Sarah Palin Versus Al Gore On Global Warning
Crap Detector
such a the temperature of the earth's core
is 2 million degrees Fahrenheit when according to qualified geologists
it is only in the thousands of degrees?
If it were in the millions like the sun, scientists say that everyone
on the earth's surface would be cooked.
Of course, Palin who argues that even if there is some global warming,
it is not necessarily caused by CO2
but a periodic increase of energy from the the sun, is at a
disadvantage in debating Gore because he
invented the Internet.
Gore has also said that the number of polar bears have recently
declined sharply when actually studies show their population to have
increased.
So just which one of the two, Palin or Gore, is more honest and
knowledgeable.?Apparently most believe that
Palin is, as her new book is estimated to sell over 5 million copies
whereas Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth"
has sold only about 40,000.
Phlip
> it is not necessarily caused by CO2
Who comes from a /de facto/ petrostate, where Big Oil runs the gov't essentially
as a combination of welfare and medieval feudalism...
Sueki Tartridge
What runs Dr.Gore's state? Carbon credits to useful dolts like you??
5295 Dead, 428 since 1/20/09
> Should we believe anything crackpot liberal/Democrat Al Gore says, such
> a the temperature of the earth's core is 2 million degrees Fahrenheit
> when according to qualified geologists it is only in the thousands of
> degrees? If it were in the millions like the sun, scientists say that
> everyone on the earth's surface would be cooked.
>
> Of course, Palin who argues that even if there is some global warming,
> it is not necessarily caused by CO2
> but a periodic increase of energy from the the sun, is at a disadvantage
> in debating Gore because he invented the Internet.
Shouldn't be too hard for Sarah to come up with figures showing an
increase in solar radiation. It's easy to measure, and they have
accurate measurements going back to 1865.
And with all the petrodollars that keeps Alaska afloat, I'm sure they can
afford to research it for her.
>
> Gore has also said that the number of polar bears have recently declined
> sharply when actually studies show their population to have increased.
>
Actually, they have decreased overall since the 1970s (they had been
climbing prior to that) but it varies from region to region. I'm hearing
reports of polar bears showing up south of the tree line and mating
successfully with Kodiaks, so I think they'll make out ok.
> So just which one of the two, Palin or Gore, is more honest and
> knowledgeable.?Apparently most believe that Palin is, as her new book is
> estimated to sell over 5 million copies whereas Gore's "An Inconvenient
> Truth" has sold only about 40,000.
GORE! Jesus, you have to be fucking nuts to even compare them.
Let us know when Palin gets an Oscar or a Nobel Prize, ok?
Jesus Chrysler
<cice...@rogers.com> wrote:
>Should we believe anything crackpot liberal/Democrat Al Gore says,
>such a the temperature of the earth's core
>is 2 million degrees Fahrenheit when according to qualified geologists
>it is only in the thousands of degrees?
>If it were in the millions like the sun, scientists say that everyone
>on the earth's surface would be cooked.
>
>Of course, Palin who argues that even if there is some global warming,
>it is not necessarily caused by CO2
>but a periodic increase of energy from the the sun, is at a
>disadvantage in debating Gore because he
>invented the Internet.
Number one, Al Gore never claimed to have "invented the Internet." He
was one of several members or Congress who were instrumental in
funding the old DARPANET and funding the work that led to today's
Internet.
http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp
http://www.perkel.com/politics/gore/internet.htm
But the real question is what, if anything, did Gore actually do to
create the modern Internet? According to Vincent Cerf, a senior vice
president with MCI Worldcom who's been called the Father of the
Internet, "The Internet would not be where it is in the United States
without the strong support given to it and related research areas by
the Vice President in his current role and in his earlier role as
Senator."
The inventor of the Mosaic Browser, Marc Andreesen, credits Gore with
making his work possible. He received a federal grant through Gore's
High Performance Computing Act. The University of Pennsylvania's Dave
Ferber says that without Gore the Internet "would not be where it is
today."
