LMAO: This fcukin' guy

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

http://www.drudgereport.com/jet.jpg

With five private jets, Travolta still lectures on global warming

His serious aviation habit means he is hardly the best person to lecture others on the environment. But John Travolta went ahead and did it anyway.

The 53-year-old actor, a passionate pilot, encouraged his fans to "do their bit" to tackle global warming.

Happy landings: John Travolta's plane collection parked at his home in Florida


But although he readily admitted: "I fly jets", he failed to mention he actually owns five, along with his own private runway.

Clocking up at least 30,000 flying miles in the past 12 months means he has produced an estimated 800 tons of carbon emissions – nearly 100 times the average Briton's tally.

Travolta made his comments this week at the British premiere of his movie, Wild Hogs.

He spoke of the importance of helping the environment by using "alternative methods of fuel" – after driving down the red carpet on a Harley Davidson.

Travolta, a Scientologist, claimed the solution to global warming could be found in outer space and blamed his hefty flying mileage on the nature of the movie business.

But his appointment as a "serving ambassador" for the Australian airline Qantas doesn't seem to have much to do with the movies. Nor does a recent, two-month round-the-world flying trip.

"It [global warming] is a very valid issue," Travolta declared. "I'm wondering if we need to think about other planets and dome cities.

"Everyone can do their bit. But I don't know if it's not too late already. We have to think about alternative methods of fuel.

"I'm probably not the best candidate to ask about global warming because I fly jets.

"I use them as a business tool though, as others do. I think it's part of this industry – otherwise I couldn't be here doing this and I wouldn't be here now."

Travolta's five private planes – a customised £2million Boeing 707, three Gulfstream jets and a Lear jet – are kept at the bottom of his garden in the US next to a private runway.

Indeed, such is his enthusiasm for flying, he persuaded his wife, actress Kelly Preston, to name their son Jett when he was born 14 years ago.

Five years ago he piloted his own Boeing 707 on a 13- city "Spirit of Friendship Tour" for Qantas, taking in Los Angeles, Auckland, Sydney, Singapore, Tokyo, London, Paris and New York and amassing over 35,000 flying miles.

More recently, a gruelling promotional schedule for his two latest projects, Hairspray and Wild Hogs, has seen him fly extensively over the past year.

This includes a country-wide tour of the US and a visit to Canada as well as this week's appearance in Leicester Square.

Such prolific mileage means that, over the past 12 months, he has accumulated around 800 tonnes of carbon emissions.

According to a recent study by the government-funded Carbon Trust, this means he boasts a carbon "footprint" nearly 100 times that of the average Briton, who is responsible for 10.92 tons of Co2, from his flights alone.

One of the world's leading climate change businesses, the Carbon Neutral Company, has written to Travolta, suggesting ways he could reduce these alarming levels.

He has yet to respond to their advice. Environmental groups were quick to criticise Travolta for "discrediting the cause".

John Buckley, managing director-of CarbonFootprint.com, said: "John Travolta has such a high-profile celebrity status, so what he says carries an extraordinary amount of weight.

"So it is such a shame when someone of his standing is so outspoken about green issues, yet fails to practise what he preaches.

"Unfortunately someone of his standing ends up discrediting the cause itself, because he is saying people should protect the environment on one hand, yet travelling on a private plane on the other.

"Green issues are serious and should be treated as such.

"It is vital for celebrities to toe the line when they speak out in support of it."

Link (http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/showbiz/article-23390848-details/Air+miles+Travolta+urges+fans+to+%27do+their+bit%2 7+for+the+environment/article.do)

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

Clocking up at least 30,000 flying miles in the past 12 months means he has produced an estimated 800 tons of carbon emissions – nearly 100 times the average Briton's tally.

I like John Travolta but this shyt is beyond ridiculous...:laughing6 He should probably stay out of this discussion.

[AliceInChains02]

they can't discredit global warming so they discredit a celebrity spokesperson for it...:gesture:

[AliceInChains02]

it doesn't even say what he's doing when he flies...maybe he's flying back and forth to Africa to help the poor :dontknow:
or trying to convert people to Scientology?

[bumblebee]

Maybe celebrities should just keep their views quiet. I respect their right to speak out but since the have the public eye they should be very careful with their words.
Not only might they be wrong and then influence people badly but it could be harmful to their careers. Travolta would look foolish if his views on global warming turn out to be wrong.The Dixie Chicks arent nearly as popular as they were before Nastylie Maines spoke out against Bush.

[AliceInChains02]

if John Travolta and the Entire Scientific Community turn out to be wrong*

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

it doesn't even say what he's doing when he flies...maybe he's flying back and forth to Africa to help the poor :dontknow:
or trying to convert people to Scientology?

We can't go off of speculation. The facts are: He has five (5) planes, flies quite regularly (30,000 miles regularly) and he has been briefed by the Carbon Neutral Company of alternate methods of travel in order to lessen his personal emissions "footprint", which is sizable btw. If you can prove that the majority of his flights are philanthropic in nature, then I will retract the statement which is to follow. Otherwise, he is an ASS and needs to close his mouth on the topic of Global warming being that he is such a great contributor :gesture:

[therky42]

just another thing for people to worry about......instead of their own problems

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

Nah...it's a bit hypocritical to insist that others find alternative modes of travel yet himself leisurely flies aircraft and owns five (5) whole jets. Just seems a bit hypocritical to me...but whateva :eh:

[Moody]

I am all for the support of Global Cooling...... Who's in? (Another ice age sounds great!)

[Moody]

Nah...it's a bit hypocritical to insist that others find alternative modes of travel yet himself leisurely flies aircraft and owns five (5) whole jets. Just seems a bit hypocritical to me...but whateva :eh:
He is a Scientologist! He has no sense of reality!

[Moody]

or trying to convert people to Scientology?
A good reason we should question anything that comes out of his mouth.

[del240z]

Bewbies......:nod:

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

He is a Scientologist! He has no sense of reality!

LMAO:laughing6 Good point!

[Rick H.I.C.]

it doesn't even say what he's doing when he flies...maybe he's flying back and forth to Africa to help the poor :dontknow:
or trying to convert people to Scientology?
How many people would he transport? Probably two or three people. Didn't look long but was it a Jetstar and smaller leer's? 8 - 20 passengers. Doubt he would take any of the unfortunate or poor for a plane ride.
Freakin' hippocrates.
Al Gore too, what a putz. Does the same stuff.
He's the one who owns the carbon footprint offset company. What a joke.
As I've said before it's all a catch 22. You've gotta pay for it some where. These putzes just want everyone to do what they won't do themselves. Only way to change things is a mass mutual change in lifestyles. Alternative energies. Ok find some I'm sure I can poke holes in them.

