http://www.guardian.co.uk/oil/story/0,,2196435,00.html

Why aren't the lefties leaping with glee?

"Pantomime Princess Margaret" wrote
in message ...
| http://www.guardian.co.uk/oil/story/0,,2196435,00.html
|
| Why aren't the lefties leaping with glee?
|

Maybe because they realize when jet fuel costs ten bucks a gallon
it might put a crimp in their wallet while they fly around the
planet giving speeches about global warming.

Greg

On Oct 22, 10:34 am, "Pantomime Princess Margaret"
wrote:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/oil/story/0,,2196435,00.html

Why aren't the lefties leaping with glee?

Here is another one that will make them leap with glee...

http://www.abcnews.go.com/2020/Stoss...3751219&page=1

Challenging Conventional Views About Global Warming

By JOHN STOSSEL
Oct. 19, 2007

The globe is warming, it's our fault and the consequences are going to
be terrible. So goes the rhetoric spouted by politicians, celebrities
and the media.

It's hard to turn on the TV or open a newspaper these days without
hearing about the horrors caused by our warming climate. We can expect
more floods, droughts, hurricanes and tornadoes as global warming
continues, and pretty soon we'll have to flee from the coasts as the
polar ice caps melt and our shorelines flood.
Top 20/20 stories

Children are frightened, too. I spoke to a group of kids who said they
worry about their future on our planet. One girl feared that water
might rise near her house in Rockaway, N.Y., "and it might flood the
whole town."

A few of these kids learned about global warming from former Vice
President Al Gore's documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth." The movie
has been seen by millions, won an an Academy Award and earned Gore
widespread praise in the media. People have proclaimed him a
"prophet," a "cultural icon" and a "conquering hero." Just last week,
he won the Nobel Peace Prize. With all this news coverage, it's no
surprise that 86 percent of Americans think global warming is a
serious problem and 70 percent want the government to do something
now.

But is it a crisis? The globe is warming, but is it really all our
fault? And is it true the debate is over? No. What you think you know
may not be so.

In the movie, for example, Gore says that if we allow the globe to
warm, "sea levels worldwide would go up 20 feet." Then he shows his
audience terrifying maps of Florida and San Francisco submerged under
rising sea levels. But the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,
which shared last week's Nobel Prize with Gore, said that would
probably take thousands of years to happen. Over the next 100 years,
sea levels are expected to rise seven to 24 inches, not 20 feet.

Gore also implies that polar bears are dying off, because receding
Arctic ice has forced them to swim longer distances. The kids I
interviewed were especially worried about the fate of the polar bears.
But the polar bears appear to be doing all right. Future warming may
hurt them, but right now data from the World Conservation Union and
the U.S. Geological Survey show most populations of polar bears are
stable or increasing.

The Debate Is Over?

The most impressive demonstration in Gore's movie is that big graph of
temperature and carbon dioxide levels stretching back 650,000 years.
Carbon dioxide is thought to amplify temperature increases, but his
graph seemed to show clear cause and effect: When carbon dioxide
levels rose, so did temperature. It suggested that carbon levels
controlled temperature. But a real inconvenient truth is that the
carbon increase came after temperatures rose, usually hundreds of
years later. Temperature went up first.

I wanted to ask Gore about that and other things, but he wouldn't
agree to an interview. According to Gore, the "debate is over."

I interviewed some scientists who say the debate is by no means over.
John Christy and Roy Spencer won NASA's Medal for Exceptional
Achievement for figuring out how to get temperature data from
satellites.

"We all agree that it's warmed," Spencer said. "The big question is,
and the thing we dispute is, is it because of mankind?"

Climate changes, they say, always has, with or without man. Early last
century, even without today's huge output of carbon dioxide, the
Arctic went through a warming period.

Greenland's temperatures rose 50 percent faster in the 1920s and
reached higher average temperatures in the 1930s and 1940s than
today's temperatures.

Some scientists argue the warming might be caused by changes in the
sun, or ocean currents, or changes in cloud cover, or other things we
don't yet understand. The debate is not over.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

But who's to say that yesterday's temperature is the perfect one?

"The fact is, when climate changes, there are gains and there are
losses," said Tim Ball, who studies the history of climate change.
But, he points out, all we generally hear about is the bad news from
the IPCC - that massive group of climate scientists.

Paul Reiter of the Pasteur Institute participated in one of the IPCC
drafts and Christy was a contributing author. Both say that this Nobel
Prize-winning group is not what people think it is.

"The IPCC is the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change," Reiter
said. "It is governments who nominate people. You'll find in many
chapters that there are people who are not scientists at all." Reiter
claims that some of these scientists are "essentially activists" and
there are some members with affiliations to groups like Greenpeace.

When the IPCC report came out, not all its members agreed with what
was said. "We were not asked to look at a particular statement and
sign our names, at all," Christy said.
Top 20/20 stories

*
Fires Put Animals In Peril
*
U.S: Immigrants And The Fires In CA
*
Wildfires Threaten Celebrity Enclave

Related Topics

*
John Stossel
*
Al Gore
*
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
*
World Conservation Union

Reiter felt his objections were ignored and says he resigned in
frustration. But in a draft of the report, the IPCC still listed
Reiter as a "contributing author" - part of the so-called consensus.

"I contacted the IPCC and I said, 'Look, I've resigned. I don't want
to have anything more to do with this.' And they said, 'Well, you've
been involved, so you're still on the list.'" Reiter says he had to
threaten to sue to get his name removed from the report, although the
IPCC denies that.

In all the confusion surrounding the global warming debate, one thing
is clear: Global warming activists don't welcome the skepticism.

Those who call their extreme projections into question are compared
with Holocaust deniers and accused of being paid off by big business.
I've questioned the extreme global warming predictions in the past,
and for that I've been branded a "corporate toadie" and a "flat-
earther." I don't mind being called names, but is this what the global
warming debate has come to? One side saying, "Shut up. Dissent should
not be heard?"

The truth is, that while everyone agrees that the earth has warmed,
lots of good scientists don't agree that it's mostly our fault, and
don't agree that it's going to be a catastrophe. So when Gore says,
"The debate is over," I say, "Give Me a Break!"

Andrew G. Sullivan and Patrick McMenamin contributed to this report.

Urban hot spots mislead.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sh...t-scam-history

No to MMGW.

If not the sun, how about our dirt? It lives, excretes, and is deep,
to boot. Who understands zero gee fission? we are ice on a fireball.
We are the snowball surrounding hell, sailing around on a little
insulating frozen rock floating on a sphere of magma in orbit in
vacuum. What about the coming ice age, or the Yellow dwarf to red
giant bit?

It's another diversion. The real issue is...

Diversions. Mental Jui-Jitsu. Petrobra big oil find. Oil price?
Refinery price. Monopolism. Transport. Inflation. Corruption.

it - The subject of the search, touted first by a communications
company, and boosting their yellow pages. It is not only information,
but it's communication which matters. I.T. is built on comms, our most
valuable resource.

Terry K