Saturday May 24, 2008, 9:14 am
Well, they don't seem to allow reality to ever intrude on the Doomsday scenario. The warming peaked in 1998 and a cooling trend started in 2001 which is to continue until 2015-2023.
http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/archibald_prize/

"John Connor of The Climate Institute says that my boat, my car and I are destroying the environment. My work says the opposite. The more carbon dioxide you put into the atmosphere, the more you are helping all plants on the planet to grow, and of course that makes you a better person. Virtue is in direct proportion to your carbon dioxide output. What of the temperature, you ask? Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, but the effect is strongly logarithmic. The first 20 ppm achieves 1.5 degrees of heating, but it takes more than another 400 ppm to equal that. By the time we get to the current level of 384 ppm, carbon dioxide is tuckered out as a greenhouse gas. From here, every 100 ppm extra may be worth 0.1 of a degree.

So how does the IPCC achieve 5 degrees of heating from a doubling of the pre-industrial level of carbon dioxide to 560 ppm? They do it by cheating. Their computer models are written so that a little bit of carbon dioxide-caused heating puts more water vapour in the air. Water vapour is the major greenhouse gas, so they have the heating compounding away until they get a number that will melt icecaps, kill polar bears and all the other effects of their apocalyptic visions. Their view of the Earth’s climate is that it is tremendously unstable, prone to thermal runaway at the slightest provocation. In fact it is the opposite, a buffered system that dampens disturbances. Tropical seas can’t get warmer than 31 degrees because they start evaporating too rapidly to get any hotter. Similarly, high level tropical clouds part to vent radiation to space. The Earth is just about perfect for sustaining equable living conditions over a good proportion of its surface

What is strange is that the wailing of the global warming proponents is in the face of a temperature record that does not support their theory. Peak global temperature was in 1998 and we have had ten years of cooling since. The satellite record shows that the temperature of the Southern Hemisphere has been flat for the last 30 years. The Earth’s failure to warm has become quite annoying to the global warmers, and signs of cognitive dissonance are appearing in their camp. Surely a few more years of cooling will leave only the true believers in their misanthropic ideology, and the truly idiotic. Or is that moment with us now?

Can cooling continue, or is climate just a random walk? Not only will it continue, substantial cooling next decade is in the bag based on current solar behaviour. There is a good correlation between solar cycle length and the temperature over the following solar cycle. Long solar cycles cause l
ower temperatures. The classic case is the Dalton Minimum between 1796 and 1820. This was a time of crop failures in Europe and the US, and of the Thames freezing over in winter, caused by the weak amplitude of Solar Cycles 5 and 6. Solar cycles are normally 11 years long. Solar Cycle 4 which preceded the Dalton Minimum was a long one at 13.6 years. We are currently near the end of Solar Cycle 23, which is already 12 years long and showing no signs of finishing this year. It is already two and a half years longer than the one that preceded it. With 0.7 degrees of cooling for every extra year of solar cycle length, we already have 1.7 degrees of cooling in the bag for the mid-latitudes. The next decade will not be a good time to be a Canadian wheat farmer. In fact the current high grain prices caused by the mandated levels of ethanol in US petrol are just a warm up to the main event: a big reduction in mid-latitude grain production due to shorter growing seasons and unseasonal frosts. The global warmers do not have a monopoly on apocalyptic visions. Higher atmospheric carbon dioxide levels will help agricultural production a little. A 300 ppm increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide would increase wheat yields by 50%. Australia is a dry continent and we will benefit more than most others.

The next question is how to get more of that beneficial carbon dioxide up in the atmosphere where we need it. Non-OPEC oil production peaked in 2002, with flow on effects to the prices of coal and LNG. It won’t be cheap to do good from here. The good news for Australia is that coal-to-diesel plants are profitable at US$40 per barrel. At the current oil price, they are extremely profitable, and Australia has plenty of coal. The conversion process produces abundant carbon dioxide, so it is win-win all round."

(David Archibald is a Perth-based scientist working in the fields of climate and cancer research. He also explores for oil in northern Western Australia.)

Saturday May 24, 2008, 10:14 am
LOL! Cancer research? Like some of those tobacco denialists who asserted for many years that tobacco does NOT cause cancer to protect the big tobacco companies from lawsuits? And this guy explores for oil as well? That's all I need to know about David Archibald's motives. He's a sell out, like most global warming denialists tend to be.

Thanks for the laugh, Judy!

Saturday May 24, 2008, 9:54 pm
Sell out...do you know how much money Gore has made on this hoax...or how about James Hansen and all those "prizes" and "awards" like Teresa Kerry awarding him $250,000 for his performance in 1992.

Saturday May 24, 2008, 10:03 pm
Yes, and he is spending millions to spread the truth (and counter the oil companies lies) what a great man - guess that is why he won the Nobel Prize :) Gee did not the Exxon CEO (for get his name) get $140 MILLION as a single retirement package - Gore and Hanson kind of pale in light of that LOL

Saturday May 24, 2008, 10:06 pm
and sorry - the we are in a cooling trend rant (repeated over and over and over again) is still dogma...


New GW denialists’ deceptive lie on global temperatures

http://energysmart.wordpress.com/2008/03/20/new-gw-denialists-deceptive-lie-on-global-temperatures/

Saturday May 24, 2008, 10:25 pm
Sorry to wake you up Chris O. but that is called promotional advertising. If you have a product or idea and you want to sell it, you advertise and the more you spend on advertising the more you make in profits and Pope Gore is certainly raking in the profits just like the oil companies do.

