my thought would be what made hime eligible to win the prize in the first place? all he did was make a glorified slide slideshow of a movie, about a problem everyone already knew about (unless you’ve been living under a rock), full of half-truths, that was, according to a British court, inherently biased

but really, it wouldnt matter who he endorsed–it wouldnt make the field of candidates any better

They don’t let me vote here, in the UK I was a conservative, there is no church with in our state, socialized health care and pro life or choice is not an issue.
So I sit back enjoying my life in the USA, wanting to vote, I’ll get around to going from permanent resident to citizen.

So I was over watching the Gore/Bush election, sat with my girlfriend at the time (now my beloved wife) she is involved in politics, they were tears as the results became apparent.
Looking back with today’s Al Gore news, got me thinking.. What if?
What if, the votes went the other way, we would have a man with a conscious that led to winning the noble peace prize as President, an administration who’s goal with thanks to Leon Penetta had us owing the world no money, instead of a ‘man’ who certainly helped the world hate us, hate Christians and has us owing China a debt my children will still be paying off, . The difference is world changing, be careful who you vote for…

They don’t let me vote here, in the UK I was a conservative, there is no church with in our state, socialized health care and pro life or choice is not an issue.
So I sit back enjoying my life in the USA, wanting to vote, I’ll get around to going from permanent resident to citizen.

So I was over watching the Gore/Bush election, sat with my girlfriend at the time (now my beloved wife) she is involved in politics, they were tears as the results became apparent.
Looking back with today’s Al Gore news, got me thinking.. What if?
What if, the votes went the other way, we would have a man with a conscious that led to winning the noble peace prize as President, an administration who’s goal with thanks to Leon Penetta had us owing the world no money, instead of a ‘man’ who certainly helped the world hate us, hate Christians and has us owing China a debt my children will still be paying off, . The difference is world changing, be careful who you vote for…

Al Gore is perhaps the greatest American of our generation. He is our planet’s best hope to turn the tide of war and pollution from self-desctruction to global-actualization.

All of you neo-cons with your snide sound bytes better take a good look in the mirror because it’s going to take someone with vision and without greed to steer us back on course.

Al save us!

Al Gore is perhaps the greatest American of our generation. He is our planet’s best hope to turn the tide of war and pollution from self-desctruction to global-actualization.

All of you neo-cons with your snide sound bytes better take a good look in the mirror because it’s going to take someone with vision and without greed to steer us back on course.

Al save us!

For the love of God, Al, run!

Hey al, since I ride my bike. Do I get a piece of the prize?

Congratulations AL, its good to see an enviromentalist get a Noble prize. i doubt Al runs but if he did he did he would be the frontrunner, and have a good chance to get elected. im stating to lean toward Hillary, but if Al runs im with him.

i don’t know about the guy being president, but like mr. carter, he appear’s to do better out of elected office. today..”you can call me al”!!!

FOLKS, I DON’T WANT YOU TO BELIEVE THAT I’M AGAINST MR GORE,, HELL, I’M FROM TENNESSEE MYSELF..
BUT GOD DAMN,, ” THE SKY IS FALLING”. THAT’S WHAT MR. GORE HAS MADE OF HIMSELF IN HIS POLITICAL CARREER..
AL GORE HAS GOT A LOT OF GOOD INTENTIONS IN WHAT HE DOES,, BUT SO DOES THE GUY WHO PAINTS ABE LINCOLN’S FACE PINK EVERY MOTHER’S DAY..
SOMETHING THERE IS JUST NOT RIGHT..
ARAFAT WON THE NOBEL PEACE PRIZE..
A FEW OTHER’S I WILL NOT MENTION,,
AL GORE WON THE PEACE PRIZE, AND I HOPE THAT HE HAS FINNALY GOT IT RIGHT.. ARAFAT DIDN’T..
BUT IF AL GORE CAN NOW TAKE THE TIME TO SEE THE TRUTH,,
IT’S GOING TO BE NEW TO HIM!!

is Jeff McNary the former political consultant in Hyde Park Chicago?

algore someone without greed? What a joke. He will make millions off carbon trading. This man is a joke. If he truly believed this was a crisis he would practice what he preaches.

