For those that buy into Al Gore about global warming and hate Bush

zman1

zman1

Active Member
I had to do a google search on this phrase from the earlier post "between 0.3 and 0.6 degrees Celsius since 1850"
I got this - http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba230.html
Then looked up NCPA on SourceWatch
The NCPA web site states that in 2006 it receives 62% of its funding from foundations, 21% from corporations, and 17% from individuals.
Didn't look up Corporation but the Foundations that support them. A few even stood out to me by name alone.
Eli Lilly Foundation (pharmaceutical - That's for one of their other programs)
ExxonMobil Foundation
El Paso Energy Foundation
John M Oiln Foundation
I didn't know this one - Koch Family Foundations nation's largest privately held energy company, with annual revenues of more than $25 billion
Most of the others are Oil or Energy related.
We know where the rhetoric comes from. You always have to go to the other side to see where they get their funding - LOL Now we need to see who funds SourceWatch (Center for Media and Democracy ). http://www.prwatch.org/finances.html
 
nigerbang

nigerbang

Active Member
Originally Posted by renogaw
tobin, it may not be warmer where you are, but when antartica is dropping ice into the ocean, when all the glaciers are melting, when the snow caps on mountains are melting, when the arctic cap is melting, when iceland is melting, there is proof the world is getting warmer.
aztek: try telling the people who are going to be flooded out of florida, new york, and almost every other beach town area "whooptido" once all this ice melts off the land and drops into the ocean.
i'm not an environmentalist per se. i do believe we're in for a world of trouble though.
Iceland -
It is almost universally assumed that Iceland is underlain by a hot plume rising from deep within the mantle. Nevertheless, this hypothesis is inconsistent with many first-order observations at Iceland, which is the best-studied ridge-centred hotspot on Earth. There is essentially no evidence for very high mantle temperatures, a time-progressive volcanic track, a seismic anomaly in the lower mantle, or radial symmetry in the pattern of geochemical anomalies on land. Iceland is basically a melting anomaly underlain by an upper-mantle seismic low-wave-speed anomaly. Temperatures are only moderately, if at all, elevated above normal mid-ocean ridge temperatures, the geochemistry is spatially and temporally heterogeneous and it differs only subtly from MORB.
Iceland lies where the mid-Atlantic ridge crosses the Caledonian suture, which marks the site of a ~ 400 Myr-old subduction zone. The great melt production there may be explained by enhanced fertility inherited from ancient subducted slabs that still remain in the shallow mantle. This model is consistent with the persistent locus of melt production on the ridge, the lack of geophysical indicators of a plume and the spatial and temporal geochemical heterogeneity of Icelandic basalts.
In this way, Iceland and the associated North Atlantic Igneous Province are explained as natural consequences of relatively shallow processes related to plate tectonics. This contrasts with the plume model, where they are explained by a process entirely independent of plate tectonics – a narrow diapiric upwelling driven by heating at the surface of a deep, hot body such as the Earth's core.
At anyrate...If a country was going to "melt" it would be Greenland....Covered in ice...Iceland - Covered in Forest.
Amazing everyone cries "Global Warming..Listen to the scientist....In the 70's they were saying we were heading for another Ice Age.....Hell if you don't get it right the 1st time...Just change your answer I suppose..
 
renogaw

renogaw

Active Member
Originally Posted by NigerBang
Iceland -
It is almost universally assumed that Iceland is underlain by a hot plume rising from deep within the mantle. Nevertheless, this hypothesis is inconsistent with many first-order observations at Iceland, which is the best-studied ridge-centred hotspot on Earth. There is essentially no evidence for very high mantle temperatures, a time-progressive volcanic track, a seismic anomaly in the lower mantle, or radial symmetry in the pattern of geochemical anomalies on land. Iceland is basically a melting anomaly underlain by an upper-mantle seismic low-wave-speed anomaly. Temperatures are only moderately, if at all, elevated above normal mid-ocean ridge temperatures, the geochemistry is spatially and temporally heterogeneous and it differs only subtly from MORB.
Iceland lies where the mid-Atlantic ridge crosses the Caledonian suture, which marks the site of a ~ 400 Myr-old subduction zone. The great melt production there may be explained by enhanced fertility inherited from ancient subducted slabs that still remain in the shallow mantle. This model is consistent with the persistent locus of melt production on the ridge, the lack of geophysical indicators of a plume and the spatial and temporal geochemical heterogeneity of Icelandic basalts.
In this way, Iceland and the associated North Atlantic Igneous Province are explained as natural consequences of relatively shallow processes related to plate tectonics. This contrasts with the plume model, where they are explained by a process entirely independent of plate tectonics – a narrow diapiric upwelling driven by heating at the surface of a deep, hot body such as the Earth's core.
At anyrate...If a country was going to "melt" it would be Greenland....Covered in ice...Iceland - Covered in Forest.
Amazing everyone cries "Global Warming..Listen to the scientist....In the 70's they were saying we were heading for another Ice Age.....Hell if you don't get it right the 1st time...Just change your answer I suppose..
youre right, i meant greenland. it was early :)
 
