- Limbaugh attack reveals Dem rashness
- Deporting the American dream
- We are the 'failed safety net'
- Turks justified in going after rebels
- Marathon more like an obstacle course
- Making a strong case for school vouchers
- Aha!
- A DIFFERING VIEW/All Coloradans deserve share of energy production
- Keep consequences for kids in mind
- Child welfare agencies must be fixed
Al Gore & Nobel Peace Prize
Mike, never shy about informing listeners of his attributes, tells us that he has really boned up on Global Warming and he’s concluded that its all a grand hoax ginned up by scheming lib scientists. Seriously, Rosen talks the talk about climate change and if one was not aware just how politically bent this fellow is, he comes out as very authentic. I say this because global warming has become a left, right debate and no one in the Rocky Mountain political environment champions conservative beliefs better than our weather vane Rosen.
Mike could out word me about climate changes, but I do think something is up (no pun intended), with the weather. I listen to both sides but both sides have their experts and after a while, I’m so fed up I turn the channel to an animal show but, lo and behold, it will show a polar bear running out of ice and seals.
So, what I plan on doing is keep watching and listening (sans Rosen), keep myself and property enviornmentally safe and watch it all play out, hopefully, not thru a brown cloud.
This letter has not been edited.
That's because fraud, hocus pocus and outright lies don't deserve recognition.
Posted by on October 22, 2007 02:24 PMYou can tell when either Bush or Cheney have been to town because Rosen will have some ejaculate on his face.
Posted by WWIII on October 22, 2007 02:47 PMphil you should get good ole dingy harry to call mark may [mays] at clear channel and tell him that rosen is not playing nice with you liberals in spreading lies.
remember als the oceans are going to rise 20 feet and then his buddies at the un come out and say no he ment to say 20 inches?
algore is a total fraud and he has all of his empty minded robots chanting for him.
You don't have to believe either Al Gore or Mike Rosen. Go to the public library and start browsing through the science magazines. In a very short time you will come to the conclusion that Al Gore is much more representative of the mainstream view of climate scientists than is Mike Rosen.
Posted by Romulus on October 22, 2007 03:31 PMWWIII has homosexual tendencies. What straight guy would use that kind of disgusting language?
Next time keep your lifestye habits to yourself.
Romulus thinks the lying left is mainsteam America. Is he in for a rude awakening when the the worlds demise is postponed for another 1000 years without Hot Air Blimp Gore's help.
Posted by on October 22, 2007 03:40 PMLove reading pronouncements on the validity of climate change science from Republiscum bitches who couldn't explain how water turns to steam.
Posted by on October 22, 2007 03:51 PMYou know why the far right wingers always attack Al Gore?
Because saying you just don't believe nearly every single, field-appropriate, peer-reviewed scientist on the planet makes you sound like an uneducated lunatic.
Posted by jay on October 22, 2007 04:03 PMYou know everybody with common sense attacks Al Gore?
Because not everybody is a gullible far left winger that believes or thinks that nearly every single, field-appropriate, peer-reviewed by the left wing, scientist on the planet is telling the truth. Only a lunatic would believe such politically motivated data.
Posted by on October 22, 2007 04:19 PMromunus,Take your own advice and do some research,you will find out gore is a liar and you are a idiot.
Posted by Keith on October 22, 2007 04:22 PMWhat Algore, the UN Panel and the "consensus people" have in common is the loss of credibility that comes from misrepresenting/omitting facts when making their point. It's hard to have credibility without honesty. Just ask Bush.
Posted by on October 22, 2007 04:30 PMMike Rosen is a political pundit (or comedian, depending on your viewpoint), and many of his "facts" are cherry-picked data. He draws a conclusion, then selects data to support it-- hardly scientific by any means. Listen to him at your own risk.
Romulus is correct-- if you truly feel one way or another, or are just curious, about global warming-- do your own research. Review perspectives from both sides, but most of all pay attention to the scientifically derived data and conclusions. Take time to sound a little more intelligent than Keith, who points out Gore is a liar without any evidence to support his assertion.