The discussion shouldn’t be over whether Al Gore deserved the Nobel Prize (seriously, making Global Warming a more popular political talking point gets you the Nobel Prize?); the discussion should be whether it is justified to bring Global Warming awareness through half-truths and propaganda in a biased format, meanwhile being a bigger carbon sucker than the vast majority of Americans. Global Warming should be an important issue, but it does change the fact Al Gore’s a pompous, manipulating, dick for the way he did things. Doesn’t it say something about modern society when our Nobel Prize winner is Al Effing Gore.

Ah, from the mouths of moderates comes … biased drivel.

Hmmm, let’s see if I’ve got this straight now. Bush wants to retire to Texas to enjoy his wealth; Gore goes on a crusade to make the world a better place to live. Bush, good; Gore Bad. Huh?

It’s not good enough for Mr. Pig that Mr. Gore is making the world a better place to live.. Mr. Pig won’t be happy until Mr. Gore’s house starts eating the hydro-carbons produced by Mr. Pig’s capitalists. Even then, Mr. Pig won’t be satisfied. Mr. Gore’s house won’t be eating those hydro-carbons fast enough. And how does Mr. Pig know all this, why, he sees in on the TV, of course.

Mr. Kid, on the other hand, being the moderate he claims to be, is critical of Mr. Gore because, in the words of Mr. Kid, Mr. Gore speaks in half-truths. Mr. Kid, however, fails to point out just what those half-truths are as compared by the whole-truths which he seems to be exclusively aware of.

Oh, did I mention that neither Mr. Pig nor Mr. Kid believe global warming is a problem. I will continue to point that out as long as I draw breath. The last I heard, HUNDREDS of scientists using THOUSANDS of observations have concluded that 90% of the global warming we’re currently experiencing is the result of man’s ‘efforts.’ Well, clearly Mr. Pig and Mr. Kid focus on that 10% that’s in doubt. After hours of watching TV, (Dr. Phil, CNN, CBS Nightly News, FOX, etc.) they’ve concluded that it’s much ado about nothing.

Children, children, please get back in your seats and turn to chapter 7. Piggy, stop pulling Petunia’s hair. Kid, get your hand out of your pants.

Dennis– dont mix facts dude: 90% of scientists believe that global warming exists, however as to whats causing it is still up to debate (whether it be natural, manmade, or somewhere in between)

to me personally, i think global warming exists and is partially manmade, but also partially natural (being that it has been both much warmer and colder in earth’s recent, geologically speaking, past), but i think it is being totally overhyped into some kind of planet killer…make no mistake “big evironment” has just as big a stake as “big oil” in global warming technology, and has a lot of clout to push their side of the issue

thats not to say we do nothing, but i don’t think that the world of tomorrow is going to be that radically different climate wise than it is now…plus the whole doomsday scenario doesnt call into to fact that while yes, some glaciers are shrinking, others are growing (in parts of Antartica and Greenland, and i believe, Iceland)

and plus, anyone talking about global warming will make rounds in the developed world, but the really big polluters (China, India, Mexico, etc) are either not going to have the inclination or technology to implement the changes needed

Merk,

I don’t think any qualified scientist doubts the existence of global warming. The report I saw said 90% believed it’s man made. To ignore the contribution(s) of man is denial and counter productive.

I have no problem with anything you say. I have a problem with naysayers. The hardest step on a journey is the first step. We need to take it.

Jed can speak to this whole issue FAR more eloquently than I and I rather imagine when he reads this thread and some of the ‘comments,’ he will weigh in. I will defer to him.

“Dennis– dont mix facts dude: 90% of scientists believe that global warming exists, however as to whats causing it is still up to debate (whether it be natural, manmade, or somewhere in between)”

Merk, I am one of those geoscientists. There is overwhelming evidence that supports anthropogenic global warming; there is strong consensus among the scientific community on this too, with a few notable exceptions. The idea that there is disagreement among scientists on this is part of a brilliantly orchestrated spin campaign by the right.

just remember, whether clinton, guiliani, obama, or thompson are elected, none of them will change the course we’re on. Please invest your future in a candidate willing to work for the benefit of america.

