Al Gore & The Global Warming Agenda

Vik,

For weeks I have been going back to your website AMERICA SPEAK OUT

but there has been no follow-up to your promise: " Coming Soon! - This site is under development. Forum participation will be operational in a few days. Please check back soon."

What's up? We really need an authoritative sources that aggregates and reports on the climate skeptical point of view.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Zeno Swijtink:

Vik,

For weeks I have been going back to your website AMERICA SPEAK OUT

but there has been no follow-up to your promise: " Coming Soon! - This site is under development. Forum participation will be operational in a few days. Please check back soon."

---

I am properly chastised. I admit it - I got sucked into a major development project for a group in Santa Barbara and haven't made much time for my projects.

You are right. Feel free to slap me around every week until I get the darned thing up and running!

I HAVE, this week, found another person who is willing to work with me on videos. One problem I had is that I cannot run all aspects of production myself. It takes at least one other person. I may have that problem solved. I'll know tomorrow when I meet with him again.

And, folks, if you want a quick history lesson on Global Warming, do check out AMERICA SPEAK OUT and look at the short video on the home page. It's a starter, anyway.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Speak2Truth:

Saddam Hussein made the threat and indications are that he followed through. Have a look:

Speak2Truth's Blog on Yahoo!

---

Well, you have lost every shred of credibility on this one. On the day that Wesley Clark announced his candidacy for the presidency George Bush, Condi Rice, and Donald Rumsfeld all held press conferences in which they stated that they never said Saddam Hussein had anything to do with 9/11. Now why did they do that? Because the day after 9/11 the White House sent an errand boy to Clark's office and asked him to announce that Saddam Hussein had done it (so they could launch the invasion they had been planning since before taking office) and Clark told them something to the effect of "I cannot tell a lie," and they were afraid Clark would make the Bush administration's language connecting Iraq and 9/11 a campaign issue.

The Bushies were very clever on this one. Then never said Saddam did it. They always said something along the line of, "because of 9/11 we can no longer blah blah blah." They planted the idea in people's minds that Iraq was connected to 9/11 even though anyone with even a passing understanding of Middle East politics would know it to be BS. Most Americans know very little about most of the rest of the world and it makes them easy dupes for manipulation.

If Osama bin Ladin had something to do with 9/11 then Saddam Hussein was definitely not involved. bin Ladin had declared Saddam takfir many years before for his suppression of the more radical Shi'ites (the reason the US installed the Ba'athists in the first place) and wanted Saddam and his moderate Sunnis out of the way. The US supported the Ba'ath party because it was secular and socialist and thus antithetical to radical Islamists. It was friendly to Christians because Christians had founded the Ba'ath Party. Under Saddam Christians were protected and Christian missionaries like my second cousin were able to minister there without threat of death. Since Saddam is gone, they have all had to leave for their own safety. The current government is operating under Shari'ah Law and all the persecution that entails. The country that once had more Ph.Ds per capita than any other country in the world now has women with Ph.Ds in fear for their lives and afraid to leave their homes without being covered head to toe and accompanied by a male member of the family, and going to work is out of the question. Saddam was also the strongest counter to Iran in the region so we did Iran a big favor too. Go Bush!

Oh, and a comment on Fox broadcasting. A University of Virginia study on where people get their news and how well informed they were found that those who get their news from Fox were the least informed and most misinformed of television viewers. The other mainstream stations were slightly better, and those who got their news from Public Broadcasting were the best informed and least misinformed. When Jesse Helms launched his campaign to cut off all public funding to Public Broadcasting he got few backers as 75% of Republican members of congress said they depended upon it to keep them informed on the issues they were voting on.

When Fox owner, Rupert Murdock, received complaints that when he took over a newspaper he turned it into trash, responded that he was not in the business of informing people. So true and so consistent.

Aside from what the Bush Admin SAID about things, let's look at the evidence.

We know that Saddam warned the US that if we "pressured" him he would send individual Arabs to attack inside the US.

We know that after we clobbered his military forces in the Gulf War, Iraq sent Ramzi Yousef and his buddy Yasin, with Iraqi passports, to the US. They orchestrated the first World Trade Center Bombing. Also, the Oklahoma City bombing in coordination with Terry Nichols.

Once Ramzi Yousef was nabbed, his uncle, who DID work with Al Qaeda as well, orchestrated the second World Trade Center attack. We know there was a terrorist training center just south of Baghdad where teams of four were trained, in the year prior to 9/11, to take over airliners. A guy who worked there told PBS the trainees were not Iraqi.

We know a Federal Court has already ruled there was sufficient evidence to show that Iraq was behind the 9/11 attack and Saddam's "Victory" billboard does support that notion.

But what of Al Qaeda working with Saddam? The 9/11 Commission already stated they had a cooperative working relationship. Saddam, by attacking Israel, won the confidence of Osama bin Laden. That was when their relationship changed. Saddam offered high-level training, financing and international operational support that Osama lacked.