Posted by Dan on October 22, 2007 04:40 PMDan,
Keith doesn't need to do any research or show evidence. He has all the answers based upon his "experience" listening to talk radio.
Posted by Stan B on October 22, 2007 04:54 PMWell,well-
Look what just came out: whttp://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html
And a few days ago,this,
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/10/11/scigore111.xml
And here are some other recent Gore debunking items ignored by the majority of the liberal mass media.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/gore-gets-a-cold-shoulder/2007/10/13/1191696238792.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A37397-2000Mar18
Posted by Get Real on October 22, 2007 05:54 PMAnd what are Gores real motives?
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=22663
Sorry,. That first link doesnt work.
Try here-
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html
And one more thing to ponder-
http://www.slate.com/id/2176156/
Good Lord, how can people still claim that people contribute to global warming after it's been revealed that Al Gore lives in a big house?
Posted by Truth on October 22, 2007 06:09 PMDon't people realize that whether or not there is global warming depends on how much Al Gore's utility bills are?
Posted by Truth on October 22, 2007 06:12 PMhttp://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7008907686
Norwich, United Kingdom (AHN) - Since the industrial revolution much of the CO2 that human activity has spewed into the air has been absorbed by the ocean. But scientists say that research shows the ocean is losing its ability to hold any more of the greenhouse gas warming pollutant, fueling additional concerns over the earth's rapidly warming temperatures.
Environmental scientists from the University of East Anglia made the discovery. It is significant because the ocean has played a key role in slowing global warming to the pace it is now. Without the ocean's ability to absorb as much CO2 as it has the problem, the world's levels of CO2 would have risen much faster and global warming would be a much worse problem already than it is.
But now that scientists have discovered the world's oceans can no longer absorb CO2 at the rates they have, scientists are worried.
Posted by Truth on October 22, 2007 06:16 PMRepublicans hate everybody who is educated in science.
Posted by rick on October 22, 2007 06:30 PMSo rick,what are you saying,republicans like you?
Posted by Keith on October 22, 2007 06:48 PMAnd let's not forget that none other than Osama Bin Laden has commented on the problem of global climate change. Ergo Al Gore and those who say that man is causing climate change are terrorists by association.
Posted by Liam on October 22, 2007 11:13 PMPoor Al. He is so altruistic. Perhaps he will give the poor carbon credits from his company (at a discounted rate). He deserves the peace prize. Al will make a fortune selling nothing. The emperor has no clothes!
Posted by T on October 22, 2007 11:47 PMThe Noble Committe is another Democrat organization I guess. that must be why no Republicans ever get awarded. Probably why Bush didnt win too ( or could the War he started and teh ensuing death tole kept him from his 'Peace' prize?)
Posted by Keith on October 23, 2007 06:58 AMNo Keith Republicans would have to actually do something to win an award. You don't get a Nobel prize for molesting pages or having gay sex in Men's rooms. Is there a Republican that you could imagine winning? What have they done?
Posted by Obvious on October 23, 2007 09:03 AM"truth"
Mosey on over to the "Mexican-American resents footing the bill" letter, see what you think.
Your silence speaks volumes!!!!!!!!
Posted by RickyLee on October 23, 2007 09:56 AMobvious idiot,Bush and the U.S. military should of gotten the Nobel Peace Prize becausethey are fighting against terrorist who not only want to kill americans but everybody else who don't think like them.Also for taking out a dictator might of had,he was trying to get WMD's to kill millions.A dictator who already kill over a hundred thousand of his own people and was in the process to starve many more by using food money for his desires.Bush,for fighting against a political party that supported the terrorist over the good people around this world,the democrat party.
Posted by Keith on October 23, 2007 10:14 AMKeith, my boy: You get zapped so much and with me having to fight to the death those who would crucify you I'm going to have to call on an army of mercenaries to assist me. Is there any way that you could chill out?
