Al Gore is testifying on Capitol Hill twice on Wednesday -- before John Dingell's House Energy and Commerce Committee and Barbara Boxer's Senate Environment Committee. According to the Drudge Report (link may only be temporary), "Proposed questions for Gore, which are circulating behind-the-scenes, have been obtained by the DRUDGE REPORT -- questions that could lead Gore scrambling for answers!"
Here are the questions, which would not cause a fifth grader to scramble, but I am flattered to make the list:
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.
ANSWER: We have 10 years from NOW to start acting, if we are to avoid catastrophic warming. For two decades I have been saying we need to act, but it is only because we have delayed for so long that we now have only 10 years to start acting.
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?
ANSWER: If you have read Dr. Romm's book, Hell and High Water, then you know he writes:
"The nation needs to put in place mandatory carbon dioxide controls. If a significant price for carbon makes nuclear attractive to utilities and financiers, and if the plants meet the necessary safety and environmental codes, and if the country can finally agree on a place to put the nuclear waste, then new nuclear plants may well make a significant contribution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions in this country."
Compared to most Americans, Californians emit under one-third the carbon dioxide emissions per kilowatt-hour consumed while paying the same annual bill, and they do so while getting a lower share of their power from nuclear energy. "That's why federal electricity policy should focus on establishing a price for carbon dioxide, promoting energy-efficiency, cogeneration, and renewable energy, and accelerating coal gasification together with carbon capture and storage. Those strategies can take us as far as we need to go on emissions reductions in the utility sector for the next few decades."
That view seems entirely reasonable to me.
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?)
ANSWER: No.
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?
The question is not factually based.
Mars does appear to be experiencing short-term regional warming, not long-term global warming, as the climate scientists of Realclimate.org have explained.
Jupiter is not experiencing global warming, but it is poised to experience regional climate change, "getting warmer near the equator and cooler at the poles," as a U.C. Berkeley scientist noted last year.
As for Pluto, an MIT article explains "Pluto's orbit is much more elliptical than that of the other planets, and its rotational axis is tipped by a large angle relative to its orbit. Both factors could contribute to drastic seasonal changes." One of the scientists involved in the research explained, Pluto's warming was "likely not connected with that of the Earth. The major way they could be connected is if the warming was caused by a large increase in sunlight. But the solar constant--the amount of sunlight received each second--is carefully monitored by spacecraft, and we know the sun's output is much too steady to be changing the temperature of Pluto" -- or the Earth, for that matter: "the sunspot record and neutron monitor data," as Realclimate.org explains, "show that solar activity has not increased since the 1950s and is therefore unlikely to be able to explain the recent warming."
Honestly, you'd think Drudge could come up with better questions ...
What to make of the new climate poll
Skeptics claim global warming is fake after top scientists’ emails hacked at CRU
Comments
View as Threaded
MarioG Posted 4:51 am
20 Mar 2007
> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/science/13gore.html?ex= ...
>
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NzA5YjM2MzY0ZGI1OWIy ...=
>
http://news.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=421572007
>
In the global warming debate, we have on the one hand serious scientists who look at ALL the data and do not try to fool us with speculative models of the future that fail all back tests of the past. On the other hand we have the greedy environmental charlatans, mainly to garner research grants that come more easily from alarming scenarios of the future, aided and abetted by the left wing media and left wing politicians. Like Malthus and Ehrlich before them they reap the social and economic benefits of being alarmists, whereas everyone moves on and forgets about them when they are consistently wrong years later.
>
Let me suggest you look at this issue based on an 8th. grade level of common sense and some minimal scientific facts that every schoolboy would know. Here are the questions you need to consider:
>
a) Did you know that in the mid-70's the concern by these same scientists was global cooling - something that never came to pass?
>
b) Are you aware that the models developed by these same scientists cannot predict the weather NEXT WEEK without revising their forecasts about 6 times a day between now and then? And they want us to believe models of the distant future?
>
c) Who was to blame for the global warming and cooling that took place a number of times throughout the earth's history - way before human industrial activity began?
>
d) Pray tell, who is to blame for the global warming on Pluto? [Wonder what those Plutoans are up to!]
>
e) If the environmental charlatans were serious, why did they exempt 80% of the countries of the world, including India and China, two of the world's fastest growing economies, which also have little or no environmental controls of any kind, from their bogus Kyoto Protocols? Isn't that like allowing people from these these countries, and Indian and Chinese kids, to pee in the public swimming pool while everyone from a westernized industrial country must go to the john?