[Rick H.I.C.]

I am all for the support of Global Cooling...... Who's in? (Another ice age sounds great!)
Start investing in ice spikes for the bike.:icon_bigg

[pester]

I am all for the support of Global Cooling...... Who's in? (Another ice age sounds great!)

only we have to install sport bike tires for the snow he he :icon_thum

[Azylum]

i love travolta. always been one of my favorite actors. but these guys need to keep their asses out of politics.

[logan5]

anyone watch "The Great Global Warming Swindle"? Done by the BBC, but unsurprisingly it's gotten very little press here in the US

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XttV2C6B8pU

Thomas

[Rick H.I.C.]

Holy F'N mother scratchin' stuff, that's a dc 9 or 10 (err, I think, rusty on the commercial stuff) not a Jetstar. What a cheese ball. (Travolta voice) come on out here and see what I drive sweetcakes.
Hey Alice, how much relief aide you think he carries to those poor and unfortunate was it??? in another country??:confused2
Damn I crack me up sometimes.:laughing6

[AliceInChains02]

We can't go off of speculation. The facts are: He has five (5) planes, flies quite regularly (30,000 miles regularly) and he has been briefed by the Carbon Neutral Company of alternate methods of travel in order to lessen his personal emissions "footprint", which is sizable btw. If you can prove that the majority of his flights are philanthropic in nature, then I will retract the statement which is to follow. Otherwise, he is an ASS and needs to close his mouth on the topic of Global warming being that he is such a great contributor :gesture:

we all support carbon emissions directly and indirectly all the time. it's what the modern world is built on. is 30k miles really that much, in a year, for a celebrity like him? maybe he has a large entourage, it never said it's just him flying in the plane. i'll bet there's LOTS of celebrities and rich folk in general that fly around in big private jets, but only the ones who care about Global Warming are the ones who get bashed:gesture:
it kind of reminds me of the Christian retort "being a Christian doesn't mean being perfect". supporting global warming doesn't mean you're going to go live out in the woods, even though that's a sharp contrast, i'm sure if it wasn't Travolta's jet it would've been some other celebrity who has some other gas guzzler.
Maybe he is a hypocrit to some degree, but i still think the whole point of this little article is to harm the global warming cause, more than John Travolta. Who do you think researched this and spread it out? Google the article and see if you find it on any respectable website. Looks like another piece of right wing garbage to me. nevermind arguing the merit of global warming though, john travola is much more fascinating.

[AliceInChains02]

How many people would he transport? Probably two or three people. Didn't look long but was it a Jetstar and smaller leer's? 8 - 20 passengers. Doubt he would take any of the unfortunate or poor for a plane ride.
Freakin' hippocrates.
Al Gore too, what a putz. Does the same stuff.
He's the one who owns the carbon footprint offset company. What a joke.
As I've said before it's all a catch 22. You've gotta pay for it some where. These putzes just want everyone to do what they won't do themselves. Only way to change things is a mass mutual change in lifestyles. Alternative energies. Ok find some I'm sure I can poke holes in them.

So they are smaller planes, and consume lesser gas, than say a large jumbo-jet. Maybe if he uses it's full capacity he's actually saving gas/emissions? I think when it comes down to it this is a very tedious matter to argue, and also not a very good article.
What do you mean about Al Gore? How's he a hypocrit? Did he litter? I bet there are gangs of anti-global warming folks following him around watching the tip of his muffler to make sure it doesn't sputter, making sure his dog doesn't shit in his neighbor's lawn, making sure he doesn't litter, etc. and when it does happen we will hear about it and there will be a dozen shitty articles going around about it that's only real purpose is to discredit global warming.

[AliceInChains02]

http://www.motohouston.com/forums/showthread.php?t=21435&highlight=global+warming+fraud
here's another good thread that explains why global warming's fake also.

[AliceInChains02]

Holy F'N mother scratchin' stuff, that's a dc 9 or 10 (err, I think, rusty on the commercial stuff) not a Jetstar. What a cheese ball. (Travolta voice) come on out here and see what I drive sweetcakes.
Hey Alice, how much relief aide you think he carries to those poor and unfortunate was it??? in another country??:confused2
Damn I crack me up sometimes.:laughing6

i don't know much about planes, so i don't really understand what's being said here. i didn't say i thought he flew relief, i said they didn't clarify what he uses his planes for, and it seems like if they really wanted to make a point they would've researched it and shown how wasteful he really is by showing what he's USING THE PLANES FOR. judging by the extremely small coverage of this article i wouldn't be surprised if it was a bit elaborated/fake or at least written by someone who doesn't work for any major news corp, which makes me think probably just some amateur or maybe the oil companies hire people to pump this shit out.

[AliceInChains02]

Otherwise, he is an ASS and needs to close his mouth on the topic of Global warming being that he is such a great contributor :gesture:
does the priest who rapes children not know the word of god?

science was long advanced by the rich who had time to idle around and think, so maybe just because he's not a great person, or a person of great integrity, doesn't mean he doesn't know what he's talking about and i think until it's shown that he doesn't know what he's talking about it's not fair to dismiss what he has to say due to this jet situation.

[AliceInChains02]

anyone watch "The Great Global Warming Swindle"? Done by the BBC, but unsurprisingly it's gotten very little press here in the US

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XttV2C6B8pU

Thomas

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled
http://www.medialens.org/alerts/07/0313pure_propaganda_the.php

[Crystalline]

does the priest who rapes children not know the word of god?

science was long advanced by the rich who had time to idle around and think, so maybe just because he's not a great person, or a person of great integrity, doesn't mean he doesn't know what he's talking about and i think until it's shown that he doesn't know what he's talking about it's not fair to dismiss what he has to say due to this jet situation.


I see what you're saying, but yes I would still question a priest's integrity if he, knowing the word of God, doesn't abide by it.
In John Travolta's situation, I would question him as well for the fact that he doesn't "practice what he preaches." Who is he to say what is good for us to protect our earth when he owns 5 jets.... Who needs 5 jets. Also, if he was so concerned he would find more environmentally friendly ways to travel.

Just my .02:happy3:

[jus10]

Global warming shmarming..... it's all Bulllllllllllllllllllllllllll Shiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiit and we are the okra that grows beneath!







(like that one?...yeah me too!)

[ScooterTrash]

they can't discredit global warming so they discredit a celebrity spokesperson for it...:gesture:
are you serious? "they" cant discredit global warming !? I am gonna go out on a limb and guess the word "they" means scientist? Hows about you do a smidgen of unbiased research and see what you really find. ...and, I'm not talking research through the MTV channel.
I wonder, and this is a serious question. I wonder if you really do believe Al when he speaks?