Posted by RG r22037@yahoo.com on October 23, 2007 10:18 AMTruth,
"scientists are worried"
No kidding.
The planet has known several ice ages.
The North American and Eurasion continents were last covered in ice until about 10,000 years ago when a period of warming melted it down.
Were the scientists worried when the ice formed? Were they equally worried when it melted?
No, there weren't any scientists around at that time to worry about things were there?
By the way, how do you suppose all that happened without our help in manufacturing the deadly gas carbon dioxide?
The scientists don't seemed to worried about explaining that one.
Posted by James Jones on October 23, 2007 10:34 AMAgain, James shows us a great example of a right wing myth about GW.
No one is disputing the fact that the earth has gone through various periods of warming and cooling. What nearly every single, peer-reviewed, field-appropriate scientist on the planet is saying is that this particular warming cycle is experiencing trends outside of mean....and are due to human activity.
Is everyone clear on that one?
Posted by jay on October 23, 2007 11:31 AMjay,
Quite clear. And after nearly every single, peer-reviewed, field-appropriate scientist on the planet has explained when, how and why the previous ice ages came about, then we can talk about trends outside the mean.
Until then, this looks and sounds more like yet another leftist attempt to alarm people sufficiently to authorize the expansion of the power of state over the individual.
Posted by James Jones on October 23, 2007 11:52 AMjay
Apparently you are not. The earth happens to be going through one it's usual climate changes. The left wing and socialist nations of the world and members of the UN are using it as a scare tactic to make the US abide by enviromental mandates that they are exempt from or will not follow themselves.
China is the biggest so-called offender of the UN's proposed mandates against using fossil fuels and they have no intention of slowing down their economy over some American liar and profiter named AL Gore's left wing myth. It is all about politics and economics as well as jealousy and trying to stifle our economy.
Profiters like Gore and other "Doom and Gloom" crowd stand to make billions on this hoax. It already is a multi-billion industry that will cost americans thru the nose if we are forced to comply to this fraud.
America needs to use their common sense and examine the true facts and motivations for this lastest "BIG" lie that's being told over and over. Another left wing socialist lie.
Hey Keith maybe if they had a Nobel War Prize, Bush could win
Posted by Obvious on October 23, 2007 01:22 PM"Oblivious"
Na, let's give it to you for such a clever play on words. You're just as deserving as Al Gore.
Posted by on October 23, 2007 01:45 PMIs that you queef?
Posted by on October 23, 2007 02:28 PMJames Jones:
Quite clear. And after nearly every single, peer-reviewed, field-appropriate scientist on the planet has explained when, how and why the previous ice ages came about, then we can talk about trends outside the mean.
The "when, how and why the previous ice ages came about" has been explained, and data over the last 30 years (including the more recent ice core data) have upheld and substantiated the explanation for the "when, how and why" they came about.
Try googling "Milankovitch cycles"
Posted by CL on October 23, 2007 06:19 PMHey Jayhole,
Seems you bit off more than you can chew once again.
MOOK
CL
OK
Copyright 2001 The Guardian (London)
June 28, 2001
By Dr Alison George
The earth has probably already passed the peak of the current interglacial period, and if Milankovitch's rules are followed - leaving aside human influence - then a trend towards a cooler climate would be expected within the next 1,000 years.
Milankovitch cycles cover huge time periods, so predictions based on orbital cycles with an accuracy closer than 2000 years are not possible.
Or
Unstoppable Global Warming
by S. Fred Singer and
Dennis T. Avery
Milankovitch identified three principal cycles that drive Earth's climatic variability. The first is a 100,000 year cycle of the "ellipticalness" of the earth's orbit about the sun—currently we're not very elliptical so the variation in the amount of radiation reaching the earth between January and June is ~6%, but at its peak this variation is a significant 20-30%. The second (42,000 year cycle) concerns the tilt of the earth on its axis between 21.8° and 24.4°—we are currently in the midrange. The third cycle (22,000 years) measures the the "wobble" of the earth on its axis—when the axis is pointing toward the star Vega, winters can be bitterly cold and summers scorchingly hot.