Joseph E. Traub, a computer science professor at Columbia University,
claims that Gore "was perhaps the first political leader to grasp the
importance of networking the country. Could we perhaps see an end to
cheap shots from politicians and pundits about inventing the
Internet?"
Number two: The claim about a periodic increase of energy from the
sun is nonsense.
>
>Gore has also said that the number of polar bears have recently
>declined sharply when actually studies show their population to have
>increased.
Bull. Shit.
http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/ask-the-experts/population/
First, it's important to note that scientists lack historical data on
polar bear numbers�they only have rough estimates. What we do know,
though, is that in the 1960s, polar bear populations dropped
precipitously due to over-hunting. When restrictions on polar bear
harvests were put in place in the early 1970s, populations rebounded.
That situation was a conservation success story ... but the current
threat to polar bears is entirely different, and more dire.
Today's polar bears are facing the rapid loss of the sea-ice habitat
that they rely on to hunt, breed, and, in some cases, to den. Last
summer alone, the melt-off in the Arctic was equal to the size of
Alaska, Texas, and the state of Washington combined�a shrinkage that
was not predicted to happen until 2040. The loss of Arctic sea ice has
resulted in a shorter hunting season for the bears, which has led to a
scientifically documented decline in the best-studied population,
Western Hudson Bay, and predictions of decline in the second
best-studied population, the Southern Beaufort Sea.
Both populations are considered representative of what will likely
occur in other polar bear populations should these warming trends
continue. The Western Hudson Bay population has dropped by 22% since
1987. The Southern Beaufort Sea bears are showing the same signs of
stress the Western Hudson Bay bears did before they crashed, including
smaller adults and fewer yearling bears.
At the most recent meeting of the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group
(Copenhagen, 2009), scientists reported that of the 19 subpopulations
of polar bears, eight are declining, three are stable, one is
increasing, and seven have insufficient data on which to base a
decision. (The number of declining populations has increased from five
at the group's 2005 meeting.)
Some members of the press take advantage of the complexity by stating
that "polar bears are not in trouble�their numbers have doubled since
the 1960s." That's a disingenuous statement, of course. It is true
that polar bear populations rebounded after over-hunting was
restricted, but that situation has nothing to do with the threat polar
bears now face: the loss of the sea ice habitat essential to their
survival.
>
>So just which one of the two, Palin or Gore, is more honest and
>knowledgeable.?Apparently most believe that
>Palin is, as her new book is estimated to sell over 5 million copies
>whereas Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth"
>has sold only about 40,000.
So you're telling me that people are buying Palin's book because she
is a climate change guru??? What a joke. Her book is selling because
Newsmax bought the book by the tens of thousands to give away as a
premium with a Newsmax subscription.
http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/2006/INCVT-DVD.php
You conveniently forgot to mention the 1,660,000 copies of the DVD of
"Inconvenient Truth" that have been sold and that likely are
being/have been viewed by many times that many people, as opposed to
Sarah Palin's book which will be read by the one person who reads it
-- if that.
Then, there's the theater showings of "Inconvenient Truth" that drew
large crowds.
Butteye_Jest
Jesus Chrysler <JesusC...@live.com> wrote:
Good shot. If truth were bullets, he'd be dead.
--
Ole Butteye
Sunny Malone
>
> Good shot. If truth were bullets, he'd be dead.
>
> --
> Ole Butteye
If truth were bullets, Lamby, AKA "Crap Detector" would have died the
first time someone rebutted his lies and distortions YEARS ago when he
first started spreading his bullshit on Usenet. Seriously, this dude
has been at it since the mid1990s (check the google archives) when I
was still in grade school. Unfortunately, the rebuttals (whether well
thought out or flippant) never faze him. The old coot simply moves on
to the next rant/talking point as dictated by Limbaugh, Coulter, Palin
or Ingraham.