>
f) Did you know that CO2 is only 0.036% of the
earth's atmosphere, that most new CO2 is made by
nature and most of it is neutralized by nature through photosynthesis? Even an 8th. grader without a calculator would know that this means that even shutting down all industrial activity worldwide is not going to change this miniscule % significantly?
>
g) Can such a miniscule percentage of the earth's
atmosphere act as a "greenhouse"? Besides, when CO2 levels were in the 0.027 level for centuries global warming and cooling still took place, showing that the current relationship between CO2 levels and global warming is a correlation, not a cause.
>
h) Though there does seem to be a longer term global warming trend underway, did you know that the earth has cooled every year since 1998, using the same methodology for calculating the earth's temperature in both cases?
>
What is going on is really quite simple. The
extreme environmental movement is the new home of the refugees from the discredited extreme socialist movement that all its previous major proponents have discarded on the thrash heap of history where it really belongs.
>
The goal of the socialist/environmental charlatans
is to bring the western industrial economies down to the least common denominator. They failed to do so through the front door of communism and socialism, and are now trying through the back door. Unfortunately, they seem to have co-opted the opportunistic left wing politicians and a willing and gullible left wing media and several greedy, unethical scientists raising false alarms in their incessant search for research grants.
>
Like Malthus and Erlich in the alarmist population debate they glean the benefits of alarmism whereas everyone moves on and forgets they were wrong years later.
>
Permalink
techntrek Posted 5:24 am
20 Mar 2007
Permalink
egbooth Posted 5:51 am
20 Mar 2007
You've come to the right place. Grist has a great site for you:
"How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic"
http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics
Pretty much all of your talking points have been addressed there. Have fun.
Permalink
adrianne Posted 6:32 am
20 Mar 2007
Does he even know the definition of climate? Does he care?
Permalink
step back Posted 7:07 am
20 Mar 2007
It is understandable that you got fooled by the New York Times "Cool Call" article.
It is a clear-cutting head job that raked away the cerbral cortex part of your brain.
It employs psycho-linguistic manipulation tools and psycho-pictorial tools.
Look here re the photoshopped pictures.
Look here re the smiling scientist.
I very much wish I could rationally agree with you, that indeed it (GW) is a "hoax". (And maybe the link between Cool Call Joe-Camel with Cancer is also a hoax?) It would be far far better to awaken and realize it was all a bad dream.
Unfortunately, there are these annoying things known as "scientific observations". All the hypnotic hyperbole from the skeptical sorcerers does not make the scientific evidence go away. You've been FUDded my friend.
FUD is a well known political ploy.
Learn to spot the situations where you have been FUDded over by the special interest groups.
Yes, they are in their "last throes" of their denial. And that is what makes them so crazed. They realize the end is near (for their denial of GW).
Permalink
Zarkov Posted 8:13 am
20 Mar 2007
Yes indeed, if he is an expert, woe be all of us.
LoL, what a farce.
This game is getting woolier evey minute
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 8:34 am
20 Mar 2007
It's clear to anyone with a brain that it's naturopathic. Man has zilch to do with warming. What's more, all the factors that the AGWers ascribe as causing warming are a result of the warming -- including a surge in human activity (which adds a higher trace amount of CO2).
You see, it's all this energy we're getting that's driving the progress of the last two centuries, not the other way around.
The madmen who want to prevent the Earth from warming are the 3% of billionaires who control 70 percent of wealth. Of course they don't want Global Warming (Al Gore included) -- because they own the products that we're enslaved to because of the cold.
They don't wear overcoats in Fiji -- and many don't have air conditioners either. The Earth is transforming into a paradise -- and the Power Elite are frightened (cf. The Brookings Institute Report) that "we" might not be so dependent on the resource owners as before.
The Texeme Construct offers international text memetics construction and textcasting services. http://www.you-read-it-here-first.com
Permalink
Gary Gifford Posted 9:50 am
20 Mar 2007
I think you skepticism has been fueled by the "Swindle" "documentary". Its full of misrepresentations and statements taken out of context.
Just one example: Global temperatures followed sun spots more closely than CO2 concentrations. This is true...until 1980 when the temperatures veered upward and sunspot activity plummeted. This fact is conveniently ommitted from the film.