renogaw

renogaw

Active Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
Actually...
"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth. "
Taken from the global warming petition. Signed by over 17,000 scientists. The petition and 8 page study can be found at the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine. Peer reviewed study

yea, but this was over 10 years ago. a little closer to our times:
Assessments generally suggest that the Earth’s climate has warmed over the past century and that human activity affecting the atmosphere is likely an important driving factor. A National Research Council study dated May 2001 stated, “Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth’s atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and sub-surface ocean temperatures to rise. Temperatures are, in fact, rising. The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability.”
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggccebro/chapter1.html
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
It's not a bad idea to ENCOURAGE the decrease of CO2/Methane production. Exxon/Mobil, the company the liblabs love to bash has been doing things to reduce it's CO2 emissions for several years. It's never a bad thing to reduce emissions but to run off half cocked because someone with an agenda to push makes claims that can't be substantiated is nuts. How bout we wait until they come up with climate models that work and see what the real results are before we crush the US economy with the Kyoto crap. The idea that China and India wouldn't be subject to the rules is a joke. If the emissions are so bad why can a country buy the right to pollute. Its just a global income redistribution scam.
 
masta man

masta man

Member
If Bush is so "green" then why does he push drilling in Alaska and destroying National parks and killing off animals homes.
 
seasalt101

seasalt101

Active Member
Originally Posted by Masta Man
If Bush is so "green" then why does he push drilling in Alaska and destroying National parks and killing off animals homes.

before i got sick i worked in the oilfields they do not destroy the animals habitat they cut a road bulldoze an area about 300 x 300 to make a pad where they set up the drilling rig drill it frac it put a pumpjack on it and put in a few tank batteries and bury a pipeline then leave i have seen hundreds of animals on locations throughout the nation and because of strict epa guidelines the clean-up is like no one has been there before except for the tanks and pumpjack and in alaska you can only drill in the winter as to not disturb the wildlife so if you know so much about the oilfields share your perspective and expierience with us please...tobin
 
darthtang aw

darthtang aw

Active Member
Originally Posted by renogaw
also, 42 of your last 50 posts were in the aquarium... every post is a controvercial topic... are you doing research or something?

I have been at this site for over 3 years. Not with this name. If you are concerned about my post count and the amount of fish related topics I have posted in look up the names darthtang and Lionkiller.
Not sure what this has to do with anything related to the subject, but, oh well.
The post was meant to show a guy that believes Global warming is the single largest crisis, truly cares nothing for saving the planet. While the guy that doesn't buy into global warming still did the utmost in his ability to not harm the environment with his house.
That is all...nothing more, nothing less.
 
crimzy

crimzy

Active Member
Forgive my redundancy but this is my post from Page 1. I think this may have gotten lost in the thread but I was hoping to see your response:
"No offense Darth, but I really don't see your point here, other than to just rip Gore and try to make Bush look like a hero. In the grand scheme of global warming, each of their respective residences are insignificant compared to the mass effect that their LEGISLATION would have. If Gore attempts to focus his politics on protection of the environment, then he is protecting the environment... period.
Another great point is how much did Bush pay for his ultra technical house of tomorrow with futuristic technology. I'd like to see the price on that bad boy. For anyone who thinks that Bush paid for his house from his oil profits, you are wrong. Bush ran his oil companies into the ground. That is, until the Saudis came in to invest. I hate to tell you this but, indirectly, the Saudis, the kings of terrorism, paid for Bush's multi-million dollar house. No wonder he has so much loyalty to them."
 
darthtang aw

darthtang aw

Active Member
Crimzy,
My intention was not to make BUSH look the hero...maybe not such a bad guy, but not a hero. I am not a huge fan, I support some of the things he does but there is a lot I disagree with personally.
My point is the guy may not buy into global warming as a man made effect. But he does care about the environment to a degree. Enough so that he spent huge amounts to save the environment personally. I have more that I would like to add, but I have to run out for a bit. I will answer more later.
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by Masta Man
If Bush is so "green" then why does he push drilling in Alaska and destroying National parks and killing off animals homes.

I do believe that despite dire prediction of the opposite, the Trans Alaskan oil pipeline has been credited with an increase in the Carabou population.
 