Crap Detector
John Q Public
You should respect your elders little marxist fuckwit!
Crap Detector
***
Why does Obama give himself a "solid" B+ on his first year as
president but will not reveal his own university grades or release his
thesis?
Last night on national TV Sean Hannity gave Obama an "F" on everything
except teleprompter reading for which he was given an A.
I agree with Sean.
5295 Dead, 428 since 1/20/09
Sure can. Let us know when Palin's book becomes the most watched
documentary outside of Michael Moore's work, too.
Phlip
> >it is not necessarily caused by CO2
> >but a periodic increase of energy from the the sun, is at a
> >disadvantage in debating Gore because he
> >invented the Internet.
>
> Number one, Al Gore never claimed to have "invented the Internet."
wingnut + facts == confusion
Phlip
> You should respect your elders little marxist fuckwit!
"One morning I shat an elephant in my pajamas. How that elephant gat
in my pajamas I'll nevah know." --Marx
Casey Terry
Didn't Ann Coulter say that she invented transexuals?
It must be a fact, I saw it on Fox News. The same place where all
right wing facts originate, including how Al Gore claimed to have
invented the Internet and how there are millions of theories about
Global Warming out there, unfortunately they're all by right wing
retards who have no qualifications in climate science at all and would
take the word of their Dentist in matters concerning coronary health,
simply because their Dentist is a Doctor too and that's good enough
for a rightist.
Specialties are of no concern to right wing wacko. A Ph. D. in
philosophy is a Dr. and eminently as qualified as a Cardiothoracic
Surgeon to operate on them.
These pinheaded loons are too easy to shoot down.
Phlip
> Last night on national TV Sean Hannity gave Obama an "F" on everything
> except teleprompter reading for which he was given an A.
> I agree with Sean.
...uh, Sean was reading a teleprompter at the time...
Gisele
news:jbvdi5h2tr3grbj5p...@4ax.com:
Thanks for posting this! Right-wingers and their Faux News sound
bites....lol.
<snip really good stuff for brevity>
Added to what was said about Gore:
... and all the awards he got. Wonder which awards Palin would
get?...<eg> Now you have to admit, that's a good straight line.
Anyone got a good zinger?
Gisele
David Johnston
election?
Chom Noamsky
Stop the presses!!! OH MY GOD!!!!
jr92
> > Should we believe anything crackpot liberal/Democrat Al Gore says, such
> > a the temperature of the earth's core is 2 million degrees Fahrenheit
> > when according to qualified geologists it is only in the thousands of
> > degrees? If it were in the millions like the sun, scientists say that
> > everyone on the earth's surface would be cooked.
>
> > Of course, Palin who argues that even if there is some global warming,
> > it is not necessarily caused by CO2
> > but a periodic increase of energy from the the sun, is at a disadvantage
> > in debating Gore because he invented the Internet.
>
> Shouldn't be too hard for Sarah to come up with figures showing an
> increase in solar radiation. It's easy to measure, and they have
> accurate measurements going back to 1865.
>
Actually, it is solar FLARES, not solar radiation, that many believe
contributes much more to climate change than mankind could ever hope
to do so, even in his wildest dreams. There is a difference. Kinda
like comparing climate change to weather.
Of course, you know that, you old intellect you!
Now, wow us with some of your wisdom in your comeback.
> And with all the petrodollars that keeps Alaska afloat, I'm sure they can
> afford to research it for her.
>
Kinda like those govo-dollars that keep the enviro scienstists
spouting their bullshit about climate change with grant money being
the carrot at the end of the stick????? I am sure the governement can
afford to fund these puppets with endless tax-dollars to find
something that isn't there, and can use the state media to help
promote this "cause" to boot. Anyone who challenges these enviro-
idioits are dismissed by said governement and media as being "wacko",
or the sort.
Unlike the 60's when the same people who are in charge today were
urging, and being urged to, question those whom you don't agree with.
Once again, hypocrity at it's best.