Salman Pak / Al Salman
Salman Pak - Iraq Special Weapons Facilities

Satellite Photo - Salman Pak Airliner
Saddam's al Qaeda Connection (Salman Pak)

Salman Pak, Iraq - interview with Sabah Khodada
Terrorists trained in hijacking tactics in year prior to 9/11
PBS - frontline: gunning for saddam: interviews: sabah khodada

BIN LADEN, ATEF INDICTED IN U.S. FEDERAL COURT FOR AFRICAN BOMBINGS - Iraq and Al Qaeda collaboration
News from the USIA Washington File

Saddam Hussein-al Qaeda: The Undisputed Links
Newsvine - Saddam Hussein-al Qaeda: The Undisputed Links

Court Rules: Al Qaida, Iraq Linked
Court Rules: Al Qaida, Iraq Linked - CBS News

Iraqi Documents Show al-Qaida Ties
Harmony documents and the IDA report show beyond any doubt that Saddam Hussein was willing to fund, train, and use Islamic terrorists, including groups affiliated with al-Qaida, to carry out his long-standing plans against the United States and U.S. allies in the region.
Newsmax.com - Iraqi Documents Show al-Qaida Ties

Clearly, the relationship between Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein changed once Saddam was at war against Israel and the United States.

Quote:

---

It was friendly to Christians because Christians had founded the Ba'ath Party.

---

I'm not sure where you got that. My info shows that the Ba'ath Party was a spinoff of the Socialist NAZI party. Islamist/NAZI alliance goes back to Hitler's Islamist SS divisions in the Middle East, under the Mufti of Jerusalem.

Quote:

---

Saddam was also the strongest counter to Iran in the region so we did Iran a big favor too. Go Bush!

---

Sorry, that is a misguided statement. Saddam started the war by sending his tanks into Saudi Arabia and Kuwait to seize control of Middle East oil. His Blitzkrieg was much like Hitler's. Bush did not start it - Saddam did long before Bush was President.

Quote:

---

A University of Virginia study on where people get their news and how well informed they were found that those who get their news from Fox were the least informed and most misinformed of television viewers.

---

That's nice. I wonder how well informed the folks doing the study were?

Think about it. He who formulates the questions gets to play all sorts of games.

Quote:

---

When Fox owner, Rupert Murdock, received complaints that when he took over a newspaper he turned it into trash, responded that he was not in the business of informing people. So true and so consistent.

---

I won't argue with that. Murdock runs Socialist newspapers in Australia. He created FOX to tap into an audience that was pissed off at the Communist News Network in the 1990s. I'm among the loudest voices complaining about what the folks at FOX are NOT allowed to say!

For example, even when the inset photo shows a huge "Fight for Communism" banner at the head of a May 1 illegal Mexican march, they are not allowed to say the 'C' word.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Speak2Truth:

I am properly chastised. I admit it - I got sucked into a major development project for a group in Santa Barbara and haven't made much time for my projects.

You are right. Feel free to slap me around every week until I get the darned thing up and running!

I HAVE, this week, found another person who is willing to work with me on videos. One problem I had is that I cannot run all aspects of production myself. It takes at least one other person. I may have that problem solved. I'll know tomorrow when I meet with him again.

And, folks, if you want a quick history lesson on Global Warming, do check out AMERICA SPEAK OUT and look at the short video on the home page. It's a starter, anyway.

---

To make us trust you, you need to build a track record of rich and reliable (as in "standing up to scrutiny") information, and of creative ideas worth pondering.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Zeno Swijtink:

To make us trust you, you need to build a track record of rich and reliable (as in "standing up to scrutiny") information, and of creative ideas worth pondering.

---

Okay, watch the short video and tell me if you think it stands up to scrutiny.

Let's start there.

I guarantee, at some point, I'll get a piece of information wrong. That is why I always try to do call-in TV shows and why I appreciate open forums for debate. I want to know if I've got something wrong and I want to see the information that will convince me.

Sometimes, folks give me new gems of knowledge and I appreciate it. I hope you do too.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Speak2Truth:

Okay, watch the short video and tell me if you think it stands up to scrutiny.

Let's start there.

I guarantee, at some point, I'll get a piece of information wrong. That is why I always try to do call-in TV shows and why I appreciate open forums for debate. I want to know if I've got something wrong and I want to see the information that will convince me.

Sometimes, folks give me new gems of knowledge and I appreciate it. I hope you do too.

---

I watched the video. But as with any visual material it's not clear what it asserts. Can you briefly summarize what assertions (and supporting evidence) this video makes?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Zeno Swijtink:

I watched the video. But as with any visual material it's not clear what it asserts. Can you briefly summarize what assertions (and supporting evidence) this video makes?

---

I'll do what I can here.

As we learned in Elementary School, the last Ice Age cycle ended about 18,000 years ago, relatively recently in human history. Humans had already migrated to North America, taking advantage of lower ocean levels as well as frozen ice routes. During that Ice Age, the permanent polar ice cap extended as far south as Kentucky and Turkey. Where we have built cities like New York and London the land was recently crushed under a mile of solid ice.

When the warming cycle started, melting back the ice and raising the oceans by 400 feet, billions of new acres of land were exposed for habitat. Presumably, the polar bears migrated from New Jersey to where they are hanging out now. ;-)

The warming cycle was drastic, as the sea level chart shows. Long before man built his first steam engine, the oceans rose 400 feet. Are we living in some sort of catastrophe right now? I ask because politicians tell us an ocean rise of 3 feet would be some sort of catastrophe.