Ole,

I just LOVE it when you talk dirty.

then perhaps i stand corrected; i was under the assumption that just about every scientist believed that global warming is out there, but were not in agreement to what is causing it

so Olay, how long do we have to live? Or is Al over-hyping the threat a little bit

don, who might that be?

I think the take-away idea is that no one knows what the effect of dumping as much CO2 into the atmosphere as we are will ultimately do. That’s what is so scary. On the other hand, it is not even close to as frightenning as the steady decrease in biodiversity. Humans have weathered all sorts of climate change, but the decline in biodiversity is totally unprecedented in human experience.

It really shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone that Al Gore won the Nobel Prize. I don’t have a problem with his crusade against global warming, in fact I take my hat off to him. For anyone to really get behind a cause they believe in and dedicate their lives to that cause, is nothing short of noble. Clearly, Gore is right and changes need to be made in order to protect the evironment. I just feel that if it was as immediate a threat as Gore makes it out to be, he would be the gold standard of living a carbon neutral existence.
And Jeff, Al Gore has “charisma” like George Bush has eloquence.

And you figure that the decline in biodiverstity has nothing to do with the decimation of the forests through human activity?

I must say I don’t understand the aversion you guys on the right have for raising awareness to the climate problems we are having. Then again I realize that it comes from a perceived financial threat visited upon you by the corporate controlled mass media outlets and a political party intent on power and riches… all else be damned!!!

First you attack Al Gore for having the presence to call the leaders of the planet to at least accnowledge that there is something wrong with our bio-containment system.
Since you guys are merely political activists working on an agenda and see him as a possible political rival you pour your hatred on him without even knowing what the guy has accomplished.
Hell, some moron goes as far as to question the nobel commission for giving him the Nobel for merely appearing on a slide show presentation. As if the Nobel commission where so myopic as to give away millions merely for the ‘appearance’ of activism rather than a concerted, constant effort and demonstration of commitment. They want to know that their prize money wil go to furthering the cause rather than just filling some selfish bastards pockets. Perhaps you would have been more accepting of giving George Bush the NOBEL PEACE Prize for his efforts in bringing democracy to the middle east? I tend to think you would.

so now, on an issue that is so important as the health of our homeworld you come up with rebuttals such as ‘there’s evidence in the geological record for hotter and cooler times’.
I guess this is their justification for doing nothing and ‘let’s see how bad it gets’ mentality. they seem to attest that they somehow know what the geological record represents.
Somehow, a junior defeatists assigns himself the label of geological scientist and determines that because the earth has had high concentrations of CO2 before during periods of extreme heat that it is perfectly normal and we shouldn’t worry about it. Perhaps he hasn’t correlated the temperature data to events data that would show there were cataclismic events helping to produce those high levels of CO2, such as a large meteorite breaking through the earths crust and gases escaping from the geosphere, unprecedented concentrations of volcanic eruptions and other events that have been identified on the geological record as well. The main difference between those times and now is that human activity has decimated the forests making it very difficult for those CO2 concentrations to be reabsorbed and replaced with oxygen.
The Forest, the living entity of trees that works to trap CO2, cools the earth’s surface, produces CO2 and Water, is the most important part of a FULL WATER CYCLE that makes water truly healthy and useful(unlike the sterile element we are served today), serves as home and restaurant for countless species of animals, birds and plants and, BTW, produces a great portion of the Oxygen that almost all other organisms need to survive.

So now we stand at a point in human existence where we see our planet dying like an elderly grandparent with a disease that can’t be cured or even identified, and these people try to convince us that we are impotent and can do nothing but stand to the side and watch it die without attempting anything to try to help. I guess they don’t realize if grandma dies, we all die.

