"Help!!!"
* Update: Big Al has responded (to Bill O'Reilly's comments) in his exclusive, "Al's Journal"
Here is the text off the Huffington Post:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/al-gore/an-answer-for-bill-oreill_b_817238.html
"Last week on his show Bill O'Reilly asked, "Why has southern New York turned into the tundra?" and then said he had a call into me. I appreciate the question.
As it turns out, the scientific community has been addressing this particular question for some time now and they say that increased heavy snowfalls are completely consistent with what they have been predicting as a consequence of man-made global warming. Here's Clarence Page at the Chicago Tribune:
"In fact, scientists have been warning for at least two decades that global warming could make snowstorms more severe. Snow has two simple ingredients: cold and moisture. Warmer air collects moisture like a sponge until it hits a patch of cold air. When temperatures dip below freezing, a lot of moisture creates a lot of snow."
Global Warming-the consequence (Photo Fox News)
"A rise in global temperature can create all sorts of havoc, ranging from hotter dry spells to colder winters, along with increasingly violent storms, flooding, forest fires and loss of endangered species."
-Fousesquawk comment: Yes, Dr Gore, and scientists also know that rain is a consequence of global draught, just as extreme heat is a consequence of the Ice Age, just as losing is a consequence of winning, just as love is a consequence of being mugged on the subway, just as a peanut is a consequence of butter, just as getting three outs in a baseball game is a consequence of making three errors, just as losing 40 pounds is a consequence of drinking 45 beers every night . It all makes perfect sense, right?
"Uhhhh.....yeaaaah."
And Clarence Page? Where does he tend bar?
* Update: Big Al has responded (to Bill O'Reilly's comments) in his exclusive, "Al's Journal"
Here is the text off the Huffington Post:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/al-gore/an-answer-for-bill-oreill_b_817238.html
"Last week on his show Bill O'Reilly asked, "Why has southern New York turned into the tundra?" and then said he had a call into me. I appreciate the question.
As it turns out, the scientific community has been addressing this particular question for some time now and they say that increased heavy snowfalls are completely consistent with what they have been predicting as a consequence of man-made global warming. Here's Clarence Page at the Chicago Tribune:
"In fact, scientists have been warning for at least two decades that global warming could make snowstorms more severe. Snow has two simple ingredients: cold and moisture. Warmer air collects moisture like a sponge until it hits a patch of cold air. When temperatures dip below freezing, a lot of moisture creates a lot of snow."
Global Warming-the consequence (Photo Fox News)
"A rise in global temperature can create all sorts of havoc, ranging from hotter dry spells to colder winters, along with increasingly violent storms, flooding, forest fires and loss of endangered species."
-Fousesquawk comment: Yes, Dr Gore, and scientists also know that rain is a consequence of global draught, just as extreme heat is a consequence of the Ice Age, just as losing is a consequence of winning, just as love is a consequence of being mugged on the subway, just as a peanut is a consequence of butter, just as getting three outs in a baseball game is a consequence of making three errors, just as losing 40 pounds is a consequence of drinking 45 beers every night . It all makes perfect sense, right?
"Uhhhh.....yeaaaah."
And Clarence Page? Where does he tend bar?
36 comments:
Gary, about twenty years ago, I read an article on research which suggested that the last ice age did not begin with massive glaciers grinding slowly southward from the artic, but rather, that so much snow fell over a wide area that it didn't all melt in the summer, and over a century or so, a massive ice cap covered much of the northern hemisphere. THEN the ice ground slowly southward over many millenia.
There was also some evidence that this may have been triggered when the oceans warmed sufficiently that increased moisture in the arctic, and interruption of certain ocean currents, made it possible.
It didn't happen with the instant action of the movie "The Day After Tomorrow." Most natural events don't fit into a single movie. But I think about these lines of research whenever I have to dig out from a huge snowfall, or see snow accumulating at a faster rate, not to mention the repeat record deluge (water, not snow, but devastating and a departure from normal) in Australia.
You exemplify the knee-jerk opposition to consideration of human-induced climate change, by people who are simply too lazy to be bothered to actually do anything to avert what may be a rapidly accelerating disaster. Only, its accelerating year to year, not within the two hours of a movie, which is what Americans look for as the standard of Truth these days.