Not something you can set your watch by is it?
Posted by James Jones on October 23, 2007 10:06 PM"If you dont like the messenger, kill the message"... the New Republican philosophy
Posted by on October 24, 2007 07:13 AM"we can talk about trends outside the mean."
"The earth happens to be going through one it's usual climate changes."
I think there's some confusion here that should be easy to clear up. James and cruton, are you denying that we are now experiencing trends that are outside the norm?
Again...yes or no will suffice.
Post 7:13
Only the if the messenger is a Chicken Little, Doom and Gloom lying left wingnut.
I bet they go to sleep with a blankie and night lite on. Boo! Got ya!
Perhaps
Posted by James Jones on October 24, 2007 12:32 PMJames Jones:
Quite the selective googling and quoting there
Your first cite comes from here:
http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/physicalscience/story/0,,513865,00.html
Milankovitch cycles cover huge time periods, so predictions based on orbital cycles with an accuracy closer than 2000 years are not possible.
But if you had quoted the entire paragraph, we would have seen that it actually said:
The "cooling" argument was backed by temperature measurements from the northern hemisphere which showed a cooling trend from the 40s to the 70s. Armed with 100 years of temperature readings from around the world, climate scientists of the 70s tried to estimate how hot the world would be in future. Whether they predicted a rise or fall in temperature depended on the emphasis given to CO2 or aerosols, and on the timescale of the calculation - Milankovitch cycles cover huge time periods, so predictions based on orbital cycles with an accuracy closer than 2000 years are not possible.
climate scientists of the 70s? I wrote the in the last 30 years for a reason.
And then you missed this:
From the position of the earth's orbit he calculated the temperature 600,000 years ago. After initial enthusiasm, no one paid much attention to Milankovitch's ideas until the late 60s, when a study of deep sea sediments showed that ice ages occurred at times which fitted in with Milankovitch's theory.
What's that? Ice ages occurring when Milankovitch's theory said they would? Could it be that in the 60s they are starting to figure out "when, how and why the previous ice ages came about"??
As a bit of an aside, this article is worth reading - it goes into why some in the early 70s thought we might be headed for an ice age - and why that idea didn't last very long.
Your second cite
"Unstoppable Global Warming
by S. Fred Singer and
Dennis T. Avery"
comes from here:
http://www.brianrwright.com/Coffee_Coaster/03_Book_Reviews/070725_Unstoppable_Warming.htm
Which shows that your quote:
Milankovitch identified three principal cycles that drive Earth's climatic variability
...
is a misattribution. If you had copied & pasted just 1 line higher you would have written:
[2] In his Canon of Insolation of the Ice Age Problem (1941), Milankovitch identified three principal cycles that drive Earth's climatic variability.
If you recall, I wrote "has been explained, and data over the last 30 years" - 1941 is a bit further back than that (that's when the theory was first proposed).
But that's OK, my response wasn't so much for you, it was more for anyone following this thread to dig deeper if they wanted. That you botched citing those two (of MANY sources on Milankovitch cycles) really isn't much of a surprise.
Posted by CL on October 24, 2007 03:10 PMCL,
I copied and pasted enough to make the point. If you don't like the way I cut and past then you can just do it yourself.
I have a motto for the gloom and doomers in the We're All Waxed Association (WAWA)
Often wrong - never in doubt.
James Jones -
I'm sure you think so, but you're ignoring my point. Re-read the last paragraph of my last post.
Posted by CL on October 24, 2007 07:49 PM12:15 the real doom and gloom messengers are the Republicans, masters of scare tactics... justifying every corrupt and illegal action based on "the terrorists will getcha if you dont let us do what we want". Invade a country, start a war, give up your freedoms, its the only way to stop the terrorists. Hope you can crawl out from under your bed long enough to read this...or did you already pee yourself?
Posted by on October 25, 2007 12:08 PM