ALGORE LIES ABOUT EVERYTHING! ALGORE IS A WALKING LIE!
ONLY HIMSELF and OTHER STUPIDS believe him!! He actually thinks Obama is TRUTHFUL!! LOL,LOL
-
Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum
Al Gore Lies About Gloabl Warming Scandal
- Thread starter asur
- Start date
ALGORE LIES ABOUT EVERYTHING! ALGORE IS A WALKING LIE!
ONLY HIMSELF and OTHER STUPIDS believe him!! He actually thinks Obama is TRUTHFUL!! LOL,LOL
Werbung:
YEA!! LIKE "GLOBAL WARMING ' CAUSING HUGE SNOWS even before WINTER!!
WOW!! I EXPECT "GLOBAL COOLING " will bring us RECORD HEAT! ALGORE is NUTS!!, HE IS SO NUTS THAT HE NEEDS TO BE PROTECTED FROM THE SQUIRRELS! ONE THING THOUGH , HE IS TAKING IN MILLIONS FROM IGNORANT STIFFS! MAYBE RECORD HEAT WILL THAW THEM OUT!!
Gipper
Well-Known Member
Why all this arguing? The science is settled according to the greatest scientist Algore. The Earth is warming due to man caused pollution and we will all die within 1-2-3-4----- years (something like that), if we do not impose one world Marxist government.
All who dissent must be silenced just as all who dissented from the Earth is flat theory were silenced...well...until Columbus did not fall off the edge.
New Liberal Chant - "Stop breathing now to save Mother Earth!!!"
- if only they would...
All who dissent must be silenced just as all who dissented from the Earth is flat theory were silenced...well...until Columbus did not fall off the edge.
New Liberal Chant - "Stop breathing now to save Mother Earth!!!"
- if only they would...
ASPCA4EVER
Well-Known Member
OH, MY, MY, MY and here I was just starting to think that you were in full complete grasp of your mental faculties...LOL You didn't get the lobotomy treatment when you were exiled
But on the lighter side of things...did you hear the one about city folks wondering if there wasn't a way to control the 'flachulence' from the diary/beef cattle industry...you know all that obnoxious gases
...so here's the thing; get busy and make a prototype of some sort of bovine anus plug that will work and make a million dollar production from it and employee thousands of needy AMERICANS. 
Now hows that for a WIN/WIN solution!
asur
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2008
- Messages
- 1,100
Exhibit 10 - Global Warming Climate Hoaxers avoid transparency!
Although the CRU received US taxpayer dollars they refused to share
their research. The leaked emails from the Hadley center reveal that
CRU chief P.D. Jones has received 55 endowments since 1990 from agencies ranging from the U.S. Department of Energy to NATO, worth a total of £13,718,547, or approximately $22.6 million.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/another-prominent-scientist-calls-cru-scientists-criminals.html
How many times have you heard Climate Hoaxers like Snake Oil Salesman Gore state the science is settled? But how can it be, when they refuse questioning by other scientists? Have you studied the ClimateGate emails and do you understand how they indicate transparency was avoided?
The transparent scientific model works as follows:
1) A scientist makes claims, and reveals his data and methods.
2) Other scientists who don’t agree test the claim by seeing if they can replicate the
result, using the first scientist’s data and methods.
3) If the claims can't be duplicated, the claim is possibly bogus.
Sounds reasonable, correct?
If the data or the methods are kept secret, there is no transparency.
Refusing scientific data because someone will test it, exhibits non-transparency at best.
Yet that is what the Climategate Hoaxers at CRU and FakeClimate did.
Here's CRU proof:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/24/the-people-vs-the-cru-freedom-of-information-my-okole…/
email snippets:
Subject: Re: WMO non respondo
… Even if WMO agrees, I will still not pass on the data. We have 25 or so years invested in the work.
Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it. …
Cheers Phil
Eschenbach -
When I found out about this, I couldn’t believe it. I thought, a scientist can’t do that, can they? This is science, not hide and seek. So I wrote to the University of East Anglia (of which the CRU is a Department) on September 8, 2006, saying:
I would like to obtain a list of the meteorological stations used in the preparation of the HadCRUT3 global temperature average, and the raw data for those stations. I cannot find it anywhere on the web. The lead author for the temperature average is Dr. Phil Jones of the Climate Research Unit.
Many thanks, Willis Eschenbach
The scoundrels at the CRU tried to evade a request of information, deleted their data and one may have retired, to
avoid questioning and sharing their data.
Look at this ClimagateGate email trail:
Phil Jones has just gotten the news that FOI will apply, and immediately he starts to plan how he is going to hide
from an (Freedom of Information) FOI request. Cite technicalities, claim IPR rights, those are good hiding places.
The next email (1109021312) is later in 2005:
At 09:41 AM 2/2/2005, Phil Jones wrote to Michael Mann :
Mike,
…
Just sent loads of station data to Scott. Make sure he documents everything better this time ! And don’t leave stuff lying around on ftp sites – you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days? – our does ! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it.
We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. Tom Wigley has sent me a worried email when he heard about it –
thought people could ask him for his model code. He has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that.
IPR should be relevant here, but I can see me getting into an argument with someone at UEA who’ll say we must adhere to it !
….
Phil
There's more proof where this comes from, but we've now proven the CRU avoided transparency.
Without transparency we have no valid science.
Next class, we may address FakeClimate!
QED
Although the CRU received US taxpayer dollars they refused to share
their research. The leaked emails from the Hadley center reveal that
CRU chief P.D. Jones has received 55 endowments since 1990 from agencies ranging from the U.S. Department of Energy to NATO, worth a total of £13,718,547, or approximately $22.6 million.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/another-prominent-scientist-calls-cru-scientists-criminals.html
How many times have you heard Climate Hoaxers like Snake Oil Salesman Gore state the science is settled? But how can it be, when they refuse questioning by other scientists? Have you studied the ClimateGate emails and do you understand how they indicate transparency was avoided?
The transparent scientific model works as follows:
1) A scientist makes claims, and reveals his data and methods.
2) Other scientists who don’t agree test the claim by seeing if they can replicate the
result, using the first scientist’s data and methods.
3) If the claims can't be duplicated, the claim is possibly bogus.
Sounds reasonable, correct?
If the data or the methods are kept secret, there is no transparency.
Refusing scientific data because someone will test it, exhibits non-transparency at best.
Yet that is what the Climategate Hoaxers at CRU and FakeClimate did.
Here's CRU proof:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/24/the-people-vs-the-cru-freedom-of-information-my-okole…/
email snippets:
Subject: Re: WMO non respondo
… Even if WMO agrees, I will still not pass on the data. We have 25 or so years invested in the work.
Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it. …
Cheers Phil
Eschenbach -
When I found out about this, I couldn’t believe it. I thought, a scientist can’t do that, can they? This is science, not hide and seek. So I wrote to the University of East Anglia (of which the CRU is a Department) on September 8, 2006, saying:
I would like to obtain a list of the meteorological stations used in the preparation of the HadCRUT3 global temperature average, and the raw data for those stations. I cannot find it anywhere on the web. The lead author for the temperature average is Dr. Phil Jones of the Climate Research Unit.
Many thanks, Willis Eschenbach
The scoundrels at the CRU tried to evade a request of information, deleted their data and one may have retired, to
avoid questioning and sharing their data.
Look at this ClimagateGate email trail:
Phil Jones has just gotten the news that FOI will apply, and immediately he starts to plan how he is going to hide
from an (Freedom of Information) FOI request. Cite technicalities, claim IPR rights, those are good hiding places.
The next email (1109021312) is later in 2005:
At 09:41 AM 2/2/2005, Phil Jones wrote to Michael Mann :
Mike,
…
Just sent loads of station data to Scott. Make sure he documents everything better this time ! And don’t leave stuff lying around on ftp sites – you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days? – our does ! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it.
We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. Tom Wigley has sent me a worried email when he heard about it –
thought people could ask him for his model code. He has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that.
IPR should be relevant here, but I can see me getting into an argument with someone at UEA who’ll say we must adhere to it !
….
Phil
There's more proof where this comes from, but we've now proven the CRU avoided transparency.
Without transparency we have no valid science.
Next class, we may address FakeClimate!
QED
Pidgey
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2007
- Messages
- 1,125
I really hate the holiday season...
Anyhow, you mean this data that you've "presented":
MrSheepish
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2009
- Messages
- 137
Mr Pidgey, good to see you again! Did you ever come up with anything to backup your claims that the Medieval Warm period was warmer than today or that the warming in the Holocene was relevant to today's debate?
I'm sure you must have noticed that I presented data of all sorts. Data from satellites, seas, and land measurements. Only the land measurements could possibly be influenced by the urban heat you mention here. This also is something that scientists have studied extensively and they have a pretty good understanding of it. They know to correct for it or use data from the countryside instead, depending on the context. The latest IPCC report has a pretty good discussion about the uncertainties it introduces which you can read here. In particular:
Also see this table they published which shows that the warming is present both in the less-densely populated southern hemisphere, and in the ocean. All datasets in all parts of the world are in agreement that the earth has been warming.
I'm sure you must have noticed that I presented data of all sorts. Data from satellites, seas, and land measurements. Only the land measurements could possibly be influenced by the urban heat you mention here. This also is something that scientists have studied extensively and they have a pretty good understanding of it. They know to correct for it or use data from the countryside instead, depending on the context. The latest IPCC report has a pretty good discussion about the uncertainties it introduces which you can read here. In particular:
Also see this table they published which shows that the warming is present both in the less-densely populated southern hemisphere, and in the ocean. All datasets in all parts of the world are in agreement that the earth has been warming.
asur
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2008
- Messages
- 1,100
Exhibit 11 - Climate Hoaxers attempt to poo-poo the destruction of data.
The following ClimateGate Email indicates how the global warming hoaxers conspire to defend their corrupt science. Rather than acknowledging they are guilty of deleting scientific data, they devise silly defenses and rationalizations as to why it happened. They also attack their critics of the same crime.
There really is no excuse for deletion of data that
is critical to any scientific findings. None!
Email snippet
Rick Piltz alerts the EPA about a petition:
> Gentlemen--
I expect that you have already been made aware of the petition to EPA
> from the Competitive Enterprise Institute (and Pat Michaels) calling for
> a re-opening of public comment on EPA's prospective "endangerment"
> finding on greenhouse gases. CEI is charging that the CRU at East Anglia
> has destroyed the raw data for a portion of the global temperature
> record, thus destroying the integrity of the IPCC assessments and any
> other work that treats the UK Jones-Wigley global temperature data
> record as scientifically legitimate. I have attached the petition in
> PDF, with a statements by CEI and Michaels.
> Who is responding to this charge on behalf of the science community?
> Surely someone will have to, if only because EPA will need to know
> exactly what to say. And really I believe all of you, as the
> authoritative experts, should be prepared to do that in a way that has
> some collective coherence.
...
The response from Benjamin D. Santer Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
The bottom line, Rick, is that I am incensed at the "data destruction"
allegations that are being unfairly and incorrectly leveled against Phil
and Tom by the CEI and Pat Michaels. Please let me know how you think I
can be most effective in rebutting such allegations. Whatever you need
from me - you've got it.
...
...
Accusations by Santer:
I'm sure that Pat Michaels does not have the primary source data used in
his Ph.D. thesis. Perhaps one of us should request the datasets used in
Michaels' Ph.D. work, and then ask the University of Wisconsin to
withdraw Michaels' Ph.D. if he fails to produce every dataset and
computer program used in the course of his thesis research.
I'm equally sure that John Christy and Roy Spencer have not preserved
every single version of their MSU-based estimates of tropospheric
temperature change. Nor is it likely that Christy and Spencer have
preserved for posterity each and every computer program they used to
generate UAH tropospheric temperature datasets.
Hey Santer, you sound like a whiner!
Denial by Santer:
First, there was no
intentional destruction of the primary source data. I am sure that, over
20 years ago, Phil could not have foreseen that the raw station data
might be the subject of legal proceedings by the CEI and Pat Michaels.
Hey Santer - This is science, saving such important data should be a given!
Ignorance or deception?
Santer states:
The sad thing here is that Phil Jones is one of the true gentlemen of
our field. I have known Phil for most of my scientific career. He is the
antithesis of the secretive, "data destroying" character the CEI and
Michaels are trying to portray to the outside world.
Now that's scary! We all know by now that Phil Jones was involved in deletions
from examining the emails in Exhibit 10, where he advised his cohorts
to delete data. Santer should know it, or maybe he was trying to make Phil sound good!
Either way, we see how one hoaxer attempts to defend the deletion of scientific data by another hoaxer.
Note he isn't denying that data was deleted!
The following ClimateGate Email indicates how the global warming hoaxers conspire to defend their corrupt science. Rather than acknowledging they are guilty of deleting scientific data, they devise silly defenses and rationalizations as to why it happened. They also attack their critics of the same crime.
There really is no excuse for deletion of data that
is critical to any scientific findings. None!
Email snippet
Rick Piltz alerts the EPA about a petition:
> Gentlemen--
I expect that you have already been made aware of the petition to EPA
> from the Competitive Enterprise Institute (and Pat Michaels) calling for
> a re-opening of public comment on EPA's prospective "endangerment"
> finding on greenhouse gases. CEI is charging that the CRU at East Anglia
> has destroyed the raw data for a portion of the global temperature
> record, thus destroying the integrity of the IPCC assessments and any
> other work that treats the UK Jones-Wigley global temperature data
> record as scientifically legitimate. I have attached the petition in
> PDF, with a statements by CEI and Michaels.
> Who is responding to this charge on behalf of the science community?
> Surely someone will have to, if only because EPA will need to know
> exactly what to say. And really I believe all of you, as the
> authoritative experts, should be prepared to do that in a way that has
> some collective coherence.
...
The response from Benjamin D. Santer Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
The bottom line, Rick, is that I am incensed at the "data destruction"
allegations that are being unfairly and incorrectly leveled against Phil
and Tom by the CEI and Pat Michaels. Please let me know how you think I
can be most effective in rebutting such allegations. Whatever you need
from me - you've got it.
...
...
Accusations by Santer:
I'm sure that Pat Michaels does not have the primary source data used in
his Ph.D. thesis. Perhaps one of us should request the datasets used in
Michaels' Ph.D. work, and then ask the University of Wisconsin to
withdraw Michaels' Ph.D. if he fails to produce every dataset and
computer program used in the course of his thesis research.
I'm equally sure that John Christy and Roy Spencer have not preserved
every single version of their MSU-based estimates of tropospheric
temperature change. Nor is it likely that Christy and Spencer have
preserved for posterity each and every computer program they used to
generate UAH tropospheric temperature datasets.
Hey Santer, you sound like a whiner!
Denial by Santer:
First, there was no
intentional destruction of the primary source data. I am sure that, over
20 years ago, Phil could not have foreseen that the raw station data
might be the subject of legal proceedings by the CEI and Pat Michaels.
Hey Santer - This is science, saving such important data should be a given!
Ignorance or deception?
Santer states:
The sad thing here is that Phil Jones is one of the true gentlemen of
our field. I have known Phil for most of my scientific career. He is the
antithesis of the secretive, "data destroying" character the CEI and
Michaels are trying to portray to the outside world.
Now that's scary! We all know by now that Phil Jones was involved in deletions
from examining the emails in Exhibit 10, where he advised his cohorts
to delete data. Santer should know it, or maybe he was trying to make Phil sound good!
Either way, we see how one hoaxer attempts to defend the deletion of scientific data by another hoaxer.
Note he isn't denying that data was deleted!
asur posts inaccurate partial deceptions trying to present some type of a conspiracy theory. And Pidgey says there was a lot of snow in Oklahoma.
This is all by now well known information but let's post it yet again.
There is a great consensus and a mountain of evidence supporting greenhouse gases and their detrimental effects on climate and ozone layer. The fact that out of mountains of data a few pieces were not included as they were basically seen as anomalies does not remove the mountain.
As far as snowfall in Oklahoma. Greenhouse gases do the most damage at the polar regions. That's the "warming, melting, potential flooding" issue. One reason this started being called global climate change instead of just global warming is because as temperatures shift in one area it can through off the normal temperatures in other parts of the world warmer or colder. But in general we are talking about warming of the poles.
This is all by now well known information but let's post it yet again.
There is a great consensus and a mountain of evidence supporting greenhouse gases and their detrimental effects on climate and ozone layer. The fact that out of mountains of data a few pieces were not included as they were basically seen as anomalies does not remove the mountain.
As far as snowfall in Oklahoma. Greenhouse gases do the most damage at the polar regions. That's the "warming, melting, potential flooding" issue. One reason this started being called global climate change instead of just global warming is because as temperatures shift in one area it can through off the normal temperatures in other parts of the world warmer or colder. But in general we are talking about warming of the poles.
asur
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2008
- Messages
- 1,100
Topgun - You left an opinion without proof.
You need scientific data to support opinions in our class.
Topgun opinion -
That is the common lie used by the SnakeOil salesmen and
Global Warming Hoaxers!
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...ion_against_global_warming_43_say_not_so_fast
43% don't thing we should act quickly because they aren't sure global warming is real.
43% think we should act quickly just in case it is real? That's a majority that questions whether
global warming is real. Note we aren't even talking about the CO2 man-made theory here.
There's more people doubting global warming every day and for an obvious reason.
The global temperature is now decreasing. People see colder weather in the US
and it can't be ignored.
Topgun wrote -
You must be guessing? There is no proof of shifting but there is proof of decreasing global temperature.
See exhibit 3
Maybe the reason the hoaxers call it global climate now is because the global temperature is decreasing
and global warming would be inaccurate from 1998 - 2010. Our guess
seems better since you forgot to mention global temperatures are cooling.
Rather than dismiss the Topgun ozone reference, maybe that angle is worth investigating in a future class.
Global Warming hoaxers discredit the sun, cosmic rays, etc. because it violates
their corrupt political science. Here's an explanation for global warming that you probably
won't find posted on the global scam sites like RealClimate.org or Natural.com, except to discredit it.
http://www.globalclimatescam.com/20...osmic-rays-major-culprits-for-global-warming/
We aren't endorsing this explanation, but we are open-minded enough to consider it.
You need scientific data to support opinions in our class.
Topgun opinion -
That is the common lie used by the SnakeOil salesmen and
Global Warming Hoaxers!
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...ion_against_global_warming_43_say_not_so_fast
43% don't thing we should act quickly because they aren't sure global warming is real.
43% think we should act quickly just in case it is real? That's a majority that questions whether
global warming is real. Note we aren't even talking about the CO2 man-made theory here.
There's more people doubting global warming every day and for an obvious reason.
The global temperature is now decreasing. People see colder weather in the US
and it can't be ignored.
Topgun wrote -
You must be guessing? There is no proof of shifting but there is proof of decreasing global temperature.
See exhibit 3
Maybe the reason the hoaxers call it global climate now is because the global temperature is decreasing
and global warming would be inaccurate from 1998 - 2010. Our guess
seems better since you forgot to mention global temperatures are cooling.
Rather than dismiss the Topgun ozone reference, maybe that angle is worth investigating in a future class.
Global Warming hoaxers discredit the sun, cosmic rays, etc. because it violates
their corrupt political science. Here's an explanation for global warming that you probably
won't find posted on the global scam sites like RealClimate.org or Natural.com, except to discredit it.
http://www.globalclimatescam.com/20...osmic-rays-major-culprits-for-global-warming/
We aren't endorsing this explanation, but we are open-minded enough to consider it.
There is far... far... far... far... far... I could keep going... far more evidence that constantly pumping unlimited amounts of CO2 into the environment (billions and billions of tons per year in the US alone) has a detrimental effect on our planet... than the very very few real scientists that say it doesn't.
Posting it all I would do nothing else. That's how much this has been reaserched.
Global Warming Basics
What causes global warming?
Carbon dioxide and other air pollution that is collecting in the atmosphere like a thickening blanket, trapping the sun's heat and causing the planet to warm up. Coal-burning power plants are the largest U.S. source of carbon dioxide pollution -- they produce 2.5 billion tons every year. Automobiles, the second largest source, create nearly 1.5 billion tons of CO2 annually.
Here's the good news: technologies exist today to make cars that run cleaner and burn less gas, modernize power plants and generate electricity from nonpolluting sources, and cut our electricity use through energy efficiency. The challenge is to be sure these solutions are put to use.
Is the earth really getting hotter?
Yes. Although local temperatures fluctuate naturally, over the past 50 years the average global temperature has increased at the fastest rate in recorded history. And experts think the trend is accelerating: the 10 hottest years on record have all occurred since 1990. Scientists say that unless we curb global warming emissions, average U.S. temperatures could be 3 to 9 degrees higher by the end of the century.
Are warmer temperatures causing bad things to happen?
Global warming is already causing damage in many parts of the United States. In 2002, Colorado, Arizona and Oregon endured their worst wildfire seasons ever. The same year, drought created severe dust storms in Montana, Colorado and Kansas, and floods caused hundreds of millions of dollars in damage in Texas, Montana and North Dakota. Since the early 1950s, snow accumulation has declined 60 percent and winter seasons have shortened in some areas of the Cascade Range in Oregon and Washington.
Of course, the impacts of global warming are not limited to the United States. In 2003, extreme heat waves caused more than 20,000 deaths in Europe and more than 1,500 deaths in India. And in what scientists regard as an alarming sign of events to come, the area of the Arctic's perennial polar ice cap is declining at the rate of 9 percent per decade.
Want ideas on how to fight global warming?
Sign up for our monthly newsletter and get the latest advice and tips.
Is global warming making hurricanes worse?
Global warming doesn't create hurricanes, but it does make them stronger and more dangerous. Because the ocean is getting warmer, tropical storms can pick up more energy and become more powerful. So global warming could turn, say, a category 3 storm into a much more dangerous category 4 storm. In fact, scientists have found that the destructive potential of hurricanes has greatly increased along with ocean temperature over the past 35 years.
Is there really cause for serious concern?
Yes. Global warming is a complex phenomenon, and its full-scale impacts are hard to predict far in advance. But each year scientists learn more about how global warming is affecting the planet, and many agree that certain consequences are likely to occur if current trends continue. Among these:
•Melting glaciers, early snowmelt and severe droughts will cause more dramatic water shortages in the American West.
•Rising sea levels will lead to coastal flooding on the Eastern seaboard, in Florida, and in other areas, such as the Gulf of Mexico.
•Warmer sea surface temperatures will fuel more intense hurricanes in the southeastern Atlantic and Gulf coasts.
•Forests, farms and cities will face troublesome new pests and more mosquito-borne diseases.
•Disruption of habitats such as coral reefs and alpine meadows could drive many plant and animal species to extinction.
What country is the largest source of global warming pollution?
The United States. Though Americans make up just 4 percent of the world's population, we produce 25 percent of the carbon dioxide pollution from fossil-fuel burning -- by far the largest share of any country. In fact, the United States emits more carbon dioxide than China, India and Japan, combined. Clearly America ought to take a leadership role in solving the problem. And as the world's top developer of new technologies, we are well positioned to do so -- we already have the know-how.
How can we cut global warming pollution?
It's simple: By reducing pollution from vehicles and power plants. Right away, we should put existing technologies for building cleaner cars and more modern electricity generators into widespread use. We can increase our reliance on renewable energy sources such as wind, sun and geothermal. And we can manufacture more efficient appliances and conserve energy.
Why aren't these technologies more commonplace now?
Because, while the technologies exist, the corporate and political will to put them into widespread use does not. Many companies in the automobile and energy industries put pressure on the White House and Congress to halt or delay new laws or regulations -- or even to stop enforcing existing rules -- that would drive such changes. From requiring catalytic converters to improving gas mileage, car companies have fought even the smallest measure to protect public health and the environment. If progress is to be made, the American people will have to demand it.
Do we need new laws requiring industry to cut emissions of global warming pollution?
Yes. Voluntary reduction programs have failed to stop the growth of emissions. Even leaders of major corporations, including companies such as DuPont, Alcoa and General Electric, agree that it's time for the federal government to create strong laws to cut global warming pollution. Public and political support for solutions has never been stronger. Congress is now considering fresh proposals to cap emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping pollutants from America's largest sources -- power plants, industrial facilities and transportation fuels.
Stricter efficiency requirements for electric appliances will also help reduce pollution. One example is the 30 percent tighter standard now in place for home central air conditioners and heat pumps, a Clinton-era achievement that will prevent the emission of 51 million metric tons of carbon -- the equivalent of taking 34 million cars off the road for one year. The new rule survived a Bush administration effort to weaken it when, in January 2004, a federal court sided with an NRDC-led coalition and reversed the administration's rollback.
Is it possible to cut power plant pollution and still have enough electricity?
Yes. First, we must use more efficient appliances and equipment in our homes and offices to reduce our electricity needs. We can also phase out the decades-old, coal-burning power plants that generate most of our electricity and replace them with cleaner plants. And we can increase our use of renewable energy sources such as wind and sun. Some states are moving in this direction: California has required its largest utilities to get 20 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by 2017, and New York has pledged to compel power companies to provide 25 percent of the state's electricity from renewable sources by 2013.
How can we cut car pollution?
Cost-effective technologies to reduce global warming pollution from cars and light trucks of all sizes are available now. There is no reason to wait and hope that hydrogen fuel cell vehicles will solve the problem in the future. Hybrid gas-electric engines can cut global warming pollution by one-third or more today; hybrid sedans, SUVs and trucks from several automakers are already on the market.
But automakers should be doing a lot more: They've used a legal loophole to make SUVs far less fuel efficient than they could be; the popularity of these vehicles has generated a 20 percent increase in transportation-related carbon dioxide pollution since the early 1990s. Closing this loophole and requiring SUVs, minivans and pick-up trucks to be as efficient as cars would cut 120 million tons of carbon dioxide pollution a year by 2010. If automakers used the technology they have right now to raise fuel economy standards for new cars and light trucks to a combined 40 m.p.g., carbon dioxide pollution would eventually drop by more than 650 million tons per year as these vehicles replaced older models.
For more information on hybrid vehicles, see NRDC's hybrid guide.
What can I do to help fight global warming?
There are many simple steps you can take right now to cut global warming pollution. Make conserving energy a part of your daily routine. Each time you choose a compact fluorescent light bulb over an incandescent bulb, for example, you'll lower your energy bill and keep nearly 700 pounds of carbon dioxide out of the air over the bulb's lifetime. By opting for a refrigerator with the Energy Star label -- indicating it uses at least 15 percent less energy than the federal requirement -- over a less energy-efficient model, you can reduce carbon dioxide pollution by nearly a ton in total. Join NRDC in our campaign against global warming.
asur
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2008
- Messages
- 1,100
Top Gun - you post alot of false words but no facts and you didn't prove your claim when asked.
This class is not about ways to halt pollution!
This class is not about copying opinions you find in mass on some
other website, that is false!
Ex: We already proved the oceans are cooling in the past 10 years so therefore hurricanes should be subsiding according to the wacko opinion below. Yet you posted this opinion, without supporting data.
Topgun copied - Global warming doesn't create hurricanes, but it does make them stronger and more dangerous. Because the ocean is getting warmer, tropical storms can pick up more energy and become more powerful. So global warming could turn, say, a category 3 storm into a much more dangerous category 4 storm
Your words just sound like Global Warming propaganda, that you obviously couldn't author on your own.
So where did they come from?
Plagiarism is frowned upon in this class, so you might want to enroll
in another thread around here.
To be continued.
This class is not about ways to halt pollution!
This class is not about copying opinions you find in mass on some
other website, that is false!
Ex: We already proved the oceans are cooling in the past 10 years so therefore hurricanes should be subsiding according to the wacko opinion below. Yet you posted this opinion, without supporting data.
Topgun copied - Global warming doesn't create hurricanes, but it does make them stronger and more dangerous. Because the ocean is getting warmer, tropical storms can pick up more energy and become more powerful. So global warming could turn, say, a category 3 storm into a much more dangerous category 4 storm
Your words just sound like Global Warming propaganda, that you obviously couldn't author on your own.
So where did they come from?
Plagiarism is frowned upon in this class, so you might want to enroll
in another thread around here.
To be continued.
Werbung:
asur
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2008
- Messages
- 1,100
PLC1 - I give you points for posting your source and agreeing the global sea temperatures are cooling.
Cooling means the global temperature is decreasing!
But where is the data to prove the comical explanation, "speed bumps"?
Speed bumps sounds comical doesn't it?
Climate speed bumps would violate the laws of thermodynamics.
The simple fact is that heat can't be hidden for one day let alone months or years!
CO2 levels are increasing yearly for the past 10 years +.
Here's a speed bump for you, if we are just being silly
Dec 25, 2009
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_holiday_storm
– Treacherous weather that has plagued much of the country for days stranded road and air travelers Saturday trying to get home after Christmas and threatened flooding in parts of the East.
Storms that began dumping as much as a foot of snow in a swath from Texas to the Upper Midwest in the days before Christmas began subsiding, but blowing and drifting snow hampered visibility in many areas.
In Chicago, one of the nation's busiest travel hubs, snow and ice there in tandem with rain on the East Coast canceled or delayed more than 50 flights.
Flights were also delayed at the three major airports in the New York area, which was getting rain and patchy fog. Most delays there were weather-related but were compounded by tightened security after an airplane bombing attempt in Detroit, said Steve Coleman, a spokesman for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which operates the area's airports.
Class will resume shortly!
Cooling means the global temperature is decreasing!
But where is the data to prove the comical explanation, "speed bumps"?
Speed bumps sounds comical doesn't it?
Climate speed bumps would violate the laws of thermodynamics.
The simple fact is that heat can't be hidden for one day let alone months or years!
CO2 levels are increasing yearly for the past 10 years +.
Here's a speed bump for you, if we are just being silly
Dec 25, 2009
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_holiday_storm
– Treacherous weather that has plagued much of the country for days stranded road and air travelers Saturday trying to get home after Christmas and threatened flooding in parts of the East.
Storms that began dumping as much as a foot of snow in a swath from Texas to the Upper Midwest in the days before Christmas began subsiding, but blowing and drifting snow hampered visibility in many areas.
In Chicago, one of the nation's busiest travel hubs, snow and ice there in tandem with rain on the East Coast canceled or delayed more than 50 flights.
Flights were also delayed at the three major airports in the New York area, which was getting rain and patchy fog. Most delays there were weather-related but were compounded by tightened security after an airplane bombing attempt in Detroit, said Steve Coleman, a spokesman for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which operates the area's airports.
Class will resume shortly!