> > Gore has also said that the number of polar bears have recently declined
> > sharply when actually studies show their population to have increased.
>
> Actually, they have decreased overall since the 1970s (they had been
> climbing prior to that) but it varies from region to region. I'm hearing
> reports of polar bears showing up south of the tree line and mating
> successfully with Kodiaks, so I think they'll make out ok.
>
Actually, that is not the case, unless you have personally counted all
the polar bears yourself.
Those who are paid to do so, say the numbers are increasing.
Quit lying, or playing with the truth.
If you have been counting them yourself, please let us know your
findings.
> > So just which one of the two, Palin or Gore, is more honest and
> > knowledgeable.?Apparently most believe that Palin is, as her new book is
> > estimated to sell over 5 million copies whereas Gore's "An Inconvenient
> > Truth" has sold only about 40,000.
>
> GORE! Jesus, you have to be fucking nuts to even compare them.
>
We agree on this one. One has to be phucking knuts to compare the two.
Palin whips Gore 6 ways to Sunday.
She's bright/
An Intellect.
Honest.
Not trying to make a zillion dollars on a hoax.
(And before you counter with it, her BOOK would not even be remotely
in the same ballpark in terms of dollars made, compared to the money
Gore stands to make on his stupid climate change carbon based tax
credit company, or whatever the hell it is.)
> Let us know when Palin gets an Oscar or a Nobel Prize, ok?
A Nobel Prize is "proof" that Gore is right, because he won one, and
Palin hasn't so far????????//
OTOH Gore certainly deserves an Oscar, for his great acting. He has
conviced a lot of people his GW scam is for real.
Russ Carr
> On Dec 14, 9:24 pm, "5295 Dead, 428 since 1/20/09" <d...@dead.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 16:54:09 -0800, Crap Detector wrote:
> > > Should we believe anything crackpot liberal/Democrat Al Gore says, such
> > > a the temperature of the earth's core is 2 million degrees Fahrenheit
> > > when according to qualified geologists it is only in the thousands of
> > > degrees? If it were in the millions like the sun, scientists say that
> > > everyone on the earth's surface would be cooked.
>
> > > Of course, Palin who argues that even if there is some global warming,
> > > it is not necessarily caused by CO2
> > > but a periodic increase of energy from the the sun, is at a disadvantage
> > > in debating Gore because he invented the Internet.
>
> > Shouldn't be too hard for Sarah to come up with figures showing an
> > increase in solar radiation. It's easy to measure, and they have
> > accurate measurements going back to 1865.
>
> Actually, it is solar FLARES, not solar radiation, that many believe
> contributes much more to climate change than mankind could ever hope
> to do so, even in his wildest dreams. There is a difference. Kinda
> like comparing climate change to weather.
Perhaps in your circles, but legitimate studies have removed solar
flares from the picture completely and proved that they have no effect
whatsoever.
All you're doing is repeating lies.
Mellakon
>
> Kinda like those govo-dollars that keep the enviro scienstists
> spouting their bullshit about climate change with grant money being
> the carrot at the end of the stick????? I am sure the governement can
> afford to fund these puppets with endless tax-dollars to find
> something that isn't there, and can use the state media to help
> promote this "cause" to boot. Anyone who challenges these enviro-
> idioits are dismissed by said governement and media as being "wacko",
> or the sort.
>
It's the GUMMINT again!!! Better get your tinfoil beanie!!!
And we all know that the US media and most others are controlled by large
corporate entities, not "Big Brother" as you seem to think. But since
most but a few don't support your wacko ideology, IT MUST BE THE
GUMMINT!!!!
And as far as you see it, the job of scientists is to conspire to support
each other's findings and not find ways to poke holes in it!
Who taught you about how science works? Fox News?
>
> Unlike the 60's when the same people who are in charge today were
> urging, and being urged to, question those whom you don't agree with.
>
>
> Once again, hypocrity at it's best.