Today their argument is that there is no evidence that human activity is killing the planet (a change from denying an increase in CO2). A thinking man is astounded by this contention, as it would seem beyond refute that the activities of 6Billion+ humans must have some impact on the environment and therefore the health of the biosphere… particularly since waste and inneficiency is all that has been taught to them rather than the efficient and constructive ways of the ancients.
They think that all their factories dumping chemicals into the river have no effect.
They must think those chemicals that make them wealthy at the expense of our childrens and planets health are naturally found in those concentrations in our water supply so what they do has no impact. Instead of following susteinable forestry practices our ‘learned businessmen’ have chosen to clear fell ancient forests and replacing them partially with monocultured forests of poor quality trees lacking the diversity found in any of nature’s complex systems. Perhaps they don’t value the trees value to nature as much as a piece of furniture or some nice hardwood floors.
Perhaps all the smoke being belched into the atmosphere by factories all over the world don’t have a similar impact as several volcanoes erupting at the same time.Even though they know the expelled chemicals hurt everyone, including their own children, they are too greedy to spend a couple of million dollars to comply with existing laws and put scrubbers on their exhaust flues.
Huge factory ships go out into the ocean with enormous nets gathering up everything and anything that gets in their way. Our insane logic tells us that the bounty of the ocean is infinite and sustainable fishing practices are not necessary, profits and wealth are.
Like a bunch of junior GODs in training, we allow scientists to play with the genetic makeup of organisms on a whim, without really knowing what changes they are actually making. They feed us GMO corn and other frankenfoods without as much as a labled warning as they must do in europe, and then wonder why our children are born autistic or why 1 in 3 people will get cancer. All this, yet they don’t think the activities of 6 billion fools with no concience for the living being that makes their life possible can have an impact on that organisms health? Puuuleeease, you may not be honest with others, but at least be honest with yourself and realize your homeworld is afflicted with a disease that uses the components of the organism to kill it, much like cancer does.

Now they ACT concernced for the world’s lack of bio-diversity. As recently as 200 years ago, naturalists wrote of bird migrations that would darken the sky with their numbers. Spoke of an abundance of flora and fauna that seems merely like fantasy to us today. We live in increasing scarecity with prices for the necessities of life increasing constantly in opposition to the historical representation of earth as a cornucopia filled with abundance.
We have destroyed paradise and are intent on turning it into what has been described to us that hell is like. Unfortunatelly, we are told to accept the demons as they are and let them destroy our homeworld without as much as a challenge or exposure.
We allow our govenment to reward polluters and destroy the environment, what will it take to wake humanity up and decide to invest in the future for real? How long do we allow ourselves to continue to get stuck with 70’s mentality on the environment, on geopolitics and national policy? Should we allow these folks to lead us to self destruction merely because they are wealthier and have more cash than common sense?

There is only one thing that is responsible for climate change… the decimation of the forests and disruption of the natural flows of water due to human irresponsability.
Read Viktor Schauberger and realize his predictions to our current predicament were made in the 1930’s and are all coming to pass. The scariest observation he made is that water levels will not actually rise, but that the water’s full cycle is not in effect and the water will actually be vented into space for lack of oxygen atoms for hydrogen to bind to. How’s that for a future prospect? A water world turned into a desert by the greed of thoughless humans.

The only solution… reforest the land masses with sun demanding trees and restore the natural flow of water to reestablish the FULL WATER CYCLE as quickly as possible. Not doing so means the death of the only place capable of human existance.
We have switched our economic models before, creating a new model based on sustainable and productive naturalistic theories. There is no reason we should experience economic collapse by leaving behind the poisons of the past, the stiff and unmaleable businessmen who are affraid to risk their established revenue streams on new technologies will either come on board or perish due to their blindness. This is what scares them the most and the reason they fight tooth an nail to prevent us from doing things in a more naturalesque manner.

Good one Jed, if you dont have a healthy enviroment, you aint got nothing.