[AliceInChains02]

are you serious? "they" cant discredit global warming !? I am gonna go out on a limb and guess the word "they" means scientist? Hows about you do a smidgen of unbiased research and see what you really find. ...and, I'm not talking research through the MTV channel.
I wonder, and this is a serious question. I wonder if you really do believe Al when he speaks?

I wonder where You got Your "unbiased" science info from:keke:
link me up, scotty.
show me what you're working with

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

we all support carbon emissions directly and indirectly all the time. it's what the modern world is built on. is 30k miles really that much, in a year, for a celebrity like him? maybe he has a large entourage, it never said it's just him flying in the plane. i'll bet there's LOTS of celebrities and rich folk in general that fly around in big private jets, but only the ones who care about Global Warming are the ones who get bashed:gesture:
it kind of reminds me of the Christian retort "being a Christian doesn't mean being perfect". supporting global warming doesn't mean you're going to go live out in the woods, even though that's a sharp contrast, i'm sure if it wasn't Travolta's jet it would've been some other celebrity who has some other gas guzzler.
Maybe he is a hypocrit to some degree, but i still think the whole point of this little article is to harm the global warming cause, more than John Travolta. Who do you think researched this and spread it out? Google the article and see if you find it on any respectable website. Looks like another piece of right wing garbage to me. nevermind arguing the merit of global warming though, john travola is much more fascinating.

You are beside the point. You limit the credibility of your argument if you are in fact heavily contributing to that which you wish to abolish/prohibit/limit. When you have five (5) jets, you are contributing way more to emissions than would another celebrity for instance who chooses to fly commercially. Sure, we all contribute to emissions but again, being that a person has a multitude of jets at his disposition, then he is using far more than is necessary to any application other than leisure and extravagance. I won't attack John Travolta any more because I actually like the guy but I think it a bit comical that he is telling others to find alternate means of travel when he himself needs to perhaps review his personal situation and his own personal contributions to global warming.

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

does the priest who rapes children not know the word of god?

Evidently he KNOWS it, but the real question is whether or not he is LIVING it. Obviously not and that segways into my next statement: If you are going to talk about global warming and expect others to take you seriously and heed your advice on sacrificing and opting for alternate means of travel then you yourself should set the example, quid pro quo, LIVE IT!

science was long advanced by the rich who had time to idle around and think, so maybe just because he's not a great person, or a person of great integrity, doesn't mean he doesn't know what he's talking about and i think until it's shown that he doesn't know what he's talking about it's not fair to dismiss what he has to say due to this jet situation.

Logically, it's hard to prove a negative. Since you are insisting that he is such a knowledgeable mind on the matter, why don't you prove that he does in fact have a basis for judgement on the topic of Global Warming?

[Rick H.I.C.]

With the cajun on this one. Well said, I would just confuse everyone. :laughing6

[AliceInChains02]

Evidently he KNOWS it, but the real question is whether or not he is LIVING it. Obviously not and that segways into my next statement: If you are going to talk about global warming and expect others to take you seriously and heed your advice on sacrificing and opting for alternate means of travel then you yourself should set the example, quid pro quo, LIVE IT!



Logically, it's hard to prove a negative. Since you are insisting that he is such a knowledgeable mind on the matter, why don't you prove that he does in fact have a basis for judgement on the topic of Global Warming?

I'm not insisting he's knowledgable, I was just trying to understand the logic of what you were saying, which basically amounted to "he doesn't follow his own words, so he's not worth listening to".
alan watts died of alcoholism, but i still like to listen to what he has to say about buddhism.

[AliceInChains02]

You are beside the point. You limit the credibility of your argument if you are in fact heavily contributing to that which you wish to abolish/prohibit/limit. When you have five (5) jets, you are contributing way more to emissions than would another celebrity for instance who chooses to fly commercially. Sure, we all contribute to emissions but again, being that a person has a multitude of jets at his disposition, then he is using far more than is necessary to any application other than leisure and extravagance. I won't attack John Travolta any more because I actually like the guy but I think it a bit comical that he is telling others to find alternate means of travel when he himself needs to perhaps review his personal situation and his own personal contributions to global warming.

I acknowledged the point that he could be considered a hypocrite by these actions upon further clarification, but I also think the article was poorly put together and fairly uncomprehensive regarding his usage of the jets. When you think about it there's limitless ways you can criticize someone for global warming, and I think John Travolta was probably picked from a list of celebrities who support global warming in order to form an article that is trying to discredit global warming through indirectly discrediting it's celebrity spokespersons.

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

I'm not insisting he's knowledgable, I was just trying to understand the logic of what you were saying, which basically amounted to "he doesn't follow his own words, so he's not worth listening to".
alan watts died of alcoholism, but i still like to listen to what he has to say about buddhism.

According to this:

...just because he's not a great person, or a person of great integrity, doesn't mean he doesn't know what he's talking about

...you were, in fact, insisting that it were possible he is knowlegeable on the topic in question. Now to your analogy regarding Alan Watts and alchoholism and Global Warming and John Travolta, the similarity is simply not there. Alan Watts, an alcoholic, is talking about buddhism, an entirely different object (although one can say that there is conflict with the concepts of buddhism and selflessness contrasting the selfish behaviour observed in alcoholism, still they are two different subjects altogether). John Travolta, an individual speaking about the necessity to look to different modes of travel and the importance of limiting our emissions to effectively freeze the process of Global Warming due to those emissions, but who at the same time owns five (5) different Jets and has contributed heavily to Carbon Emissions due to his high-flying hobby. This is contradictory behaviour. To say one thing and not be living it yourself is laughable and hypocritical.

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

I acknowledged the point that he could be considered a hypocrite by these actions upon further clarification, but I also think the article was poorly put together and fairly uncomprehensive regarding his usage of the jets. When you think about it there's limitless ways you can criticize someone for global warming, and I think John Travolta was probably picked from a list of celebrities who support global warming in order to form an article that is trying to discredit global warming through indirectly discrediting it's celebrity spokespersons.

Only mildly did you acknowledge said point. I will not argue the quality of the the publication as it is not important so long as certain facts as stated in the article are indeed facts. And as far as I know, they are, in effect makiing the point that he is hypocritical when comparing his behaviour to his rhetoric a valid one. You can only actually discredit the Global Warming Theory by discrediting the theory itself. Show contrary evidence to the arguments which support the theory of Global Warming and only then will you discredit it. Atleast in my mind.