(Too bad Al Gore doesn't have the sense to say that. But since he's too dense, I'll say it.)
Sialyrs you forget the emails from British "researchers" showing they fudged all the data. Literally plucked numbers out of the air.
That isn't science, it is junk, phony, bad science. Now the research must be redone, properly with due care to true results. It will take a decade to redo. Then and only then will we know the truth.
When it comes to fiddling around with our climate, slow and steady really will win this race.
Speaking by a woman who just dug out from 20 inches.
Meanwhile in northern California we're expecting temperatures in the low 70s this weekend. In early February.
However, neither your anecdote nor mine necessarily "prove" anything. The real issue is the overall global climate and extreme weather. I understand that. You don't.
Where to begin? You reveal your ignorance quite thoroughly. You don't understand the difference between weather and climate, and more importantly, you clearly don't understand the argument that Gore is making. So what do you do? You make fun of it and try to make him look foolish, when in fact, the opposite is happening. Your ironic statement about droughts and rain makes YOU look stupid, not Al Gore.
And then Findalis brings in the old East Anglia canard, even though they were cleared of any wrongdoing - and even if they did do what they're accused of, it still doesn't change the FACT that average global temperatures are on the rise and 98% of climatologists agree that humanity is having an impact on this rise.
You, Gary Fouse, are scientifically illiterate, and you don't have the honesty to admit it.
Lance,
Chew on this. It should keep you occupied for a while, but trust me, it will bolster your arguments.
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm
PS Lance,
You can hurl all the insults you want, but you reveal that you rely on the wisdom of a buffoon like Al Gore and the "vindicated" e-mail erasers at East Anglia University. 15 years from now the whole world will be laughing at you guys-if you haven't succeeded in using GW to create an orwellian world.
Wow. More sarcasm. Guess that proves your point.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. I don't care about Al Gore. I don't care about East Anglia. I care about 98% of climatologists and the evidence that they have presented. The last decade has been the hottest on record, and the one before that had the previous record. The ice caps are melting.
What do you have? Nothing but arguments that show that you don't even understand the issue in the first place. It's been explained to you again and again that nobody has ever said that it would never be cold in winter again. It's always been about AVERAGE GLOBAL TEMPERATURES and how it affects the CLIMATE (not just the weather). And what do you do? You keep repeating this argument, even though you've been shown that it's irrelevant.
I'm not calling you names by saying that you are ignorant. I'm stating a fact. The definition of ignorance is as follows:
a : destitute of knowledge or education; also : lacking knowledge or comprehension of the thing specified
You don't understand the issue. If you did, you would not be making the arguments that you are making. I could respect the fact that you don't believe in it if you at least showed some intellectual curiosity to understand what the case for global warming even is. But you don't. You don't want to learn anything. You remain ignorant, and the worst part is that you are proud of your ignorance.
Gary, on this subject you and Findalis really don't sound very smart.
I am afraid that 15 years from now no one will be laughing anymore.
WASN'T THE HOTTEST DECADE ON RECORD THE 1930S?
WASN'T THE HOTTEST DECADE ON RECORD THE 1930S?
Yes. In the United States, not the world. And this has been explained to you before, and you...still...don't...f***ing...get...IT.
Well since you have all the facts at your fingertips, what has been the rise in temperature in the last 100 years?
Check out NASA's site. No connection to East Anglia or Al Gore, I swear.
Wishful thinking Findalis. You've been more sensible on many subjects, but you just don't want to face up to the truth on this one. I didn't cite studies of "global warming" or "climate change" but accepted studies which pre-date the whole controversy.
The figures from East Anglia are, at most, a tiny, tiny fraction of the evidence, and the emails, on their face, plainly do not show that the data was fudged, only that in presenting the analysis, they had one eye on the potential political opposition.
That, unfortunately, is an inevitable result of dealing with a politically hot subject in a world populated by the likes of O'Reilly. Strategy, as well as data, becomes a preoccupation.
Gary, you really have displayed gross ignorance of meterology. I knew better by the time I finished fourth grade, and I've kept reading since. It doesn't require a Ph.D, but to say you are seeing "through a glass darkly" is an understatement.
