970 R.R. Rapp, "Climate Modification and National Security". Santa Monica, CA, Rand Corporation. Paper P-4476

1970 S. Ichtiaque Rasool and Catheryn de Bergh, "The Runaway Greenhouse and the Accumulation of CO2 in the Venus Atmosphere." Nature 226: 1037-39.

1970 (Study of Critical Environmental Problems) SCEP, Man's Impact on the Global Environment. Assessment and Recommendation for Action. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

1970 S. Fred Singer, Global Effects of Environmental Pollution. New York: Springer-Verlag.

1970 Joseph Smagorinsky, "Numerical Simulation of the Global Circulation." In Global Circulation of the Atmosphere, edited by G.A. Corby, pp. 24-41. London: Royal Meteorological Society.

1970 Henry Stommel, "Future Prospects for Physical Oceanography." Science 168: 1531-38.

And that's just 1970.

1965 (Obituary), "Mr. G.S. Callendar." Quarterly J. Royal Meteorological Society 91: 112.


sniff

And who could forget:

1941 G.S. Callendar, "Infra-Red Absorption by Carbon Dioxide, with Special Reference to Atmospheric Radiation." Quarterly J. Royal Meteorological Society 67: 263-75.

Who, indeed? Certainly not Spud!

It had a great beat and you could really dance to it!

The huge irony involved in the global warming debate is, fer Spud, the fact that the side that is calling the reputable scientists "hoaxers" are mostly a whack of discredited pseudo-scientific guns fer hire being paid by the world biggest polluters to spew their pre-formed opinions.

The folk who up till recently were trying to get the data to read that there is no link between Cigarettes and Cancer are now trying to infer that there's no link between humanities over-population, over-pollution and decimation of the surving bio-mass and Global warming/ Climate change.

In denial much?

Be Well.

ONNA, my point is that the science on either side is not conclusive. Every person picks their side and then decides which science they are going to believe. Just as the people who believe in God or Not do. They all have thier agruments, but the arguments only work based on their supposition (there is a God or there is not). Same here, you can find science on either side. So your arguments are in essense the same as those who argue religion. Those who have been "Gored" argue one side and those who have not argue the other. You believe you are right because the science you choose to believe points you that way. It is somewhat self selcting. People on the other side do the same.

Eventually as most arguments on here do, each side will begin to call the other names and accuse them of various uncomplimentary things because neither side can convince the other of their point.

(Rush is not a scientist)

Posted by onna at 2007


thanks for the links and thats even though you continue to come up with 'righties are stupid' bullshit.......

but nowhere in the two links did I find an answer to my questions.

how did the last ice age melt?
I dont believe there were that many cars on the road.

and what about china?


and read some of the link....and you will see leftists calling people who disagree with them...liars.........just because they disagree....
typical...

but I will save the links and read them in more detail later........thanks......

and I got my questions from a letter to the editor to the houston chronicle...not rush....so thank you again.....

ONNA, my point is that the science on either side is not conclusive.

there is science only on one side, so your point is wrong, uless you want to show peer reviewed science on the deniers sise, good luck there

and here is one of my points....AT LEAST AS I HAVE HEARD IT.....and not from a talk show either.....
read about people who talk about scientists who can prove that its not the problem the left says it is...
but they cant speak out or they lose funding and jobs........and the speaker who said this said that he wasnt paid by oil companies.......he said if he was his car wouldnt be a 1991 ford.........

again......I have a problem with the left just closing debate and calling everyone stupid who wants to keep asking questions..........thats my main contention....

and then the left comes out with algore......whose report has been found by a judge in england to have 9 factual errors and so he banned its showing in england unless parents agree and the errors are pointed out......

again.......right or wrong....I dont know....I just cant believe the left is ready to go apeshit about it ............

if its a problem lets do something.....and not something that some guy tells us about and then gets in his big private jet and leaves to lecture someone else........until he gets home to the largest mansion in tennessee and uses tons of energy while lecturing us about conservation.....
things like that would really help your cause, dont you think???????

those 9 errors for bushlover2!

UK High Court judge, a layperson with a full docket, found the film worthy enough to be shown in British schools. A generation of schoolchildren will become more educated about global warming and what can be done to solve the climate crisis.