Post-Glacial Sea Level Rise
File:Post-Glacial Sea Level.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


And we know what causes the warming and cooling cycles - and there's nothing we can do to stop it even if it were to our benefit to do so. Is it? Life loves a greenhouse, not a glacier.

We are well off today because of global warming. What we should dread is that it ends. We did not cause it and we cannot control it no matter how much of our money politicians seize at gunpoint.


Solar energy output drives earth temperature, except for volcanic interruptions
LASP: Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics

Earth's eccentric orbit and tilt cause ice ages, warm periods.
Why do glaciations occur?

Clues to End of the Last Ice Age - increased solar output warmed oceans, melting ice and releasing CO2
Clues to End of the Last Ice Age


Temperature Monitors Report Widescale Global Cooling
Scientists quoted in a past DailyTech article link the cooling to reduced solar activity
DailyTech - Temperature Monitors Report Widescale Global Cooling

Crops under stress as temperatures fall
Our politicians haven't noticed that the problem may be that the world is not warming but cooling, observes Christopher Booker.
Crops under stress as temperatures fall - Telegraph

Your information is so out of alignment with reality that I wouldn't know where to start. Be that said, al Qaeda is a militant, fundamentalist Islamic group that considers anyone not of their brand of Islam to be a false Muslim and thus legitimate to kill along with infidels. Saddam Hussein's Ba'athist party was a secular socialist party founded in Syria in 1941 with the goal of establishing a pan Arabic, secular state, an anathema to al Qaeda and other fundamentalist Islamic sects who prefer an established state religion, namely their own brand of Islam. Saddam and other Ba'athists were targeted by al Qaeda for death and Saddam returned the favor keeping Iraq al Qaeda free until Gulf War II took him out of power. Al Qaeda then took advantage of the vacuum and chaos to move into Iraq. The Bushies spread a lot of propaganda attempting to link the two together but anyone familiar with mid east politics would know it was bogus. That's a very small percentage of the US population, however.

According to Brent Scowcroft and James Baker, (you do know who they are don't you?) the invasion of Iraq was proposed to W by Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz when they went to Texas and talked then governor Bush into running for president. They told him he would be a big hero if he could finish the job his father started and didn't finish, namely driving Saddam out of power. Bush was immature enough to fall for their game of showing up Dad, all they needed was an excuse. So despite the fact that Iraq had nothing whatsoever to do with 911 the Bushies couched their language in such a way as to convince Americans that Saddam had something to do with it without actually stating that he did. Very clever. I watched all those press conferences. Keeping Americans dumbed down so they can't tell the truth from a lie is the great success of the public education system and our spin doctors that pass for news reporters.

The 911 comission found no link between Saddam and al Qaeda.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Speak2Truth:

Aside from what the Bush Admin SAID about things, let's look at the evidence.

We know that Saddam warned the US that if we "pressured" him he would send individual Arabs to attack inside the US.

We know that after we clobbered his military forces in the Gulf War, Iraq sent Ramzi Yousef and his buddy Yasin, with Iraqi passports, to the US. They orchestrated the first World Trade Center Bombing. Also, the Oklahoma City bombing in coordination with Terry Nichols.

Once Ramzi Yousef was nabbed, his uncle, who DID work with Al Qaeda as well, orchestrated the second World Trade Center attack. We know there was a terrorist training center just south of Baghdad where teams of four were trained, in the year prior to 9/11, to take over airliners. A guy who worked there told PBS the trainees were not Iraqi.

We know a Federal Court has already ruled there was sufficient evidence to show that Iraq was behind the 9/11 attack and Saddam's "Victory" billboard does support that notion.

But what of Al Qaeda working with Saddam? The 9/11 Commission already stated they had a cooperative working relationship. Saddam, by attacking Israel, won the confidence of Osama bin Laden. That was when their relationship changed. Saddam offered high-level training, financing and international operational support that Osama lacked.

Salman Pak / Al Salman
Salman Pak - Iraq Special Weapons Facilities

Satellite Photo - Salman Pak Airliner
Saddam's al Qaeda Connection (Salman Pak)

Salman Pak, Iraq - interview with Sabah Khodada
Terrorists trained in hijacking tactics in year prior to 9/11
PBS - frontline: gunning for saddam: interviews: sabah khodada

BIN LADEN, ATEF INDICTED IN U.S. FEDERAL COURT FOR AFRICAN BOMBINGS - Iraq and Al Qaeda collaboration
News from the USIA Washington File

Saddam Hussein-al Qaeda: The Undisputed Links
Newsvine - Saddam Hussein-al Qaeda: The Undisputed Links

Court Rules: Al Qaida, Iraq Linked
Court Rules: Al Qaida, Iraq Linked - CBS News

Iraqi Documents Show al-Qaida Ties
Harmony documents and the IDA report show beyond any doubt that Saddam Hussein was willing to fund, train, and use Islamic terrorists, including groups affiliated with al-Qaida, to carry out his long-standing plans against the United States and U.S. allies in the region.
Newsmax.com - Iraqi Documents Show al-Qaida Ties

Clearly, the relationship between Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein changed once Saddam was at war against Israel and the United States.




I'm not sure where you got that. My info shows that the Ba'ath Party was a spinoff of the Socialist NAZI party. Islamist/NAZI alliance goes back to Hitler's Islamist SS divisions in the Middle East, under the Mufti of Jerusalem.



