No disagreement, there, Jan

One word.. Manbearpig.

Cool! Amazing to think they were swimming in Nevada. And Lake Lahontan is just a trickle of what it once was in the Pleistocene. Isn't it interesting that the climate has only changed in the last 100 years.

Yes! Many times. In fact, I used to live in Gabbs in 1987-1988.

whatta scam. . make the world kiss your butt and
give you money for retirement, when you're already
wealthy. . amazing. . I prefer honesty. -- j

Did you ever go see the Icthyosaurs in Gabbs?

The whole climate change thing is a complete scam. Trying to claim that CO2 is a pollutant is ludicrous. It is one of the basic components of earth and something life on earth is dependent on. Trying to say it is a "greenhouse" gas is ridiculous when basic water vapor in the atmosphere is by far the most common greenhouse factor.

I have two degrees in geology. Studies in Quaternary geology alone render the whole climate change global warming thing absurd. Talk about established science. I've seen the glacial striations on the top of Mt Washington in New Hampshire created when New England was under a mile thick continental glacier as little as 13,000 years ago. When I lived in Fallon, Nevada I was the proud owner of lake bottom property. As little as 10,000 years ago my house would have been under 400 feet of Lake Lahontan water in the Great Basin. There have been periods in the Holocene alone that were both much hotter and colder than anything seen since the big bad industrial revolution began.

This whole thing is a power grabbing scam of immense proportions. It would almost be admirable if it weren't so damn dangerous.

Is this former Democrat Presidential candidate actually suggesting that we should punish individuals who have an opinion that differs from the government?
Wait a minute!!!!
Isn’t that what Obama does?
There is a common theme here, isn’t there?
Apparently the First Amendment of our Constitution only guarantees free speech for liberal Democrats.

CG - You are correct at the bottom line. I too have done substantial research into anthropogenic Warming and I have found it unsubstantialed. But no matter!

We can agree that science, technology, and improved education and standard of living is the path to take into a more benign future.

Jan, not a steward of nobody nohow

Biofuels have turned out to be a bad idea. Something like 40% of the corn harvest is now dedicated to biofuels, which depletes that amount of corn available for nutrition. Output of farmed land would has gone up 20% over the last decade without an increase in the footprint of agricultural land. http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/mor...

If environmentalists and warmists get out of the way, we will have no problem in feeding the likely max population of 10-10.5 billion without increasing the amount of farmland. Indeed, if Africa and S.Am begin using modern farming techniques, we can probably decrease the footprint, release more land to nature, and still feed the world.

Jan, sad when people suffer because science is stonewalled

Being so close to being President - a gagging
thought, which brings to mind Gas-Bag-Biden;
just as scary.....

Because if he has his way we might be in jail or lined up against a wall and shot.

Unfortunately (speaking as an engineer that participated in the "Weather War" studies) science has become infested with a religious aura, implying the truth is a matter of faith rather than fact. I prefer to simply point out some facts that neither side can refute:

1) 70% of the world's energy supply comes from carbon-based sources
2) 20% of the world's energy supply comes from nuclear sources
3) 7% of the world's energy supply comes from hydroelectric sources
4) Only 3% of the world's energy supply comes from geothermal, wind, solar, and tidal sources

If we honestly tried to flip this model on its head, by a vigorous program of building more "clean" energy sources, we'd have to use lots more of the supply we have the most of for production, construction, and transportation. That would mean expending even more carbon-based energy in the near term to construct the clean energy infrastructure. To restrain the use of carbon-based supply, by whatever means, automatically restrains the increase in the supply of "clean" energy.

There's no "free lunch", and all of the push to penalize carbon production is simply a ruse to bilk the dupes into putting more money in the pockets of crooks like Gore.

No washboards in streams. The epa would not allow that. Also no bathing, hair washing or dish cleaning.

IMHO, the global warming hysteria (uh, climate change, excuse me) started out as a scientific inquiry, but gradually morphed into a tool of the collectivists who now dominate the national and international conversations. So, I do think the solutions cause more serious issues, the same as moving from capitalism toward socialism does. As it see it, this whole drama is another tool to bring forth massive collectivism, with the high priests gaining the adulation and adoration of the masses. It's the same theme and process done over and over again throughout history, except this time it will have far more serious consequences.

No, jimjamesjames, the scary part is that 90% of the people around you think that he is not a joke.

Jan

The 97% claim was based on a retroactive study by an explicitly pro-global warming panel of their selection of peer-reviewed journal articles published in the prior 2 years. The panel decided that 97% of the authors, based on these articles, were pro-global warming. (Some of the authors demurred, but not many. You lost your grants if you were labeled AGW.)

Jan

Well he does have to pay for his mansion and private jet.

Biofuels were once part of the solution, and I gladly accepted money (their value) for goods and services provided (my value) to those wishing to absolve themselves of their climate change guilt. That ended when it became clear that Zero would be President in late 2008.

He meant, in that context, to urge people to make global warming a single issue, and refuse to vote for anyone who will not accept "his" science.

He has the right to say that, and we're free to listen, or not, as we wish.

And of course I recommend not.

Because he does not mean a word of what he says.

If he did, he would not live the mega-mansion, private jet, chauffeured-limousine lifestyle.

He would do the "Living With Ed" thing, for real. ("Living With Ed," starring Ed Begley, Jr.; Home and Garden Television.)

Nonsense. Climate has been changing for thousands of years all by itself. Up and Down. This IS just another government sponsored power play to gain more control over us. If indeed the climate is changing, so be it. Its happened before we burned fossil fuels. Not to say that burning fuels is particularly efficient in itself. Its not sustainable anyway, as there isnt an unlimited supply of fossil fuels. Other ways will be found to get us the energy we want and need. And it sure isnt government that will get those ways !!

Why would they waste inviting this dude to speak. He is just trying to get government more tax money and more powers. I am so DONE with that

Al Gore's giant carbon footprint is an embarrassment to anyone who believe the GW fraud. He needs to live in a small apartment, fly coach and stop eating so much.