The judge himself never used the term "errors." That was an allegation made by the plaintiff--whose motives are quite suspect. Stewart Dimmock, who brought this case, appears to have been funded by the very same fossil fuel interests who have sought to undermine the scientific consensus behind global warming in the past.

you can read right wing talking points or the actual ruling by the judge, your choice. Depending on your choice I've got a bridge for sale in San Francisco!

you don't like Gore, that's fine with me, I don't like him either. But is that a good reason to ignore global warming as a potential problem. Do you think so little of your grandchildren that you will ignore a problem because you don't like Gore. the IPCC has nothing to do with Gore, go ahead ignore this problem because Gore has a big mansion. And you question my comment that right wingers are idiots? That's funny!

NICE LINK....it pretty much is just what I have been asking for........its pretty comprehensive whether you agree with the answers or not.
thanks.....

of course since we are in a debate, my focus was on looking for inconsistencies and things like that and the main problem I had with much of what I read was that whenever the authors were making a point of dispelling the skeptics, they were way too easy with just throwing out the old......well thats too hard to find or something like that......
you know what I mean? when the conclusion was prostance for them....the evidence was total and without question and when they were referring to the other side of the issue, they must have said several times that it was just too hard to find out for sure.....

for instance when they were talking about mars and pluto, they talked about the places on mars, I believe it was, that had some ice looking things that seemed to be melting but then said....well
"its too hard to draw conclusions in this short period of time......." so that sort of keeps my skeptical thought going..

and when it came to the sun, it sounded reasonable except that I have heard of a paper from a prof of astronomy from MIT who has a study that says something different.....

but one thing......again, it has plenty of questions and answers, and of course that means that you have to be willing to accept thier answers.


the china question was pretty much unanswered because maybe these were written before we understood that china is opening something like two power plants a week and I think I read that they were coal plants......not the cleanest energy source in the world.
BUT AT LEAST IT WAS SOME KIND OF RESPONSE RATHER THAN .....WELL YOU ARE JUST TOO STUPID TO UNDERSTAND.......and maybe thats a first step.

AND AGAIN AS I HAVE SAID MANY TIMES............I have no doubt that there is a problem with emmissions and such.......just yesterday I drove through north shore, channelview....( that should tell you where that city is.....) and even through some of exxon in baytown....on the way to eat turkery with family.....and those places have thier own smell and haze in the air, so I understand that maybe better than many of you, but I just dont want for the US to go crazy while others just do what they are prone to do....sit back and do nothing while we do the work and pay the bill........


with the cost and change in almost everything people are talking about, I dont think its asking too much to be completely sure about all of it.

and one more problem.....maybe if your side had a spokeman that was actually concerned with his own conservation and not living in one of the largest energy user home in all of tennessee...

Table TS.3 of Working Group II's technical summary, for example, lays out projected warmings. The uncertainties are obvious. Decades ahead, models don't agree on the amount of warming from a given amount of greenhouse gas, and no one can tell which of a half-dozen emission scenarios--from unbridled greenhouse-gas production to severe restraint--will be closest to reality. But this table strongly suggests that a middle-of-the-road, business-as-usual scenario would likely lead to a 2C warming by about the middle of this century.

Lined up beneath the projected warmings in the table are the anticipated effects of each warming. Beneath a mid-century, 2C warming is a litany of daunting ill effects that had previously had no clear timing attached to them: increasing drought in mid-latitudes and semiarid low latitudes, placing 1 billion to 2 billion additional people under increased water stress; most corals bleached, with widespread coral mortality following within a few decades; and decreases in low-latitude crop productivity, as in wheat and maize in India and rice in China, among other pervasive impacts.

At the bottom of the same table is a category of effects labeled "Singular Events," most dramatically sea level rise. The table shows a "Long term commitment to several metres of sea-level rise due to ice sheet loss" falling between the middle-of-the-road 2C warming and a 3C warming, which without drastic emissions reductions might well come by the end of the century. The report calls it a "commitment" because although the temperatures needed to melt much of the Greenland ice sheet might be reached in the next 50 to 100 years, the ice sheet, similar to an ice cube sitting on a countertop, will take time to melt even after the surrounding air is warm enough. Its huge thermal inertia means a lag of at least several centuries before it would largely melt away, flooding much of South Florida, Bangladesh, and major coastal cities.

Kudzu, ZAT, kudzu is the threat! AND...can you perhaps keep your pontificating to shorter posts? Maybe you could work up a code sheet...something like this:

1) Ice is melting in the Arctic
2) Ice is melting in the Antarctic
3) It's hot in July
4) It's......well, you get the idea.