Jed, you must have had a bit too much granola this morning, because it sounds like you’ve got the runs. What in the world are you talking about? You lost Mister Oil’s point in a big way. Doesn’t sound like he’s attacking the rainbow warrior ethos at all. You sound hell bent on making a fuss instead of making a point. You rattle on about crazy ideas like running out of oxygen and won’t accept it when someone who thinks a little different than you actually makes a few good points.

Perhaps in your opinion it is a bit long, personally, I had to leave alot out for ‘brevity’.
The fact that you were able to read through it to the ‘crazy ideas’ of disapearing water part tells me it was relevant enough to be read all the way through, since you weren’t really my intended audience, it doesn’t really matter.
You seem to assume that I was responding to Olay, you make a serious mistake compounded by your lack of reading comprehension and your bias against the topic.

As important as he may think himself to be, the thread has nothing to do with him or his friends, my post is merely about the climate change problem and the dishonesty and absurdity of the RightWingnuts argument for inaction.
That lack of reading comprehension belies the reasons why you don’t see a point, can’t make the blind see regardless of how much light you shine on a target, When they are intent on being misled, it is impossible to make them see anything besides their distorted view of the world.
You attribute the disapearing water idea to me, even though I introduce it’s proponent in the previous sentence. BRILLIANT!!! Perhaps you attended college at GWBs alma matter, going to visit the country Africa anytime soon?

Not quite sure what ‘good points’ you might be referring to unless you consider his insinuations as points. ‘No one knows what the effect of dumping as much CO2 into the atmosphere as we are will ultimately do’, well, I have already offered him an experiment that would show him exactly what it will do. Lock yourself in the garage with the engine running. The results will be the same. If it don’t kill you it will make you very sick. There’s a reason for that… oxygen breathers are not meant to ingest CO2 in those quantities. It is a miracle that we can actually survive with the levels found in our cities today as it is, then again it may be the cause of cancers and many other ilnesses. Other ‘points’ are addressed within, you merely have to TRY and comprehend what is written without inserting your own filters and internal voice to change it’s meaning.

BTW… if the glaciers and polar ice caps are melting at alarming rates, thereby causing greater amounts of fresh water in the system, why is North Carolina and other american states as well as other countries experiencing unprecedented levels of drought? Famine anyone? Will the money you accumulated save you when food won’t grow naturally?

Jed-

CO2 levels in the atmosphere are not at all comparable to what you could produce in the confines of your garage. Anyway, it’s the CO that would get you, not the CO2. Second, even if atmospheric CO2 concentrations increased by 1000 times what they are today – far far greater than at any point that can be determined from the rock record, and far greater than anything projected by even the most extreme estimates of the impact of industry – the atmosphere would remain perfectly safe to breathe. CO2 is very stable and doesn’t like to react with other compounds. It’s happy to remain CO2. Toxicity/carcinogenesis is not the danger. The problem with rising CO2 (and other GHG) has to do with the ability to trap heat near the Earth, hence, global warming.

You need to get this stuff straight, if you want to convince people that something needs to be done about rising CO2 levels. Otherwise, it’s just too easy for someone like Rush Limbaugh to label you and your ilk ‘environmental wackos’ when you spout nonsense. You might start by watching Mr. Gore’s excellent film on the subject, jot down a few notes for talking-points to be used in the future when facing off against the bad guys. I think that it’s people like you who really set the environmental movement back and make it easy for a few morons to sway the public to oppose environmentalism. You have chosen to align yourself with an ideology, instead of taking the time to develop an informed understanding of the issue. It’s too easy to point to red-faced reactionary freaks like you as an example of why the average citizen should fear environmentalism.

the fact that you choose to attack me personally speaks volumes. when you can’t refute the message, discredit the messenger. WAY TO GO!!!