Saturday May 24, 2008, 10:28 pm
thanks for the clairification POPE SUTTON - I will blindly follow you - NOT LOL

Saturday May 24, 2008, 11:03 pm
What is so funny, Dale? Are you saying that carbon is a carcinogen and can cause cancer? Remember we humans are carbon based life forms along with just about every other living organism on this planet. You might want to broaden your research on smoking as well because the cancer rate may be high from smoking in the U.S. but it is not nearly as high in Japan and their consumption of cigarettes is a lot higher per capita than in the U.S. I’m not saying smoking doesn’t cause cancer; I’m saying other factors also play a role in the high rate of cancer from smoking in the U.S., diet being one of them. And what is wrong with making money from something you see as a benefit to the world? Archibald does cancer research which is a benefit to humankind. He also believes carbon is a benefit to humankind in that it does aid plant growth so there again he is pursuing something he believes is worthwhile.

Saturday May 24, 2008, 11:10 pm
Fron the byline above:

David Archibald is a Perth-based scientist working in the fields of climate and cancer research. He also explores for oil in northern Western Australia.

He not only "explores" oil in Australia but he OWNS oil land there - but there would be no biase there righ Pope Sutton :)

Sunday May 25, 2008, 1:00 pm
Oh, Chris....Occidental Petroleum has been part of the Gore Family portfolio since the very shady Armand Hammer made the acquaintance of the late senator, dear Alberts father.
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/Columbia/Gore+Oxy.html

"This mutually beneficial relationship between a politician and his patrons is seldom acknowledged or discussed publicly. Indeed, none of the current presidential candidates would agree to be interviewed for The Buying of the President 2000. Yet these relationships between candidates and their sponsors can reveal a more accurate picture of the practical logistics and accommodations of achieving power in today's electoral process. It is a vision that extends beyond common political rhetoric.

For example, in the Democratic Party, Vice President Al Gore has a long-time relationship with Occidental Petroleum that has been enormously beneficial to the company. Occidental's late chairman, the controversial Armand Hammer, liked to say that he had Gore's father, Senator Albert Gore, Senior, quote, "in my back pocket", unquote. When the elder Gore left the Senate in 1970, Hammer hired him for $500,000 a year. Personally and professionally the vice president has profited from Occidental largess. To this day he still draws $20,000 a year from a land deal in Tennessee brokered between his father and Hammer. The total amount is more than $300,000. The personal relationship between young Gore and Hammer was very close throughout the 1980's, including trips on Hammer's private jet and constant campaign contributions.

For most of the 20th century, oil companies have tried unsuccessfully to obtain control of two oil fields owned and operated by the federal government: the Teapot Dome field in Casper, Wyoming, and the Elk Hills field in Bakersfield, California. Despite his public reputation as a staunch environmentalist, Gore recommended that the president approve giving oil companies access to this publicly owned land. It is land that the U.S. Navy has held as emergency reserves since 1912. In October, 1997, the Energy Department announced that the government would sell 47,000 acres of the Elk Hills reserve to Occidental."

Sunday May 25, 2008, 1:10 pm
So what?????

Sunday May 25, 2008, 1:17 pm
We were discussing the biases of your articles author - and you take an unrelated stab at Gore??? Sounds like someone trying to change the subject yet again :)

Sunday May 25, 2008, 1:21 pm
BTW, attacking the messanger Gore, does nothing to change the fact that human caused climate change is happening - right now!

Sunday May 25, 2008, 1:58 pm
Wait just a minute....you attacked the scientist David Archibald first.

That's called an Ad Hominem.

So I countered with some little known, but entirely relevant information about the High Priest of the Big Green Machine.

If it shows nothing else it shows his total hypocrisy and his willingness to sell out a public trust for private gain.

He is selling out a public trust for private gain on the climate issue by being partners in a company that will benefit hugely from the carbon trading game....at everyone else's expense.

By the way, I've noticed a pattern of short multiple postings by both you and Dale. Is that a new technique for getting people to forget what others post?

Sunday May 25, 2008, 2:09 pm
By the way, I've noticed a pattern of short multiple postings by both you and Dale. Is that a new technique for getting people to forget what others post?

that is an Ad Hominem BTW since you are being so imformative here LOL!!!

Sunday May 25, 2008, 2:39 pm
No, it's not an attack, its a question based on an observation. Why the short multiple postings...it is a great time waster for sure.

So, we ignore Gore's Occidental Petroleum connection. I'm sure you noticed the story about those native people in Columbia who threatened mass suicide if Occidental drilled on their land.

Here's the rest of the story about Gore's helpfulness to Occidental.

"It was the largest privatization of federal property in U.S. history, one that tripled Occidental's U.S. oil reserves overnight. Although the Energy Department was required to assess the likely environmental consequences of the proposed sale, it didn't. Instead it hired a private company, ICF Kaiser International, Incorporated, to complete the assessment. The general chairman of Gore's presidential campaign, Tony Coelho, sat on the board of directors.

The very same day the Elk Hills sale was announced, Gore delivered a speech to the White House Conference on Climate Change on the "terrifying prospect" of global warming, a problem he blamed on the unchecked use of fossil fuels such as oil. He said, quoting, "If we ignore the scientific warnings and continue stubbornly on our current course, we better begin to prepare what we would like to say to our children and grandchildren. They might fairly ask, if you knew all that, why didn't you do something about it?"

Texas Governor George W. Bush, as we all know, has shattered all previous fund raising standards for presidential candidates. In the first four months of his campaign, he took in $37 million, or $310,748 a day. He was able to accomplish this, in part, by inheriting his father's national network of financial supporters, going back more than a quarter century."

Sunday May 25, 2008, 2:43 pm
Yes, very long "copy and paste" posts, repeated over and over again, is much more effecient :) Again attacking Gore does nothing to dispel the fact that we are creating great havoc on this earth through our activities as the original article well illustrates...

Sunday May 25, 2008, 3:31 pm
Here's this guy who while Vice President betrays a public trust for an OIL COMPANY and personally benefits from it,and still owns stock in the same OIL COMPANT.

He then goes on the road with a faked film SELLING the idea that "the planet is burning up" and then goes into business SELLING CARBON CREDITS which is an idea thought up by ENRON...and you have the nerve to try to dismiss it as irrelevent!

Then you try to change the focus back on average folks being at fault.

THE HYPOCRISY IS OVERWHELMING1

Sunday May 25, 2008, 4:21 pm
The big problem is growth and development. We are running out of water, we are destroying rain forests for crops for food and fuel, we are destroying habitat to make room for all the people.

I have made the personal commitment to family planning. I have no children, and plan on having one child and adoption.

Al Gore had a connection to Kerr-McGee - remember Silkwood, the movie with Meryl Streep? I don't know if his son had any connection to the nuclear cmopany or it was only Al Gore senior.

If Gore is making money from oil, he has every right to promote global warming - he can tell people to stop using it and he will go out of business and become poor.

I applaud Care2 for leading the way, eating vegetarian, using rail for transport inlcuding Amtrak, promoting altrnative transportation.

It is obvious we will be fossil free within twenty years.

Sunday May 25, 2008, 5:03 pm
"Of course Al Gore has been a shil for nuclear power ever since he came of age as a political harlot for the Oakridge nuclear laboratory in his home state of Tennessee. The practical beneficiary of the baseless hysteria over "anthropogenic global warming" is the nuclear power industry. This very fall, as Peter Montague describes at length in our current CounterPunch newsletter, this industry is reaping the fruits of Al Gore's campaigning. Congress has finally knocked aside the regulatory licensing processes that have somewhat protected the public across recent decades. The starting gun has sounded, and just about the moment Gore and his co-conspirators at the IPCC collect their prizes, the bulldozers will be breaking ground for the new nuclear plants soon to spring like Amanita phalloides--just as deadly--across the American landscape."
It's As Ridiculous As If They'd Given Goebbels One in 1938
Al Gore's Peace Prize

By ALEXANDER COCKBURN
http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn10132007.html

Sunday May 25, 2008, 5:10 pm
Boy, Gore must be making lots of progress considering the (irrelevant) Ad Hominem attacks he receives form Judy - fear does that to a person :)

Sunday May 25, 2008, 5:23 pm
This takes the cake for rationalization:

"If Gore is making money from oil, he has every right to promote global warming - he can tell people to stop using it and he will go out of business and become poor."

No notice taken of his selling off public lands for oil drilling and personally profiting from it.

Surely, you must understand about the concept of CONFLICT OF INTEREST?

Surely, you can not excuse the present CONFLICT OF INTEREST Al Gore engages in by taking $175,000 and expenses for appearances to talk about a non-existant problem from which he will profit by selling "carbon credits".

And also using tax free money from a charitable foundation, the Alliance For Climate Protection, to generate publicity for a fake crisis from which he stand to gain.

Surely, you are not that naive.

Sunday May 25, 2008, 5:25 pm
I never made the quote above - Gore = conflict of interest
Exxon = unbiased information ... you are a hoot Judy!

And your ad hominen attact on Gore has NO BERING on the topic of the article - just a rant :)

Sunday May 25, 2008, 9:26 pm
Oh, but it does have a bearing Chris O. because it shows how two faced Gore is and that he is totally motivated by profit and remember Gore is the most visible spokesperson for the Global Warming Religion. He is also the one that proposed the new commodities market of carbon credits from which he will make millions as he continues to support big oil from the background insuring there will be a market for his carbon credits. When the messenger is also the source of the disinformation message then the messenger is fair game. The difference between Archibald and Gore is that Archibald is not trying to hide his connection to and support of oil. Also, if as you say the article is nothing more than a rant, and I agree, then there is no topic other than global warming and all of the postings on this submission are rants on global warming. Attacks on Gore’s integrity and honesty in relation to the global warming issue are well within the subject matter.

Sunday May 25, 2008, 9:47 pm
Please show me where Gore is mentioned in the original article - Judy (and you) are just using this as a platform to promote your political views - and attacking Gore in no way changes the fact that human caused warming exists...

And where was Archibald being less dishonest - did he devoluge his connections with oil - NO, it only came out when I dug further - no dirrerent than Gore!!!

Is Gore the best spokesman for global warming - maybe not - but that in no way changes the fact that it is happening...

And calling it a religion is simply silly :) Pope Sutton...

Monday May 26, 2008, 7:04 am
Now, to get back to the topic...another good source of information regarding the economic impacts of climate change is the Stern Review final report. It is very long and detailed, so you might want to start with some of the summaries first. Full report here:

http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/stern_review_economics_climate_change/stern_review_report.cfm

hope you can cut and paste that ..otherwise do a search on:

stern review

Monday May 26, 2008, 9:15 am
Yawn! I still think if Gore was motivated by "profit" and not principles at the present time, he'd be RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT AGAIN! There's no greater profit than being President of the most powerful nation on the planet. Bush Jr proved that for sure! Oh, Bush was also involved in the oil business, but Judy and Ralph don't seem to care about that, because he has never addressed the global warming problem, except to deny its importance. It's all about bashing Gore for the denialists and it's hilarious to me and Chris to watch them in action!

Uh, did you notice what Ralph said earlier? "And what is wrong with making money from something you see as a benefit to the world? Archibald does cancer research which is a benefit to humankind. He also believes carbon is a benefit to humankind in that it does aid plant growth so there again he is pursuing something he believes is worthwhile."

Based PURELY on their known characters, you can raise reasonable doubts about both Gore and Archibald. But when ALL the various factors are put into consideration, Gore wins, hands down. BTW, even cancer research can result in HUGE profits....for the big drug companies and the medical establishments. Why not go after them too?

Conclusion: Judy and Ralph are biased and compulsive cherry-pickers, far worse than me and Chris. I think they need to find another fruit to go after.

Face it: As long as we live in a capitalist economic system, making money to promote a worthy cause will be part of the game. Got a problem with that? Go live in a society without money at all!

Monday May 26, 2008, 9:50 am
Now, for Judy and Ralph, here's a new challenge to prove Al Gore a hypocrite: Show us all where Gore, acting as an advocate for the global warming cause, specifically told people not to do a certain thing....and then did it himself. So far, he has said NOTHING that I'm aware of regarding doing favors for an oil company (although he has attacked Exxon), living in a mansion, or flying in a private jet as necessarily bad things for the environment. Perhaps they are, and so you can make a case to Gore himself that he made less than ideal judgements and thus can improve his environmental performance. But that's not hypocrisy or being two faced. Just don't expect him to ride a horse instead of a car, live in a cave instead of a house, or commit suicide to eliminate his own "carbon footprint". Seriously, as fanatical as denialists tend to be, I suspect that only those things would satisfy them....and then they'd be rid of Gore's influence for good!

Monday May 26, 2008, 4:59 pm
Judy glad that you explained it all, now how about you go tell it to the poler bears.

Monday May 26, 2008, 6:44 pm
Oh, please...nothing you are aware of Dale? Selling carbon credits while promoting a the false paradigm of AGW? Selling public land to an oil company his family owns stock in....
I posted the info on this very thread....either you don't bother to read my posts or you are in such total denial that you condone what could be impeachable behavior if Gore were still in office.

Then we have his long association with Maurice Strong...the man behind the scenes who has been pushing the idea of AGW since the 70s.
Al Gore: Friend of Corporate America
by Bill Mesler, Special to CorpWatch
September 8th, 2000

RELATED STORY

Al's Pals: A List of Gore's Top Donors
A rundown of corporations and rich and powerful individuals who have ponied up for Gore.

Al Gore has raised more money than any other Democratic presidential candidate in history. But his pandering to rich and powerful comes at a cost to the public.

WASHINGTON, DC -- Molten Metal Technology was a company bound to fail. For thirty years a succession of others had tried what the company hoped to do: reprocess nuclear waste into non-radioactive metals that could be remarketed. None succeeded.

Molten Metal never did manage to reprocess nuclear waste. But it sure made a lot of money trying. During the Clinton administration, the company received $27 million in research grants from the Department of Energy--more than all 17 other companies that applied for the same grants received combined. Despite a 1995 DOE report that reprocessing would not work, the contracts continued all the way up until the company went finally went bust in 1997.

It might not have made sense from a scientific or business standpoint. But it made a lot of sense to the money-men that run the Democratic party. The company was one of the first donors to the Clinton/Gore campaign in 1996, for which they received a thank you note from the presidential ticket's campaign manager Peter Knight. The note underscored that the company had earned "a special place of significance with the Vice President." The Molten Metal was also paying Knight an $84,000-a-year retainer at the time.

Less than two weeks before the donation, Gore had visited a Molten Metal factory in Falls River, Massachusetts, where he told reporters: "Molten Metal is a success story, a shining example of American ingenuity, hard work and business know-how."

When he accepted the Democratic nomination last month, Al Gore told the nation that he wants to be president to take on "big tobacco , big oil, the big polluters, the pharmaceutical companies, the H.M.O.s." As the Democratic Candidate turns to populist rhetoric to win the election, it is worth noting that corporate America isn't exactly shaking in its boots at the prospect of a Gore presidency. In fact, he has long been known in the White House as "Solicitor in Chief" for his fundraising prowess.

The story of Molten Metal, and the numerous other corporate Democratic donors who have received preferential treatment from the administration, shows that corporate welfare is alive and well in Washington. And the money pouring into Al Gore's campaign war chest ($52 million so-far and growing fast) shows that corporate America knows it has a friend in Al Gore. He has already raised more money than any other Democratic presidential candidate in history. Perhaps even more telling, the Democratic party itself has almost achieved parity with Republicans in soft money.

"When you look at Clinton and Gore in particular, you have to see them in terms of their success in raising huge amounts of money for their campaigns," says Peter Eisner, managing director of the Center for Public Integrity. "The Clinton administration and Gore are part of a system that infects both parties that allows corporate influence to gain access to the halls of power and distort our political process."

The money has been pouring in from all kinds of corporate special interests. There is money from high-tech firms which don't want to be taxed. There is money from banks and securities brokers appreciative of the administration's deregulation of the finance industry. Even the Democratic convention was financed by a host of corporate-welfare-fattened telecom giants like AT&T (which gave $1 million to both the Democratic and GOP conventions), union-buster Sprint and BellSouth.

As one health care industry lobbyist, gushing over the selection of Joe Lieberman as running mate, told the New York Times, the Gore/Lieberman ticket was only feigning populism "as a political ploy." When he's not campaigning, Gore's heart is with the money in corporate America.

Telecom Giants

Of the numerous corporate interests behind Al Gore, none have ponied up as much dough as the communications and high tech sector. The industry gave $10 million to Gore and the Democrats (ten percent of the total to date) have raised some eyebrows as to what exactly it is buying. So has the $98 million the industry spent on lobbying last year. Some of it is a reward for services rendered: telephone companies have had relatively free reign to merge and have seen little regulation. "The industry got what it wanted [under Clinton Gore]," David Beckwith, spokesman for the National Cable Television Association, recently told the Associated Press.

Take Gore's ugly treatment of 235 phone workers fired by Sprint for attempting to unionize in 1998. The AFL-CIO called the case one of the decade's most blatant violations of workers' right to unionize. At a meeting with the mostly Latina workers in Los Angeles, Gore promised to take on Sprint. But Sprint, led by arch-conservative Bill Esrey, had been a big supporter of Clinton/Gore in 1996 and was gearing up to support Gore in 2000. Esrey had even told a group of business leaders during the 1996 campaign that "There is a growing realization that Democrat Bill Clinton has been good for America."

Gore never lifted a finger against the company. And Sprint continues to provide the White House with much of its long-distance service. Gore even used his influence to soften a Labor Department report on the Sprint dispute, according to one of the report's authors. The National Labor Relations Board eventually ruled in favor of the workers, but the company has bogged the decision down in appeals.

Selling Off the Internet

Meanwhile the prize high tech companies are fighting for is the future of the Internet itself. And although Al Gore didn't invent the Internet, he could down in history as the president who gave it away.

Today the Internet is one of the most democratic forms of media around. Everyone pays the same to post their sites and websites receive relatively the same service. Consumer advocates say big conglomerates are seizing control of the Net.

"The industry wants to be able to decide who gets on the fast pipe and the slow pipe with impunity," says Consumer Project on Technology director Jamie Love. "It raises profound issues, changing the open-access character of the Internet."

The only answer is regulation, but Gore has come down decidedly against Internet regulation -- and against taxing Internet transactions. The Gore campaign website says one of the priorities of president Gore will be pursuing "an international agreement to make 'cyberspace' a permanent 'duty-free zone,' so that U.S. companies can sell goods around the world, via the Internet, without duties."

Gore has even come down on the wrong side when it comes to the administration's biggest anti-corporate crime success, the prosecution of Microsoft. Most Americans see the company as a target of the Clinton administration. But some close to the case say the real architect of anti-monopoly proceedings was Attorney General Janet Reno, who proceeded with the investigation despite objections from the White House. The Administration, for its part, publicly called for a negotiated settlement every step of the way. So far Microsoft has given the Gore campaign and the DNC $391,000 in the current election cycle.

Cable and Multi-Media

Another industry buying a place at the Gore table is the cable industry. Their generosity helped pave the way for increased mega-mergers, which have met little opposition from the administration. "A lot of money has been spent to influence these decisions," says Gary Larson, a telecom consultant for the Center for Media Education. "With the introduction of cable broadband, you can say 'gee we are getting 60 channels.' But in reality it is the illusion of choice." He explains. " Fewer and fewer companies are providing the content you watch. You are getting a larger menu from the same restaurant."

Cable companies have grown brazenly monopolistic under the current administration, as evidenced by Time/Warner's recent blacking out ABC from entire regions over a financial dispute.

Multi-media provider Disney has also been a big supporter of Gore. Responding to a request from Tipper, the company provided the Vice President and his wife with free Holloween costumes worth $8,600, in violation of the Ethics in Government Act. When the costumes were reported in the Washington Post, Disney was repaid by the Democratic National Committee. Later Gore and Disney chairman Michael Eisner were regularly seen chumming it up in Washington while the company was seeking Interior Department approval for a new theme park. "Disney's America," was set to open next to the Bull Run battlefield in Manassas Virginia, but the plan was nixed by Disney as it became clear the community wouldn't stand for it.

But the oddest part of the Disney/Gore alliance was yet to come. Disney-known for it's "family" image -- enlisted the Vice President's help fighting the 1998 Child Online Protection Act, designed to limit children's access to pornographic websites. Gore, who called for censoring rock lyrics in the 1980's, dispatched domestic policy advisor David Bier, to kill the legislation. After the beating Disney and Gore took in the press when the story finally emerged, the Vice President tried to help the company's p.r. situation by inviting Disney executives to the White House for "a summit on Internet pornography."

Gore Picks a Friend of Big Business

The selection of Joe Lieberman as number two on the Democratic ticket should reassure corporate America. Especially the health care industry, a big Lieberman backers over the years. Lieberman did the industry a service by helping to defeat universal health coverage. The Senator drafted his own less-ambitious plan to counter the White House, helping to split the Democratic party and ensure that nothing be done.

Lieberman's selection should also solidify Gore's already strong support among banks and securities houses. Not only has the administration done nothing to curb currency speculation abuses, new legislation has made it easier for industry mergers. Goldman Sachs pushed for the new rules. They've been big contributors to both Gore's presidential campaign and Lieberman's senate campaign (he had already raised $3.3 million despite facing almost no opposition).

Arms manufacturers were another group that surely applauded Gore's choice for his running mate. While disarmament groups actually had high hopes for Lieberman when he was first elected to the Senate in 1989, he has since turned into one of the Senate's most hawkish democrats. He was one of only five (along with Al Gore) to vote in favor of the Gulf War. He has also consistently opposed arms cuts and cuts in the intelligence budget (he has also voted to keep the intelligence budget secret). He has voted in favor of the unnecessary F-22 fighter; new Connecticut "Sea Wolf" attack submarines which are almost totally useless in modern warfare; and for the Star Wars ballistic missile defense program.

"Lieberman's motivation is basically the need to protect defense jobs in Connecticut," says Council for a Livable World analyst Dan Koslofsky. "He understood that when the cold war was going on these jobs were safe. Once the cold war ended he realized this pot of gold might not be there, he became more hawkish."

According to one Congressional staffer, Lieberman is the reason a large contingent of Connecticut-made Blackhawk helicopters were included in the administration's recent Colombian military aid package. General Dynamics, the makers of the Blackhawk, have been big supporters of Lieberman over the years, giving him $24,500 for his Senate campaign this year.

"Colombia doesn't even have enough hangers to deal with these helicopters," says Koslofsky. "Most of them are going to just sit around." With his brazen peddling of corporate interests, Lieberman should make the perfect match for Al Gore. You might say they deserve each other.

Bill Mesler is a Washington-based reporter. His work has appeared in the Nation, Mother Jones and the Progressive, among other publications.

Monday May 26, 2008, 6:54 pm
More ad hominem attacks on Gore - "taking him down" does NOTHING to prove your dogma. Could you PLEASE focus on the topic of the of the article - you can do it if you really, really try honney child...

Monday May 26, 2008, 7:32 pm
I don’t have a problem with Al making a buck or living according to his wealth. What I have a problem with is the lies and disinformation he is spreading in order for him to live that lavish lifestyle and that he doesn’t practice what he preaches. Creating a carbon tax that will ultimately be paid by the average citizen and then having that tax funneled into his pocket by way of his carbon credit scam is in my opinion unethical and dishonest. As for his attacks on Exxon, well Exxon is in competition with the oil company that he gets some of his money from so that is a natural part of how businesses deal with their competitors in order to advance their own interest. It is remarkable how highly educated individuals seem to have such low reading comprehension skills or perhaps it is as Judy says they simply don’t read her post out of fear of being swayed by the information she is presenting.

Mary, you might want to check a few facts on polar bear populations before slamming Judy. A little research will show you that polar bear populations are 5 to 6 times larger than what they were in the 1950’s when they really were endangered. It would appear that humankind has done a pretty fair job of bring them back from the brink.

Monday May 26, 2008, 7:36 pm
Please get this through your head - the ruling on the polar bear recoginzes that polar bear populations are good now - the rulling is based on FUTURE projections!!! Read the ruling!!

Monday May 26, 2008, 7:41 pm
And attacks on Gore and my supossid "comprehension problems" is nothing but a cheap shot - and does nothing to support your dogma - in fact is shows how weak your position truely is when you attack the messengers rather than the science ...

Monday May 26, 2008, 8:24 pm
my spelling sucks LOL my comprehinsion is just fine :)

Tuesday May 27, 2008, 9:40 am
judy, thanks for all of info. on Gore and carbons.
Here are some trivia's i have tucked away in my head that i haven't put together:

l. at the sealed, self-sustaining, Biosphere in Tucson, arizona they were doing varying carbon dioxide concentration effects on the growth rates of dogwood (fast growing) trees that i toured (open to public) 6 years ago. growth rates increased up to double CO2 in air, but then decreased/stunted growth rates when the CO2 increased above that.

2. on a trip to alaska three years ago, a beautiful visitor center had an IMAX film on the Aureola Borillis (northern lights). It has moved 635 miles towards Siberia -- or moving much faster than historically.

3. On same trip there were some statistics that the earth's Magnetic Pull was at some thousands of years low, with greater decreases in last decade.

i think the earth's magnetic pull with solar cycles have far more effect on weather and rain than the carbon emmissions.

Tuesday May 27, 2008, 12:51 pm
Here's the phunny thing about Judy and her gang: They ASSUME as dogma that the efforts by scientists and Al Gore to educate the public about the man-made global warming hypothesis is just a SCAM, and that colors EVERYTHING they view about the matter. If you wear red colored glasses, then of course everything you see will look like shades of red, even if things are not red at all.

I do not consider Gore or anyone else to be infallible and am quite willing to note when he makes mistakes or bad judgements. So should anyone else. But that does not DISPROVE the idea that human beings are the primary cause of global warming. It does not DISPROVE that global warming is happening. It does not DISPROVE that global warming will have horrible consequences over the next century or so if we do nothing to stop it. Indeed, NOTHING I have ever seen from either Judy or Ralph even comes close to doing any of those things. They make those claims because that's what they WANT to believe, actual evidence be damned. By claiming these things, they justify their own reluctance to do nothing about the problem, and knowing that this reluctance will bring them condemnation from others, they scour the web looking for ANYTHING (written by dishonest people who KNOW folks like Judy are out there) they can use to support their disbelief and post that propaganada in web communities like Care2. It's all about attempts to shield their egos. Well, I don't give a damn about anyone's ego!

Tuesday May 27, 2008, 1:00 pm
My "gang"? How about your gang? Al Gore isn't educating..he's scamming. He's a conman pushing fake science and phony data.I keep proving that and you keep denying it...so who is the real denier.

I'll try again. Read this:
http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/warmingscam1505.pdf

WHY IT'S A GLOBAL SCAM - ALL YOU NEED TO KNOW
This is a lucid, logical, well-researched 32-page doc, compiled by long time IPCC expert reviewer, Dr Vincent Gray, explaining why the current claims of man-made global warming are a "global scam".

ABSTRACT
Excerpt:
"The Global Warming Scam has been perpetrated in order to support the Environmentalist belief that the earth is being
harmed by the emission of greenhouse gases from the combustion of fossil fuels.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was set up to provide evidence for this belief. They have
published four major Reports which are widely considered to have proved it to be true. This paper examines the
evidence in detail and shows that none of the evidence presented confirms a relationship between emissions of
greenhouse gases and any harmful effect on the climate. It is the result of 18 years of scrutiny and comment on IPCC
Reports and of a study of the scientific literature associated with it.
In order to establish a relationship between human emissions of greenhouse gases and any influence on the climate, it
is necessary to solve three problems :
. To determine the average temperature of the earth and show that it is increasing
. To measure the concentrations of greenhouse gases everywhere in the atmosphere
. To reliably predict changes in future climate
None of these problems has been solved.
It is impossible to measure the average surface temperature of the earth, yet the IPCC scientists try to claim that it is
possible to measure “anomalies” of this unknown quantity. An assessment of all the temperature data available,
largely ignored by the IPCC, shows no evidence for overall warming, but the existence of cyclic behaviour. Recent
warming was last recorded around 1950. An absence of warming for 10 years and a current downturn suggest that the
cool part of the cycle is imminent.
The chief greenhouse gas, water vapour, is irregularly distributed, with most of it over the tropics and very little over
the poles. Yet the IPCC tries to pretend it is uniformly distributed, so that its “anomalies” can be treated as “feedback”
to the global temperature models.
Carbon dioxide is only measured in extremely restricted circumstances in order to pretend that it is “well-mixed”. No
general measurements are reported and 90,000 early measurements which show great variability have been
suppressed.
Although weather cannot be predicted more than a week or so ahead the claim is made that “climate” can be predicted
100 years ahead. The claim is based on the development of computer models based on the “flat earth” theory of the
climate which assumes it is possible to model the climate from “balanced” average energy quantities This assumption
is absurd since all the quantities have skewed distributions with no acceptable average. No resulting model has ever
been tested for its ability to predict the future. This is even admitted as the model outputs are mere “projections”. Since
the projections are far into the future, nobody living is able to check their validity.
Since no model has been validated, they are “evaluated” based on “simulations” which are mere correlations or fail to
agree with observations. Future “projections”, which combine the untested models and exaggerated “scenarios” are
graded for their “likelihood” from the unsupported opinion of those paid to produce the models. A spurious “probability”
attached to these opinions is without mathematical or scientific justification
Humans affect climate by changes in urban development and land use, but there is no evidence that greenhouse gas
emissions are involved, except in enhancing plant growth."

Get through all 32 pages,and maybe you will awaken from your trance state.

Tuesday May 27, 2008, 2:14 pm
Here's an even more stupid statement from Dr. Gray's paper (page 23):

((((4.1. DISHONEST STATEMENT
The most dishonest statement in the 4th Science Report of the IPCC (Solomon et al. 2007), is to be found in the
Frequently Asked Questions section on page 104:
((A common confusion between weather and climate arises when scientists are asked how they can predict climate 50 years from now when they cannot predict the weather a few weeks from now. The chaotic nature of weather makes it unpredictable beyond a few days. Projecting changes in climate (i.e., long-term average weather) due to changes in atmospheric composition or other factors is a very different and much more
manageable issue. As an analogy, while it is impossible to predict the age at which any particular man will die, we can say with high confidence that the average age of death for men in industrialised countries is about 75.))
This statement makes no logical sense. If “the chaotic nature” of “weather” makes it “unpredictable” then how can changing its name to “climate” suddenly make it “a more manageable issue”? The question is supposed to be about forecasting, yet we are given an example suggesting that an “average” has “high confidence” when an individual figure has not — a completely irrelevant proposition. There is no guide on how future “averages” or individual figures for the age of death might be forecast. If the suggestion that future “climate” can be forecast when future “weather” cannot were true, one might ask why weather forecasters seem to be unable to find a way of suddenly removing all the “chaos”. The “analogy” is ridiculous. There is no suggestion that we can predict either the average age of death or that of an individual by any known method. There is no evidence whatsoever that the “chaos” associated with the weather has been eliminated or made “more manageable” merely because they changed the name to “climate”.))))

WHAT NONSENSE! Dr. Gray is not only denying the IPCC methods, but the methods of ANYONE who attempts to determine averages of ANY local, national, or global population! Shall we go ahead and deny the figure that the average life span of people in industrialized nations today is about 75? And more fundamentally, "climate" is NOT merely another word for "weather"! Those two terms are related, but NOT at all interchangable, so Gray is caught lying AGAIN!

And it gets WORSE (page 23-24):

((((4.2. THE FLAT EARTH THEORY
The following diagram (originally from Kiehl and Trenberth 1997), illustrates Frequently Asked Question No 1.1
(Page 96) in Solomon et al. (2007).

This diagram enshrines the fundamental belief of the global warming theory that the earth is in a system of energy “balance” which has been disturbed by human emissions of greenhouse gases.

The diagram assumes that the earth can be considered to be flat with average quantities providing input and output of energy. The apparent curvature of the earth in the diagram is illusory, as all quantities operate strictly up and down.
Every single one of the assumptions in this diagram is absurd.))))

No, what is absurd is accusing your opponents of using a "flat Earth" model. Everyone knows the Earth is ROUND, including all those who use climate models. What a screwed up strawman!!!

The only time I've ever seen such shoddy argumentations, misrepresentation, and obsessive attacking of scientific methodologies anywhere else is in CREATIONIST propaganda!

Tuesday May 27, 2008, 2:25 pm
One of my comments seems to have disappeared. Oh, well, I had said that real science papers do not proclaim something being critically analyzed to be a "SCAM" in the title, being unprofessional conduct, and that the implication by Dr. Gray that the IPCC denied the Medeival Warm Period (MWP) is a lie. Noting that the MWP was actually cooler than today is not the same as denying it. That's a strawman.

Thursday May 29, 2008, 7:09 pm
There is no more correlation between climate and life spans than there is between apples and concrete. As for the MWP, it was cooler if you use Big Al’s hockey stick graph that does not even show the MWP or the Little Ice Age but does use corrupted temperature readings from weather stations that have been engulfed by urban sprawl to show the dramatic increase in temperatures which by the way began just after the recently collapsed housing boom began. Could the fact that most rural weather stations had been overrun by urban sprawl by 1998 have anything to do with temperatures stabilizing about that same time? Another major source of temperature readings comes from weather labs that now number in the thousands that have been installed in schools throughout the country. Now I don’t know about where you live, but out here even rural schools are located inside of heat islands (cities). These temperatures are useful because they tell people what the temperature is where they live, but those same temperatures cannot be used to say what actual temperatures are on a global basis. Satellite data is far more accurate for measuring global temperatures and they do not agree with ground readings. If you are going to make a graph you need to use clean data and avoid corrupt data like that used in creating the hockey stick graph.

Thursday May 29, 2008, 7:16 pm
Oh, Pope Sutton, do you forget so soon (or just ignore)? Here, please read this again (or for the first time LOL)

Climate change: A guide for the perplexed

http://environment.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn11462&feedId=climate-change_rss20

many topics here, but do look at these in particular links (at the site)to address your assertions...

The 'hockey stick' graph has been proven wrong

• It's been far warmer in the past, what's the big deal?

• It was warmer during the Medieval period, with vineyards in England

• We are simply recovering from the Little Ice Age

Friday May 30, 2008, 10:41 pm
I have read all of those debunker claims and had a good laugh over some of the outlandish proof offered to counter the science saying man is not causing global warming and the MWP was warmer than today. As for the little ice age, I personally think we have recovered from that and the climate and ice melt have more or less stabilized. We have lost ice in the northern hemisphere but there has been no sea level rise recently and in fact sea levels have fallen as the ice levels on Antarctica have more than made up for the lose in the northern hemisphere even with the lose of ice on Antarctica’s western slope. The hockey stick has three major flaws; it does not show the MWP; it does not show the Little Ice Age and it uses corrupted data from compromised ground weather stations to show the dramatic increase in temperatures.

Friday May 30, 2008, 11:00 pm
Obviously just pushing your dogma -and you berate me for not looking at the other side - truly sad....

Saturday May 31, 2008, 8:52 pm
I find Ralph Sutton a puzzle, since he supports evolution and condemns Creationism, but I suspect that's because he is biased towards athieism and not because of the scientific evidence. If that's the case, his motivation is wrong, even if his conclusions are right. (I'm an AGNOSTIC, philosophically opposed to militant atheism.)

Mark my words: The attitude of denialism towards global warming has EXACTLY the same character as that towards evolution by Creationists. That's my motivation for fighting Judy and Ralph here.

"The hockey stick has three major flaws; it does not show the MWP; it does not show the Little Ice Age and it uses corrupted data from compromised ground weather stations to show the dramatic increase in temperatures."

Actually, some versions of the hockey stick graph DO show the MWP and the Little Ice Age and clearly lable it. Just because it is not labled on some versions doesn't mean it isn't there. The assumption that the MWP must be warmer than today is based on the historical records of the extent of the ice sheets back then, but the MWP leasted for several centuries, not decades like this present warming period has. And indicating that the MWP was mild compared to today is not the same as not showing it!
http://circleh.wordpress.com/2008/05/26/debunking-the-mwp-myth/

The last point about corrupted data is a lie, since while cities may be heat islands, there are hardly any major cities at the polar regions, where temperature readings are also relevant. Plus, even heat islands contribute to global warming. Indeed, CITIES are where most of the CO2 emissions occur. DUH!

Saturday May 31, 2008, 9:06 pm
"Satellite data is far more accurate for measuring global temperatures(1) and they do not agree with ground readings(2). If you are going to make a graph you need to use clean data and avoid corrupt data like that used in creating the hockey stick graph(3)."

That's a lot of assertions and assumptions. So give us the actual data sources by which you reached these conclusions. ALL THREE of them, which I've numbered in the quote for the sake of clarity.

Saturday May 31, 2008, 9:07 pm
and do that with no scientists payed by Exxon LOL

Sunday June 1, 2008, 10:12 pm
You are right, Dale, I am a militant atheist and that is why I look for hidden truths, fight lies, half truths and disinformation. Just because someone that once held a position of authority says something it doesn’t mean I’m going to accept it at face value. If you were the skeptic you claim to be you would not have been sucked into the manmade global warming farce. You are wrong about my support of evolution where it pertains to modern humans. There is no missing link, it was skipped, but that’s another topic.

I’m not going to waste my time on 1, 2 or 3 repeating evidence Judy has already presented on numerous occasions. If you didn’t get it then, you certainly won’t get it now so why bother.

You crack me up, Chris. Every time you have nothing meaningful to say you fall back on attacking Al Gore’s oil competitor. If oil money is dirty then Gore’s hands are certainly not clean.

Sunday June 1, 2008, 10:36 pm
And when you have nothing meaningful to say you rant about "pope" Gore or the "dishonest" IPPC ROFL. If you have not noticed, at least 75% of the infrormation that Judy has presented comes from scientists funded by Exxon (or other fossil fuel industries). She keeps repeating them saying that the connection is not relevant - if you can not see the relevance, then that says much about your blinders LOL

Monday June 2, 2008, 11:47 am
"I look for hidden truths, fight lies, half truths and disinformation."

EVERYBODY says that, including religious fanatics. The proof is in the pudding.

"If you were the skeptic you claim to be you would not have been sucked into the manmade global warming farce."

Skepticism is NOT denialism. It's clear that you don't know the difference. For example, I am quite willing to criticize Gore rather than take everything he says or does at face value or assume he is infallible. That's because I care about being scientifically accurate. That's not the same as denying his message, however. I would only do that if his message was actually DISPROVEN. It's just easier for some people to skip a step and go straight from questioning to denial rather than suspend belief.

Ironically, if it were not for lame denialists like Ralph and Judy, it would be much easier for me and Chris to question the data, suggest alternatives, and investigate possible unethical connections that might be hidden. We refuse to do that with denialist prejudices or double standards, thank you!

http://www.care2.com/c2c/share/detail/676926

"I’m not going to waste my time on 1, 2 or 3 repeating evidence Judy has already presented on numerous occasions. If you didn’t get it then, you certainly won’t get it now so why bother."

That's a cop-out. I didn't "get it" because I (and Chris) didn't take Judy's "evidence" at face value, not when she barged into the Addressing Global Warming group in the spring of 2007, nor now. Skepticism is a double edged sword. And I apply that sword to EVERYBODY, including scientists. No one should be above criticism, including people who we happen to like or admire. On one occation, I even challenged Chris to explain something I found incredible.

Only Zero Emissions Can Prevent a Warmer Planet
http://www.care2.com/c2c/groups/disc.html?gpp=116&pst=835837

http://circleh.wordpress.com/2008/05/28/natural-selection-and-the-scientific-peer-review-process/

http://circleh.wordpress.com/2008/05/31/how-not-to-argue-or-do-research/

http://circleh.wordpress.com/2008/05/31/a-fake-expert-vs-real-ones-on-global-warming/

http://circleh.wordpress.com/2008/06/02/conspiracy-theories-credible-and-incredible/