And, there is no solar based cause of the increased spike in the earth's
temperature over the past 100 years.
You should stop parroting crap and learn some science.
Changes In Solar Brightness Too Weak To Explain Global Warming
Brightness variations are the result of changes in the amount of the Sun's
surface covered by dark sunspots and by bright points called faculae. by
Staff Writers Boulder CO (SPX) Sep 13, 2006
Changes in the Sun's brightness over the past millennium have had only a
small effect on Earth's climate, according to a review of existing results
and new calculations performed by researchers in the United States,
Switzerland, and Germany.
The review, led by Peter Foukal (Heliophysics, Inc.), appears in the
September 14 issue of Nature. Among the coauthors is Tom Wigley of the
National Center for Atmospheric Research. NCAR's primary sponsor is the
National Science Foundation.
"Our results imply that, over the past century, climate change due to
human influences must far outweigh the effects of changes in the Sun's
brightness," says Wigley.
Reconstructions of climate over the past millennium show a warming since
the 17th century, which has accelerated dramatically over the past 100
years. Many recent studies have attributed the bulk of 20th-century global
warming to an increase in greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere.
Natural internal variability of Earth's climate system may also have
played a role. However, the discussion is complicated by a third
possibility: that the Sun's brightness could have increased.
The new review in Nature examines the factors observed by astronomers that
relate to solar brightness. It then analyzes how those factors have
changed along with global temperature over the last 1,000 years.
Brightness variations are the result of changes in the amount of the Sun's
surface covered by dark sunspots and by bright points called faculae. The
sunspots act as thermal plugs, diverting heat from the solar surface,
while the faculae act as thermal leaks, allowing heat from subsurface
layers to escape more readily. During times of high solar activity, both
the sunspots and faculae increase, but the effect of the faculae
dominates, leading to an overall increase in brightness.
The new study looked at observations of solar brightness since 1978 and at
indirect measures before then, in order to assess how sunspots and faculae
affect the Sun's brightness. Data collected from radiometers on
U. S. and European spacecraft
show that the Sun is about 0.07 percent brighter in years of peak sunspot
activity, such as around 2000, than when spots are rare (as they are now,
at the low end of the 11-year solar cycle). Variations of this magnitude
are too small to have contributed appreciably to the accelerated global
warming observed since the mid-1970s, according to the study, and there is
no sign of a net increase in brightness over the period.
To assess the period before 1978, the authors used historical records of
sunspot activity and examined radioisotopes produced in Earth's atmosphere
and recorded in the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets. During periods of
high solar activity, the enhanced solar wind shields Earth from cosmic
rays that produce the isotopes, thus giving scientists a record of the
activity.
The authors used a blend of seven recent reconstructions of Northern
Hemisphere temperature over the past millennium to test the effects of
long-term changes in brightness. They then assessed how much the changes
in solar brightness produced by sunspots and faculae (as measured by the
sunspot and radioisotope data) might have affected temperature. Even
though sunspots and faculae have increased over the last 400 years, these
phenomena explain only a small fraction of global warming over the period,
according to the authors.
Indirect evidence has suggested that there may be changes in solar
brightness, over periods of centuries, beyond changes associated with
sunspot numbers. However, the authors conclude on theoretical grounds that
these additional low-frequency changes are unlikely.
"There is no plausible physical cause for long-term changes in solar
brightness other than changes caused by sunspots and faculae," says
Wigley.
Apart from solar brightness, more subtle influences on climate from cosmic
rays or the Sun's ultraviolet radiation cannot be excluded, say the
authors. However, these influences cannot be confirmed, they add, because
physical models for such effects are still too poorly developed.
The University Corporation for Atmospheric Research manages the National
Center for Atmospheric Research under primary sponsorship by the National
Science Foundation. Opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations
expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not
necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.
http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Changes_In_Solar_Brightness_Too_Weak_To_
E
xplain_Global_Warming_999.html