If you weren’t so intellectually lazy, you would have made the effort to find Viktor Schauberger’s books and perhaps be swayed yourself to realize that we are being mislead even in the focus on CO2 as the cause of our warming temperatures.
If you had paid a mimimum of attention to what I wrote you may have picked a different means of assault.
No one is saying that the loss of forest could be the reason for global temperature rise, but when you think about it, it is a very plausible theory(go sit under the sun for a while, then seek the shade of a tree, any difference?).
I tend to believe Viktor in his theories, as they have been proven correct time and again. Something more amazing is that he can express those ideas in ways that non technical people can understand it… given they possess understanding… and implement the solutions. It has to do with deforestation and the health of our water resources, not so much on the composition of the air molecules.

While you let yourself continue to be mislead by our ‘leaders’ and junk science, I will continue to allow spirit to lead me to the unconventional studies that have been suppressed and the ‘connected’ people who have learned things most of us could not even perceive.
Of all the studies and lab work I have done on nature, phisics, electical systems, weather and quantum mechanics, Schauberger has been the most interesting and easiest to read.
Why more people haven’t done so and applied his theories is a sad testament to our myopia and reliance on the things that have failed us constantly in the past.

Perhaps they think it is so easy that it couldn’t possibly work… it would have been done by now.

another point no one has touched upon is the temperature of the sun…the sun, a mid sized, yellow star, is hitting its peak time for nitrogen consumption within its core…and its peak time will last several thousand years

the sun will continue to burn hotter and brighter until it exhausts it’s nitrogen suppy and begins to work its way through its helium, at which point it will become a red giant, but by then all of the people posting here will be long gone

couple this with the fact that the earth doesnt always spin exactly on its axis (it wobbles, producing colder years or warmer years depending on the tilt), and i think climate change is infinitely complex, and partially natural, and cannot be simply made out to be ALL man/CO2’s fault

wow, we don’t really know the processes active on earth enough to protect it and you want to start bringing in imagined variations in the activities of the sun?
I never cease to be amazed at the right wingers propensity to use dirty tactics to frame the debate. ‘If the truth is touched upon and it can’t be refuted, change the topic, redirect attention to something else or distort the issue quickly’
C’mon folks, we need to call these rats out anytime they use these kinds of tactics.
If you allow evil to succeed through it’s timeless tactics, don’t be surprised if it subjects you to it’s whims.

are you referring to me Jed? i didnt add my piece to be in contention, merely to add to an area of the debate which i felt to be lacking…and imagined variations? these are facts, found via experiments done by astro-physicists and scientists who know a hell of a lot more about our solar system than you do…look up some of Milankovich’s studies, it might do you some good

further more, you cant just shut out evidence that you disagree with, i didnt call out your view on deforestation (even though i agree that it is a valid point)…i never said that CO2 and manmade emissions didnt have any effect, nor that they arent a problem

i just dont get why you wouldnt think that climate change may be a bit more complicated than “man is evil and CO2′d everything up”, especially since, as you noted, we know very little as it is…all i’m saying is keep your mind open to the possibilities, and don’t close mindedly attack someone who happens to disagree with a portion of your dogma

since none of us, except perhaps Olay, who says he is a scientist in the area, know the true story, i’m willing to entertain many different hypotheses as to whats going on…it just seems sensible to me to keep an open and inquiring mind

Jed-

The rock record permits us to do geochemical modeling of atmospheric conditions for time-horizons far longer than what is available from ice cores. Reconstructions for the entire Phanerozoic have been published. The superb resolution and excellent capture and preservation of useful proxies that ice cores provide is limited by the relative youth of polar/alpine ice relative to the span of ages made available through lithic sources. The oldest ice-core derived reconstructions do not even make it halfway through the Pleistocene. I am not discounting their tremendous value in reconstructing Quaternary atmospheric composition, I used rock record, because I was talking about times in the more ancient past when atmospheric CO2 was much much higher than it has been at any time during the last 2 million years. Indeed it is this CO2 which was sequestered to become the hydrocarbons we burn today.

So you have to go that far back to find evidence of CO2 levels similar to what we have today?