[AliceInChains02]

According to this:



...you were, in fact, insisting that it were possible he is knowlegeable on the topic in question. Now to your analogy regarding Alan Watts and alchoholism and Global Warming and John Travolta, the similarity is simply not there. Alan Watts, an alcoholic, is talking about buddhism, an entirely different object (although one can say that there is conflict with the concepts of buddhism and selflessness contrasting the selfish behaviour observed in alcoholism, still they are two different subjects altogether). John Travolta, an individual speaking about the necessity to look to different modes of travel and the importance of limiting our emissions to effectively freeze the process of Global Warming due to those emissions, but who at the same time owns five (5) different Jets and has contributed heavily to Carbon Emissions due to his high-flying hobby. This is contradictory behaviour. To say one thing and not be living it yourself is laughable and hypocritical.
I was saying it's possible, based on the logic being used, yes, but I was not 'insisting' he was "such a knowledgable mind on the matter".
Alan Watts spoke of Buddhism. Buddhism speaks of temperance, among other forms of self-control and moderation. Alan Watts definitely did not follow this, citing that there were often drunken Zen masters.(you pretty much said this in your parentheses, but i thought i'd just put in my words also, and I'd like to say that though they are 2 different subjects, they are relevant).
Travolta flew 30k miles, and he has 5 jets. I think the mileage is more relevant since it doesn't really matter CO2-wise how many jets he has. It's like 2 or 3k approximately miles from coast to coast, i think, so that's 10-15 trips from coast to coast in America, not a whole lot for a big celebrity who probably had to jump all over the place anyways. Maybe he could've taken commercial flights, and maybe he is being selfish and does it only for the joy of flying. I don't really care though. Like I said, global warming is the issue that's really at stake here, and what is indirectly being attacked..

[AliceInChains02]

Only mildly did you acknowledge said point. I will not argue the quality of the the publication as it is not important so long as certain facts as stated in the article are indeed facts. And as far as I know, they are, in effect makiing the point that he is hypocritical when comparing his behaviour to his rhetoric a valid one. You can only actually discredit the Global Warming Theory by discrediting the theory itself. Show contrary evidence to the arguments which support the theory of Global Warming and only then will you discredit it. Atleast in my mind.

Yeah, but you HAVE to be seriously skeptical as to the origin and design of this article and the true effect that is sought after with it's publication and dispersal.

[Gigolo Jason]

If humans are causing global warming with our industrialization and pollution, can someone explain the Medieval Climate Optimum to me?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_climate_optimum

[Gigolo Jason]

anyone watch "The Great Global Warming Swindle"? Done by the BBC, but unsurprisingly it's gotten very little press here in the US

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XttV2C6B8pU

Thomas

Great episode, I think the scientists have it right and that Alice is only following a political/religious movement built on misinformation.

Half a degree in a century,

Wow, that's a HUGE temperature jump. :gesture:

(heavy with sarcasm)

If we are not careful with our carbon footprint, Galveston Bay will freeze over again like it did in 1836.

(heavy with sarcasm)

[AliceInChains02]

If humans are causing global warming with our industrialization and pollution, can someone explain the Medieval Climate Optimum to me?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_climate_optimum

i haven't read the article yet, but i know there are lots of other factors that contribute to global warming, and no environmental scientist would deny this.

[jus10]

If humans are causing global warming with our industrialization and pollution, can someone explain the Medieval Climate Optimum to me?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_climate_optimum

or how it seemed to be dismissed here recently....and why wont Gore debate Global Warming with...hell ANYONE...hmmmm

[AliceInChains02]

If humans are causing global warming with our industrialization and pollution, can someone explain the Medieval Climate Optimum to me?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_climate_optimum

here's something i dug up real quick. hope it helps.

For example, about 300 years ago, the Earth was experiencing the ''Little Ice Age.'' It had descended into this relatively cool period from a warm interval about 1,000 years ago known as the ''Medieval Climate Optimum.'' During the Medieval Climate Optimum, temperatures were warm enough to allow the colonization of Greenland. These colonies were abandoned after the onset of colder temperatures. For the past 300 years, global temperatures have been gradually recovering (11). As shown in figure 2, they are still a little below the average for the past 3,000 years. The human historical record does not report ''global warming'' catastrophes, even though temperatures have been far higher during much of the last three millennia.

What causes such variations in Earth's temperature? The answer may be fluctuations in solar activity. Figure 3 shows the period of warming from the Little Ice Age in greater detail by means of an 11-year moving average of surface temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere (10). Also shown are solar magnetic cycle lengths for the same period. It is clear that even relatively short, half-century-long fluctuations in temperature correlate well with variations in solar activity. When the cycles are short, the sun is more active, hence brighter; and the Earth is warmer. These variations in the activity of the sun are typical of stars close in mass and age to the sun (13).

[Gigolo Jason]

i haven't read the article yet, but i know there are lots of other factors that contribute to global warming, and no environmental scientist would deny this.

Then it could be said that a lot of factors have contributed to the 1/2" degree rise in temperature in the last Century. These "other factors" factors have absolutely nothing to do with humans.

And by the way, it's not an article, it's known history Alice. The Medieval Climate Optimum was followed by the little ice age.

[AliceInChains02]

Great episode, I think the scientists have it right and that Alice is only following a political/religious movement built on misinformation.

Half a degree in a century,

Wow, that's a HUGE temperature jump. :gesture:

(heavy with sarcasm)

If we are not careful with our carbon footprint, Galveston Bay will freeze over again like it did in 1836.

(heavy with sarcasm)

how the **** is it political and religious? lmao
it's SCIENCE
the only thing that's political about it are these simplified, pre-packaged questions that someone who doesn't understand environmental science would ask, and someone who came in thinking they understand environmental science would ask arrogantly.

[Gigolo Jason]

What causes such variations in Earth's temperature? The answer may be fluctuations in solar activity.

There you go, you just said it yourself, the current BS on man made global warming is bunk. I am glad that we can see eye to eye on something Alice.

[Gigolo Jason]

how the **** is it political and religious? lmao
it's SCIENCE

It is a religious and political movement, not scientific. It's the new communism. :icon_thum

[AliceInChains02]

Then it could be said that a lot of factors have contributed to the 1/2" degree rise in temperature in the last Century. These "other factors" factors have absolutely nothing to do with humans.

And by the way, it's not an article, it's known history Alice. The Medieval Climate Optimum was followed by the little ice age.

sorry, i refer to wikipedia articles as..articles.
yes, there are lots of factors
yes scientists have determined this with means that we do not fully understand since we are not environmental scientists.
the problem i have is taking the word of people who have Good Reason(like big biz interests, working in petro industry, etc.) to deny these claims vs. scientists whose only pursuit is the truth.
CO2 has an effect on our atmosphere, we're making lots of CO2. no one can say how much of an effect it is having, it's hard to say, this is new stuff, but it's silly to pretend you understand the fine details of this after watching a political video on it, or Al Gore, or whatever. But at least Al Gore backs his shit up with scientific articles..

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

<---First on thread to admit I don't know what the hell I'm talking about when it comes to Global Warming and will therefore amusingly watch you two (or three [Jus10] :keke: ) argue about it.

[AliceInChains02]

It is a religious and political movement, not scientific. It's the new communism. :icon_thum

where's the motivation to "pretend" global warming exists? I'd really love to understand the right-wing gas industry perspective on why the scientists are making this up.

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

Alice does have a point, Big Oil does have a vested interest in disproving/denying Global Warming. :nod:

[jus10]

where's the motivation to "pretend" global warming exists? I'd really love to understand the right-wing gas industry perspective on why the scientists are making this up.

The almighty dollar my friend....its all about money! notice how people speaking about global warming are also pushing us to invest in other sources of energy one of which companies Gore is a part of. It is a political agenda and fed by greed. That is what Jason is saying...I think....

[Gigolo Jason]

sorry, i refer to wikipedia articles as..articles.

Thats fine, if someone wants too look up history themselves they can.


yes, there are lots of factors
yes scientists have determined this with means that we do not fully understand since we are not environmental scientists.

If science has yet to determine what is happening then why does Al Gore and others think there such a consensus among scientists that Humans are causing global warming?


the problem i have is taking the word of people who have Good Reason(like big biz interests, working in petro industry, etc.) to deny these claims vs. scientists whose only pursuit is the truth.

The problem i have taking the word of Al Gore and others is that they are part of a political movement and have no scientific background.

CO2 has an effect on our atmosphere, we're making lots of CO2. no one can say how much of an effect it is having, it's hard to say, this is new stuff,

It's amazing how termites produce more greenhouse grasses then humans do isn't it.

but it's silly to pretend you understand the fine details of this after watching a political video on it, or Al Gore, or whatever. But at least Al Gore backs his shit up with scientific articles..

You may want to pull your foot out of your mouth here because you just contradicted yourself. Al Gore has no scientific backing because there is no consensus. Also, last I checked, Al Gore was part of a political movement.

This is a political and religious movement headed by a politician, Mr. Al Gore.

[Gigolo Jason]

Alice does have a point, Big Oil does have a vested interest in disproving/denying Global Warming. :nod:

But big oil isn't denying it.

Scientists are.

Lets stick to the facts here.

[Gigolo Jason]

where's the motivation to "pretend" global warming exists? I'd really love to understand the right-wing gas industry perspective on why the scientists are making this up.

I'll explain that to you as soon as you can explain how humans caused the global warming in both the Medieval Climate Optimum with their pollution and greenhouse gases. :icon_thum

Going back to work.:hello:

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

But big oil isn't denying it.

Scientists are.

Lets stick to the facts here.

Well now that's 100% bOOlshyt....I just watched a debate on CSPAN not 2 weeks ago between a representative for a few select Big Oil partners and a former government official supporting limiting emissions here in US about the topic of Global Warming and it's causes. The scientific community is just as split as those in political circles, that's a fact JACK (like the Hilton Commercial).

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

Here's a look at our governments stance on the topic:

Recently, we have come to realize that human activities may, in the near future, produce effects powerful enough to overwhelm these natural mechanisms and dominate the changes of climate...other causes of climate change remain important, such as...human input of aerosols

Manmade emissions of hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides, and
sulfur oxides may rise if more fossil fuel is used to meet higher electricity
needs (see Chapter 10: Electricity Demand) and if technology does not
improve.

Read the EPA report (http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/effects/downloads/potential_effects.pdf)

[Gigolo Jason]

Well now that's 100% bOOlshyt....I just watched a debate on CSPAN not 2 weeks ago between a representative for a few select Big Oil partners and a former government official supporting limiting emissions here in US about the topic of Global Warming and it's causes. The scientific community is just as split as those in political circles, that's a fact JACK (like the Hilton Commercial).

Your probably right. Big oil and energy has always been political. It has absolutely nothing to do with the science behind global warming or the debunking of human involvement in it.

Big oil isn't backing Al Gore and his global warming political/religious movement because they vote their pocket book. Republican administrations are friendlier to the domestic energy industry.

BTW, there need to be hp/engine size/ and vehicular weight limits to lower the nations fuel consumption. These limitations would go alot further to lowering vehicular emissions and domestic fuel consumption then just emssion regulations alone. This should be done to lower the rate of consumption (demand) and thus lowering the price at the pump (excess supply), not because of greenhouse gases.

Actually going to the shop to get work done, I will be back tonight or tomorrow. :hello:

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

Your probably right. Big oil and energy has always been political. It has absolutely nothing to do with the science behind global warming or the debunking of human involvement in it.(Sarcasm or serious? Can't tell...sorry)

Big oil isn't backing Al Gore and his global warming political/religious movement because they vote their pocket book. Republican administrations are friendlier to the domestic energy industry.

As long as we are aware that there are vested interests' across the board then I am happy because to dismiss the fact that Big Oil wants to discredit the theory of Global Warming because they want to continue to make profits would be a bit foolish. :icon_thum

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

Transportation End-Use Sector. Transportation
activities (excluding international bunker fuels) accounted for
31 percent of CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion in
2002.11 Virtually all of the energy consumed in this end-use
sector came from petroleum products. Just over half of the
emissions resulted from gasoline consumption for personal
vehicle use. The remaining emissions came from other
transportation activities, including the combustion of diesel
fuel in heavy-duty vehicles and jet fuel in aircraft.

Link (http://yosemite.epa.gov/OAR/globalwarming.nsf/UniqueKeyLookup/RAMR5WNMK2/$File/04executivesummary.pdf)<---Good Read :nod:

[RogerT]

Trivolata and Gore can kiss my green A--

[Rick H.I.C.]

Odd thing about the nature of earth is that it is self balancing. It can repair it's self, even if it has to erase the human race to do it. It's been here longer than us, and will be here alot longer. Unless something bigger than it takes it out. Still yet gravity well help it to reform. may take a few billion years. :icon_bigg Anybobdy sticking around?:icon_bigg

[Crystalline]

<---First on thread to admit I don't know what the hell I'm talking about when it comes to Global Warming and will therefore amusingly watch you two (or three [Jus10] :keke: ) argue about it.


Hey, my Physical Geology teacher... You know about him and the stupid rocks... Well he says it's bullshit, but since I have class with him today I am going to ask him what his opinion really is on global warming.. After all, he is a fackin Doctor.

[Crystalline]

Odd thing about the nature of earth is that it is self balancing. It can repair it's self, even if it has to erase the human race to do it. It's been here longer than us, and will be here alot longer. Unless something bigger than it takes it out. Still yet gravity well help it to reform. may take a few billion years. :icon_bigg Anybobdy sticking around?:icon_bigg



Well said.... I actually understood that... :keke:
But yea, I learned that in my class, that it will always fix itself.
Umm... Like the theory that the moon was once part of the earth... Crazy shit right there... I'm a little skeptic about that though (yes, even though i don't know enough about it)...
I hate that science is always a theory. But it's accepted... Almost everywhere.

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

Odd thing about the nature of earth is that it is self balancing. It can repair it's self, even if it has to erase the human race to do it. It's been here longer than us, and will be here alot longer. Unless something bigger than it takes it out. Still yet gravity well help it to reform. may take a few billion years. :icon_bigg Anybobdy sticking around?:icon_bigg

I agree, save for some katastrophic event steming from human sources or an extraterrestrial source, the earth will more than likely outlive us speaking strictly scientifically anyway. And as far as sticking around...I'm gonna try my damnest...

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

Hey, my Physical Geology teacher... You know about him and the stupid rocks... Well he says it's bullshit, but since I have class with him today I am going to ask him what his opinion really is on global warming.. After all, he is a fackin Doctor.

Make sure it's based in evidence and not opinion or conjecture...highly emotional responses tend to lack content...

[Crystalline]

Make sure it's based in evidence and not opinion or conjecture...highly emotional responses tend to lack content...



He is a teacher! He has to have evidence!!!:happy3:
But, I know seeeaaaaaan... I always have to have evidence to take it into consideration, or into fact.

OH BTW... I get to see what I made on my lab exam... woo hoo!!:eek3:

[AliceInChains02]

or how it seemed to be dismissed here recently....and why wont Gore debate Global Warming with...hell ANYONE...hmmmm

by anyone do you mean Lord Mockton?

[AliceInChains02]

The almighty dollar my friend....its all about money! notice how people speaking about global warming are also pushing us to invest in other sources of energy one of which companies Gore is a part of. It is a political agenda and fed by greed. That is what Jason is saying...I think....

it makes sense that they would want to get the world into other types of energy and i'm sure that opens a huge amount of biz. opportunities, and of course no politician can resist that, but how big of a part is Al Gore in these companies? What does he do exactly?

[jus10]

by anyone do you mean Lord Mockton?

well by anyone, I meant anyone. It's clear he is dodging any and everyone on this issue, mainly if they have a chance to ask questions. But yes, I believe that's him and I thought someone else a while back (maybe not)...seems fishy doesn't it?

[Moody]

Hey, my Physical Geology teacher... You know about him and the stupid rocks... Well he says it's bullshit, but since I have class with him today I am going to ask him what his opinion really is on global warming.. After all, he is a fackin Doctor.
Well what was the verdict?

[jus10]

it makes sense that they would want to get the world into other types of energy and i'm sure that opens a huge amount of biz. opportunities, and of course no politician can resist that, but how big of a part is Al Gore in these companies? What does he do exactly?

That's what I'm in the process of finding out (completely)... but ya know...I'm kind of starting to think this will end up like the recycling craze....on the "to do" list for now....but soon....only a small portion of the population will give a damn.

[AliceInChains02]

If science has yet to determine what is happening then why does Al Gore and others think there such a consensus among scientists that Humans are causing global warming?

There's a concensus, I think, that CO2 emissions have a high correlation with earth temperature, or at least that CO2 interacts with our atmosphere in certain ways and this is studied by scientists who can explain it in ways you and I probably wouldn't understand. I remember from the documentary they had some interesting correlations in the charts/articles gained from ice core samples, etc.


The problem i have taking the word of Al Gore and others is that they are part of a political movement and have no scientific background.
It seems to me like it was an environmental movement that became political since it will have such a large impact on business. I doubt a bunch of scientists were sitting around plotting up issues to divide the parties up or maybe they just hate oil companies.



It's amazing how termites produce more greenhouse grasses then humans do isn't it.

Well, I've never heard that, so let's take a look at it.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/11/061104084951.htm
http://www.springerlink.com/content/x5qn3524657p2123/
All I can find regarding termites is CH4 levels.
The first link says "Human activity such as fossil fuel exploitation, rice agriculture, biomass burning, landfills and ruminant farm animals account for some 60% of atmospheric CH4, with natural processes including those produced by wetlands and termites responsible for the remaining 40%."

The 2nd link " New CH4 emission data from a number of Northern and Southern Hemispheric, tropical and temperate termites, are reported, which indicate that the annual global CH4 source due to termites is probably less than 15 Tg. The major uncertainties in this estimate are identified and found to be substantial. Nevertheless, our results suggest that termites probably account for less than 5% of global CH4 emissions."
Do you have any links that explain their damage further?

You may want to pull your foot out of your mouth here because you just contradicted yourself. Al Gore has no scientific backing because there is no consensus. Also, last I checked, Al Gore was part of a political movement.
Can you point me to some respected scientist, or group of scientists saying that global warming is not only proven, but is not real(a "swindle"?)? Like Big, Prominent groups that have PhDs and scientific research backing them?

This is a political and religious movement headed by a politician, Mr. Al Gore.
okay

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

Actually Al Gore did go before a congressional sub-commitee not too long ago:
------------------------------------------------------------
Partisan Bickering Marks Al Gore Appearance in Congress For Global Warming Hearing

WASHINGTON — In the fiery environment of Capitol Hill, Al Gore pushed for bipartisanship Wednesday to solve what he called a "planetary emergency," while Republicans and Democrats argued over whether the former vice president was receiving special treatment.

In bickering that began with Republican lawmakers complaining about the late hour they received Gore's testimony and extended around the planet to the debate among climatologists and down to the degree to which the polar ice caps are melting in Antarctica, Gore's appearance made for lively debate.

Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., ranking member on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and a leading critic of global warming claims, said Gore has made it an occupation to scare people with the message that "we're all going to die."

Referring to the claim that Antarctica might melt and raise sea levels to wipe out shorelines around the continents, Inhofe said, "This is a good one here, this scares everybody."

Some scientists say the overall ice mass is increasing, Inhofe argued.

Scientists agree that the planet is warming, but disputes remain over the degree to which manmade pollution is causing temperatures to rise and the practicality and cost of regulations aimed to reduce carbon-based pollution. Some Republicans presented a letter from Czech Republic President Vaclav Klaus, who argued that radical environmentalism is as great a threat to human freedom as was the communism under which he lived when the Soviets ruled his former country of Czechoslovakia.

