[Zhgrlpil]

Gotta love Algore.. he does not let up!!!

----------


An Answer for Bill February 1, 2011 : 11:43 AMLast 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:

“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.”

“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.”

Al's Journal : An Answer for Bill..

[samanthalueus]

It's handy to have a theory where any measurement = proof of your theory.

It's even handier when you make money off of your theory (or off hysterical doomsaying hyping your theory).

[rassedgesse]

What caused snow before global warming?

[herbalviagra]

It's handy to have a theory where any measurement = proof of your theory.

Indeed.

It's even handier when you make money off of your theory (or off hysterical doomsaying hyping your theory).

Evidently those who embrace the AGW argument can't think critically enough to follow the money.

P.T. has never looked wiser.

[Tactattcahhaw]

It's handy to have a theory where any measurement = proof of your theory.

It's even handier when you make money off of your theory (or off hysterical doomsaying hyping your theory).

But you know what makes it the Swiss Army Knife of theories?

When it turns out only a complete adoption of your favorite political ideology can solve it.

[ElegeExcest]

“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.”

“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.”

That's actually true, though. But, Al Gore is still a complete schmuck and does more harm than help when it comes to the global warming debate. He's to global warming as Sarah Palin is to the Republican party.

A much better article, written by an actual scientist and not some has been politician trying to hypocritically make money can be found here:

There is no single smoking gun that can point us to the origin of these monster snowstorms. But we can focus our attention on two likely culprits. The first is pure chance. There are many random fluctuations in the weather due to many diverse factors (for example, last year's weather was affected by El Niño).

But the second is global warming. This also seems to violate common sense, but realize that global warming can heat the oceans and generate more moisture, which in turn can drive larger storms. Last year was, in fact, tied with 2005 as the hottest year recorded since 1880, when precise measurements began. Monster snowstorms still spell global warming - CNN.com

As an actual scientist, and not some douche that spouts random nonsense about something he obviously doesn't understand every time he wants to get back in the spotlight for five minutes, this scientist recognizes that we can't really ultimately prove what the reason behind the storms are, but we can narrow it down to some pretty good educated guesses. Yes, global warming is one of them, but since this scientist isn't doing a terribly unconvincing job of pushing an agenda and selling books and movies while slowly starting to look more and more like a bizarro world version of George Lucas as he ages, he's not going to jump to conclusions.

[Oriesssedleli419]

MattInFla
It's handy to have a theory where any measurement = proof of your theory.

It's even handier when you make money off of your theory (or off hysterical doomsaying hyping your theory). Yeah, and Gore is too fucking stupid to have figure out that they are not supposed to talk about "global warming" anymore. It is not "climate change". They figured that little rhetorical catch-all when they realized they looked as fucking stupid as...well, as Al Gore...whenever they had their big "global warming" conferences and the globe kept insisting on having unusually cold or snowy weather on them.

But "climate change" can refer to anything. The other nice thing about it is it accurately describes the whole of global climate history. The planet's climate has always been, and will always be in the midst of change.

The questions for serious people are:

1. How much, if any significant impact are we having on it
2. What, if anything can we do to mitigate any contribution our activities are making towards it
3. What are the costs to society of doing those things which can, if possible, mitigate our contributions
4. What are the costs to society of adapting to, rather than trying to change climate change
5. Are the costs to simply adapt to the change greater or less than the costs of trying to stop it.

The answer to the first two questions is basically, we don't really know yet. The fact that there has yet to be produced any climate model which accurately FORECASTS chages (rather than adapting models which were wrong to accurately predict what happened with 20/20 hindsight) demonstrates that we don't really know.

As for the last three questions, the overwhelming weight of the evidence is that the known costs of the measures proposed to try and influence climate change (which we do not have any evidence will actually work) far exceeds the costs of merely adapting to the changes.

Once you dismiss the hysterical fools who insist that we are "killing", "destroying", or making the planet "unsuitable for human life" for the fools they are, and ask those straightforward questions, the implications for public policy are clear.

[electmobile]

That's actually true, though. But, Al Gore is still a complete schmuck and does more harm than help when it comes to the global warming debate. He's to global warming as Sarah Palin is to the Republican party.

A much better article, written by an actual scientist and not some has been politician trying to hypocritically make money can be found here:


Monster snowstorms still spell global warming - CNN.com

As an actual scientist, and not some douche that spouts random nonsense about something he obviously doesn't understand every time he wants to get back in the spotlight for five minutes, this scientist recognizes that we can't really ultimately prove what the reason behind the storms are, but we can narrow it down to some pretty good educated guesses. Yes, global warming is one of them, but since this scientist isn't doing a terribly unconvincing job of pushing an agenda and selling books and movies while slowly starting to look more and more like a bizarro world version of George Lucas as he ages, he's not going to jump to conclusions.

The debate is not if the world is warming or cooling as that has been going on from the day the planet was formed. It's what causes these changes which are at question. When you think about it what has caused all the temperature changes the planet has experienced. What caused the ice age as an example? But this time around they point the finger at green house gasses, and that has not been a proven fact. And many have made a ton of money pointing at green house gasses as the cause.

So the jury is still out on what is causing this global warming if in fact it is even occurring

[nemoforone]

What caused snow before global warming?

Dandruff. Didn't you know?

[GogaMegaPis]

Well, I guess you can blame everything on global warming, as it is a target with a lot of arrows flying its way. But what if these AGW folks are just WRONG? Is the science that damn exact? I doubt it seriously. Dont' they use models that rely upon data, with some of it being questionable? Just how exact is climate science anyways? My weatherman still misses the forcast and this is on the micro level. Is the macro level easier to predict? If I am to trust weather or climate scientists, I think I might have a better chance in Vegas. Just saying...

For me, I will believe it when the Gulf of Mexico submerges Biloxi Ms or Gulfport. Last time I looked, the beach was where it always was, from 35 years ago. At this rate, I don't think we got much to worry about.

[iH1wMOhE]

Much like evolution, global warming and its connections to man's actions is abstract and generally requires a level of comprehension and an educational background usually lacking in the average person.

[herbalviagra]

Much like evolution, global warming and its connections to man's actions is abstract and generally requires a level of comprehension and an educational background usually lacking in the average person.

That is exactly upon what P.T. Gore is banking.

[iH1wMOhE]

That is exactly upon what P.T. Gore is banking.

Gore is surely an opportunist, but that has no bearing on the genuine research being done by the scientific community.

[Friend_Joe]

What caused snow before global warming?

The remark was about the INCREASED AMOUNT of snow.
Not about snowfall in general.

[Oriesssedleli419]

stillalive
The remark was about the INCREASED AMOUNT of snow.
Not about snowfall in general.
INCREASED AMOUNT of snow from when? One of the most insightful observations I have heard about the whole global warming/global climate change narrative was that it flows intrsincally from the sheer narcisism of the baby boomer generation.

The very notion that the worlds climate should be static, that it should always be as the boomer generation recalls it from some moment in their on lifetimes is the fundamental flaw in their basic assumption.

Long before the industrial revolution, indeed long befoe anything remotely resembling human civilization dawned, the planet has seen such wide ranges of climate change to make even the most wild predictions of the global warming crowd look like changes of the seasons in comparison.

The deserts of the Middle East were once lush and green. much of the western hemisphere which is today densely populated was covered in year-round icesheets. All of these things came and went long before any possibility of it being man's doing.

Even the notion that records temperatures have any real meaning other than a momentary novelty. The very root of the word undercuts their historical significance....RECORD, as in RECORDED. As though what happened before us has no relevance to our baseline understanding and perspectives.

[steevytraunse]

Warm air retains more moisture than cool air.

As the Earth warms, the increased moisture will result in more precipitation.

Basically 5th-grade science. No surprise that conservatives can't follow it.

Oh, and humans and dinosaurs didn't co-exist 6,000 years ago.

[steevytraunse]

Gore is surely an opportunist, but that has no bearing on the genuine research being done by the scientific community.

An "opportunist?" Couldn't every successful entrepreneur be called that? Hasn't America been built by "opportunism?"

It wasn't as though Gore was lying about global warming. He was ahead of his time, alerting people to the reality of global warming way ahead of the curve. And he was largely successful in raising the world's consciousness.

If he made money in the process, gee, I would never expect conservatives, of all people, to criticize him for that. I thought the amount of money someone made was the ONLY criteria by which conservatives place a value on a person.

Meanwhile, real, actual scientists try to get the attention of the Republican Neanderthals in Congress. Good luck with that.
February 1, 2011
The U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS) was created by Abraham Lincoln and chartered by Congress in 1863 for the express purpose of obtaining objective expert advice on a range of complex scientific and technological issues. Its international reputation for integrity is unparalleled. This spring, at the request of Congress, the NAS issued a series of comprehensive reports on climate change that were unambiguous.

The NAS stated, “Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities . . . and in many cases is already affecting a broad range of human and natural systems.” This conclusion comes as no surprise to the overwhelming majority of working climate scientists. Here's a letter sent by real, actual, distinguished scientists (eight of which are members of the Academy) to each member of Congress. It's a pity that they wasted the cost of postage to almost all the Republican members, who don't let inconvenient science to upset their rigid world views.

[steevytraunse]

As for the last three questions, the overwhelming weight of the evidence is that the known costs of the measures proposed to try and influence climate change (which we do not have any evidence will actually work) far exceeds the costs of merely adapting to the changes.

I wonder if the millions of people living at sea level (think: Bangladesh) share your opinion?
Once again we have an assertion with zero evidence to support it.

As such, I'd call it a waste of server space.

[Zysyewgg]

What caused snow before global warming?

Global cooling and freon, of course I KNOW you remember the 70's. In the 60's, IIRC, it was caused by DDT. In the 50's, it was Rock and Roll.

[Zysyewgg]

Global cooling and freon, of course I KNOW you remember the 70's. In the 60's, IIRC, it was caused by DDT. In the 50's, it was Rock and Roll.

I forgot. In Germany in the 30's, snow was caused by Jews