The heart of the debate IS THE SCIENCE!

Sharr on December 9, 2009 at 9:39 PM

Yes, but maybe that is a pointless debate.

Climate change happens; the world has been getting warmer since the last ice age. If the warming continues then there will be effects we humans don’t like, so it makes sense to consider what adjustments we should make.

We could be discussing how to transform today’s deserts into tomorrow’s fields and gardens, how to relocate people from areas that were inhabitable to areas that will be inhabitable, how to reduce pollution in general, how to contain population growth without having wars.

But instead of those interesting and useful discussions we have this endless, pointless squabble about
a substance which is the major building block of life.

This will probably be part of mandated Obamacare so I’m trying to beat the rush by mentioning it.

Okay….LIBS….attention!!!

You get a raft made of previously cut down timber (old logs) and you tie all about 10 or 12 logs together with natural rope. Then you set off to an area offshore near a proposed reef. Then you cut yourself and bleed and throw yourself overboard (make sure you anchored down the raft so it will make a good reef when it finally sinks).

This will FINALLY put your money where your mouth is. You can eliminate your CO2 emissions (reducing them to zero actually). You’ll feed local marine life (helping the eco system) and you’ll build a sustainable future for all the little feeshies below. Oh, and one more plus….the world will be rid of another lying liberal. (Of course, I’m kidding).

Hey, with China and now even some Canadians pushing a one child policy how far can it be until the Government can mandate how we die? or when?

Rafts anyone?

Gore is a crybaby loser (THANK GOD) of the 2000 election.

He’s a lying hypocrite.

He and his other lying minions have had the veil ripped away by the only member of the GOP (girly men all) to call them out on it……..SARAH HEATH PALIN.

Gore…….you’re so 90′s dude.

Find a buffet and sit a spell.

Jeebus!

The difference is that we more or less understand gravity.

Anthropogenic global warming is the 21st century equivalent of witchcraft – you see something, you don’t quite know how to explain it, you make up a theory, browbeat others into supporting it, pick a villain you do understand and attack it.

DSchoen on December 9, 2009 at 8:43 PM

I think the question would be who would ever be in a position to tell gore….certainly no one he prefers to talk to, they wouldn’t point it out even if they were smart enough to recognize the error. And we already know he’s NEVER gonna actually debate anyone with knowledge of the science, he’d come off looking even dumber about it than he already does (yes, that is possible).

http://www.cashill.com/twa800/climategate.htm

“I think this is a completely annoying distraction,” added Kim Carstensen, leader of the World Wildlife Fund’s Global Climate Initiative.

Yes. Facts really suck when you’re trying to get grant money.

Or maybe he simply doesn’t want to alienate someone like Palin who accepts that climate change is happening and even concedes that man may be contributing to it. She could be useful to him eventually in forging a consensus that global warming is real, even if the debate over its chief cause will rage on.

ALLAHPUNDIT, ARE YOU AN IDIOT? CHECK OUT ED MORRISEY’S POST. CLIMATE REALLY CHANGES OVER TIME.

READ PALIN’S OP-ED AGAIN. AND STOP CONJECTURING.

CHECK OUT PALIN’S RESPONSE.

PALIN IS LIKE MOST OF US: ALWAYS ABREAST OF FACTS AND NEW DEVELOPMENT.

SO STOP YOUR OUR FABRICATED INSINUATIONS AGAINST PALIN.

How about updating with Sarah’s snappy reply to this idiot Gore.

Oh, and I think you misrepresent her thoughts on “climate change.”

On purpose, or just dumb? Which are you?

A quick summary of the critique says that the EPA “relied on outdated ‘foundational’ documents” (some of which we now know are flawed)’ that it “ignored human adaptation to climate change”; that “no independent peer review in the scientific (not political) sense took place”; and that it “was influenced by publication bias.”

One other point of significance is that the Cato study objects to the lumping of carbon dioxide in with the other endangering gases.

The Cato publication, well-substantiated with studies by notable scientists, also details six examples of errors in the proposed (now stated) endangerment ruling.

Allowing a federal agency to wield such far-reaching power over our economy and our energy policy is downright criminal without further serious scrutiny.

and I agree with Gore that there is, clearly, a problem.
I don’t like the way this debate becomes all about the science.
AnninCA on December 9, 2009 at 8:49 PM

The major issue I have besides the questionable science behind AGW is that Mr. Gore does not live like their is a problem. He uses more energy in a month than I do in two years. If he honestly believed that energy sourced from CO2 emitting compounds was catastrophic he would prove it by his life style. He is the ultimate hypocrite.
The real science shows that there have been a large number of periods in between glacial periods in which warming has been higher by several degrees than current and the speed of the warming much faster. All of these periods occurred before the industrial revolution and man’s larger emissions of CO2.