Gore, calmly responding to the hard-charging Republicans, urged lawmakers to freeze carbon dioxide emissions in the U.S. and begin sharp reductions of climate altering greenhouse gases.

Gore said he wants to cut carbon dioxide and other warming gases 90 percent by 2050 and require a ban on new coal-burning power plants that don't meet state-of-the-art carbon standards.

Gore delivered messages from more than 500,000 people saying "Congress must take real action now to stop global warming."

"What we’re facing now is a crisis that is by far the most serious we’ve ever faced. The way we’re going to solve it is by asking you on both sides of the aisle to do what some people have as you know begun to fear that we don’t have the capacity to do anymore," Gore said.

As he spoke, researchers at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration announced a new system to track carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, to help in projecting future climate change and evaluating efforts to reduce releases of carbon.

Tracking carbon dioxide release and absorption will improve understanding of its impact, said said Richard Spinrad, head of research at the NOAA, noting that one-third of the economy is weather and climate sensitive ranging from agriculture to transportation to insurance and real estate.Inhofe claimed Gore's positions are full of inaccuracies and misleading statements.

After questioning the Oscar winning writer of the documentary "An Inconvenient Truth," Inhofe didn't wait for his answers, saying Gore had 30 minutes to speak, and he had 15 minutes of questions.

Inhofe also got into repeated spats with committee chairwoman Barbara Boxer. After complaining that he wanted his 15 minutes, Boxer, D-Calif., held up her gavel and responded: "Elections have consequences. ... You don't still have this. I make the rules."

After an equally combative morning hearing on the House side of Congress, Gore said he wasn't deterred by the skeptics.

"I did enjoy listening to the other side, and I thought a lot of them on both sides made some great points today," Gore told FOX News Radio. "I think that bipartisanship is one of the real goals that we need to shoot for in getting a solution to this, to this climate crisis."

Gore arrived late for that morning hearing after deciding not to sit through Republican opening statements expressing skepticism at the science he uses to warn against global warming.

But when Gore did appear 30 minutes after the start of the hearing, he pushed for government action on his signature issue.

"The planet has a fever. If your baby has a fever, you go to the doctor. If the doctor says you need to intervene here, you don’t say, 'Well, I read a science fiction novel that tells me it’s not a problem,'" Gore told House lawmakers. "If the crib’s on fire, you don’t speculate that the baby is flame retardant. You take action."

Knowing Gore's plan to be tardy, Republican members waived their five minutes each for opening statements and saved their comments for the question-and-answer session with Gore.

Prior to the opening statements, however, Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, the ranking Republican at the joint hearing held by two subcommittees of the House Committees on Science and Technology and Energy and Commerce, questioned Democratic colleagues over their failure to enforce a rule that requires witnesses to submit their written testimony 48 hours in advance of their appearance.

Republicans received Gore’s testimony at 7 a.m. EDT on Wednesday.

“How are we supposed to prepare questions for our esteemed witness when we are basically given the testimony two hours before he shows up?” Barton asked.

Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, said he waived the requirement.

Boxer, speaking before Gore's testimony, called it a “silly thing” to debate the timing of his submission of testimony.

“He only submitted about five minutes of testimony because he doesn’t need to read a statement, as others do on this subject, he knows it so well,” Boxer told FOX News.

Boxer said global warming is real and science proves it. She referenced a report released in February by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a U.N. group, that found a greater than 90 percent probability that humans are responsible for the increase in global warming. The report’s finding hikes its 2001 estimate, which put the probability at 66 percent.

Doubters argue that even if humans have added to global warming, that contribution is only a fraction compared to natural factors beyond human control.

Gore previewed his testimony to Congress by calling for support for the virtues of long-term investing in a socially responsible manner and urging pension-fund executives and trustees to look beyond the impulse to reap immediate gain.

In an unusual move for witnesses, upon arrival at the hearing room in the Rayburn House Office Building, Gore went up to dais and shook hands with Democratic committee leaders, some of whom he served with while a congressman in the 1970s and 1980s.

All the attention given to Gore as as result of his latest successes has raised the chatter about whether he will run for president again. Asked about his ambitions, Gore told FOX News, "I have no plans to run for president again, I don't intend to, and I don't expect to."

Link (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,260123,00.html)

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

There's a concensus, I think, that CO2 emissions have a high correlation with earth temperature, or at least that CO2 interacts with our atmosphere in certain ways and this is studied by scientists who can explain it in ways you and I probably wouldn't understand. I remember from the documentary they had some interesting correlations in the charts/articles gained from ice core samples, etc.

Here is some supporting information from the Supreme Court ruling handed down today:
------------------------------------------------------------
Government must deal with greenhouse gases: US Supreme Court

The US Supreme Court ruled Monday that the Environmental Protection Agency must consider greenhouse gases as pollutants, in a blow to the White House.
"Because greenhouse gases fit well within the Clean Air Act's capacious definition of 'air pollutant' we hold that EPA has the statutory authority to regulate the emission of such gases from new motor vehicles," the court ruled.

Led by Massachusetts, a dozen states along with several US cities and environmental groups went to the courts to determine whether the agency had the authority to regulate greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide emissions.

"The harms associated with climate change are serious and well recognized," said judge John Paul Stevens as the ruling was carried by five votes in favor to four against.

The Republican administration of US President George W. Bush has fiercely opposed any imposition of binding greenhouse limits on the nation's industry.

Environmentalists have alleged that since Bush came to office in 2001 his administration has ignored and tried to hide looming evidence of global warming and the key role of human activity in climate change.

As the issue has come to the fore in the US, the White House earlier this year issued a rare open letter defending Bush's record on climate change, rejecting criticisms that he has only recently awakened to the problem.

Monday's ruling was immediately hailed by environmental campaigners which has been fighting for greater regulations in a nation which accounts for a quarter of global greenhouse gas emissions.

"It is a watershed moment in the fight against global warming," said Josh Dorner, spokesman for the Sierra Club environmental group.

"This is a total repudiation of the refusal of the Bush administration to use the authority he has to meet the challenge posed by global warming.

It also "sends a clear signal to the market that the future lies not in dirty, outdated technology of yesterday, but in clean energy solutions of tomorrow like wind, solar," he added.

Link (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070402160408.i1mdzqip&show_article=1)

[AliceInChains02]

I'll explain that to you as soon as you can explain how humans caused the global warming in both the Medieval Climate Optimum with their pollution and greenhouse gases. :icon_thum

Going back to work.:hello:

There are many factors that can lead to global warming. Humans aren't the only cause. Temperature and CO2 have fluctuated(together w/ some lag) throughout history due to many things, from what I've gathered from my biased sources.

