Weather Channel Founder Sets the Facts Straight

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by rwarn17588

Global warming ... bah. I was a so-called environmentalist long before Al Gore became Mr. Climate Change.

I'm doing what I'm doing (solar panels, CFLs, hybrids, reel lawnmowers) because I don't want to pollute as much.

Face it ... Tulsa is an area where air pollution gets pretty bad. If I can figure out a way to be part of a solution instead of part of the problem, why shouldn't I do it?

Y'all are getting caught up in the politics of it all, instead of looking at the big picture and asking yourselves: What can I do to be a better steward of the earth?

I grew up on a farm, and that was instilled in me: Leave the land in as good a condition or better for future generations.

Therefore, I'm a bit flummoxed when people take a position that is pro-pollution at worst or lazy at best.

But that reasoned and rational attitude is not what you get from global warming facists.  What should get you equally as flummoxed are charlatans like AlGore who maintain their current level of pollution by trading "carbon credits" and making a select few rich in the process, namely corporations with "extra" carbon credits.  People like AlGore do nothing to help keep the planet clean and live completely irresponsible and consumptive lives, all the while telling you and I to do what they refuse to do.

[rwarn17588]

I'm sorry, iplaw, but Al Gore does have CFLs and solar panels at his house. I hardly think that qualifies as "doing nothing."

What have you done, compared to him?

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by rwarn17588

I'm sorry, iplaw, but Al Gore does have CFLs and solar panels at his house. I hardly think that qualifies as "doing nothing."

What have you done, compared to him?

Please.  CFLs and solar panels for a man that consumes and pollutes as much as a small country.  Talk about a fart in the wind.

What I do it what most typical people do, recycle paper and plastics, observe ozone alert days, own a hybrid SUV (which isn't that great), etc.  Though I'm not traveling the world in a private jet all while preaching the evils of fossil fuels.  Even he admits that he's carbon neutral because of "carbon offsets."

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw


Ignoring a man who has a PHD in meteorology and has worked as a meteorologist his entire life sounds like a real learned idea...

A PHD in meteorology? I've looked and I can't tell if he has any college degree at all.

I looked around and even in his formal bio at the TV station in San Diego where he works now there are some glaring items missing from his bio. It says he was once a "freshman in college", but doesn't mention where he went to school, what his degrees are, no metrological awards are listed and there is no mention that he has any sort of professional certification or that he is member of any professional meteorological society.  Does this man have any kind of scientific degree related to climate at all? Does he have any degree?

http://www.kusi.com/about/bios/weather/1838191.html

The other two meteorologist for KUSI list their education and their certifications just like you would see on any station here.

From what I can tell this man is no scientist and knows squat about the weather except how to read from a teleprompter about it

He seems like he has just about as much education on climatology and meteorology as Altruism does on metallurgy and physics.

[rwarn17588]

<iplaw wrote:

Please. CFLs and solar panels for a man that consumes and pollutes as much as a small country.

<end clip>

A small country. Source, please? [}:)]

Let's take the smallest country, Vatican City. According to the CIA, it is populated by 821 people, has thousands of employees, and has more than 5,100 phones in use, seven radio stations, and one television station. Do you really expect that Al Gore pollutes more than Vatican City? [}:)]

First you say Gore "does nothing." Then when it's apparent that he is active in reducing his electrical output, you change the goal posts.

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by rwarn17588

<iplaw wrote:

Please. CFLs and solar panels for a man that consumes and pollutes as much as a small country.

<end clip>

A small country. Source, please? [}:)]

Let's take the smallest country, Vatican City. According to the CIA, it is populated by 821 people, has thousands of employees, and has more than 5,100 phones in use, seven radio stations, and one television station. Do you really expect that Al Gore pollutes more than Vatican City? [}:)]

First you say Gore "does nothing." Then when it's apparent that he is active in reducing his electrical output, you change the goal posts.

Did someone leave their literal button depressed when they got out of bed this morning?

The only reason Gore ever installed those solar panels was beacuse of reports like this one:

Gore isn't so green

This doesn't even begin to address the mines that he received royalties from or the toxic waste disposal site on his family's land.

He's carbon neutral because he buys carbon offsets, plain and simple.

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by swake

quote:Originally posted by iplaw


Ignoring a man who has a PHD in meteorology and has worked as a meteorologist his entire life sounds like a real learned idea...

A PHD in meteorology? I've looked and I can't tell if he has any college degree at all.

I looked around and even in his formal bio at the TV station in San Diego where he works now there are some glaring items missing from his bio. It says he was once a "freshman in college", but doesn't mention where he went to school, what his degrees are, no metrological awards are listed and there is no mention that he has any sort of professional certification or that he is member of any professional meteorological society.  Does this man have any kind of scientific degree related to climate at all? Does he have any degree?

http://www.kusi.com/about/bios/weather/1838191.html

The other two meteorologist for KUSI list their education and their certifications just like you would see on any station here.

From what I can tell this man is no scientist and knows squat about the weather except how to read from a teleprompter about it

He seems like he has just about as much education on climatology and meteorology as Altruism does on metallurgy and physics.

If he doesn't have a PHD, which may be true, I don't know, I was relying on a news report.  Go figure that the news media was wrong.

Be that as it may, there are more than a few PHDs who aren't buying in as well.  They're easy to find if you just look.

[TheArtist]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

quote:Originally posted by swake

quote:Originally posted by iplaw


Ignoring a man who has a PHD in meteorology and has worked as a meteorologist his entire life sounds like a real learned idea...

A PHD in meteorology? I've looked and I can't tell if he has any college degree at all.

I looked around and even in his formal bio at the TV station in San Diego where he works now there are some glaring items missing from his bio. It says he was once a "freshman in college", but doesn't mention where he went to school, what his degrees are, no metrological awards are listed and there is no mention that he has any sort of professional certification or that he is member of any professional meteorological society.  Does this man have any kind of scientific degree related to climate at all? Does he have any degree?

http://www.kusi.com/about/bios/weather/1838191.html

The other two meteorologist for KUSI list their education and their certifications just like you would see on any station here.

From what I can tell this man is no scientist and knows squat about the weather except how to read from a teleprompter about it

He seems like he has just about as much education on climatology and meteorology as Altruism does on metallurgy and physics.

If he doesn't have a PHD, which may be true, I don't know, I was relying on a news report.  Go figure that the news media was wrong.

Be that as it may, there are more than a few PHDs who aren't buying in as well.  They're easy to find if you just look.

As easy to find as holocaust deniers, and tobacco companies and PHD scientists telling congress "nicotine is not addictive". There is no "proof" given that cant be disputed or that "needs more study".

The few can be right despite a large concensus. But I find it hard to believe that so overwhelmingly many scientists are somehow being dishonest or plain stupid. Why would one group be less or more so than the other? If those saying there is no global warming have been heard, and their hypothesis argued in the public forum, its not as though anything they are saying is some unknown factor that will suddenly appear out of the blue and prove the global warming group wrong. Its when a factor is unknown or not properly taken into account that a previously believed "truth" is overturned. I dont see any of the deniers having such knowlege.

Just as in the 70s when they first started entertaining the idea that we humans might be having some global influence, they looked  at pollutants such as ozone, did the numbers and thought that they were going to cool the earth and cause a global winter, (as Inhofe often points to them as saying), then someone pointed out that we were also putting out greenhouse gasses. As soon as someone put those into the equation, they saw that the earth would over all get warmer. The greenhouse gasses would be a larger factor than the cooling pollutants.  CO2 was not something they had originally considered and so had not been put it into the equation.

It would take those deniers having some like fact that has not been considered, that has not been understood or put into the equations. As far as I know, what they say, has been looked at and considered. Not to say there may be something that someone comes up with that will indeed prove everyone wrong, but that can happen regardless.

With what we know (including what the deniers say),,, the consensus is... So until some new idea or information that has yet to be put forward shows otherwise...

[rwarn17588]

<iplaw wrote:

Did someone leave their literal button depressed when they got out of bed this morning?

<end clip>

Don't say what you don't mean, counselor. That way you don't get made to look stupid when your arguments wilt under the harsh light of facts.

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by rwarn17588

<iplaw wrote:

Did someone leave their literal button depressed when they got out of bed this morning?

<end clip>

Don't say what you don't mean, counselor. That way you don't get made to look stupid when your arguments wilt under the harsh light of facts.

I almost choked on that one from laughing so hard. The last time I lost an argument to you was...well, never. If I had a nickle for every time I made you look ignorant I wouldn't be getting up to go to work anymore.

Don't you find it  interesting how Gore only made these green additions to his home after people pointed out that doesn't practice what he preaches.  Or does the fact that he sits on your side of the asile blind you to his hypocrisy?

He now has solar panels big f'ing deal.  He's still a massive consumer and lives an extravagant lifestyle behaving exactly as those with whom he "disagrees."

[iplaw]

quote:

As easy to find as holocaust deniers, and tobacco companies and PHD scientists telling congress "nicotine is not addictive". There is no "proof" given that cant be disputed or that "needs more study".

The few can be right despite a large concensus. But I find it hard to believe that so overwhelmingly many scientists are somehow being dishonest or plain stupid. Why would one group be less or more so than the other? If those saying there is no global warming have been heard, and their hypothesis argued in the public forum, its not as though anything they are saying is some unknown factor that will suddenly appear out of the blue and prove the global warming group wrong. Its when a factor is unknown or not properly taken into account that a previously believed "truth" is overturned. I dont see any of the deniers having such knowlege.

Just as in the 70s when they first started entertaining the idea that we humans might be having some global influence, they looked  at pollutants such as ozone, did the numbers and thought that they were going to cool the earth and cause a global winter, (as Inhofe often points to them as saying), then someone pointed out that we were also putting out greenhouse gasses. As soon as someone put those into the equation, they saw that the earth would over all get warmer. The greenhouse gasses would be a larger factor than the cooling pollutants.  CO2 was not something they had originally considered and so had not been put it into the equation.

It would take those deniers having some like fact that has not been considered, that has not been understood or put into the equations. As far as I know, what they say, has been looked at and considered. Not to say there may be something that someone comes up with that will indeed prove everyone wrong, but that can happen regardless.

With what we know (including what the deniers say),,, the consensus is... So until some new idea or information that has yet to be put forward shows otherwise...

I was waiting for the holocaust deniers analogy.  I didn't think it would take so long...

The only valid consensus on global warming is that the earth "appears," from the limited data we have, to be warming...slightly, depending on what temperature data you're looking at (your time delta).

There is NO consensus on the effects of greenhouse gases, their overall effect on the planet, or their potentiality vis-a-vis future change on the planet. There is also NO consensus that man's production of greenhouse gases is the REASON behind the slight warming we see now.  For some extra reading check out this repository website: http://www.climatepolice.com/ that lists peer-reviewed articles challenging many of the "well accepted" notions of global warming.

Temperatures have risen/fallen at greater deltas in the ancient past when man was not a factor.

Pausible alternative reasons for global warming include: cyclic natural fluctuations in mean temperature; increased solar activity; disruption of the magnetic poles of the earth; and on and on...

If you really want to scare yourself, take a good look at the fact that the magnetic north/south poles of the earth are in for a reversal somtime in the next 100 years.  If climate change gets you aroused, this will take you over the edge.

Should we take better care of the earth, of course.  Should we care about polution because it gets into our food/water, yes.  On these issues I agree with you.

[rwarn17588]

<iplaw wrote:

If I had a nickle for every time I made you look ignorant I wouldn't be getting up to go to work anymore.

<end clip>

C'mon ... I'm not THAT ignorant, unless you've taken a vow of poverty. [}:)]

Incidentally, it's spelled "nickel."

Five cents, please. []

[iplaw]

That's what I get for posting after a six pack of shiner bock...but that's okay I recycled the bottles this morning.

[FOTD]

Natural evolution?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article1089105.ece
Experts warn North Pole will be 'ice free' by 2040
"The Nasa-funded US team of researchers said the ice retreat is likely to remain fairly constant until 2024 when there will be a sudden speeding up of the process."


I fear this estimate is way, way, way too conservative.
If things continue at present pace,
the ice will be gone by 2 - 10 years.

The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. ~Bertrand Russell

[Conan71]

See polar ice melting isn't all bad:

quote:Tourist could open up to allow visitors Arctic cruises with cocktail parties over the North Pole that previously defied the best efforts of many explorers.

Oil companies would move in to tap resources previously protected by the ice and freight firms could use the ocean as a shortcut.

Smoking weed makes liberals paranoid.  Aox you ought to quit smoking it, it's making your carbon footprint larger and making you crazy.