This way, we will all know the deal when you post a 1, 2, 3....and it will save a lot of wear and tear on your keyboard.

If you want to read all of it, subscribe to Science.

No thanks. In two hundred years, with some exceptions, real science has morphed into religion.

***** Holiday Feasts Increase Global Warming *****

......I know I fart like a Harley-Davidson on ethenol after the big dinner......

"......I know I fart like a Harley-Davidson on ethenol after the big dinner......"

Good lord, don't let ZAT/DATA know that! I bet he holds his in and that's what makes him so ornery.

"with the cost and change in almost everything people are talking about, I dont think its asking too much to be completely sure about all of it."

fair enough, but make sure to demand the science behind the deniers position not the "..some guy at MIT" stuff but peer reviewed science. Whenever you ask a denier to provide his proof you get either attacks on Gore or chirping sounds, Why?

easy way to look at it, make believe Gore does not exist and just read the data including gov. data from NASA or www.noaa.gov as well as science publications.

by the way the guy at MIT sided with tobbaco companies and hasn't done any science research in many years. good track record

I'm taking odds jestgettingalong has a mullet and a 1971 Firebird up on blocks in the front yard. Not to state the obvious, but the blind gambling masseur has forgotten more science than justpokingalong will ever know.
A waste is a terrible thing to mind.
No...wait. That's not right.
It's...a terrible waste is a thing to mind. Nope.
It's...a thing is a terrible waste to mind? Hmmm...
A terrible thing is a mind to waste?
It can't be a mind is a terrible thing to waste. That doesn't make any sense at all, and besides...Al Gore has a jet and uses more electricity than me. So ipso facto...global warming is a myth. Rush and Helmet Hair Hannity told me so.

I could never be a Reichwinger...the denial would drive me nuts.

Dutch,

It's "A (insert: closed; feeble; weak; uneducated; etc.) mind is a wonderful thing to waste."

JustTryingToHelp

Aww Dutch, that's sweet.


PS
Wanna invest in my Northwest Passage marina chain?
Vern's got a water ski school there; Barefootin' penguins.

Are you sayin' to buy stock in Evinrude? The thing about opening a bait & tackle store is location, location, location.

I just can't get over this silly notion that the sun is involved somehow.

Hook.

The sun is certainly a factor here but it's not the most important one and it's not one that humans can influence.

And I have to believe ocean currents have a major effect too.

Line.

The de-salinisation of the oceans due to excessive melting of fresh water have indeed changed the oceans currents. That's predicted and factored by most reputable scientists computer models.

And the whole thing is probably a natural occuring cycle in the earth's history

Sinker.

Have there been natural cycles of cooling and warming before in the history of the earth? Hell yeah, at one point there was practically no oxygen in the Earth's atmosphere until the arrival of the blue-green algae that over the course of a loooong period of time changed that situation. The eruption of Krakatoa and the falling of large meteroites have also in theory caused changes in the cooling/warming cycles. None of this has anything to do with the fact that the human rce has over the course of the last couple of centuries had an undeniable impact on the make-up of earths atmosphere.

Nice tries Jest but yer just spouting off Global Warming Denial Industry's talking points again leading Spud to ask...

Are ya actually an astro-turfer fer Exxon or BP or are ya just a sucker?

Be Well.

Apparently jestgettingitwrong confuses a small fraction of the planet's surface with the whole planet. The net ice loss from Antarctica is greater than the net ice gain and it's getting faster. see the Larsen ice shelf. Oh, you can't. it melted.

The net energy input for Earth is greater than the net energy output. Check your thermodynamics for the resultant change in temperature.

Science 23 November 2007:
(That's today, for the slow learners here.)
Vol. 318. no. 5854, pp. 1230 - 1231
DOI: 10.1126/science.318.5854.1230

Prev | Table of Contents | Next
News Focus
GLOBAL WARMING:
How Urgent Is Climate Change?

"Humans are messing with climate and will, sooner or later, get burned if they keep it up. But just how urgent is this global warming business? If you want to be able to head off a few trillions of [dollars of climate] damages per year a few decades out," says glaciologist Richard Alley of Pennsylvania State University in State College, "you need to start now."

I love reading these threads. Somehow it just doesn't get old.

You do have a mullet, don't you. Fess up...

Yes. I'm completely bonkers. But tomorrow morning, I'll still be taller and better looking than you, and Zat will still know oodles more about science than you ever will.

Just popped in to see if this was still just a "circle jerk" site.....

yep...