[AliceInChains02]

"Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., ranking member on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and a leading critic of global warming":confused2

"Scientists agree that the planet is warming, but disputes remain over the degree to which manmade pollution is causing temperatures to rise and the practicality and cost of regulations aimed to reduce carbon-based pollution." so it's a question of the Degree that we're affecting the Temperature.
"Some Republicans presented a letter from Czech Republic President Vaclav Klaus, who argued that radical environmentalism is as great a threat to human freedom as was the communism under which he lived when the Soviets ruled his former country of Czechoslovakia."
Damn! they're even playing the communist card!

"a report released in February by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a U.N. group, that found a greater than 90 percent probability that humans are responsible for the increase in global warming. The report’s finding hikes its 2001 estimate, which put the probability at 66 percent."hmm, haven't heard about this

[Rick H.I.C.]

Actually Al Gore did go before a congressional sub-commitee not too long ago:
------------------------------------------------------------
Partisan Bickering Marks Al Gore Appearance in Congress For Global Warming Hearing

WASHINGTON — In the fiery environment of Capitol Hill, Al Gore pushed for bipartisanship Wednesday to solve what he called a "planetary emergency," while Republicans and Democrats argued over whether the former vice president was receiving special treatment.

In bickering that began with Republican lawmakers complaining about the late hour they received Gore's testimony and extended around the planet to the debate among climatologists and down to the degree to which the polar ice caps are melting in Antarctica, Gore's appearance made for lively debate.

Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., ranking member on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and a leading critic of global warming claims, said Gore has made it an occupation to scare people with the message that "we're all going to die."

Referring to the claim that Antarctica might melt and raise sea levels to wipe out shorelines around the continents, Inhofe said, "This is a good one here, this scares everybody."

Some scientists say the overall ice mass is increasing, Inhofe argued.

Scientists agree that the planet is warming, but disputes remain over the degree to which manmade pollution is causing temperatures to rise and the practicality and cost of regulations aimed to reduce carbon-based pollution. Some Republicans presented a letter from Czech Republic President Vaclav Klaus, who argued that radical environmentalism is as great a threat to human freedom as was the communism under which he lived when the Soviets ruled his former country of Czechoslovakia.

Gore, calmly responding to the hard-charging Republicans, urged lawmakers to freeze carbon dioxide emissions in the U.S. and begin sharp reductions of climate altering greenhouse gases.

Gore said he wants to cut carbon dioxide and other warming gases 90 percent by 2050 and require a ban on new coal-burning power plants that don't meet state-of-the-art carbon standards.

Gore delivered messages from more than 500,000 people saying "Congress must take real action now to stop global warming."

"What we’re facing now is a crisis that is by far the most serious we’ve ever faced. The way we’re going to solve it is by asking you on both sides of the aisle to do what some people have as you know begun to fear that we don’t have the capacity to do anymore," Gore said.

As he spoke, researchers at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration announced a new system to track carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, to help in projecting future climate change and evaluating efforts to reduce releases of carbon.

Tracking carbon dioxide release and absorption will improve understanding of its impact, said said Richard Spinrad, head of research at the NOAA, noting that one-third of the economy is weather and climate sensitive ranging from agriculture to transportation to insurance and real estate.Inhofe claimed Gore's positions are full of inaccuracies and misleading statements.

After questioning the Oscar winning writer of the documentary "An Inconvenient Truth," Inhofe didn't wait for his answers, saying Gore had 30 minutes to speak, and he had 15 minutes of questions.

Inhofe also got into repeated spats with committee chairwoman Barbara Boxer. After complaining that he wanted his 15 minutes, Boxer, D-Calif., held up her gavel and responded: "Elections have consequences. ... You don't still have this. I make the rules."

After an equally combative morning hearing on the House side of Congress, Gore said he wasn't deterred by the skeptics.

"I did enjoy listening to the other side, and I thought a lot of them on both sides made some great points today," Gore told FOX News Radio. "I think that bipartisanship is one of the real goals that we need to shoot for in getting a solution to this, to this climate crisis."

Gore arrived late for that morning hearing after deciding not to sit through Republican opening statements expressing skepticism at the science he uses to warn against global warming.

But when Gore did appear 30 minutes after the start of the hearing, he pushed for government action on his signature issue.

"The planet has a fever. If your baby has a fever, you go to the doctor. If the doctor says you need to intervene here, you don’t say, 'Well, I read a science fiction novel that tells me it’s not a problem,'" Gore told House lawmakers. "If the crib’s on fire, you don’t speculate that the baby is flame retardant. You take action."

Knowing Gore's plan to be tardy, Republican members waived their five minutes each for opening statements and saved their comments for the question-and-answer session with Gore.

Prior to the opening statements, however, Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, the ranking Republican at the joint hearing held by two subcommittees of the House Committees on Science and Technology and Energy and Commerce, questioned Democratic colleagues over their failure to enforce a rule that requires witnesses to submit their written testimony 48 hours in advance of their appearance.

Republicans received Gore’s testimony at 7 a.m. EDT on Wednesday.

“How are we supposed to prepare questions for our esteemed witness when we are basically given the testimony two hours before he shows up?” Barton asked.

Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, said he waived the requirement.

Boxer, speaking before Gore's testimony, called it a “silly thing” to debate the timing of his submission of testimony.

“He only submitted about five minutes of testimony because he doesn’t need to read a statement, as others do on this subject, he knows it so well,” Boxer told FOX News.

Boxer said global warming is real and science proves it. She referenced a report released in February by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a U.N. group, that found a greater than 90 percent probability that humans are responsible for the increase in global warming. The report’s finding hikes its 2001 estimate, which put the probability at 66 percent.

Doubters argue that even if humans have added to global warming, that contribution is only a fraction compared to natural factors beyond human control.

Gore previewed his testimony to Congress by calling for support for the virtues of long-term investing in a socially responsible manner and urging pension-fund executives and trustees to look beyond the impulse to reap immediate gain.

In an unusual move for witnesses, upon arrival at the hearing room in the Rayburn House Office Building, Gore went up to dais and shook hands with Democratic committee leaders, some of whom he served with while a congressman in the 1970s and 1980s.

All the attention given to Gore as as result of his latest successes has raised the chatter about whether he will run for president again. Asked about his ambitions, Gore told FOX News, "I have no plans to run for president again, I don't intend to, and I don't expect to."

Link (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,260123,00.html)
Unfortunately this is the type of overload I can't make time for.:eh:

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

Unfortunately this is the type of overload I can't make time for.:eh:

Lol...CaJuN<---Current Events junkie :nod: