Any air breathers out there?

[Todd Stromdahl]

If so please go to Al Gores web-site. He is going to congress on March 21st and has more than 350,000 signatures to support the environment and is working to get 500,000.

Thank you for your help!

We are now within striking distance of collecting over 500,000 messages to deliver to Congress and have less than 48 hours to get it done in time for the hearings.

Ask any friend who wants to end the climate crisis to sign our message to Congress now by visiting:

http://algore.com/cards.html

[Michael Larson]

Todd,

Perhaps you should read this.

Washington, DC (March 19) – The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee should ask Al Gore the following “inconvenient’ questions about global warming when Mr. Gore testifies before the Committee on March 21. The questions for Mr. Gore were drafted by JunkScience.com.

1. CONVENIENT JUNK SCIENCE? In “An Inconvenient Truth”, you showed a graph of historic changes in temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, and implied that the graph showed that changes in carbon dioxide levels precede (and, therefore, cause) changes in temperature. While you called the actual relationship “complex,” you failed to disclose that scientific data actually indicate that changes in temperature tend to precede changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide by hundreds of years – a relationship that entirely contradicts the notion of, and alarm about manmade global warming.
Question: Did you intentionally mislead movie viewers about the actual relationship between global temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide?

2. ‘DO AS I SAY, NOT AS I DO’ ENVIRONMENTALISM? At the end of “An Inconvenient Truth,” the movie tells viewers that, “You can change the way you live” – meaning you can reduce the amount of energy you use. Yet a recent report from the Tennessee Center for Policy Research indicates that your Nashville mansion consumed more than 20 times the electricity than the national average. Last August, your mansion burned more than twice the electricity in a single month as the average American family uses in an entire year. Your heated pool house alone uses more than $500 in electricity every month.
Question: Isn’t it hypocritical for you to tell everyone else to reduce their energy consumption while you consume energy at levels 20 times greater than the average American?

3. CLIMATE PROFITEERING? Your spokesman defended your enormous home use of electricity by stating that you offset your use through purchases of carbon offsets. But as it turns out, it is actually a UK-based business that you are involved with in that purchases the credits. Moreover, the vendor of your firm’s carbon offsets admits on its web site that offsets have no impact on global climate. What is the actual financial cost or benefit to you personally of purchasing the offsets?
Question: Do you or does your business profit directly or indirectly from carbon offsets and will you open your financial records to independent inspection as verification of your response?

4. THE REAL INCONVENIENT TRUTH? Last week, the UK’s Channel 4 premiered a 75-minute film entitled, “The Great Global Warming Swindle.” Through interviews with prize-winning climate experts and others, this masterful documentary explains the origins of global warming alarmism; debunks claims of man-made global climate change; exposes the motivations of organizations, scientists and activists sounding the alarm; and explains why it’s been extremely difficult, if not downright dangerous, for climate scientists to question global warming orthodoxy publicly. The entire film, which is creating quite a stir among tens of thousands of web viewers, can be viewed online at http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...65474899458831.
Question: Have you watched the “The Great Global Warming Swindle,” which among other things, exposes your effort to confuse viewers about the historic relationship between global temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide?

5. DEBATE DUCKING? You have been challenged to debate global warming by “Skeptical Environmentalist” author Bjorn Lomborg and have been asked to co-sponsor a televised debate between scientists on global warming by Steve Milloy of JunkScience.com. You’ve rejected both requests.
Question: Why are you afraid to participate in a public debate about global warming?
“I hope that the Senators on the Committee have the courage to ask Mr. Gore these and other crucial questions relating to his sky-is-falling crusade to persuade the American people to turn over their energy policy and, ultimately, the economy” to radical environmentalists,” said Steve Milloy of JunkScience.com.

“While global warming alarmism seems to be providing both financial and political benefits to Mr. Gore” said Milloy, “the rest of us are getting a far shorter end of the stick.”

[Todd Stromdahl]

In 1986 I was stationed in Antarctica while in the Navy, working with the National Science Foundation. At that point in time the scientists were working to measure the hole in the ozone and drilling at the polar plateau to get ice samples from as far back as 300,000 years. Even then the discussions were about how fast the CO2 levels were changing and that this was a direct connection to burning fossil fuels. You can believe what you want but I am convinced that Mankind is leaving a big footprint on the environment, but then again I think that the earth is round and Nicotine is addictive.

[Michael Larson]

As to your ice cores, perhaps you should read this as well.

What Is Driving Global Climate?
Science isn't done by consensus. It's done by rigorous testing. When a hypothesis -- or a computer model -- fails to correspond to the actual real-world data, you throw it out.
That's what the real climate scientists are doing. They have found, in recent years, a very close correspondence between global climate and variations in the amount of radiation the Earth receives from the Sun.
The light and heat we get varies depending on the distance and position of the Earth and the amount of radiation the Sun puts out. The Earth's distance and position seem to determine the big cycles -- the Ice Ages -- and the Sun's variations seem to determine the smaller climate cycles.
We have historical data indicating several global warm periods. There was one during the heyday of the Roman Empire; then there was a global cooling during the Dark Ages (beginning about 600 a.d.) The Medieval Warming kicked in about 950, followed by the Little Ice Age beginning about 1300.
The Little Ice Age ended in about 1860. You'll notice that most reports on our modern Global Warming set that as their base point, and leave out all prior warmings.
But those warm periods are real, as are the cool periods. Ice core samples from various places around the world back it up, as do ocean floor samples. In fact, the predictions based on the 1500-year (approximately) solar cycle are borne out everywhere.
There's now at least as much real-world evidence supporting the solar cycle as the cause of climate variation -- including all of today's climate variation -- than there was for, say, tectonic plates or the asteroid-caused extinctions at the time when they were first plastered all over the media as the hottest science news of their day.

MORE

[Henry Valenzano, CMI]

Not HOT air

[Michael Larson]

Originally Posted by hvalenzano

Not HOT air

Like this?

[mthomas2]

Originally Posted by mlarson

4. THE REAL INCONVENIENT TRUTH? Last week, the UK’s Channel 4 premiered a 75-minute film entitled, “The Great Global Warming Swindle.” Through interviews with prize-winning climate experts and others, this masterful documentary explains the origins of global warming alarmism; debunks claims of man-made global climate change....

See comment 109 here for an example of how this "masterful" account was created:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...#comment-27434

[Henry Valenzano, CMI]

Originally Posted by mlarson

Like this?

Yep Exactly Hot Air

[Michael Larson]

Originally Posted by mthomas2

See comment 109 here for an example of how this "masterful" account was created:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...#comment-27434

Seems the director Martin Durkind disputes Mr. Wunsch's claim and relates some of the "feeble" attacks against his "Global Warming Swindle" program:

"So what else do they hit me with? Prof Carl Wunsch, of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who appeared in the film, later claimed he was duped into taking part. He was not."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.../ngreen218.xml

[Michael Larson]

The Real 'Inconvenient Truth
Greenhouse, global warming - and some facts

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/index.html

[spickett]

I dont see Mr. Stromdahl responding and defending his efforts now.

[Joe Funderburk, CMI]

Originally Posted by tstromdahl

If so please go to Al Gores web-site. He is going to congress on March 21st and has more than 350,000 signatures to support the environment and is working to get 500,000.

Let me guess. You're 15 years old and got this information in your science class.

[tmantsch]

PSSST...

Anybody want a good deal on Carbon Credits????
I just happen to come across a few extras I'm willing to let
go for a good price....

[Brian E. Kelly]

Originally Posted by mlarson

The Real 'Inconvenient Truth
Greenhouse, global warming - and some facts

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/index.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/...n1415985.shtml
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming...l-warming.html
http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-basics/

So there were a couple of flaws in the film Michael, what of it?
The consensus is that global warming is caused by adding crap into the atmosphere, not really that hard to understand.
Smog is not good for human life.

I for one would rather buy American made alt fuel technology vehicles, fuel cells etc than let some politically motivated Luddites tell me that OIL/COAL or the answer. Heck I would rather see more Nukes than coal fired plants.

[nwagner]

Originally Posted by bkelly2

The consensus is that global warming is caused by adding crap into the atmosphere, not really that hard to understand.
Smog is not good for human life.

I think that's the problem. It's too easily "understood" and therefore is shielded from healthy debate.