"Gary, you really have displayed gross ignorance of meterology"
Yes, I am certainly guilty of that.
Astronomy too.
The sad thing about this? The next time it's cold somewhere in the winter time, Gary will once again post this same old tired line even though he has been so thoroughly owned on this point.
Gary, you're like Wile E. Coyote. No, that's not quite right. You're like Wile E. Coyote if he kept trying the same gimmick over and over again only to keep falling off the same cliff. At least Mr. Coyote tried to vary up his M.O. a little with some rocket skates or bat wings.
Lance,
Are you finished with your (latest) diatribe yet? It's amazing how a little humor at the expense of your Global Warming Gods stirs you to such indignation.
God forbid that any of your students should question or deny GW in your class.
Gary, you were the one writing a diatribe. I am simply showing you how you're wrong.
I actually told my students that when they wrote their opinion/research paper that they were free to write it on anything that they want - including Global Warming. I am even on record as to giving A's on those papers where I vehemently disagreed with what the student wrote.
The one thing I tell them though is that they need to use facts and show a clear understanding of the issue. So, if they used your arguments they would get a low grade - not because of their position but because of their lazy research.
And just curious, have you EVER admitted to being wrong about anything in your entire life?
Oh, and I link a picture of Wile E. Coyote yet have no sense of humor? I find this to be VERY funny, but I'm laughing AT you, not with you.
Ignorance is a sad thing to behold Gary, and voluntary ignorance even worse. As a classroom teacher, I suppose it must make Lance's blood boil to see in an adult what is truly sad in a child.
Siarlys,
Are you trying to reduce me to tears?
Oh, I wouldn't do that Gary. You might melt.
Gary, I read your blog and the comments. Where is your answer besides the pithy little "crying" comments? You are a great one for claiming faith in intellectual discourse until you actually have to engage in it. Then you retreat into school yard taunts and jokes.
Actually, in 15 years (or so) you'll probably be dead, or approaching it (this is no insult- we all expire eventually) and instead of the laughter you envision, it will probably be more like this "Shit. This outrageous, extreme weather every season sucks! 'Member Gary? I'm sure glad he doesn't have to live in the world he helped to build with his myopic, authoritarian, anti-human, pro-corporate, insane Randian jim-crack philosophy. He seemed like he meant well"
CLIMATE CHANGE, genius, does not mean a lack of seasonal change and extreme weather actually proves the theory!
PLEASE, recover some dignity on this point and admit you don't know what you're talking about.
Joey,
First of all, you come across as an idiotic product of our public school system. Secondly, I have stated many times here that I don't know the answer to this GW controversy, but I don't think you do either. Until somebody actually proves it and the scientific community is in agreement, I am unwilling to turn the economy of our country upside down and redistribute our wealth to the Third World so they can "combat" GW themselves under the guidance of the corrupt bureaucracy known as the UN and their international agencies.
Until that day comes, I tend to suspect that this is a colossal hoax.
In the meantime, thanks for your version of "intellectual discourse", which like most of the others, consists of insults.Have a nice (sunny) day.
Until somebody actually proves it and the scientific community is in agreement...
Both of these things have happened, but you continue to put your fingers in your ears and shout "NOT LISTENING!"
And your claims of "I don't know" are disingenuous.
Gary, you seem to have proved Joey's point rather well. Your response conforms to exactly what he accused you of.
It is amazing how emotional you "Warmers" get when anybody questions your religion of Global Warming.
Gary, if anybody here has a near-religious fervor on this topic, it's you. Seriously, do your really think that you come off well in this debate? What would you think that a person who was sitting on the fence on this issue would think of who comes off better in this debate?
Who has presented facts here? Who has presented a misunderstanding of the issue?
Lance,
Seriously, you have been making this same statement for a couple of years now. Give it up. I don't accept GW. Deal with it.
I thought you always said "I don't know." Now you're saying that you don't accept it.
Which is it, Gary?
Whichever you want it to be, Lance.
I'd settle for you either just accurately defining what the global warming issue even is or admitting that you don't understand it.
There is no sound scientific basis to deny that human activity is warming up the planet, nor that that increased warming is having some deleterious effects on human life and livlihood.