1journeyman

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by renogaw
yea, but this was over 10 years ago. a little closer to our times:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggccebro/chapter1.html
A study 10 years ago is relevant when we're discussing global weather patterns.
Here's a tidbit that's difficult for GW experts to explain:" The overall rise of about plus 0.5 ºC during the 20th century is often cited in support of ''global warming'' (38). Since, however, 82% of the CO2 rise during the 20th century occurred after the rise in temperature (see figures 1 and 12), the CO2 increase cannot have caused the temperature increase...."
I'm all for a cleaner environment. I'm all for cutting admissions. What I'm not for is bad science being spewed from hypocrites. If Gore was truely concerned about global warming he would change his lifestyle. Not tell me to change mine.
And for those he are attacking the President for making money in the oil business:
*Gore didn't switch to "green" energy until after it was reported that he had the option but wasn't using it (USAToday)
*The DNC has chosen not to pay an additional 2 cents a Kwh to switch to green power (he might want to convince his own party...)
*Gore's estate owns hundreds of thousands of dollars in stock of Occidental (Oxy) Petroleum.. look up their environmental and safety record.
*And last, let's not forget the Zinc mine on his property Gore was receiving cash from every year. It's reported the mine "emitted thousands of pounds of toxic substances and several times, the water discharged from the mines into nearby rivers had levels of toxins above what was legal."
Seriously, does this guy believe in global warming?
 
kogle

kogle

Member
I don't think the animals care whether we drill there or not. They're not biased as to whether they live by a tree or a tower.
I think it's pompous of the human race to think we could do anything to end this planet's existence. If anything the planet will end ours!

"did you know that toyota is making cars in america now because it is cheaper to make the inefficient cars for united states use than the cars they can use in japan?"
And Renogaw do you have any idea what you're talking about?
 
seasalt101

seasalt101

Active Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
A study 10 years ago is relevant when we're discussing global weather patterns.
Here's a tidbit that's difficult for GW experts to explain:" The overall rise of about plus 0.5 ºC during the 20th century is often cited in support of ''global warming'' (38). Since, however, 82% of the CO2 rise during the 20th century occurred after the rise in temperature (see figures 1 and 12), the CO2 increase cannot have caused the temperature increase...."
I'm all for a cleaner environment. I'm all for cutting admissions. What I'm not for is bad science being spewed from hypocrites. If Gore was truely concerned about global warming he would change his lifestyle. Not tell me to change mine.
And for those he are attacking the President for making money in the oil business:
*Gore didn't switch to "green" energy until after it was reported that he had the option but wasn't using it (USAToday)
*The DNC has chosen not to pay an additional 2 cents a Kwh to switch to green power (he might want to convince his own party...)
*Gore's estate owns hundreds of thousands of dollars in stock of Occidental (Oxy) Petroleum.. look up their environmental and safety record.
*And last, let's not forget the Zinc mine on his property Gore was receiving cash from every year. It's reported the mine "emitted thousands of pounds of toxic substances and several times, the water discharged from the mines into nearby rivers had levels of toxins above what was legal."
Seriously, does this guy believe in global warming?
great post journeyman
...tobin
 
darthtang aw

darthtang aw

Active Member
Originally Posted by crimzy
Forgive my redundancy but this is my post from Page 1. I think this may have gotten lost in the thread but I was hoping to see your response:
"No offense Darth, but I really don't see your point here, other than to just rip Gore and try to make Bush look like a hero. In the grand scheme of global warming, each of their respective residences are insignificant compared to the mass effect that their LEGISLATION would have. If Gore attempts to focus his politics on protection of the environment, then he is protecting the environment... period.
Another great point is how much did Bush pay for his ultra technical house of tomorrow with futuristic technology. I'd like to see the price on that bad boy. For anyone who thinks that Bush paid for his house from his oil profits, you are wrong. Bush ran his oil companies into the ground. That is, until the Saudis came in to invest. I hate to tell you this but, indirectly, the Saudis, the kings of terrorism, paid for Bush's multi-million dollar house. No wonder he has so much loyalty to them."

Regardless of what he paid...he still did it. That is my point. You can't tell me Al Gore couldn't move to a more environmentally friendly state where they allow his solar panels. The guy has more money than GOD at this point. Is his family so big the need that big of a house and that much energy usage?
 
nigerbang

nigerbang

Active Member
Originally Posted by Masta Man
If Bush is so "green" then why does he push drilling in Alaska and destroying National parks and killing off animals homes.

As I am moving to AK.....Why dont you take a look at who some of the biggest supporters are to oil drilling....Survey Says: ALASKANS!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top