Didn't we have an "Earth Hour" the other day? Funny thing, 312 Lynnwood Blvd in Nashville had many lights burning inside. "In fact, most of the windows were lit by the familiar blue-ish hue indicating that floor lamps and ceiling fixtures were off, but TV screens and computer monitors were hard at work. (In other words, his house looked the way most houses look about 1:45am when their inhabitants are distractedly watching “Cheaters” or “Chelsea Lately” reruns.)" courtesy of the Nashvillepost.com
"The kicker, though, were the dozen or so floodlights grandly highlighting several trees and illuminating the driveway entrance of Gore’s mansion.
I [kid] you not, my friends, the savior of the environment couldn’t be bothered to turn off the gaudy lights that show off his goofy trees."
Oh well...
Maybe we can have a discussion about Freeman Dyson?
Posted by peter at March 29, 2009 08:33 PMAccording to Professor Gabriel Calzada of the King Juan Carlos University in Madrid; It cost $774,000 for each Spanish "green job" created since 2000. That's quite a premium paid for solar, biomass, wave, and wind power. Increased energy cost have driven Spain's Acerinox SA to move its stainless steel production to South Africa. It was the largest producer in Spain.
Posted by peter at March 29, 2009 09:31 PMhope you don't have kids you have hopes for, shit-fer=brains pete....it's mindless, idiotic views such as yours that doom them...and just consider you can take all the credit...
Posted by headxray at March 29, 2009 10:29 PMIf you follow the link you give you get this:
"What is certain is that the Arctic is warming faster than any other place on Earth. While the average global temperature has risen by less than 1 °C over the past three decades, there has been warming over much of the Arctic Ocean of around 3 °C. In some areas where the ice has been lost, temperatures have risen by 5 °C."
The words "warming faster than any other place on Earth" referencing temps in the Artic are a link to an article that says this:
"John Turner and colleagues of the British Antarctic Survey in Cambridge, UK, monitored the temperature of the middle troposphere, at altitudes of up to 10 kilometres. They used data from 11 weather balloons stationed around the Antarctic coast between 1971 and 2003. The balloons measured air temperature, humidity and pressure.
They found that winter air temperatures over Antarctica have increased at a rate of 0.5 to 0.7 °C per decade over the past 30 years. "The warming could have implications for snowfall across the Antarctic and sea-level rise," Turner says.
While the exact causes of the warming are hard to pin down, "changes in cloud amount and increases in the greenhouse gas concentration may well be playing a part", he says."
1. The link about "artic" temps links to an article about "antartic" temps. ????
2. The study was from 1971 to 2003. Old data and not including the cooler years since 2003.
3. They admit in the article that the exact causes are "hard to pin down"
Is the New Scientist site not aware that the Artic and the Antartic are two different places?
1. The link about "artic" temps links to an article about "antartic" temps.
It's called background information, fucktard. What you said was just incredibly stupid. It's as stupid as if you had said "The article also talks about positive feedbacks, and I don't see Skinner referenced anywhere. How is that scientific?"
Remember when you cocksuckers were fighting the idea of ozone depletion being a bad thing for humans and intervention wasn't necessary? "No need to do anything! It will harm industry! It will result in higher costs to consumers! You'll all be sorry! The science is wrong!"
It's one of the reasons assholes like you have no impact on thinking people. You are so blatantly stupid and do nothing more than spout an idiotic line fed to you by other stupid -but louder- media personalities. You and peter can be ignored at all times because you have nothing of substance, and certainly nothing of value, to add to the discussion.
I [kid] you not, my friends, the savior of the environment couldn’t be bothered to turn off the gaudy lights that show off his goofy trees."
Since you are too insipidly incompetent to chase a quote, this comes from a republi-KKKon, Drew Johnson, from the neo-Nazi group, Tennessee Center For Policy Research. The first thing to think: republi-KKKon = liar. The second thing to think, neo-Nazi policy wonk = psychotic liar.
Posted by phidipides at March 30, 2009 11:04 AM"It's called background information, fucktard."
No, it's called misinformation, idiot.
Keep mongering the fear with disinformation then you will begin to understand why global warming has fallen to last in polls about what is important to Americans.
Posted by manapp99 at March 30, 2009 04:14 PMSteve, sorry for a long post...This has been excerpted from a very lengthy NYTimes article. Feel free to read it all, very illuminating.
Ok Pdip, lets talk Freeman Dyson:
"Dyson has been awarded honorary degrees — there are 21 from universities like Georgetown, Princeton and Oxford — and suggested that “perhaps trees can also be designed so that they can give directions to lost hikers.” In the considered opinion of the neurologist Oliver Sacks, Dyson’s friend and fellow English expatriate. “His mind is still so open and flexible,” Dyson is a scientist whose intelligence is revered by other scientists — William Press, former deputy director of the Los Alamos National Laboratory and now a professor of computer science at the University of Texas, calls him “infinitely smart.”
Climate change is the big scientific issue of our time, so naturally he finds it irresistible. But to Dyson this is really only one more charged conundrum attracting his interest just as nuclear weapons and rural poverty have. That is to say, he is a great problem-solver who is not convinced that climate change is a great problem.
“The climate-studies people who work with models always tend to overestimate their models,” Dyson was saying. “They come to believe models are real and forget they are only models.”
Dyson agrees with the prevailing view that there are rapidly rising carbon-dioxide levels in the atmosphere caused by human activity. To the planet, he suggests, the rising carbon may well be a MacGuffin, a striking yet ultimately benign occurrence in what Dyson says is still “a relatively cool period in the earth’s history.” The warming, he says, is not global but local, “making cold places warmer rather than making hot places hotter.” Far from expecting any drastic harmful consequences from these increased temperatures, he says the carbon may well be salubrious — a sign that “the climate is actually improving rather than getting worse,” because carbon acts as an ideal fertilizer promoting forest growth and crop yields. “Most of the evolution of life occurred on a planet substantially warmer than it is now,” he contends, “and substantially richer in carbon dioxide.” Dyson calls ocean acidification, which many scientists say is destroying the saltwater food chain, a genuine but probably exaggerated problem. Sea levels, he says, are rising steadily, but why this is and what dangers it might portend “cannot be predicted until we know much more about its causes.”
Dyson says it’s only principle that leads him to question global warming: “According to the global-warming people, I say what I say because I’m paid by the oil industry. Of course I’m not, but that’s part of their rhetoric. If you doubt it, you’re a bad person, a tool of the oil or coal industry.” Global warming, he added, “has become a party line.”
What may trouble Dyson most about climate change are the experts. Experts are, he thinks, too often crippled by the conventional wisdom they create, leading to the belief that “they know it all.”
...
Climate-change specialists often speak of global warming as a matter of moral conscience. Dyson says he thinks they sound presumptuous. As he warned that day four years ago at Boston University, the history of science is filled with those “who make confident predictions about the future and end up believing their predictions,” and he cites examples of things people anticipated to the point of terrified certainty that never actually occurred, ranging from hellfire, to Hitler’s atomic bomb, to the Y2K millennium bug. “It’s always possible Hansen could turn out to be right,” he says of the climate scientist. “If what he says were obviously wrong, he wouldn’t have achieved what he has. But Hansen has turned his science into ideology. He’s a very persuasive fellow and has the air of knowing everything. He has all the credentials. I have none. I don’t have a Ph.D. He’s published hundreds of papers on climate. I haven’t. By the public standard he’s qualified to talk and I’m not. But I do because I think I’m right. I think I have a broad view of the subject, which Hansen does not. I think it’s true my career doesn’t depend on it, whereas his does. I never claim to be an expert on climate. I think it’s more a matter of judgement than knowledge.”
...
“The costs of what Gore tells us to do would be extremely large,” Dyson said. “By restricting CO2 you make life more expensive and hurt the poor. I’m concerned about the Chinese.”
“They’re the biggest polluters,” Imme replied.
“They’re also changing their standard of living the most, going from poor to middle class. To me that’s very precious.”
The film continued with Gore predicting violent hurricanes, typhoons and tornados. “How in God’s name could that happen here?” Gore said, talking about Hurricane Katrina. “Nature’s been going crazy.”
“That is of course just nonsense,” Dyson said calmly. “With Katrina, all the damage was due to the fact that nobody had taken the trouble to build adequate dikes. To point to Katrina and make any clear connection to global warming is very misleading.”
Now came Arctic scenes, with Gore telling of disappearing ice, drunken trees and drowning polar bears. “Most of the time in history the Arctic has been free of ice,” Dyson said. “A year ago when we went to Greenland where warming is the strongest, the people loved it.”
“They were so proud,” Imme agreed. “They could grow their own cabbage.”
The film ended. “I think Gore does a brilliant job,” Dyson said. “For most people I’d think this would be quite effective. But I knew Roger Revelle. He was definitely a skeptic. He’s not alive to defend himself.”
“All my friends say how smart and farsighted Al Gore is,” she said.
“He certainly is a good preacher,” Dyson replied. “Forty years ago it was fashionable to worry about the coming ice age. Better to attack the real problems like the extinction of species and overfishing. There are so many practical measures we could take.”
“I’m still perfectly happy if you buy me a Prius!” Imme said.
“It’s toys for the rich,” her husband smiled, and then they were arguing about windmills.
One of Dyson’s more significant surmises is that a warming climate could be forestalling a new ice age. Is he wrong? No one can say for sure. Beyond the specific points of factual dispute, Dyson has said that it all boils down to “a deeper disagreement about values” between those who think “nature knows best” and that “any gross human disruption of the natural environment is evil,” and “humanists,” like himself, who contend that protecting the existing biosphere is not as important as fighting more repugnant evils like war, poverty and unemployment."
This from a beautiful mind that's sane as could be.
Posted by peter at March 30, 2009 04:25 PMmore of shit-fer-brains pete's cut n' paste propaganda...all you manage to accomplish is wasting bandwidth..oh and making a bigger asshole of yourself...hard to tell shit-fer-brains between you and the man-ape which is the bigger asshole..you're both so accomplished at it....
Posted by headxray at March 30, 2009 05:09 PMOk Pdip, lets talk Freeman Dyson:
No, you don't want to do that. I don't need to cut-n-paste an article to explain what Dyson is getting at. You need to read much more about him before we can talk about his hard left liberalism.
I'm giggling to myself that you would non-quote him.
...global warming has fallen to last in polls about what is important to Americans.
After your douche-nozzle administration people are worried about having a home and food and 400% interest on their credit card debt. Don't worry, it's still important. That's why when gas was $3.25 a gallon 92% want increased funding for solar and wind.
* 92% supported more funding for research on renewable energy sources, such as solar and wind power
* 85% supported tax rebates for people buying energy efficient vehicles or solar panels.
* 80% said the government should regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant
* 69% of Americans said the United States should sign an international treaty that requires the U.S. to cut its emissions of carbon dioxide 90% by the year 2050.
* 79%supported a 45 mpg fuel efficiency standard for cars, trucks, and SUVs, even if that meant a new vehicle cost up to $1,000 more to buy;
* 72% supported a requirement that electric utilities produce at least 20 percent of their electricity from wind, solar, or other renewable energy sources, even if it cost the average household an extra $100 a year;
* 72 percent supported a government subsidy to replace old water heaters, air conditioners, light bulbs, and insulation, even if it cost the average household $5 a month in higher taxes.
* 63% supported a special fund to make buildings more energy efficient and teach Americans how to reduce their energy use, even if this cost the average household $2.50 a month in higher electric bills.
And......
Over 90 percent of Americans support action on climate change in midst of financial crisis
It's good to know there are only 10% of you moronic republi-KKKons left. It proves that you can be so stupid that you eventually chase away any rational Republican out there.
Posted by phidipides at March 31, 2009 11:05 AM