Could it be that you hae to go as far back as the cataclism that killed off a great percentage of the dinosaurs to find levels of CO2 comparable to what we have in the atmosphere now?
Shouldn’t that tell you that at the times that high concentrations of CO2 existed in the atmosphere the life processes were curtailed to a great extent, regardless of how that CO2 got into the atmosphere?
If you have to go that far back into the geological record to find relevant levels of CO2 and you are a ‘geoscientist’ how can you make a valid argument that because there has been higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere before it has nothing to do with human activity?
Seems somewhat dishonest to me, and validates the contents of the chart used in ‘an inconvenient truth’ that relates co2 content and temperatures.

Jed-
First and foremost, I have never argued against human-caused global warming. Read any of my posts and you will note that I fully endorse this position and actively try to raise awareness on the subject. Second, you are misrepresenting, intentionally or otherwise, what I was stating about CO2 concentration reconstructions from the rock record. My point was that even if CO2 concentrations increased to even a thousand times any concentration known from the rock record, toxicity/carcinogenesis/suffoc ationwould not be a concern. Of course, the ensuing climate conditions could result in conditions adverse to our species, but that is clearly not the point. The point I was raising, however, was in response to you who claimed the following, concerning recent increases in atmospheric CO2:

“It is a miracle that we can actually survive with the levels found in our cities today as it is, then again it may be the cause of cancers and many other ilnesses.”

While I agree with you that global warming as a result of increased human-generated CO2 is a major concern, I feel that it is my duty to point out that the other concerns you raise are pure fabrication and nonsense. This kind of fearmongering and/or misunderstood representation of climate science gives strength to those who seek to debunk solid research into this very real global threat.

So you have to go that far back to find evidence of CO2 levels similar to what we have today?

Could it be that you have to go as far back as the cataclism that killed off a great percentage of the dinosaurs to find levels of CO2 comparable to what we have in the atmosphere now?
Shouldn’t that tell you that at the times that high concentrations of CO2 existed in the atmosphere the life processes were curtailed to a great extent, regardless of how that CO2 got into the atmosphere?
If you have to go that far back into the geological record to find relevant levels of CO2 and you are a ‘geoscientist’ how can you make a valid argument that because there has been higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere before it has nothing to do with human activity?
Seems somewhat dishonest to me, and validates the contents of the chart used in ‘an inconvenient truth’ that relates co2 content and temperatures.

so you ignore the word that qualifies it as an opined possibility, ‘may’, and ignore everything else in the post to refute something that doesn’t even relate by your own admission. Wow, wonder were you learned that tactic.

tell me, what in your geological studies tell you that higher levels of CO2 are safe. What part of geology analyzes the effects of CO2 on living organisms?
Don’t high concentrations of CO2 cause a change in PH and therefore the internal balance and processes within a living organism? Wouldn’t a greater acidity in the system create the precursors for cancer and other diseases?
Please explain what leads you to your conclusions that increased levels of CO2 are safe for any living organism.

I love how it’s okay for this country to have nuclear power, and a few others, but not for anyone else. On the one hand we have hydro-carbons ‘insulating’ the planet, turning up the heat (quite possibly) and on the other, we have the potential for ‘clean’ energy via nuclear reactors. EXCEPT, it’s quite easy to go from nuclear generation to nuclear bombs. And if EVERYONE had a bomb, well we just couldn’t be the big Kahuna any more. Any little pipsqueak could level us.

Maybe, just maybe, we should outlaw ALL nuclear weapons and make the manufacture and/or possession of one a ‘capital’ offense. I know, I know, enforcement WOULD be a problem, but how can it be justified that it’s ‘okay’ for all those currently possessing the bomb and NOT for others? (Rhetorical question.)

The love affair this country has for ‘the bomb’ is obscene and has put us into the most absurd of defensive postures. It’s pretty clear that no one could explode one on us without a horrific response, so our ‘approach’ to this threat is to prevent ANY possibility of such an event occurring. Given the number of existing devices and the number of countries wishing to join the ‘nuclear community,’ it’s folly to think that one would NEVER fall into the wrong hands. Hell, even in the ‘right’ hands (ours?) their presence is a threat to all.