Sorry, that is a misguided statement. Saddam started the war by sending his tanks into Saudi Arabia and Kuwait to seize control of Middle East oil. His Blitzkrieg was much like Hitler's. Bush did not start it - Saddam did long before Bush was President.



That's nice. I wonder how well informed the folks doing the study were?

Think about it. He who formulates the questions gets to play all sorts of games.



I won't argue with that. Murdock runs Socialist newspapers in Australia. He created FOX to tap into an audience that was pissed off at the Communist News Network in the 1990s. I'm among the loudest voices complaining about what the folks at FOX are NOT allowed to say!

For example, even when the inset photo shows a huge "Fight for Communism" banner at the head of a May 1 illegal Mexican march, they are not allowed to say the 'C' word.

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Speak2Truth:

The warming cycle was drastic, as the sea level chart shows. Long before man built his first steam engine, the oceans rose 400 feet. Are we living in some sort of catastrophe right now? I ask because politicians tell us an ocean rise of 3 feet would be some sort of catastrophe.

---

The difference is of course that at the time of the last period of warming - which happened slower and over a longer time - there were relatively few people living on Earth - estimates run from one to 10 million (Demography and Population Problems, by Rajendra K. Sharma, 2004, page 61) - and there were no valuable structures or important agricultural growing areas to be lost. At this moment there are 6,753,946,158 people on Earth, and counting.

Have a look at this article in the recent issue of Bay Nature about how climate change is already happening for many critters in the Bay Area.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by phooph:

Your information is so out of alignment with reality that I wouldn't know where to start. ...
The 911 comission found no link between Saddam and al Qaeda.

---

Actually phooph, you summed things up quite well. The only statement I'd add to is that the "911 Omission" didn't do any substantiative investigation. They never investigated who did the deed. Their summary statement began with a foregone conclusion: that al Qaeda organized and carried out the attack and all other details flowed from there. How do we know that? We don't. According to the Omission, we know that al Qaeda operatives used al Qaeda money to pay travel expenses. OK. So who planned the attack and on whose orders? I don't believe these questions were answered because they were not asked.

It is pretty clear it wasn't Saddam who ordered the attack because he had no connection with al Qaeda except as a target himself. Beyond that it's unclear who actually did it.

-Jeff

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by phooph:

Your information is so out of alignment with reality

---

I believe every bit of it can be backed, though it does not agree with what the mass media have been telling people.

Of course, they studiously avoided the roles of Ramzi Yousef and Terry Nichols in the Oklahoma City bombing as well. But the History Channel was happy to explain it. The problem with mainstream news is that they are telling a fairy tale and have no concern with facts whatsoever.

Quote:

---

Be that said, al Qaeda is a militant, fundamentalist Islamic group that considers anyone not of their brand of Islam to be a false Muslim and thus legitimate to kill along with infidels.

---

Yet they work cooperatively with various Islamist groups around the world. They backed the Albanian Muslims taking over Kosovo, they work with the Janjiweed in the final stages of Jihad in Sudan, they went to Somalia to attack American forces, they recruit Americans like Jose Padilla... I don't think that assertion stands up to the facts. They may not mind if one of their bombs kills other Muslims, however.

Quote:

---

Saddam Hussein's Ba'athist party was a secular socialist party founded in Syria in 1941 with the goal of establishing a pan Arabic, secular state, an anathema to al Qaeda and other fundamentalist Islamic sects

---

Here's a history of the Socialist origins of the Ba'ath party. I think we're in agreement on that part.

Saddam's Brain

Al Qaeda seems willing to play "The enemy of my enemy is my friend, for now." I agree with you about their ultimate agenda, a new Caliphate.

Saddam did not form a close relationship with them but there are plenty of reports of collaboration between them. Saddam also worked with other Islamic groups and directly paid families of suicide bombers. He went to extremes to portray himself as the Islamic strongman throughout the 1990s, even having portraits of himself done in traditional Arabic garb on a white horse to make himself an Islamic icon.

Connect the Dots . . . Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden
https://www.archive-news.net/Articles/SH040923.html

Osama-Saddam links 9-11 commission missed

Saddam attempted to bribe Scott Ritter - info in same file about Osama's envoy visit to Baghdad
https://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1067727/posts

In 1999, international news reports were full of links between Saddam and Osama bin Laden
https://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/947627/posts

BTW - I'm having a real problem with information links going dead. Damned frustrating. Original sources no longer work and I have to post their titles in Google to find other sources that talk about them.


And, while the World Trade center attacks (both of them) were connected to Al Qaeda, their execution involved Iraqis as well - the first planned by an Iraqi intelligence agent named Ramzi Yousef and his buddy Yasin who both came to the US with Iraqi passports. Saddam was directly cooperating with Al Qaeda in operations on US soil to kill Americans - JUST AS HE SAID HE WOULD.

That is a key point. Saddam stated to a US Ambassador that this would be done if we "pressured" him. Right after the Gulf War, the attacks on US soil began, just as Saddam said. And Iraqi government agents were demonstrably involved as well as Al Qaeda. Those are indisputable facts.

And, they were facts the "busies" did not talk about, nor did the media, nor did Clinton. They didn't say anything about it - instead feeding us the LEGAL reasons for taking down Saddam's regime: His defiance of the UN disarmament mandates.

Notice how the attacks ended when Bush took down Saddam?

Before you poohpooh the WMD bit, bear in mind we caught him red-handed. I don't care what is said in the mass media - I care about what is reported as found in Iraq by the folks finding and reviewing the evidence.

Hundreds of WMDs discovered in Iraq
Bombshell report notes 500 chemical weapons including sarin, mustard gas, more to be found
Hundreds of WMDs discovered in Iraq

CIA Statement on Recently Acquired Iraqi Centrifuge Equipment
CIA Statement on Recently Acquired Iraqi Centrifuge Equipment

Nuke program parts unearthed in Baghdad back yard
CNN.com - Nuke program parts unearthed in Baghdad back yard - Jun. 27, 2003

Hundreds of Chemical Weapons Found in Iraq Since 2003, U.S. Intelligence Report Says
NTI: Global Security Newswire - Hundreds of Chemical Weapons Found in Iraq Since 2003, U.S. Intelligence Report Says

Quote:

---

According to Brent Scowcroft and James Baker, (you do know who they are don't you?) the invasion of Iraq was proposed to W by Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz when they went to Texas and talked then governor Bush into running for president.

---

Let's not forget - Al Gore also campaigned on the promise to finish the job in Iraq. They both ran for President at a time when:

1) Official US policy towards Iraq was forceful destruction of Saddam's regime and its replacement with a democratically elected government (Iraq Liberation Act, 1998).

2) After Clinton's miserable failure to accomplish the goals of his own Liberation Act, and his failed bombing campaign against Iraq, Saddam openly defied the disarmament mandates, refused to allow the UN inspectors back in, declared victory over the US and UN, inspiring North Korea, Libya, Iran and others to new boldness as well.

That's why both Gore and Bush promised to finish the job. Obviously, they would plan ahead to get it done. It was NOT a response to 9/11. Let's not forget - Saddam started the war, was offered a temporary cease-fire and never obeyed the terms of the cease-fire. So, Bill Clinton, after bombing Iraq on occasion throughout the 1990s to try and get Saddam to obey, finally called off the cease-fire in 1998. The war was back on and with very good reason.

I say it is you who are the victim of spin doctors. You seem to forget what-all happened since Saddam sent his tanks to conquer Saudi Arabia and Kuwait and lobbed missiles into Israel.

And, the indictments against Bin Laden found something that the reporters happily ignored:

Al Qaeda also forged alliances with the National Islamic Front in the Sudan and with the government of Iran and its associated terrorist group Hezballah for the purpose of working together against their perceived common enemies in the West, particularly the United States. In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq.

Al Qaeda was clearly happy to make alliances that were not specifically their own brand of Islam.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Zeno Swijtink:

The difference is of course that at the time of the last period of warming - which happened slower and over a longer time - there were relatively few people living on Earth

---

If you look at the chart of sea level rise I posted, you'll notice that this particular warming cycle, starting about 18,000 years ago, was quite drastic. It has nearly leveled off now and is progressing more slowly.

Post-Glacial Sea Level Rise
File:Post-Glacial Sea Level.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nobody familiar with recent human history is arguing that warming does not occur. Just a couple thousand years ago, much of the Middle East was grassland. Pictures on temples in Egypt and other countries show animals that cannot possibly survive in the wild there now. And just a few thousand years ago, there was no San Francisco bay - it was a river running into the ocean. But the oceans continued to rise, just as they are now. That river valley filled in slowly, became a bay, and it continues to change. We should expect that. Change is normal on this planet. We would be fools to pretend otherwise.

The problem we face is that humans constructed cities at the water's edge in their ignorance of this ongoing warming process. Big mistake. We cannot stop the Solar System from doing what it does naturally. We did not cause it, either. The best we can do is figure out how we will adjust to the ongoing changes.

Al Gore's greatest deception is to convince people the Earth was stable over the past few thousand years then suddenly started warming as a response to human industry. We can easily prove him a liar.

From about 1945 to about 1980, the Earth went into a frightening cooling spell. The polar ice caps expanded by 15% by 1975 and Global Cooling was the big fear. Dire predictions of a new Ice Age flooded the news channels (I remember them). The CIA did studies on the effects of global cooling and the droughts, starvation and global disruption that were already happening (I have a book published at that time containing CIA report excerpts).

All this happened despite our pumping CO2 into the atmosphere. We could not cause warming if we wanted to.

Al Gore is one of the Big Liars of this century.

Do not forget about the acidification of the Ocean because of the absorption of CO2, i.e. the death of large masses of Sea Coral ecosystems. It is not only so-called “Global Warming” of the atmosphere that our human CO2 emissions have been causing radical environmental changes to.
300.org Urges Reduction Of Atmospheric CO2 To 300 ppm
An Ocean of Unknown | Permaculture Research Institute of Australia
A Look Into Future Oceans - WSJ.com
Coral study finds slowest growth in 400 years « Ocean acidification
Acid oceans*(ScienceAlert)

Below is a name & link to the “authoritative” skeptics on “Global Warming”

I don’t agree with the said conclusions of this but it is info that was asked for some time back on this thread… … American Association of State Climatologists “State Climatologists Skeptical of Administrations Global Warming” American Association of State Climatologists - Man Made Global Warming Debunking News and Links

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Hotspring 44:

Do not forget about the acidification of the Ocean because of the absorption of CO2, i.e. the death of large masses of Sea Coral ecosystems. It is not only so-called “Global Warming” of the atmosphere that our human CO2 emissions have been causing radical environmental changes to.

---

I must question whether we are causing ocean acidification. Our CO2 "contribution" is so tiny compared to what nature is pumping out. Bear in mind that as the oceans warm, they bubble out CO2, freeing it to interact with sea life or to be released into the atmosphere.

Clues to End of the Last Ice Age - increased solar output warmed oceans, melting ice and releasing CO2
Clues to End of the Last Ice Age

What's more, there are some direct contributors to ocean CO2 content that are not mentioned at all in the news. Did we see headlines for this rather monstrous event in 1999? No. This series of volcanic explosions pumped more CO2 directly into the ocean than all of man's industry has generated over the past 200 years.

Arctic volcano released enough heat energy in one explosion (out of many) to melt ice cap area size of Massachusetts
BobKrumm.com » A volcano that rises past the heights of hubris

Arctic ocean volcano blew its top in 1999 – even under pressure
Arctic ocean volcano blew its top – even under pressure - environment - 25 June 2008 - New Scientist

So, while I agree that ocean acidification is happening, there are certainly plenty of natural causes for it. And, it is nothing unusual. Ocean pH changes quite drastically and it has been since the end of the last Ice Age.

Access : Glacial|[ndash]|interglacial stability of ocean pH inferred from foraminifer dissolution rates : Nature

This is largely related to water temperature as well as volcanic activity.

Stephen Schneider is such a disingenuous jerk!...

Inconvenient Censorship: Stanford U. Bans Skeptical Climate Film from Airing Interview with Global Warming Prof. Stephen Schneider -- 'You are prohibited!'

https://www.climatedepot.com/a/3212/...are-prohibited

==============================================

Speak2truth...Appreciate your post above...Thanks...

Good. It would be just as appalling if Stanford started showing films 'skeptical' of evolution or the holocaust, and there's plenty of that whacko idiocy out there too.

You are free to ignore science, thankfully, academia, as yet, is not.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by lynn:

...Stanford U. Bans Skeptical Climate Film from Airing Interview with Global Warming Prof. Stephen Schneider -- 'You are prohibited!'

Inconvenient Censorship: Stanford U. Bans Skeptical Climate Film from Airing Interview with Global Warming Prof. Stephen Schneider -- 'You are prohibited!' | Climate Depot

==============================================

Speak2truth...Appreciate your post above...Thanks...

---

No, Clancy....It is not good to be disingenuous...

And I don't 'ignore' science either...So, quit assuming things about me you know nothing about...You seem to have a tendency for that...Quit it...

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Clancy:

Good. It would be just as appalling if Stanford started showing films 'skeptical' of evolution or the holocaust, and there's plenty of that whacko idiocy out there too.

You are free to ignore science, thankfully, academia, as yet, is not.

---

It's only your opinion that he's being disingenuous, it looks like intellectual integrity to me. Scientific consensus changes as new information comes to light, why is that so hard for some people to understand?

At one time, the best astronomers thought the sun orbited the earth, but it would be silly (and disingenuous) to try to use that fact to support the erroneous belief that the earth is the center of the solar system.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by lynn:

No, Clancy....It is not good to be disingenuous...

And I don't 'ignore' science either...So, quit assuming things about me you know nothing about...You seem to have a tendency for that...Quit it...

---

Clancy...

Ah yes,

There’s your condescending tone again…Just can’t give it up can ya’…

It’s only your opinion…That he’s not being disingenuous…

Of course scientific theory changes…We are suppose to question, and learn…So, there shouldn’t be a need to 'ban' what he thought before…

Now, if you want to keep an attitude of condescension, and criticism that some people ‘ignore’ science…You can write to the scientists who ‘ignore’ science (as you see it)...

...“However, his casual denigration of each of the websites... represents a failure to engage in constructive scientific debate.“...

…”I would be glad to debate Dr. Schneider (or any of the other individuals who are listed).

I also challenge them to refute in the professional literature (and in a debate) the numerous peer reviewed articles and national (e.g. see) and international climate assessments (e.g. see) that present scientific evidence that conflicts with the narrow perspective on climate science that Steve Schneider is representing.”…

https://climatesci.org/2009/05/24/comments-on-the-global-warming-debates-stephen-schneider-in-the-may-24-2009-issue-of-the-examinercom-by-thomas-fuller/

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by lynn:

Skeptical Climate...would be glad to debate Dr. Schneider...

---

Thankfully, Stanford University doesn't provide a podium for oil industry backed RW whackos to "debate" evolution either.

A detailed response to some of the remarks of Pielke Sr can be found at RealClimate of July 1st of this year.

RealClimate: More bubkes

***

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by lynn:

Clancy...

Ah yes,

There’s your condescending tone again…Just can’t give it up can ya’…

It’s only your opinion…That he’s not being disingenuous…

Of course scientific theory changes…We are suppose to question, and learn…So, there shouldn’t be a need to 'ban' what he thought before…

Now, if you want to keep an attitude of condescension, and criticism that some people ‘ignore’ science…You can write to the scientists who ‘ignore’ science (as you see it)...

...“However, his casual denigration of each of the websites... represents a failure to engage in constructive scientific debate.“...

…”I would be glad to debate Dr. Schneider (or any of the other individuals who are listed).

I also challenge them to refute in the professional literature (and in a debate) the numerous peer reviewed articles and national (e.g. see) and international climate assessments (e.g. see) that present scientific evidence that conflicts with the narrow perspective on climate science that Steve Schneider is representing.”…

https://climatesci.org/2009/05/24/comments-on-the-global-warming-debates-stephen-schneider-in-the-may-24-2009-issue-of-the-examinercom-by-thomas-fuller/

---

Clancy....

Not every scientist, or science teacher, or science knowledgable person that is a 'questioner', or 'skeptic' about a doomsday scenario is a 'rw' backed by the oil industry...or just an 'rw' period...

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Clancy:

Thankfully, Stanford University doesn't provide a podium for oil industry backed RW whackos to "debate" evolution either.

---

We're not talking about every scientist, science teacher or knowledgable person.

We're talking about your source, an intellectual weasel who has been thoroughly discredited. Try reading this, it's very interesting...
RealClimate: More bubkes

Now, do you have enough integrity to change your position?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by lynn:

Clancy....

Not every scientist, or science teacher, or science knowledgable person that is a 'questioner', or 'skeptic' about a doomsday scenario is a 'rw' backed by the oil industry...or just an 'rw' period...

---

Speaking of cherry-picking time periods, you might find this enlightening...

https://www.globalwarmingart.com/ima..._Sea_Level.png

And what of the reputability of the folks pushing the notion that humans are the cause of this ocean rise - in order to justify seizing our assets and redistributing our wealth to people in other nations?

Reputation is built by those who "talk about" someone. A man can be completely honest and do good work but have an awful reputation merely because he is constantly bad-mouthed, like the recent President who made great progress moving our nation to carbon-free energy. Or, a man can be sleazy and dishonest yet have a great reputation because, in the public arena, he is talked up.

Let's not pretend "reputation" means anything in the debate over whether to pillage America's assets through carbon cap and trade. Let's stick with the facts and a healthy dose of self-interest. Lord knows, most of the rest of the world is eager to get a cut of the loot seized from the US and that is NOT in our best interests.

If only the truth were the basis for a man's reputation...

James Hansen’s Former NASA Supervisor Declares Himself a Skeptic
Says Hansen ‘Embarrassed NASA’

.: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Minority Page :.

I am cherry-picking this: (in a tongue-in-cheek way)
Marillion Lyrics
Somewhere Else Lyrics: https://www.leoslyrics.com/listlyric...VyFKUHZxPjc%3D
There's no such thing
As an answered prayer
There's no such thing
As the ozone layer
There's no such thing
As an action hero

There's no such thing
As an easy ride
There's no such thing
As a place to hide
There's no such thing
As a perfect day

There's no such thing
As the pearly gates
There's no such thing
As an ordered world
There's no such thing
As an easy girl

No such thing
No such thing

There's no such thing
As peace-of-mind
As a faithful wife
As the bottom line
There's no such thing
As owning something
It's all borrowed for a time
It's all borrowed for a time

There's no such thing
There's no such thing
No such thing
There's no such thing
No such thing:openmic:

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Speak2Truth:

Speaking of cherry-picking time periods, you might find this enlightening...

https://www.globalwarmingart.com/ima..._Sea_Level.png

And what of the reputability of the folks pushing the notion that humans are the cause of this ocean rise - in order to justify seizing our assets and redistributing our wealth to people in other nations?

Reputation is built by those who "talk about" someone. A man can be completely honest and do good work but have an awful reputation merely because he is constantly bad-mouthed, like the recent President who made great progress moving our nation to carbon-free energy. Or, a man can be sleazy and dishonest yet have a great reputation because, in the public arena, he is talked up.

Let's not pretend "reputation" means anything in the debate over whether to pillage America's assets through carbon cap and trade. Let's stick with the facts and a healthy dose of self-interest. Lord knows, most of the rest of the world is eager to get a cut of the loot seized from the US and that is NOT in our best interests.

If only the truth were the basis for a man's reputation...

James Hansen’s Former NASA Supervisor Declares Himself a Skeptic
Says Hansen ‘Embarrassed NASA’

.: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Minority Page :.

---

Record High Temperatures Far Outpace Record Lows Across US

Record High Temperatures Far Outpace Record Lows Across US

ScienceDaily (Nov. 13, 2009) — Spurred by a warming climate, daily record high temperatures occurred twice as often as record lows over the last decade across the continental United States, new research shows. The ratio of record highs to lows is likely to increase dramatically in coming decades if emissions of greenhouse gases continue to climb.

"Climate change is making itself felt in terms of day-to-day weather in the United States," says Gerald Meehl, the lead author and a senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). "The ways these records are being broken show how our climate is already shifting."

The study, by authors at NCAR, Climate Central, The Weather Channel, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), has been accepted for publication in Geophysical Research Letters. It was funded by the National Science Foundation, NCAR's sponsor, the Department of Energy, and Climate Central.

If temperatures were not warming, the number of record daily highs and lows being set each year would be approximately even. Instead, for the period from January 1, 2000, to September 30, 2009, the continental United States set 291,237 record highs and 142,420 record lows, as the country experienced unusually mild winter weather and intense summer heat waves.

A record daily high means that temperatures were warmer on a given day than on that same date throughout a weather station's history. The authors used a quality control process to ensure the reliability of data from thousands of weather stations across the country, while looking at data over the past six decades to capture longer-term trends.

This decade's warming was more pronounced in the western United States, where the ratio was more than two to one, than in the eastern United States, where the ratio was about one-and-a-half to one.

The study also found that the two-to-one ratio across the country as a whole could be attributed more to a comparatively small number of record lows than to a large number of record highs. This indicates that much of the nation's warming is occurring at night, when temperatures are dipping less often to record lows. This finding is consistent with years of climate model research showing that higher overnight lows should be expected with climate change.

More records ahead

In addition to surveying actual temperatures in recent decades, Meehl and his co-authors turned to a sophisticated computer model of global climate to determine how record high and low temperatures are likely to change during the course of this century.

The modeling results indicate that if nations continue to increase their emissions of greenhouse gases in a "business as usual" scenario, the U.S. ratio of daily record high to record low temperatures would increase to about 20-to-1 by mid-century and 50-to-1 by 2100. The mid-century ratio could be much higher if emissions rose at an even greater pace, or it could be about 8-to-1 if emissions were reduced significantly, the model showed.

The authors caution that such predictions are, by their nature, inexact. Climate models are not designed to capture record daily highs and lows with precision, and it remains impossible to know future human actions that will determine the level of future greenhouse gas emissions. The model used for the study, the NCAR-based Community Climate System Model, correctly captured the trend toward warmer average temperatures and the greater warming in the West, but overstated the ratio of record highs to record lows in recent years.

However, the model results are important because they show that, in all likely scenarios of future greenhouse gas emissions, record daily highs should increasingly outpace record lows over time.

"If the climate weren't changing, you would expect the number of temperature records to diminish significantly over time," says Claudia Tebaldi, a statistician with Climate Central who is one of the paper's co-authors. "As you measure the high and low daily temperatures each year, it normally becomes more difficult to break a record after a number of years. But as the average temperatures continue to rise this century, we will keep setting more record highs."

An expanding ratio

The study team focused on weather stations that have been operating since 1950. They found that the ratio of record daily high to record daily low temperatures slightly exceeded one to one in the 1950s, dipped below that level in the 1960s and 1970s, and has risen since the 1980s. The results reflect changes in U.S. average temperatures, which rose in the 1950s, stabilized in the 1960s, and then began a warming trend in the late 1970s.

Even in the first nine months of this year, when the United States cooled somewhat after a string of unusually warm years, the ratio of record daily high to record daily low temperatures was more than three to two.

Despite the increasing number of record highs, there will still be occasional periods of record cold, Meehl notes.

"One of the messages of this study is that you still get cold days," Meehl says. "Winter still comes. Even in a much warmer climate, we're setting record low minimum temperatures on a few days each year. But the odds are shifting so there's a much better chance of daily record highs instead of lows."

Millions of readings from weather stations across the country

The study team analyzed several million daily high and low temperature readings taken over the span of six decades at about 1,800 weather stations across the country, thereby ensuring ample data for statistically significant results. The readings, collected at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Climatic Data Center, undergo a quality control process at the data center that looks for such potential problems as missing data as well as inconsistent readings caused by changes in thermometers, station locations, or other factors.

Meehl and his colleagues then used temperature simulations from the Community Climate System Model to compute daily record highs and lows under current and future atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases.

Journal reference:

Gerald A. Meehl, Claudia Tebaldi, Guy Walton, David Easterling, and Larry McDaniel. The relative increase of record high maximum temperatures compared to record low minimum temperatures in the U.S.. Geophysical Research Letters, (in press)
Adapted from materials provided by National Center for Atmospheric Research/University Corporation for Atmospheric Research.

National Center for Atmospheric Research/University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (2009, November 13). Record High Temperatures Far Outpace Record Lows Across US. ScienceDaily. Retrieved November 13, 2009, from Science Daily: News & Articles in Science, Health, Environment & Technology /releases/2009/11/091112121611.htm

Essentially, what it is saying, is that the COOLING trend of about 1950 to 1970 has finally reversed. That is why it is in the last ten years that the highs outnumbered the lows. One has to pick and choose small periods of time to make any statement other than...

The Earth has been warming, on average, for the past 18000 years. Why should we expect anything different?

What has changed is that today's scammers are no longer claiming it is necessary to rip the living heart out of a human sacrifice every morning to ensure the sun will rise again. Today, they insist that they MUST seize our cash to "save the Earth".

This game is nothing new.

They are your enemies. Professional robbers who hide behind a wall of bureaucracy and seize more of your stuff than any common street thug could.

This link goes to a cool TED talk showing time lapse videos of very rapid glacial retreat at locations in Alaska, Greenland and Iceland. The lecture is interesting, but if you only want to the videos, they start about half way along in the lecture.

James Balog: Time-lapse proof of extreme ice loss | Video on TED.com

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by geomancer:

This link goes to a cool TED talk showing time lapse videos of very rapid glacial retreat at locations in Alaska, Greenland and Iceland. ...

---

It's really amazing how far Al Gore will go in support of his agenda. I still haven't figured out exactly how he's making those glaciers melt. He's such a phony. He's probably up there with a magnifying glass.

-Jeff