There are many reasons that people deny the facts anyway. I don't believe that Gary owns major blocks of stock in oil companies. I don't believe that fear his utility bills might rise is sufficient to explain his stubbornness on this point.
No, Gary is the kind of useful idiot the hydrocarbon industry needs. He is against it merely because Al Gore is for it, and because he never really liked the environmental movement in general - their hair was too long, some of them went to UC - Santa Cruz... it's a cultural thing.
As my fourth grade teacher used to say of such thinking "My mind's made up. Don't confuse me with the facts."
Can someone tell me how climate change is going to destroy the planet? Is it going to crush it into billions of tiny pieces? Is the atmosphere going to fly off into space? Are we going to fly into the sun?
The answer to all the above is no. The Earth is ok. It will survive anything the Human Race can do to it. So don't worry. Everything will be fine in the end.
Can someone tell me how climate change is going to destroy the planet?
Just like all your stupid arguments, you're debating a point that nobody is even making.
And now Gary is reduced to his newest, most pathetic level yet - referring to it as a religion. Hey, Gary, can you dispute the evidence provided by that NASA site I gave you? Or are they all a part of the big Marxist conspiracy too?
But I am glad to see that Gary's finally come around to admitting that religion is bad. Good job on that - took you long enough.
"Can someone tell me how climate change is going to destroy the planet? Is it going to crush it into billions of tiny pieces? Is the atmosphere going to fly off into space? Are we going to fly into the sun?
The Earth is ok. It will survive anything the Human Race can do to it. So don't worry. Everything will be fine in the end."
I feel like this statement should be lionized. It should be part of a Time/Life series of earth-shatteringly stupid statements (no pun intended). It would appear alongside "How Many Indians can there Be?" by G. Custer, "We Signed an Agreement With Hitler, so We'll Be Fine," by J. Stalin, and "No Need for Extra Food- The Sierras Can't be That Tough," by the Donner Party.
Findalis, what you've just written is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever read. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone on this thread is now dumber for having looked at it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
The most amazing thing is how it's dumb in so many different ways. To wit:
1. Findalis is now changing his/her argument from "Global climate change is not happening" to "Who cares if it is? We'll be fine!"
2. The scenarios Findalis posits (flying off into the sun, crushed into tiny pieces, etc.) show not even the slightest understanding or knowledge of the effects of climate change that scientists have forecasted. The ignorance displayed on the topic which he/she argues so fervently is truly staggering.
3. No one is debating the Earth's survival. The Earth is a planet. It will continue to orbit the sun and spin and all that. The reason climate change is so frightening is for WHAT IT WILL DO TO THE HUMAN RACE. Sure, the Earth will still exist, but lots more of it will be underwater if the scientists are right. And there will be bigger, more dangerous storms. And drought. And famine. And disease from insects. Millions of people will die if scientists are right.
What you and Gary refuse to see is that those who realize climate change is happening (notice I did not write "believe," because despite what you claim, the science is settled) are not tree-hugging hippies worried about the spotted owl. We're worried about how humans will live if the temperature continues to rise significantly.
Why aren't you worried? Because Al Gore told you to be? I think you're going to find out what it feels like to live without a nose, but you've really showed your face.
Btw, Findalis' statement was mind-boggingly dumb in a bunch of other ways, but I ran out of time. Sorry.
Atticus now we come to the truth of the matter. While the left screams The Sky is Falling and The Earth is Dying led by Al Gore, the real song is people are in danger.
But not all people. Islands are sinking into the sea, but that has happened in the past. There will be droughts, floods, etc... But that happened in the past too. We survived.
The Human Race can survive pretty much anything thrown at us. 75,000 the Supervolcano Toba exploded. The resulting volcanic winter nearly wiped out the Human Race. But we survived. Just one example.
We Humans are Generalists. By being able to survive on any edible plant or animal, we have a better chance at survival.
But we want more. What are you willing to give up to global warming? Your car? Central Heating? Having electricity on demand 24 hours a day? Refridgeration? This list can go on.
For the record I am doing my part for a cleaner world. I live in an area with excellent public transportation. I gave up my car and use it instead. Do you?
Post a Comment