When I think of this country’s ‘posture’ relative to this whole matter, I get an image of Uncle Sam glaring at other, puny little countries, while clutching his ‘babies’ with both hands. The Right wants SO to be the power in the world, but it’s tough when you’re a weenie.

This is priceless:

“Environmentalis ts have threatened to sue Apple if it does not make its iPhone a “greener” product or tell consumers of the toxins allegedly used in the device’s manufacture.

The Centre for Environmental Health (CEH), a campaign group based in Oakland, California, said that it would launch legal action in 60 days unless Apple took action.

The threat comes after a report by Greenpeace, the environmental group, which alleged that the iPhone contained dangerous levels of bromine, chlorine and phthalates – chemicals used to increase the flexibility of plastic.

The campaigners’ action may prove embarrassing for Al Gore, a member of Apple’s board, who last week won the Nobel Peace Prize for his environmental work. “

It helps that they are opposing an oil rich country and everytime one of them opens their mouth and says something stupid the price of oil climbs.

Good point in bringing in nyukilar power into the mix.
It’s alot more sensical that trying to introduce significant variations in the Sun’s power that may take thousands of years to manifest themselves.
One thing that has always intrigued me… If space is a total vacuum and radiant electromagnetic energy needs some sort of medium in which to propagate, how does the sun’s energy reach earth? Could it possibly be that the eather that was proposed by scientists in the 1800s and ridiculed by modern physicists actually does exist? What does Milankovich have to say on this discrepancy?

DD-

Something tells me that if every country, that had the potential to do so, nuclearized its arsenal, the world would be a much more dangerous place than it already is – with or without Bush in the driver’s seat.

soemthing tells me that imagined threats lead people to make rash decisions based on imaginary responses to perceived dangers.

the operative word here is imagined. By all accounts, the iranian nuclear program is not only years away, they have not even enriched uranium to levels usable in a power plant, much less in a nuclear weapon. Yet our current government leaders and their media puppets want us to react as if the Iranians have already conducted underground test and have perfected a delivery system. When you react to posturing as if you were being directly threatened, you risk falling for the goading of someone who is trying to make you fall into a trap.
The thread is about climate change however, not nuclear weapons, another attempt to shift the discourse from the stated topic to something they can push better I guess.
While I am not very well versed on the efficiencies or economics of nuclear power, it seems to me that without the subsidies, nuclear power would be much more expensive than what we currently use. expensive in terms of the expense of running the centrifuges to ‘enrich’ (should be destabilize) the materials enough to be used in a plant, the expense of disposing of the waste, or the expense of the damage to the environment and the population from an accidental discharge of radioactive material or a terrorist attempt. Besides, it works on destructive power rather than the constructive power that Schauberger proposed.

Yes Master Control Program, it DOES look like I’ve said that before. However, since it never actually got posted, I thought I’d try again. It’s pretty clear you AI needs some serious fine tuning.

TIM!! Uncle Mac will NEVER return if you don’t get someone to fix this thing. I have to wonder how many posts don’t post but no one really notices.

Wow, MCP is pretty clever. I tried putting in some faux text to see if I could sneak one past him. No chance. And this time he didn’t even bother to tell me I was trying to send a duplicate. I wonder if I keep doing it over and over and over if it’ll fill up young Tim’s Bit Bucket. It’s a thought. Perhaps we ALL should do that.

We’re out here Tim and patience amongst some is wearing out.

I have a tendency to think there’s some malformed code in some of the banner adds that is causing so much stress. I’ve taken to cutting and pasting the text into a wordpad doc before posting to ensure I don’t loose it if it goes to the bit bucket.
It still does some weird stuff even behind the firewall. Inadvertently posted twice on a different thread as well as this one, normally it rejects a second post with the same text. So apparently the security settings on my work PC prevent the scripts from running on my PC that would block those posts. Probably blocks the spy scripts they are putting into advertizing these days and it causes problems.

’sactly!!

at 9:15 on the morning of sept 11th 2001 terrorists successfully attacked our imaginations, and since then, our imaginations have been running amock. Anyone can use them to justify the worst actions.