Much discussion was also devoted to scientific censorship and arm twisting in favor of a consensus statement within the IPCC. There was actually much more of a push in favor of a MORE CONSERVATIVE position about climate than many of the scientists believed. I.e. many of the scientists on the panel believed that the consequences of AGW would occur sooner and be more catastrophic than the latest report indicated.
These points among others refuting skeptical points of view occupy merely the introduction of a newly published book entitled "With Speed and Violence-Why Scientists fear Tipping Points in Climate Change" by Fred Pearce. The remainder of the book discusses positive GW feedback scenarios, many of which were not even included in the models used as a basis for the IPCC reports.
This work should scare shitless anyone who lives on this planet and is highly recommended reading for skeptics.
Cheers,
Gary Gifford
Permalink
Zarkov Posted 11:30 am
20 Mar 2007
Global warming via CO2, Bah, nice for all
Global Drought vis an oil slick...... the end.
There is no use pushing a broken barrow. Pushing CO2 will only desensitize the population even more dramatically when the prognostication come up incorrect.
Flooding rains ! LOL..... where is your next drink of fresh clean clear cool water coming from... the sewage?
Permalink
Easterbunny Posted 1:55 pm
20 Mar 2007
All that happened to the Gore photo is that someone turned down the red channel, probably accidently, when importing it. Easy to do if you don't know anything about colour management. And the other link, about the "smile", is just juvenile.
Let's stick the the basic inaccuracies of the piece, rather than tilting at windmills.
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 3:45 pm
20 Mar 2007
Hollywood versus Detroit.
On the day that Al Gore, the President of Hollywood, visited the Capitol, to speak of global warming...the President of America, George Bush, spoke to auto workers about the strides they are making in fuel cell vehicles.
It is Bush, who, since his first year in office, 2001, has funded programs in hydrogen technology...which produces no CO2. It is Bush, who pushed this program and supported others like the Hydrogen Highway in California. It is these programs that will give us the energy technology of the 21st century -- not "biofuels" or other retrograde technology.
Yet it is Gore on the front page of the New York Times...and the real thing, George Bush, somewhere in the back pages....
The Texeme Construct offers international text memetics construction and textcasting services. http://www.you-read-it-here-first.com
Permalink
step back Posted 6:15 pm
20 Mar 2007
Just out of curiosity, I did something called a "science experiment".
I copied the original Gore & Katrina image into a drawing program and turned the Red down.
Guess what?
Your hypotheis DID NOT WORK.
(But you probably knew that funny bunny.)
Turning the Red down (oops I did it again) does not:
Take the blue out of Gore's shirt,
Take the dirt out of Katrina,
Put a black funny dot into Gore's right eye, or
Twist Gore's mouth.
So there you have it funny bunny. Rather than debunking the photoshopping theory, you have reinforced it.
The funny bunny hypothesis does not fly.
And yes, funny bunny, cropping a picture of our orangutan "scientist" and tilting it so it looks like he is tilting his head is yet another "juvenile" photoshop trick that "accidentally" happened (oops there it goes again) and should not have happened in the first place.
So why are you so intent on disproving a clear case of photoshopping?
Huh, funny bunny?
To repeat: Turning down the red does not take the BLUE out of Gore's shirt --it heightens the BLUE.
Toodle loo ...
funny bunny
Permalink
adrianne Posted 12:00 am
27 Mar 2007
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:33 am
27 Mar 2007
Every newsroom in america has drudge up on its computer screens.
Here we see what happens when the thread is packed with trolls who feed off of drudge sludge. Senseless jabbering and lying.
Like the kind that comes from the chimp in chief itself. Ooo ooo eee eee ahh ahhh. Filling their depends while the earth burns. They don't care, they are going to heaven very soon.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:47 am
27 Mar 2007
Make it clear that only if/when the nuclear industry/government regulator combine actually builds and proves safe, economically viable operation of new experimental reactors that render waste harmless, under completely independent public oversight, should they be allowed to proceed with any larger buildout of nuclear power.
Clean up the mess they made first, prove nukes are cost competitive with renewable energy, wind, solar, and water power. 0btain insurance. Include all costs with no subsidies in the calculations.
We ought to let them build three reactors in already contaminated areas, like Hanford or Yucca Mountain, give them a decade to prove they can change their spots. My feeling is that leopard won't hunt.
But let the nuke-u-ler (they can't even pronounce the word "nuclear"?)numb nuts try. And absolutely no more disposal of nuclear waste in unlined trenches in leaking landfills. Clean up the landfills first, then you all can experiment, not before.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink